“The Ethicist’s” Progressive Bias Makes Him Stupid…Again

Increasingly both the questions and the answers published by Kwame Anthony Appiah, the NYU philosopher professor who has been the caretaker of the New York Times Magazine’s “The Ethicist” advice column for more than a decade, show signs of ethics rot. This is why I haven’t been commenting on them as often, though the column is like a window into the warped minds of the Woke and Wonderful.

This month, for example, the previous three questions have been “Is It Wrong to Work for a Charity That’s Funded by a Questionable Source?” (the old “dirty money” trope), “Can I Ask My Brother to Have His Racist Prison Tattoo Removed?” (of course you can ask—you can ask him if he can fly to Mars by flapping his arms, but what someone chooses to wear on their skin or their body is none of your business, and removing a racist tattoo won’t make him any less racist…), and “A Homeless Person’s Pet Needed Help. Should I Have Tried to Buy It?” (The pet is there to give love and comfort to the homeless person. Butt out.)

But this week’s question prompts the Popeye in me (“It’s all I can takes ‘cuz I can’t takes no more!”) A woman who rents a storage unit (in a bad Los Angeles neighborhood) discovered that a man is living in the unit across from hers. This makes her uncomfortable (Ya think?) but she feels compelled to ask Kwame, “I Think Someone Is Living in the Storage Unit Next to Mine. What Should I Do?” We then get an exchange of what a friend calls “toxic empathy.” It’s all the U.S.’s fault, see, because we don’t take care of homeless people like—I kid you not—Norway. This supposed ethics expert’s advice: “Asking to move yourself, rather than trying to get him removed, is probably the most humane course, and the one most likely to preserve your peace of mind.”

Well, Kwame (in NYC) and “Anonymous” (In L.A.) certainly are doing their part to make those two cities the leftist hellholes they are becoming. Hey, it’s cruel to enforce laws! The most humane course is let people disobey laws that are inconvenient or get in the way of their needs. By all means, tilt policies to the benefit of the untrustworthy and irresponsible. It only lowers standards, conduct, well-being and safety for everyone, but that’s the goal of equity and inclusion, right?

Morons. How did so many Americans end up thinking this way? I am distraught.

Friday Open Forum, Confused Edition…

Dana expresses my state of disorientation on several fronts, such as…

  • The Strait of Hormuz. The President says the U.S. doesn’t need an open Strait of Hormuz, but the rest of the world does. (For example, we have this headline: “Strait of Hormuz closure causes Diet Coke shortage in India.”) So why is the useless-as-usual United Nations sitting this out? I guess to ask the question is to answer it. The same applies to NATO, as far as I’m concerned. I’m increasingly drawn to Trump’s position that the U.S. funds most of NATO and it is not too much to ask for members to back up the U.S. in an international matter of national importance, like the war against Iran. I guess they have too many Muslims to pander to and they hate Jews too much. Good to know, and to Hell with the ingrates.
  • The Federalist claims that as with the abortion decision, the SCOTUS pro-progressive distaff bloc intentionally “slow-walked” another Alito-written opinion, Louisiana v. Callais, which threw a metaphorical monkey wrench into Democrats’ race-based gerrymandering.  I wrote posted on the Dobbs stunt here. But the logic in “After The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway’s new book exposed the dangerous delay of Dobbs, the liberal justices appear to have stalled again” makes no sense. Even though the article praises Justice Kagan, the Slow-Walking Justice, for her political chops, the delay of Callais has hurt the Democrats, leaving them little time come up with ways to maneuver around the decision. The reason Virginia’s high court striking down the dishonest referendum seeking to “restore fairness” by virtually ending the Congressional representation of conservative Virginians was so devastating is that the clock has almost run out.

I also don’t understand the last three posts attracting readers but almost no comments: Update on “Dog-Rapegate”: Israel Is Suing the Times , Ethics Dunce: D.C. Bar Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler and Comment of the Day: “What Exactly Are California’s ‘Values’? Can Anybody Explain?, especially the one about the D.C. Bar.

Anyway, moving on: it’s Friday, and I need your contributions. Contribute!

Clean-up On Aisle Ethics, 5/13/2026

Ironically, I am doing one of these collection posts not because I received TWO emails from the assembled today telling me that I write too many posts, but because of the reason I write as many as I do. I don’t have the time (or the resources) to accomplish my mission as it is, which is to focus ethical analysis on the ethics issues all around us that should be thought of in that context, but seldom are. Why aren’t they? The answer is that they are seldom analyzed in an ethics context because most of our journalists, pundits, educators, politicians, lawyers, and “experts” don’t think about ethics very often, and neither do most of our friends, relatives and colleagues.

Today I felt bombarded with ethics stories and questions, and suffered ethics brain lock that stopped me from doing some important paying consulting work and meeting looming deadlines. Tomorrow I have a Zoom ethics seminar to teach (I hate Zoom) for two hours smack dab in the middle of the day. I’d love to write full posts on all of these, but I can’t. So here are some short versions…

1. There is a long, excellent Comment of the Day by Sarah B that I intended to get up today. Tomorrow, Sarah. I promise.

2. The Murdough Murders. South Carolina’s high court today overturned the murder convictions against Alex Murdaugh, the disbarred, thieving lawyer a manipulated jury had found guilty of murdering his wife and one of his sons in one of those “sensational” trials. The State Supreme Court found that “shocking jury interference” by a court clerk who oversaw jurors during the 2023 trial meant that Mr. Murdaugh’s convictions had to be thrown out.

Ethics Alarms figured out that the trial and the verdict was a farce and said so in 2024, here.

The State says it will retry Murdaugh, which will cost the state millions and achieve nothing even if he is convicted of murder again, and he shouldn’t be. He is already serving a prison term (for financial crimes) that will amount to a life sentence. The State’s claimed motives for the two killings are bats, automatic reasonable doubt with a thinking jury.

When Will Indefensible Stunt Casting Stop Me From Seeing a Movie? This is When…

That’s Ellen, now Eliot, Page above, the talented actress who decided to be surgically altered into male form, not that there’s anything wrong with that. But the 5’1″ delicate and frail trans performer was cast in director Christopher Nolan’s big budget version of Homer’s “Odyssey” as Achilles, one of the greatest of Greek mythology heroes, a badass so feared that his absence from the battlefield prolonged the Trojan War.

I have no idea why such a deliberately political and silly casting choice would be made (or allowed) but I don’t care. I only watched the movie where Bill Murray was cast as FDR because I wanted to see if he could pull it off (no, not even close), but casting Page as Achilles insults the audience’s intelligence. Now, there was a Greek hero in the Illiad whom Page might have played: Ajax the Lesser, a diminutive warrior with a Napoleon complex. But if Achilles is barely over five feet, then Ajax the Lesser would have to be a midget.

No, I’m not so much bothered by Lupita Nyong’o playing Helen of Troy. It is also stunt casting but she is exotic and gorgeous, and one could imagine the African’s unique beauty launching a thousand ships.

I love the Illiad and the Odyssey, and I’m open to new interpretations as long as they don’t defile the stories or make them ridiculous. I draw the line, however, at this.

I sure would have liked to have Curmie’s take here, but he’s off in a No Kings rally somewhere…

Can You Trust A 2026 Democrat? [Link Fixed!]

The Democrats are certainly tempting Republicans to repurpose that 1960 JFK campaign poster to impugn the wisdom of trusting any Democrats “as far as you could throw them,” in one of my father’s favorite phrases.

Item: Eileen Wang, the former mayor of Arcadia, a city within LA County, resigned after admitting to acting as an illegal foreign agent for China. Her federal plea deal was unsealed today. She worked with the People’s Republic of China to distribute propaganda with a fake news website between 2020 and 2022. She was elected to the Arcadia City Council in November 2022, then moved up to mayor. She faced a maximum of 10 years in prison, but the deal got her much less. I don’t know why she shouldn’t be shot. She’s a traitor.

She’s also a Democrat. Her fellow California Democrat, Eric Swalwell, had a sexual affair with a Chinese spy. Speaking of JFK, he also had an affair with a comely spy, in his case from Israel.

For some reason, I had a difficult time confirming Wang’s party. She’s a Democrat, of course, but most news reports omitted that fact. Were they covering up for their favorite party, or did they just assume any one paying attention could guess which party is more likely to sell out to China?

According to court documents, Wang worked with her then-fiancé, Yaoning “Mike” Sun, on a web site called “U.S. News Center,” supposedly a news source for Chinese Americans. The loving couple, however, were really taking marching orders from Beijing. They “executed directives” from the Chinese government to post pro-Chinese propaganda and reported back with data on how many views each story received, according to the plea agreement.

In one case, Wang was ordered to post a PRC-dictated essay denying the existence of genocide and forced labor in the Xinjiang region. “There is no genocide in Xinjiang; there is no such thing as ‘forced labor’ in any production activity, including cotton production. Spreading such rumor is to defame China, destroy Xinjiang’s safety and stability,” the mayor was told. Wang complied by publishing the required lies, and her handler wrote back, “So fast, thank you everyone.” Receiving praise for her work, Wang wrote back to her handler, “Thank you leader.”

The Wang story comes out just after Rep. Jayapal announced that she has been working with Cuba to undermine U.S. policy. The whole Democratic Party, meanwhile, is openly parroting Iranian propaganda and vocally hoping that the U.S. loses that war. All this, and the cheating and lying about redistricting too.

Would you buy a used car from this party?

Why???

Ethics Test For Progressive Americans, PART I: The Democrats Plot a Coup

For some time now, the biggest ethics issue facing the nation, and wow, there are a lot of them, has been the increasingly flagrant contempt for democracy and basic principles of ethics being exhibited by a single political party—guess which—in its drive to gain sufficient power to make over the government, principles, ideology, society and culture of the United States of America. The clues that party and its allies in the Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance, Democrats and the nearly completely corrupt mainstream media) have been revealing have been increasingly obvious, most flagrant among them being projection—-accusing Republicans and President Trump of engaging in what his Machiavellian opponents are actually doing.

A private discussion this weekend including Democratic House members from Virginia and Congressional Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York was leaked to the New York Times by several participants. According to the Times, the participants expressed their fury at the Virginia Supreme Court, as if it was the bi-partisan majority of judges who were at fault for the election-rigging scheme the party had tried to inflict on Virginians. Part of the discussion centered on what the Times called “a bank-shot proposal to redraw the congressional lines anyway.”

“Mad Men” Ethics: The Motive vs. Conduct Conundrum

I’m finally watching the acclaimed AMC series “Mad Men.” I’m impressed: the character development is deft and complex, the evocation of the Fifties and early Sixties is fairer and more accurate than it usually is, and the ethical issues explored are many and complex.

At the end of season five the series presented as good an example as you will find of how motives behind conduct usually don’t change the analysis of whether the conduct was ethical or not. Series anti-hero Don Draper, a talented advertising innovator, finds the Madison Avenue firm where he’s a partner facing ruin because its biggest client, Lucky Strike cigarettes, has defected to a bigger agency. Now all of his agency’s clients are spooked, and potential clients are waiting to see if it survives.

Impulsively and without consulting his other partners, Draper buys a full page ad in the New York Times, announcing that he, and therefore his firm, is giving up tobacco and cigarettes because they kill people, and marketing such a deadly product is wrong.

Draper doesn’t do this as a matter of conscience. He does it to take control of his firm’s fate, to make it seem like the loss of a large cigarette client was in fact a proactive decision made in the public interest, and by virtue-signaling and grandstanding, to attract new clients impressed by courage and integrity. The ad is, in short, self-serving, desperate, and cynical: ethics have nothing to do with it. Appearing ethical is the point.

Yet that does not change the fact that the public condemnation of smoking was the right thing to do regardless of his motives. The results of the declaration will be the same, whether the reasons behind it were pure or not. Thoughts are not ethical or unethical. Conduct is ethical or unethical.

The complicating factor in the “Mad Men” scenario is that advertising is a Bizarro World culture, like war and politics. It is inherently unethical, so applying traditional standards of right and wrong often don’t make sense, nor are ethical and unethical actions dependably likely to have the same effects they might have in other contexts. Conduct that may have salutary consequences outside of Madison Avenue may be disastrous in the weird world of advertising. Don Draper only cares about whether his shocking public attack on tobacco saves his firm, not how many lives it saves, if any.

Ironically, however, it may do both.

But even if it accomplishes neither, it is still an ethical act.

Addendum To “Ethics Update On the Axis Freakout Over Virginia and Tennessee’s Redistricting Results”

I realized that I hadn’t included any of the crazed (and hypocritical) freakouts over Tennessee eliminating the Memphis district that had voted in one of the worst (white) Democratic members of Congress for years, Steve Cohen.

Here’s one especially silly example: Rep. Antonio Parkinson (D) demanded that Tennessee allow Memphis to “secede” because of the redistricting.“Let Memphis secede from the state of Tennessee!” he said.“Let my people go. I’m dead serious. If you’re constantly beating on us, let us out.”

Parkinson represents part of Shelby County, which includes Memphis.“This is about whether Memphis, a majority-Black economic engine for this state, is expected to continue contributing billions in tax revenue, culture, labor and commerce while being systematically stripped of political power.” Which it is presumed to exercise only by voting for black candidates? Are the Republicans in such areas being stripped of their political power? Should they have to give up their state citizenship because Democrats are throwing a tantrum?

Parkinson said that if the state’s elected officials no longer believe “the people of Memphis deserve the ability to choose a representative who reflects their community, then at least have the courage to say it plainly. Do not hide behind maps and procedure.” What does “reflect the community” mean?

Parkinson has called for the city to secede before. Are we going back to city states now?

What an idiot.

Addendum to the Axis Meltdown Over Virginia and Tennessee Redistricting Blows

In items #1 and #3 of the previous post, EA notes the freakout of Democrats over their own failed gerrymandering in Virginia and Tennessee’s elimination of its “black district.” On CNN, a Democrat acted as if the recent spate of gerrymandering was brand new to 2026, somehow managing not to mention the long-gerrymandered states above. Listen to this head-exploding discussion yesterday, below. It is pointed out that this “racist” redistricting of Memphis will likely remove a long time white Rep. Steve Cohen and that his likely successor will be a black Republican woman. At around the 6:20 mark, there is a cut in the video. What is left out is when one member of the panel asks, “Is allowing a black woman to take the seat of a white man racist?” and a Democrat answers, “Actually yes!” (Why was that telling exchange excised?)

Earlier, a progressive hack on the panel explains that including blacks in majority white districts means that they will no longer “have a choice.” They will have the same choice every citizen has in elections, unless the presumption is that all blacks will only choose to vote for black candidates, meaning that blacks will naturally discriminate against whites. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) is a spectacular hypocrite, saying that all members of both parties should be outraged now, while his party has benefited from the gerrymandering in the blue states above. Gerrymandering is terrible for Democracy, he says, but apparently that only concerns Suozzi when Democrats aren’t the only party doing it.

Yes, it is tit-for-tat, except that the Republicans finally woke up, first in Texas, and decided that the party was foolish to play a rigged game: nine blue states could legally gerrymander Republicans out of the House, but red states couldn’t respond in kind? Tit-for-tat is unethical, except when a short-term response in kind to unethical conduct can force a truce where the conduct is voluntarily eschewed by both sides. This is what the Republicans are doing now, and it is proof of that party’s irresponsible torpor that it didn’t do it years ago.

The problem is that I do not see what will bring this cycle to an end. The blonde hack on the panel demanding a constitutional amendment is grandstanding. That’s not going to happen.

The disinformation (or ignorance) the Democrats are flooding social media and the news with now is flagrant. Here’s Gavin Newsom:

Res Ipsa Loquitur!

Note that the two fools who said “It depends” relied entirely on a variation of the Golden Rationalization, “Everybody does it.” Non-citizens should be able to vote in some cases because some localities allow it.