More of the accumulating evidence that our society’s standards and ethics are rotting from the head down…
Comedian George Lopez walked off the stage at Eagle Mountain Casino in Porterville, California mid-way through his stand-up set when hecklers and inebriated members of his audience made it impossible for him to continue in his judgment. (He oughta know, after all.)
The comic gave the group three chances to quiet down, and when they did not, put the microphone back on the stand, said, “That’s cool, thanks,” waved goodbye and walked out. It was not cool, of course, and Lopez accused the casino of failing to provide adequate security and management. “It’s the venue or casino’s job to provide a good experience for both the artist and the fans, but the casino failed in this regard. The audience was overserved and unruly, and the casino staff was unable to provide a safe and enjoyable experience for the artist and guests,” Lopez’s representative said. “George is not obligated to perform in an unsafe environment. He feels badly that those who came to see the show were unable to do so as a result.”
Indeed. I would think that goes without saying, which is our way of saying “res ipsa loquitur.” Naturally, however, as is the growing trend among those in positions of responsibility these days, the casino management refused to accept responsibility, blaming Lopez.
There are few topics I have vowed to flag every time they raise their ugly metaphorical heads. The fake statistic about women earning only “76 cents” for every dollar a man earns for the same job. The implication that lawyers are endorsing the conduct or character of their clients. The lie that Al Gore won the 2000 election but that the Supreme Court “handed” the Presidency to George Bush. “Hands up, don’t shoot!” More recently, I have resolved to not let media hacks get away with the statement that the claim that the 2020 election was “rigged” is “baseless.” The rampant misuse of the term “ad hominem” is another one.
The annoying issue came up again in the exchange with an EA reader I referenced in this post (#7). He accused me of being a “phony ethicist” because I criticized Clarence Thomas’s flagrant breach of ethics in his accepting (and not disclosing) copious gifts and financial benefits from a well-known conservative billionaire, and yet, he claimed, didn’t criticize Present Biden’s complicity in the profitable influence peddling of his ne’re-do-well son. Of course, I have done the latter, multiple times, and in response to my tart message back that he didn’t know what he was talking about and couldn’t tell an ethic from a writing desk, he shifted his argument to saying I was a “fake ethicist” because I never wrote about Justice Sotomayor’s failure to recuse herself in Greenspan v. Random House.
I didn’t recall whether I had commented on that case or not (the complainer didn’t know either), but it didn’t matter. I resent being told that I am neglecting my mission because I didn’t write about what some reader wanted me to write about. My two standard answers to that complaint are 1) “Start your own damn blog!” and 2) “Bite me.” As I explained in my response,
What a freak Ethel Merman was! She was 68 when she performed that madly optimistic Anthony Newley-Leslie Bricusse song, one of my all-time favorites (Newley sang it better).
Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences announced that it will stop requiring a diversity, inclusion, and belonging statement as part of its faculty hiring process. Dean of Faculty Affairs and Planning Nina Zipser announced that the change was made because existing requirements were “too narrow in the information they attempted to gather” and potentially confusing for international candidates. Sure. This is a face-saving explanation, because Harvard’s DEI obsession has lost the staggering school alumni support, donations, prestige and credibility, and also because DEI is a fad that couldn’t stand up to long term scrutiny.
For some time now, I’ve noticed that the reader ethics questions posed to Kwame Anthony Appiah, the New York Times Magazine’s proprietor of “The Ethicist” advice column, have become more obvious, often embarrassingly so. Appiah, a real ethicist (he teaches philosophy at NYU) is easily the best of the advice columnists who have held his job, though, naturally, I would be better still. But the point of the column, presumably, is to educate readers about ethical decision-making and standards for ethical analysis. A question that provokes the reaction, “What? Are you kidding? DUH!” does not accomplish that objective.
Now, it’s possible that Appiah is a competent ethicist but a lousy question selector. It’s also possible, since the descent of The Great Stupid over the land and related recent cultural disasters, like eight years of terrible role models in the White House, the politicization of public education and universities, and the continuing deterioration of popular culture, which, believe it or not, used to specialize in ethics lessons for the masses, ethical literacy is in a death spiral.
Now this is desperation. The upside-down U.S. flag incident that the New York Times treated as a “scoop” three-and-a-half years after it took place started falling apart almost immediately, so then the Times concocted an even more attenuated flag-based theory that Justice Joseph Alito had signaled his approval of the January 6, 2021 rioting at the Capitol. In neither case was there any evidence that Alito flew the flags or was aware of their significance; he explained the incidents, but, see, because he’s a conservative SCOTUS Justice, the Axis just assumes he must be lying.
About that…. serial Ethics Alarms Ethics Dunce Eric Wemple, who is the Washington Post’s “media critic” these days, thus telling you all you need to know about the credibility of the Washington Post, was actually allowed to issue an op-ed yesterday condemning his own paper for its “deference to Justice Alito” handing “a scoop to the New York Times.” In this thing, Wemple really says that the Post ignored a “sizzling tip” in 2021. That there was a nautical distress signal flag flying over the Alito home was a sizzling tip! Sizzling! Yes, he really wrote that.
The “2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck” isn’t the longest running Ethics Alarms ethics train wreck or even the most disastrous, perhaps (The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck is older and arguably worse, since it encompasses the Ferguson Ethics Train Wreck and the George Floyd Ethics Train Wreck too), But it has been disastrous enough. Fredo is up there again because, dammit, I was right about how sinister and dangerous the Democrats’ response to Trump’s shock defeat of Hillary. If anything, I underestimated how bad it would be, but for my correct analysis this blog was abandoned by all of the Trump haters who were sure I was their ally, since I had been pointing out the new President’s myriad flaws for two years.
Well, bias made them stupid, and I was punished for it. “You’ve drunk the Kool-Aid!” declared a previously esteemed visitor here when I (again, correctly) called the Mueller investigation what it was, a set-up to cripple Trump’s Presidency by Clinton allies in law enforcement, Congress and the media. “Banned Bob,” as the appropriately exiled commenter Bob Ghery will be known as henceforth, wrote in a recent comment that he had followed EA for years but noticed a while back that it had become “political and angry.” I hate the “angry” cheap shot; it’s a popular way to discredit my considered analysis as emotional, which it is not. I was and am emphatic that what the Democratic Party has done since the 2016 election has created a looming existential threat to American institutions, values and democracy. I’m not “angry” about it. And I have been forced to spend more time on political ethics because this epic breach of political ethics in America is the most important ethics story by far since Ethics Alarms started in 2009, indeed since Watergate.
I’m obligated to write about it. I will stop when the Axis stops using totalitarian tactics to undermine the Constitution, our culture, our communities, and our political discourse.
Thus I was thrilled to read the latest post in The Federalist titled, “Democrats’ 2016 Election Trutherism Lurks Behind Trump’s Show Trial Conviction.” An excerpt:
Naturally, the reaction was explosive on both sides of the, uh, well, both sides. “News about Heterosexual Awesomeness Month has spread worldwide!,” the bar announced in a follow-up social media post. “Many people have asked how they can support us. Owner Mark Fitzpatrick is excited to build a 25,000 sq ft community event center nearby to host events, provide amazing and wholesome food, support conservative ideas, and help true conservatives get elected. So, we started a GiveSendGo fund. For the haters spewing venom, perhaps you feel bad and want to contribute a few dollars now? For the rest of you reasonable people, if you feel inclined to give, please do! May God bless you!”
The Old State Saloon in in Eagle, Idaho, not far from Boise, and its promotional stunt is the work of new owner Mark Fitzpatrick, a South California transplant who bought the bar in 2023 and who describes himself as “a Christian, conservative, Constitution supporter, retired police officer, and family man.”
Ew!
The fact that this promotion is taking place during “Pride Month,” when everyone is supposed shout out hosannas for minority sexual practices while festooning everything in rainbows, means that it is also being taken as a shot across the hallowed bow of wokeness. LGBQ Nation snarks, ” Fitzpatrick claims to have banned a couple of dozen hateful negative Facebook commenters for ‘using horrific words, expletives, using the name of the Lord in vain, etc,’ but it’s hard to tell one heterosexual man’s hate from another’s unbridled excitement.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is “Heterosexual Awesomeness Month” unethical?
I’m open to being convinced otherwise, but I think it is a divisive tactic, essentially tit for tat, but inevitable and perhaps necessary. Once upon a time “days” and “months” designated to celebrate particular components of the American melting pot were benign and opportunities for all to signal appreciation for our component cultures. The practice quickly curdled into group chauvinism and anti-majority bigotry with the continued celebration of Black History Month, Women’s History Month and Pride Month. Those groups once arguably needed their “months” to restore self-esteem after long being discriminated against, but now they just resonate as “Who needs whites and men?” exercises in division.
As an aside, anyone who is “proud” of their sex life has problems. I remember when Grant was tiny and we watched “Sesame Street” together, I was consistently amused by a oft repeated number in which a bovine Muppet sang, “I’m proud, proud, proud to be a cow!” “Pride Month” strikes me as similarly excessive. OK, so you’re gay. I don’t care. I’m bald. What do either of us have to be “proud ” about?
If it is unimaginable to have a “Heterosexual Pride Month” or “White Achievement Month” or “Hooray for Men Month,” and it is, then it’s time for those other month-long celebrations to be retired as past their pull dates, and now doing more harm than good.
To that end, I suppose “Heterosexual Awesomeness Month” has a certain “So how do YOU like it?” appeal. Nevertheless, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Added: I have to include that “Proud to be a Cow” song. Here you go…
“….I found the guilty verdicts bracing. A dozen Americans had finally sliced through Trump’s reality distortion field and said, simply, “You’re lying and cheating and it’s not right.” Even though the case was a stretch and not the strongest one against Trump, there was something refreshing about the jury doing what no one else around Trump has been able to do — not the inexplicably sycophantish Republican lawmakers, not the corrupt Supreme Court, not the slowpoke Merrick Garland.”
—-The “Queen of Snark” Maureen Dowd in yesterday’s Sunday New York Times, gloating over Trump’s conviction even while acknowledging what the sham of a trial really was from the beginning.
I suppose I could and maybe should call this an ethical quote of the month, since Dowd is saying the quiet part out loud and admitting what the Democratic Party’s “lawfare” really is, not that the ugly truth is exactly a big secret. [Here’s “gift link” to the column, which is otherwise behind a paywall.)
Red-pilled former Rolling Stone pundit Matt Taibbi writes on his substack, “Whoa. Trump has so altered American consciousness that detractors feel comfortable publicly supporting the idea of slapping 34 felony convictions on the man as punishment for alleged earlier offenses.”
That’s exactly what all of these trials are about. Trump’s a bad guy, see. He never should have been elected by that undemocratic Electoral College gimmick and stopped wonderful Hillary Clinton from being the first DEI female President. The idea was to “Get Trump,” just like the idea when he was President was to “impeach the motherfucker,” as a distinguished member of “The Squad” told an adoring crowd.
“Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime,” boasted Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret police chief. With an international wheeler-dealer in hotels and construction like Trump, adopting Stalinesque tactics against a feared political opponent was a sure thing, so hey, “Let’s do it!” Taibbi continues, “Dowd’s slip (if it was one) wasn’t rare. Editorial pages, broadcast panels, even political mailers in the past days implored readers to focus on Trump’s overall history, not this particular case.”
Ethics Alarms 