Oh Look! Another Alleged “Professional” Showing Disrespect For This President That He Would Never Show For Any Other…

…Or that any previous holder of his position would have ever dreamed of displaying to any previous President.

The White House, you see, asked the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum and Boyhood Home to turn over the Sword of Honor given to Ike in 1947 by the city of London for his role as Allied Supreme Commander during World War II, so President Trump could now give it to King Charles last month during the President Trump’s state visit to the United Kingdom. The gift would symbolize the continuing bond between the two nations that was most powerfully forged during that war, but never mind: Todd Arrington, a career historian who was director of the museum, refused to allow the President to use the sword as a weapon of diplomacy, insisting that it had been donated to the institution and “belonged to the American people.”

Oh. Well, anything the government uses for any purpose “belongs to the American people.” Trump was reduced to giving the King a replica of the sword, and was, justifiably, ticked off. Arrington was told he could resign or be fired. He resigned.

Continue reading

Ethics Heroes: Hundreds of Northwestern Students

Northwestern University required mandatory viewing of an anti-Semitism training video to comply with President Trump’s crackdown on campus harassment and abuse of Jews. At least 300 of the school’s 22,000 students have boycotted the training, so the university barred them from registering for fall classes. Northwestern also requires students to watch anti-bias training regarding Muslims, and its email to the campus earlier this year announced that the new anti-Semitism training “will adhere to federal policy” in compliance with the President’s January executive order “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.”

Indoctrination is indoctrination, and the subject of the indoctrination is irrelevant. The students who are refusing this abuse of education are right and principled, and I hope they refuse to fold.

The 17-minute video was produced by the Jewish United Fund and claims to teach students about “who Jews are, how Jews understand themselves, and how anti-Semitism has morphed throughout time.” The video defines anti-Zionism, which has gained popularity among radical anti-Israel protesters, as “the opposition to the Jewish right of self-determination,” warning that anti-Zionism “takes many forms, most of which are anti-Semitic because they work against Jewish human rights.”

Maybe it’s effective propaganda and maybe the video is generally or mostly true, but such a video is also an advocacy piece, and as with the Al Gore climate change hysteria film that my son was forced to watch at his over-priced private school where he attended 7th grade until we pulled him out of it, it is not the job or role of educational institutions to force their beliefs and political positions on their students.

“Sensitivity training,” “anti-bias training,” and any similar mandatory programs aimed at brainwashing attendees and eliminating “WrongThink” are unethical and abuses of power that are absolutely contrary to our nation’s values. The practice is indistinguishable from the “re-education camps” of the former Soviet Union. That current practitioners from the Left or the Right do not put cages with hungry rats in them on their victims’ faces doesn’t change the fact that the objective is the same: “Change how you think, or else.”

True: it would be nice if the boycotting students were also similarly sensitive to the unethical nature of indoctrination that aligns with their belief systems, in part the product of indoctrination.

But one has to start standing up for principles somewhere.

J.K. Rowling Smacks Down “Hermione”: Is It Ethical To Attack The Person You Owe Your Wealth, Fame and Influence To?

To be clear, the one attacking the person she owes her wealth, fame and influence to isn’t Rowling, the creator of the Harry Potter books and the billion dollar industry it spawned, but Emma Watson, the now grown child actress who played cute Hermione in the films. It is Watson who has been criticizing Rowling by name for years because the British author has openly challenged the whole concept of transsexual ideology: that people can change their sex by just deciding they are the opposite sex than their genes make them and have the law accede to their decision.

The ethics issue today is not whether Rowling is right or wrong. The question is whether Watson (along with her fellow Harry Potter child stars Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe) has behaved with gratuitous disloyalty and ingratitude by attacking Rowling by name while she is being vilified and threatened by other celebrities and the woke news media.

Not to keep you in suspense, the answer is yes. Rowling finally had enough, and responded with the scathing social media take-down of Watson that the actress deserves.

What was apparently the magical straw for Rowling was Watson saying in a recent podcast that that their opposing views on trans rights do not mean she can’t or doesn’t “treasure” Rowling as a person. “I will never believe that one negates the other and that my experience of that person, I don’t get to keep and cherish,” the has-been star blathered. “I think it’s my deepest wish that I hope people who don’t agree with my opinion will love me, and I hope I can keep loving people who I don’t necessarily share the same opinion with.”

That hypocrisy, for that’s what it is, was too much for Rowling, who unleashed her considerable rhetorical talents on Watson, and brava to that. Rowling wrote in part,

Continue reading

Unethical Tit-For Tat: Great, Now The Trump Administration Is Playing “WrongSpeak” Games…

This revolting development was completely predictable to the extent of being virtually inevitable. Nonetheless, it is ominous, dangerous and disgusting, not to mention Orwellian, for the government to try to manipulate public opinion by banning words and phrases that can support opinions and beliefs authorities don’t want the public to hold.

The Energy Department last week added “climate change,” “green” “emissions” and “decarbonization” to its list of banned words and phrases at its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The WrongSpeak/ThoughtCrime linguistic offenses already included “energy transition,” “sustainability/sustainable,” “‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ energy,” “Carbon/CO2 ‘Footprint’” and “Tax breaks/tax credits/subsidies.”

“Please ensure that every member of your team is aware that this is the latest list of words to avoid — and continue to be conscientious about avoiding any terminology that you know to be misaligned with the Administration’s perspectives and priorities,” the acting director of external affairs Rachel Overbey decreed.

The order applies to both public and internal communications and extends to documents such as requests for information for federal funding opportunities, reports and briefings. It’s obvious why the Trump Administration is going down this pro-indoctrination path. “It works!” as the late Harry Reid assures us from Hell. The ends justify the means, “They (the Democrats) did it first,” “Everybody does it,” yada yada yada: there are at least a dozen rationalizations on the list including #31. The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now” that will doubtlessly be resorted to by our current ruling censors. The practice is still unethical and the impulse is anti-American.

I believe that the linguistic attacks are encouraged by the reality that the news media is engaged in permanent pro-climate change hysteria propaganda. “Climate change is caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, which is driven primarily by burning oil, coal and natural gas for energy,” Politico states confidently while reporting on the new language edict at Energy. More:

Continue reading

The Democrats’ Way: When The Facts Are Damning Just Make Stuff Up and Count On Your Complicit News Media To Have Your Back.

Kamala Harris, the worst, most unqualified major party Presidential candidate since Horace Greeley, continued her ridiculous “It wasn’t my fault!” tour last week by telling Rachel Maddow on MS (MSNBC) that 2024 was “the closest presidential election in the 21st Century.”

It wasn’t. It wasn’t even close to the closest. Donald Trump beat Harris in the Electoral College 312-226. Joe Biden beat Trump in 2020 by a tighter margin, 306-232. Trump beat Hillary Clinton 304-227 in 2016. also closer. Only two elections in the 21st Century have been decided by wider margins in the EC, 2008 and 2012.

The 2024 election wasn’t closer than most of the recent elections in the popular vote either. Bush lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College in 2000, as did Trump in 2016. Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Clinton in 2016, and Trump in 2020 all needed fewer votes to flip to win the Electoral College than Harris in 2024 too. In short, Harris’s claim had no basis in reality. At all. Whatsoever. Sort of like the claims that she ran a “flawless” campaign. Or the DNC’s spin that Harris lost because America is racist and sexist.

Did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? He exaggerated the size of his inauguration crowd in 2017!

Yet there was Rachel Maddow, nodding and smirking away as Kamala flogged her fake history, helping to make her show’s viewers more ignorant and misinformed that they already were, which, he show being on MSNBC, was already considerable.

Nice.

End of an Awful Week Ethics Potpourri, 9/17/2025

How awful? Oh, awful for me personally, a I was sick for most of it and had a serious Missing My Dead Wife relapse; awful for ethics, as there were even more disgusting events than usual; awful for good taste, as Jimmy Kimmel was back on the air, where he is and has always been a toxic pollutant, and the Trump Administration’s ham-handed attempts at censorship turned the creep into some kind of First Amendment martyr—is that enough for you? It’s enough for me. Meanwhile…

1. Kash Patel fired all of the FBI agents who kneeled to honor George Floyd, or Black Lives Matter, or something. Ooooh, another freedom of speech controversy, and another opportunity to accuse the Trump Administration of being racist! Was this move necessary, fair and responsible, never mind legal? My verdict: unnecessary, fair and arguably responsible, as such conduct shows wretched judgment and possible anti-law enforcement bias, but as speech goes its rather vague to justify firing, don’t you think? Or is it just MAGA grandstanding?

2. Speaking of grandstanding, former child star and #MeToo activist Alyssa Milano decided to make a public spectacle of having her breast implants removed. The 52-year-old shared an Instagram photo of herself in a hospital gown, and explained why she’s undergoing the removal process. “Today I’m releasing those false narratives, the parts of me that were never actually parts of me,” she wrote “I’m letting go of the body that was sexualized, that was abused, that I believed was necessary for me to be attractive; to be loved; to be successful; to be happy.” Translation: “I haven’t worked in years, and the implants weren’t doing me any good, so my publicist thought I could get some interviews and podcasts by making a big deal out of getting rid of the things.” Is she also eschewing make-up, hair extensions, false eyelashes, tooth implants, botox and other parts of her that were never actually parts of her? Those implants did their job (they got her the role of “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fisher once upon a time), but now that they have outlived their usefulness, she’s kicking them on their way out. Seems mighty ungrateful to me! Aging, desperate celebrities and attention addicts are a tragic group….

Continue reading

Oh-Oh. Here Come the Robo-Judges…

Google “AI judges” and you will see many links to news articles and even scholarly treatises about the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary. There are already bots trained as “judicial opinion drafting tools,” and manuals written to help judges master them.

There have already been incidents where judicial opinions have been flagged as having tell-tale signs of robo-judging, and at least two judges have admitted to using AI to prepare their opinions.

I hate to appear to be a full-fledged Luddite, but I am inclined to take a hard line on this question. The title “judge” implies judgment. Judgement is a skill developed over a lifetime, and is the product of upbringing, education, study, observation, trial and error, personality, proclivities and experience. Every individual’s judgement is different, and in the law, this fact tends to imbue the law with the so-called “wisdom of crowds.” There will be so many eccentric or individual analyses of the troublesome, gray area issues that cumulatively there develops a learned consensus. That is how the law has always evolved. In matters of the law and ethics, an area judges also must often explore, diversity is an invaluable ingredient. So is humanity.

Continue reading

Tales of The Great Stupid: Race-baiting Serena Williams Shows “Why We Can’t Have Nice Things” Like Harmonious Race Relations

Why in the world would Serena Williams, of all people, think it is necessary or appropriate to engage in public race-baiting? The woman is rich and famous, and became a national idol playing a sport that has an overwhelmingly white fan base. Never mind: Serena was triggered when she encountered a decorative cotton plant (reportedly fake) in an un-named luxury hotel. The retired women’s tennis legend, now 43, took a video of the vase holding a cotton plant on a table in the hallway, and asked her Instagram followers, “Alright, everyone. How do we feel about cotton as decoration? Personally for me, it doesn’t feel great.”

Yeah, you’re right, Serena, the New York hotel placed a cotton plant in the hallway to slyly remind you that 150 years ago black slaves were forced to pick cotton in states hundreds of miles away. I think you should organize a boycott and start a protest organization called Cotton Plants Matter.

Continue reading

Yes, It’s Another Open Forum…

The second in three days. I wrestled over whether to skip the regular Friday Forum, having launched an emergency Wednesday forum just days before. I decided to keep on schedule because 1) a lot is happening in the Wonderful World of Ethics right now and 2) the Emergency Forum has amassed a whopping 51 comments, and its my experience that may readers won’t take the time to drill down that deep, though they miss a lot of excellent commentary as a result.

So open forum away, I say with tongue in cheek, since I hate hate hate the current fad of turning nouns into verbs (“Let’s movie!”).

Comment of the Day: “It’s Come to This: a Majority of House Democrats Chose To Avoid Angering Their Radical Trump-Deranged Base Over Appealing To Sane Americans”

Certain long-form comments on Ethics Alarms (most blogs don’t get them or don’t allow them: I love ’em) just scream “Comment of the Day.” This one, by emerging Ethics Alarms commentariate star CEES VAN BARNEVELDT, was one of those. It concerns the decision by about half the Democrats in Congress to eschew a symbolic vote condemning political violence because apparently they couldn’t bear endorsing any sentiment complimentary to Charlie Kirk, whom their radical base considers a an evil fascist (mostly because Democrats said he was.) Here is that Comment of the Day, on the post, “It’s Come to This: a Majority of House Democrats Chose To Avoid Angering Their Radical Trump-Deranged Base Over Appealing To Sane Americans”:

***

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a moment of absolute moral clarity. And almost all moments of absolute moral clarity have a villain. I became aware of the Charlie Kirk assassination via Ethics Alarms. When I switched on the television the news was that Charlie Kirk had died. Soon thereafter the news changed to “Republicans pounce after the death of Charlie Kirk,”following the main stream media.

But as everybody with two eyes and a couple of braincells can see, the real news since that day has been “The left goes mental after Charlie Kirk’s assassination”.

American history had more moments of absolute moral clarity. The most recent one with similar significance is the attack on the World Trade Center at 9/11/2001. Another one is the lynching of Emmett Till, among many more that are related to Jim Crow and the struggle for civil rights.

The one moment that strikes me as most comparable is another famous example of political violence. In May, 1856 Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to denounce the use of force and fraud to plant slavery in the territory of Kansas. This speech is known as the “Crime Against Kansas” speech. A couple of days later, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, with two other Southern Representatives, entered the Senate Chamber and gave Sumner such a beating with a cane that he nearly died. The other Southern Representatives made sure that the Senator could not get any help. The Southern newspapers praised the attack, and blamed Sumner for bringing his fate on himself. The cane had broken in two, and Southern supporters made sure that Preston Brooks got a new cane. An attempt to oust Brooks from the House of Representatives failed.

In 1856 the country was deeply polarized about the issue of slavery, even more polarized than today. Sumner used words and debate to persuade; however Brooks, with full support, used force and violence in order to extend their power and way of life, which included an oligarchy supported by slavery.

The caning shocked the conscience of the United States of America. The Southern Democrats had let their mask slip; they stood exposed for the entire nation as a party that disdained free speech and republican norms, and instead chose force and violence to get their vision realized.

Continue reading