Welcome to My World: The Daily Travails of a Conscientious Ethicist

1. The Washington Post is hiring a new primary theater reviewer, and several friends and associates from the theater community urged me to apply for the job on the grounds that I am very qualified for it (true) and that I would be good at it (also true). I was dubious about whether I would be considered, especially because a) I fought with the Post critics over their biased and incompetent reviews of my company’s productions and b) a simple search of EA would reveal about a hundred posts critical of the Post, its editors, its pundits and its reporting. But I could use the gig, and I was transparent about my criticism, while making a case why it shouldn’t disqualify me.

Two days later, this story surfaced. It was the Post at its worst, indeed, biased, irresponsible journalism at its worst. I realized that posting this right after my application virtually guaranteed a ding, and I had spent a couple hours on the paper’s absurdly complicated online submission process. I also realized that I had no choice. Several friends told me I was nuts not to just skip one story; it’s not like I cover everything here. But that was a truly awful example of unethical journalism by a major news source, and attention should be paid.

Rats.

Continue reading

Fevered Musings on Abortion, Love Canal, and the Broken Ethics Alarms of American Women

(This may end up as more of a rueful observation than a post.)

Last night I watched PBS’s “American Experience’ because it was late, my satellite package has amazingly few channels that aren’t commercial junk (No TCM for example, and I miss it) and no baseball games were on. It was a new episode about the Love Canal protests during the Carter Administration, something I hadn’t thought about for a long time.

It was the first toxic waste dump scandal—PBS was celebrating “Earth Day”—- and a landmark in the environmental movement: one can get some sense of the kind of things going on from “Ellen Brockovich,” about a another community poisoned by chemical manufacturers. That account focuses on the legal battles, but Poisoned Ground: The Tragedy at Love Canal centers on the local activists, mostly housewives and mothers, who organized, protested and kept the pressure on local, New York State and national government officials to fix the deadly problem, something the bureaucrats seemed either unwilling or unable to do.

One feature of the tale I had forgotten: the furious women briefly held two EPA officials hostage, and released them promising a response that would make that crime “look like Sesame Street” if President Carter didn’t meet their demands for action in 24 hours. And Carter capitulated to the threat! It doesn’t matter that the women were right about the various governments’ foot-dragging and irresponsible handling of the crisis: a competent President should never reward threats from people breaking the law. Jimmy just didn’t understand the Presidency at all, the first of four such Presidents to wound the U.S. from 1976 to 2024.

That wasn’t my main epiphany, however. It was this: In the late 1970’s, before the feminist movement took hold, so-called ordinary women, mostly mothers, became intense and dedicated activists fighting for the lives, health and futures, of their babies and children, as well as their unborn children because the Love Canal pollution was causing miscarriages and spontaneous abortions. The women were heroic, and the public and news media were drawn to them because they projected moral and ethical standing by fighting to save lives.

Continue reading

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files…(Really Stupid and Careless Mistake Corrected)

Wow.

Letitia James really is an idiot, isn’t she? How could the New York Attorney General be so reckless as to go on camera and deny what is a matter of record? I guess one answer would be “She’s a dead-eyed, arrogant and Machiavellian political operative who lacks the necessary integrity to be a prosecutor…and she’s an idiot.”

This video should be used extensively by Trump, the Republican Party, and to whatever extent possible where the other Trump cases are proceeding. It vividly and revoltingly demonstrates the partisan nature of the Democrats’ lawfare against the former President. Nah, it’s not selective prosecution! How could anyone think that? Criminalizing politics? What are those conspiracy-spouting conservatives talking about?

James isn’t is uniquely repellent—Fani Willis, the equally dishonest Fulton County DA, is arguably worse— but still is an appropriate face to put on all of the Democratic Party’s efforts to win the 2024 election not on merit but by the time-tested totalitarian device of charging political opponents with crimes. (Trump is a fan of Putin?) You never know: there may even be some progressives with integrity who will decide they don’t want to be associated with such anti-democratic tactics…and that is exactly what they are.

Thanks, Letitia!

Pop Quiz: See If You Can Guess What Aspect of This Question to “The Ethicist” Intrigues Me…

Hint: it isn’t the question the inquirer is asking…

“My husband and I are thrilled to be welcoming our first child this spring, after an arduous I.V.F. journey lasting nearly two years. We ended up needing an anonymous egg donor, whom we found through an egg bank, to conceive our child. Select family members and close friends who knew that we were trying are aware that we took this route. However, my husband told me that he doesn’t want anyone else knowing that we used donor eggs, and that he is upset that some people already know. He is afraid that in a few years, someone will let slip to the child that they were conceived with donor eggs before we as parents have a chance to tell them ourselves. He believes we’re violating our unborn child’s right to privacy by sharing this fact with others. His fear stems from an experience in his family in which an aunt accidentally revealed to a cousin that his biological father was not the man who raised him. I have pointed out to him that what he fears is not likely to happen, that this is our story to tell as much as our child’s; and I’ve reminded him that we should let our child know how they were brought into this world at as young an age as possible, using language they can understand. Further, I wouldn’t have been able to get through this incredibly difficult and painful process without the small group of family and friends we had to rally around us. It was important to me to be able to share the experience with this group, and with some other good, trustworthy and loving friends. He doesn’t understand or respect this and is depriving me of something I hold dear by insisting on secrecy — and this is what hurts the most. I have pleaded with him to see my side, but he doesn’t budge. Out of respect for his wishes, I’ve now kept it from several additional close friends, which has been painful for me. What could possibly bring him around? Or how could I make peace with his position? And have I really deprived our unborn child of a right to privacy by telling a few people about how the child was conceived? “

Just to get this out of the way, my answer would be, “Tell your silly husband to get over it. Trying to keep these kinds of secrets is eventually indistinguishable from lying. The truth, as they say, will out.”

Did you figure out what I focused on? Know your ethicist! What interests me is this: “He believes we’re violating our unborn child’s right to privacy by sharing this fact with others.

The Ethicist, a long time contributor to the Times, clearly a progressive-leaning academic at a super-woke school (NYU), accepts that as a legitimate issue in his answer. Yet his employers, virtually its entire staff, definitely most if not all of his NYU colleagues, and definitely most of his students, accept as a matter of progressive gospel that the unborn child has no right to live, and if the mother chooses to treat the fetus or embryo or baby as a wart, a tumor, or an unwanted invader, then that’s what it is. Does the unborn child’s right to privacy magically appear once the mother has decided not to kill it? How does that work, exactly?

Abortion advocates should have to explain these contradictions. They don’t. They can’t.

Comment of the Day: “Presumed Racism Raises Its Obnoxious Head at ‘Social Qs'”

Here is another one of Extradimensional Cephalopod‘s measured, rational, provocative and useful formula pieces. There’s a lot here: Hanlon’s Razor, marital advice, the flaws of presumed racism, weenyism…all in all, a top of the line Comment of the Day.

Here it is, in response to “Presumed Racism Raises Its Obnoxious Head at ‘Social Qs”‘

***

Alright, let’s break this down. Dealing with people acting unreasonable is what led me to learn deconstruction mindset. We can’t always take the easy way out by pretending people don’t exist. Sometimes we have to get constructive.

My values:

  1. Racists should have their views challenged. If I ran into an actual racist doing actual racist things, I’d ask incisive questions to deconstruct their whole paradigm.
  2. It’s more effective to assume a misunderstanding than malice. If it’s a misunderstanding, then it gets resolved normally with minimal fuss. If it’s malice, then the malicious people find themselves having to either spell out that they’re jerks or pretend to be incompetent, both of which have would tend to erode their arrogance. By assuming a misunderstanding we also get the opportunity to demonstrate that we are thoughtful and respectful people.
  3. I would like more people to make a habit of doing all of the above.

Others’ values:

  1. The inquirer’s wife doesn’t trust that other people might just have made mistakes instead of having ill will towards her. Perhaps due to past experiences, she has some reason to assume that they are more likely to be deliberately mistreating her.
  2. She doesn’t want to make the effort to find out for certain if her assumptions about others are correct. She apparently has a habit of avoiding interacting with people she suspects may be racist, because of the painful possibility of having to deal with an actual racist.

Framing the situation constructively:

Continue reading

In Which I Once Again Slap Down the Most Pernicious and Persistent Misconception About Lawyers, This Time Promoted by the Washington Free Beacon…

I have vowed to make this point again and again, every time I see the argument raised in print or in speech, as often as I encounter it and for the rest of my life—as should you.

The Washington Free Beacon, often an admirable and indeed indispensable source of news and information that the left-biased mainstream media hides, distorts, or just ignore hoping it will the public will never have the opportunity to consider it, added this yesterday:

Biden DOJ Enlists Kristen Clarke, Who Defended Black Nationalists Charged With Voter Intimidation, To Combat Voter Intimidation

Continue reading

Snap Ethics Review! 4/17/2024

Stuff is piling up on the blog like it’s piling up at my home. At least here I have a solution…

1. The Democratic Senators were right to kill the House GOP Mayorkas impeachment, and they did it for the right reasons. Being incompetent isn’t a high crime, and the House can’t end around the Constitution to fire an executive appointment: it is a breach of the separation of powers.

What a waste of time…

2. Canary dying in the public education mine tale: This is a depressing story. Short version: Last March, a Hispanic school principal physically stopped a female student whom he concluded was about to attack another student. The student he physically restrained accused him of assault—she is black, and with the help of her parents blew the incident into a racial one.

Now the principal Columbia High School in New Jersey, Frank Sanchez, has been arrested and charged with assault and endangering a minor. The family’s lawyer is telling the news media that the encounter exemplifies how black students are discriminated against and mistreated. But some parents are saying that the student was a known bully and a disciplinary problem, and the incident has been exploited by a black parents advocacy group to get rid of Sanchez.

Grace and I finally decided to home school grant when he reported that in all of his freshman high school classes (at Alexandria City High, long known as T.C. Williams until the name was changed because a bad cop either negligently, recklessly or intentionally killed a lifetime petty crook who was overdosing on fentanyl in Minnesota. That butterfly causing a typhoon by flapping its wings has nothing on George Floyd.) classes were almost uniformly 15-20 minutes late because the teachers had to settle down the black students goofing around, talking and refusing to take their seats. He said the teacher were afraid to do anything but keep repeating, “OK, now, that’s enough.” Columbia High had to pay the Black Parents Workshop, which formed in 2014, damaged after it sued the district charging that black students were suspended more frequently than white students for the same acts. Occam’s Razor would suggest that this was not because of discrimination, but because black kids engaged in those acts more frequently. Now, if that was the real reason, they are still behaving like that, but get away with it. Problem solved!

Continue reading

Ethics-DEI-Baseball Dunce: Ja’han Jones

I know, we’ve been seeing a lot of Sidney Wang lately.

Ja’han Jones is the blogger for Reid Out, the MSNBC race-baiting show (well, one of them) starring Joy Reid. As such, the fact that he has such a bone-headed and biased position regarding diversity is like finding out that water is wet, but it is still surprising to see anyone who can put his shoes on (I’m assuming Ja’Han can) write something as ignorant and idiotic as “The decline of Black players in MLB should be a warning about the war on DEI.

If DEI proponents keep making arguments this bad, eventually even the dimmest members of the public will figure out that it’s a hustle. (Won’t they? Don’t they have to?) Another rule Ja’Han seems to have missed is “Don’t write about subjects you know nothing about when a lot of your readers do, because they will figure out that you are a fake.”

To summarize one of the worst published screeds I have read in a long time, this supposed “futurist,” journalist and pundit argues that Major League Baseball needs DEI programs to increase the percentage of black baseball players. (Baseball’s number of black players has been declining for a welter of cultural, financial and attitudinal reasons, none of which involve discrimination.) It’s difficult to know where to start a rebuttal of an argument that is only worthy of “What the hell are you talking about?” Might as well just dive right in…

Continue reading

Say Hello to Rationalization #38D, Yoda’s Annoyance or “I Was Trying My Best!”

I almost called this “Kaine’s Delusion,” because it was the junior Virginia Senator, former governor and failed Hillary Clinton running mate whose fatuous remarks made me realize that this rationalization, a frequently used one, had some how been left off the list.

Yoda’s Annoyance fits neatly among the sub-rationalizations under #38. The Miscreant’s Mulligan or “Give him/her/them/me a break!” the versatile rationalization that aims to duck the consequences of wrongful conduct by making others feel guilty about placing responsibility squarely where it belongs, by arguing that the miscreant isn’t so bad, isn’t different from anyone else, that he or she meant well, or that the critic is just being an old meanie. The closely relate #38 A.“Mercy For Miscreants, ” embodies the theory that there should be cap on criticism handed out to groups and individuals no matter how much wrongful conduct has been authored by them.

38 B: Excessive Accountability, or “He’s (She’s) Suffered Enough,” previously most often heard when a parent has negligently allowed an infant or small child to perish in a locked car, has recently been repurposed to defend parents who allow their kids to get a hold of their negligently stored firearms, killing others or themselves as a result. Finally authorities are prosecuting such parents. (Good!) Next we have #38C. Biden’s Inoculation or “I don’t deny that I do this!,” which is based on the slippery theory that bad conduct is mitigated by one’s open admission and acknowledgment that it’s a bad habit. This one is a close cousin of a two others on the list, like #19A. Donald’s Dodge, or “I never said I was perfect!” and #41 A. Popeye’s Excuse, or “I am what I am.”

38 D would have been 38 A if I had added it earlier when I should have, and not waited for Tim Kaine to make an ass of himself by saying yesterday at a “block party” at a local park in Dumfries, Virginia…

Continue reading

‘Thank God It’s the Friday Open Forum!’ (TGITFO)

Yikes. Once again, the Ethics Alarms attic is chaos, and I am waaaay behind in covering important ethics stories, breaking ethics stories and developments in recent ethics stories I did get around to. Yesterday, for example, we learned that LA Dodger two-way superstar Shohei Ohtani’s good friend and interpreter stole 16 million bucks from the player to cover his illegal gambling problem, not “just” four million.

I’m hoping the Wisdom of Crowds can help clear the metaphorical decks today.