When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring or Perhaps Because You’re an Idiot: U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield’s Gaffe

I know I’ve used this song from the musical “Li’l Abner ” recently, but it was all I could think of after hearing about another one of Joe Biden’s incompetents’ latest exploit, so Marryin’ Sam and that big Yokum kid’s duet is back for an encore.

When U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield defended the U.S. veto of a ceasefire resolution at the Security Council today (everyone else voted to make Israel stop punishing Gaza, except for the U.K., which boldly abstained), she said,

“We’re eager to continue working with the Council on this proposal – one that would see a temporary ceasefire as soon as practicable based on the formula of all hostages being released and one that would get aid into the hands of those Palestinians who so desperately need it. All told, we intend to do this the right way so that we can create the right conditions for a safer, more peaceful future. And we will continue to actively engage in the hard work of direct diplomacy on the ground until we reach a final solution.

A final solution! The controversy involves Israel, which is being accused of “genocide” for deciding that it can no longer trust a region governed by terrorists after its citizens were slaughtered in a sneak attack. Meanwhile, Palestinian adversaries have made it clear that their mission is to wipe Israel off the map, and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations describes the U.S. objective in the region as “a final solution,” thus quoting Adolf Eichmann, Hermann Göring and General Reinhard Heydrich.

Thomas-Greenfield didn’t blanch as she read the words, and it wasn’t an off-the-cuff gaffe, but was contained in prepared remarks. A verbal botch of that magnitude would justify firing for cause in my administration and any competent one, but this administration doesn’t fire anyone, no matter how poorly they perform. Maybe Democrats can use the incident to defend Biden’s stream of dementia-triggered gibberish. “See?” they cans say. “Joe’s never said anything that stupid!”

True.

The U.S. is working with Israel on a Final Solution in Gaza.

Brilliant.

The country’s in the very best of hands…

Shock Ruling: The ADA Doesn’t Require an Employer to Keep Someone in a Customer Service Job Who Can’t Help Calling Customers “Fucking Assholes” or Worse.

That this case even got this far is depressing.

Cooper v. Dolgencorp, LLC, decided by the Sixth Circuit this week, involved a Coca -Cola delivery merchandiser who delivered products to customer stores, and who also suffers from Tourette Syndrome. Tourette Syndrome, a rare malady that TV writers find infinitely amusing, causes unwanted, involuntary muscle movements and sudden, often loud verbal outbursts. Cooper, the plaintiff, has a rare Tourette Syndrome problem known as coprolalia, which causes him to shout out obscene, profane, or other inappropriate words, including racial slurs. As you might imagine, this behavior sparked many customer complaints.

Cooper’s employer, Coca-Cola, felt that it had to reassign Cooper to a lower-paying non-customer-contact warehouse position. Cooper’s doctor had advised that while Cooper could work as a driver, another employee had to be with him to handle customer contact. That was not feasible.

Cooper sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that that Coca-Cola was not accommodating his disability, and violating the law by taking him out of his more lucrative job just because he might suddenly call a customer a “nigger.” Coca-Cola won in a summary judgement.

The Court stated that it was clear Cooper’s Tourette Syndrome made doing his job at the level the job description required impossible, and that there were no reasonable accommodations Coca Cola could make that would allow someone likely to shout out “Cunt!” while dealing with a customer a safe employee to place in a customer service environment. Because customer service was an essential function of Cooper’s job and the driver’s malady made it impossible to perform it, there was no violation of Americans with Disabilities Act.

In my view, an ethical, competent lawyer should have informed the plaintiff that he had no case. However, the comments on the story at the link below are surprising, for many commenters seem to think Cooper was the victim of “discrimination.”

_______________

Source: Volokh Conspiracy

More Smoking Gun Evidence of Where “Advocacy Journalism” Leads…

I almost framed this post as a parody of those public service ads begging us for donations to help “Johnny,” who is suffering from some dread disease. Read the Times op-ed titled “Democrats Have a Better Option Than Biden.” It’s like a parody itself, so I decided another layer of satire would be excessive. The author, Ezra Klein, was one of the pioneers of so-called “advocacy journalism.” He founded JournoList (sometimes referred to as the J-List), a private Google Groups forum where 400 progressive journalists, academics and others could plot how they would spread the Left’s propaganda and slant the news. He founded Vox, the all-progressive bias all the time website, which is approximately as trustworthy as a news source as MSNBC or Breitbart.

His Times piece (it’s out from behind the paywall) is both sad and funny. This is whistling a symphony past the graveyard—he’s obviously terrified that his favorite party will lose the White House in November and the evil Donald Trump will undo all of Joe Biden’s good works. I’d feel sorry for him if Klein wasn’t such a long-running dissembling, manipulative hack. The piece is funny, because it is so transparent and Klein’s spinning is so desperate. For example:

Continue reading

This Question to the Ethicist Sends Me to the Wood-chipper

[That would be my foot sticking out. I’m sure my good neighbor Ted would be willing to get me through…or any one of the thousands of people I’ve infuriated over the years.]

You can read Kwame Anthony Appiah’s answer to the most discouraging question he’s ever been asked (my description, not his) if you like. Essentially “The Ethicist” says (I’m counting here), “No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no!” As usual the New York Times “Ethicist ” is thorough, but he could have written his response in his sleep, as I could have, and if you’re reading an ethics blog, so could you.

Here’s the question, and hold on to your heads…

A close friend of many years whom I’ve always thought of as an extremely honest, ethical person recently confided in me that she shoplifts on a regular basis. She explained that she never steals from small or independently owned businesses, only from large companies, and only when no small business nearby carries the items she needs. She targets companies that are known to treat their employees badly, or that knowingly source their products from places where human rights are violated, or whose owners/C.E.O.s donate to ultraconservative, authoritarian-leaning candidates, etc.

My friend volunteers in her community and has worked her entire life for nonprofit antipoverty and human rights organizations. While she isn’t wealthy, she is able to afford the items she steals and believes that she is redistributing wealth; she says she keeps track of the value of what she’s stolen and donates an equal amount to charity. She thinks of her actions as civil disobedience and says she will accept the consequences if she’s caught.

When she told me, I thought, Stealing is wrong. But as we discussed it, I realized I was oversimplifying a complex moral issue. Is it wrong to steal food to feed your starving children? What if I stole a legally purchased gun from a person I knew was about to commit a mass shooting? Are those who bring office supplies home from their workplace also thieves? I find myself struggling with the question of whether an individual’s actions are morally defensible if they do more good than harm. — Name Withheld

Continue reading

When JFK Called Ike: Will We Ever See the Like Again?

For some reason the Kennedy family waited a long time to release this recording; strange, because it reflects well on the sainted JFK. I just encountered it recently.

In the midst of the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962, President Kennedy called former President Eisenhower to brief him on the situation and extract any wisdom he could from his predecessor.

This is how our system is supposed to work, with leaders, officials and politicians interacting with each other respectfully and in the best interests of the nation. Ike and JFK were hardly pals: after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, White House staff reported hearing Eisenhower reaming out Kennedy from behind a closed door.

Nonetheless, this phone call shows two Presidents from opposing parties working together and showing each other the kind of courtesy and civility essential for productive cooperation. Our republic and our culture were healthier then, even as World War III loomed.

Comment of the Day: “Second Most Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Cal)”

Posting today has been a real chore, because I began it with a funeral and a Catholic Mass, both of which always exhaust me, and the old friends I saw there (most of them, anyway) looked so much older than the last time I saw them that I am afraid to look in the mirror.

That makes two reasons I’m grateful for Humble Talent’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Second Most Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Cal).” I’m exhausted, and the ethics issue he raises is a crucial one without an obvious solution.

Here it is:

***

The horrible thing about this conversation is that people like Lee have this nugget of truth, uncleverly hidden inside the fragrant package of their bullshit proposals, and that is that we need a plan going forward for labor. Workplace participation is going down, wages have been stagnant, cost of living is increasing, food back participation and foreclosure rates are rising… “Stock line goes up” be damned, the bottom seems to be falling out.

I don’t know what you realistically do about this. A “$50 minimum wage” seems like the kind of toddler thinking Democrats are good at: Address the problem by treating the most surface level of symptoms, realities of the market be damned.

Because the reality is that automation is already stealing jobs, and increasing the cost of labor just makes automation investment that much more appealing. That spirals into a situation where I think the average person is going to be unemployed.

And I don’t have the answer. This is a topic that keeps me up at night.

Frankly, I think that the decent into a laborless economy is unavoidable, it’s just a matter of time, regardless of whether or not we speed up the process with stupid policy. Right now, “Truck Driver” is the most common job in 29 out of the 50 states. As technology gets cheaper and as labor gets more expensive, eventually, I don’t think it’s impossible that in 20 years, self-driving vehicles will have made that job obsolete. What do you think that does to the market?

I think the fight that’s coming up is going to be whether we purposefully throttle innovation in order to preserve jobs, or we accept that the majority of people aren’t going to labor physically, and we start to conceptualize what that looks like. And again… Thoughts that keep me up: Even if we throttle our technology our adversaries won’t, so I don’t think that choice is viable, and I think the alternative is a deeply taxed, deeply controlled form of socialism. Which is obviously undesirable, but what else does capitalism look like when your average person owns nothing, and has no prospect to move forward with?

Friday Open Forum

My sister, a rational liberal except on the topics of Donald Trump and Wuhan masks, now ends every phone conversation we have as it drifts into current affairs by exclaiming “Everything’s going to Hell! I can’t stand it!” and hanging up.

Speaking of damnation, did anyone take the time to watch the hearing yesterday (continuing today) on the Fani Willis conflict of interest allegations? Nothing happened that would justify an ethics post, although the episode again demonstrated that we have no news media organizations that can be trust to convey objectively any event with partisan implications.

Then there’s this from NBC: “Aides and allies close to former President Trump have discussed the former president giving the official Republican response to President Joe Biden’s March 7 State of the Union address…two of the sources said that Trump himself has discussed it, but both said he is leaning against the high-profile gig.” 

Why wouldn’t the GOP do that, and why in the world would Trump not want to? Normally, nobody pays much attention to the rebuttals, because, among other things, they aren’t rebuttals but rather per-determined speeches usually delivered by blah elected officials. A Trump response would be boffo political theater, especially since in another month Joe might be reciting nursery rhymes.

But these are the things going through my fevered brain right now.

Write about any ethics topic running through yours.

A Super-Woke Book and Wine Store Just Went Belly-Up: Good! It Deserved to Fail…

Isn’t that a friendly, young, diverse group? It’s the staff of Paradis Books and Bread in North Miami. Aww! Too bad. The place is closing, the cafe and wine bar announced. And that fate is entirely, completely, because those nice welcoming people are intolerant bigots, and proud of it. Their fate couldn’t happen to more deserving people.

I don’t know how I missed this story, and I apologize for that. The “nationally acclaimed” North Miami establishment (according to Axios…Seriously?) opened in 2021. Last year, it told Fox News commentator Gianno Caldwell, who had been meeting with friends at a table, that he was not welcome in the establishment because their “views did not align” with his. Caldwell was stunned (he’s a black conservative, as if that matters) and tweeted,

“I can’t believe what just happened. I met up with friends for breakfast at Paradis Books and Bread in North Miami & while we were having discussions about politics we were told by the owner that we were not welcomed there because we aren’t politically aligned. Outrageous.”

The owners gave their own spin to the episode, writing,

…”a group of people came in, ordered food, sat in the inside corner, and talked quite loudly for over an hour. A lot of what they were discussing was very troubling, specifically when talking about women in degrading ways as well as using eugenic arguments around their thoughts on Roe v. Wade… Once it was clear that they were finished with their meal, we told them that our views don’t align, and that the language they were using was unwelcome in our space.”

Caldwell disputed their characterization of his discussion with his friends to Sean Hannity on the air, saying,

Continue reading

Conservative Pundits Flogging Rationalization #28 In Response To Losing George Santos’s Seat Show Why Nobody Trusts Either Party

That bit of res ipsa loquitur was vomited up by the disgusting George Santos after a Democrat won this week’s special election in New York’s 3rd Congressional District to replace him. Santos, you recall, had been elected to represent the district in 2022 despite having no qualifications whatsoever, because he lied about, almost literally, everything. It was a genuinely fraudulent victory, far beyond the typical campaign false promises, fake positions and embellishments the American public is used to. Republicans were as accountable as Santos for allowing such scum to run in the first place.

The Republican Party seldom does anything right, but kicking this creepy-crawly out of the House was one of the few times it has been ethical (and I’m including “competence” is that description) in recent years. Both parties are responsible for upholding the dignity and honor of government institutions, particularly Congress and the Presidency. Right now, I fell secure in saying that the current crop of House members is the least qualified, the least trustworthy and the least ethical by far, and that condition is dangerous. There are probably ten or more members who would greatly enhance the body by leaving it, but Santos was unquestionable the worst of the worst. (As I wrote in the last Santos post, Rep. Bowman, the Mad Alarmist, would probably be next on my list, “Bowman should be sanctioned, “but compared to Santos he’s John Quincy Adams.”)

Congress has to insist on standards, and a political party has to insist on standards. At least the GOP demonstrated that it has some. It’s about time.

Continue reading

A Valentine’s Day Ethics Catastrophe

In large part because a large percentage of women rationalize the killing of human beings in their wombs as a “right,” and also because so many of them are programmed to be suckers for arguments like “They’re only seeking better lives for their children!” to excuse open borders,” “If this gun law only saves one life, it’s worth it,” and “All Joe Biden is guilty of is being a good father” (in response to undeniable evidence that the President enabled Hunter’s influence peddling), the women of the younger generations particularly are overwhelmingly woke, extremely progressive, and inclined to tear up when they hear “Imagine.” 

Hence a majority of Millenial and GenZ femmes, 54%, reported to pollsters cited by the New York Post that it is a “relationship red flag if a partner listens to ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ podcast.” or refuses to see the “Barbie” movie.

Well, I’ll go to any movie my wife wants to see, and had the same attitude when I was dating. And then came “Looking for Mr. Goodbar’….

Continue reading