From the New York Sun just now:

The accusation from the district attorney of Fulton County, Fani Willis, that the estranged wife of the special prosecutor in her employ with whom she is accused of having an affair is “interfering” in her prosecution of President Trump — and conspiring with one of his co-defendants — promises further chaos for a case that appears to be going off the rails.

Ms. Willis’s accusation comes in an emergency motion for a protective order in the superior court of Cobb County that attempts to quash a subpoena for her testimony in Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade’s divorce proceedings from his wife of 26 years, Joycelyn. Ms. Willis accuses Mrs. Wade of working in concert with one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants, Michael Roman…Now comes Ms. Willis to argue that on January 8, three things happened “contemporaneously” — Mrs. Wade issued her subpoena, Mr. Roman petitioned for the divorce proceeding to be unsealed, and Mr. Roman filed for Ms. Willis to be disqualified. Ms. Willis alleges that all of this suggests coordination between Mrs. Wade and Mr. Roman to undermine Ms. Willis as she prepares for one of the most anticipated trials in American history…Ms. Willis does not deny — or admit — that she and Mr. Wade conducted an affair. Instead, she reasons that “because the parties agree that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the concept of fault is not at issue, there is no information” that she could provide that “might prove relevant to granting or denying the divorce.” She calls her role in the split “irrelevant.” …the district attorney claims Mrs. Wade is motivated by a desire to “harass and damage” Ms. Willis’s professional reputation and is acting in order to “annoy, embarrass, and oppress” her. The district attorney goes further, though, accusing Mrs. Wade of having “conspired” with Mr. Roman by coordinating that the subpoena and the request that the divorce docket be unsealed landed on the docket simultaneously. The implication is that the contents of the docket could be embarrassing to Ms. Willis, as could the testimony that she will be required to deliver should the subpoena stand…

Continue reading →

The Federalist recounts some of the furious reactions when Florida became the 26th state to adopt constitutional carry in July 1, 2023:

“Following mass shootings, DeSantis signs permitless carry bill,” one NBC News headline complained. In the article, the producer of “The Rachel Maddow Show” sneered at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for trading what he dubbed “modest gun safeguards” for an “extreme” and “controversial” law. Forbes [quoted] gun control groups including Giffords claiming the pro-Second Amendment law is “dangerous” and “will drive gun violence up and further jeopardize the safety of our families and communities”…“It is shameful that so soon after another tragic school shooting, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a permitless concealed carry bill behind closed doors, which eliminates the need to get a license to carry a concealed weapon,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote. “This is the opposite of common sense gun safety. The people of Florida — who have paid a steep price for state and Congressional inaction on guns from Parkland to Pulse Nightclub to Pine Hills — deserve better.”

“Common sense gun safety.” That’s another one of those BS tell-tale deceitful phrases—like “gender-affirming care” and “reproductive freedom” that should start your ethics alarms ringing. But I digress..

Well waddya know! Florida’s biggest cities saw a significant decrease in violent crimes, including shootings, in 2023. Murders and homicides fell 6 percent in 2023 from the previous 2022 in Jacksonville. Miami. had 49 homicides in 2022, nut last year only 31, the least ever on record. Miami also experienced a 34% in non-fatal shootings 124 fewer “non-contact” shootings than in 2022.

Continue reading →

“Own up to the fact that, to the best of your knowledge, no significant part of you is Norwegian.”

That was the ultimate advice of Kwame Anthony Appiah, the Times’ ethics advice columnist, to an inquirer who discovered from taking one of those genealogy tests that a Norwegian family he had visited abroad on the assumption that they were relatives weren’t really related to him at all. There was some chicanery around his father’s real progenitor, or something. Prof. Appiah’s questioner wanted to know if he was obligated to tell those nice Norwegians who he enjoyed so much and who were so kind and loving to him that he was mistaken: he had no Viking blood in him at all.

Of course you do, quoth The Ethicist. That was an easy call. How could one reach any other conclusion? Meanwhile, I see no reason to ever take a 23andMe, Ancestry or one of the other tests. I’m perfectly happy with what I know, or think I know, about my genetic history, and it’s not important to me in any event. I’m the same whether I’m related to Agamemnon, Red Cloud, or Jack the Ripper. These tests are a bi-product of the sick and divisive tribal obsession inflicted on the culture by the political Left.

Still, I guess I have to own up to the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no part of me is Norwegian either.

It sure feels good to finally get that off my chest.

No.

Not that I can see.

Maybe it’s not their intent. Maybe bias has made 95% of all journalists so stupid that they don’t realize what they are doing, or how unethical and irresponsible it is. But doing it they are.

Yesterday was the metaphorical coin dropping. Even though it should have been obvious that Trump, a former President whose single term looks like the “Shining City on a Hill” from the perspective of the current Biden presidency ethics train wreck, would win in a walk over the wan GOP competition in Iowa, Trump-Deranged commentators acted as if the Hindenburg was blowing up before their eyes. So desperate were they to see some progress in their endless “Get Trump!” pursuit that they told readers and viewers that Nikky Haley was a rising star in the weeks before the caucuses, hoping her candidacy would catch fire. Then, as devoted practitioners of old-fashioned democracy were trudging to their meetings during some of the worst winter weather Iowa has seen in years, most national news organizations projected former President Trump as the runaway winner before many Iowa caucus sites even even had ballots to tally. Nice.

Now that’s the way to suppress Trump votes.

Hanlon’s Razor tells us this was stupidity rather than malice, but some conservative sites called the strange goings on “election interference,” and why wouldn’t they? Some polls indicated that a majority of GOP caucus participants believe that Joe Biden wasn’t legitimately elected, and the news media hammered on this “baseless” belief. Message: Republicans are morons. No, Republicans witnessed the Russian collusion hoax, the two contrived impeachments, the steady anti-Trump Big lies every day in the Post, the Times and CNN, the nicely-timed national shutdown that wrecked Trump’s economy, the Hunter Biden cover-up, the sudden transition to voting methods that minimized election integrity, and they have some justifiable suspicions.

As do I.

The narrative is now official: Trump is an existential danger to democracy, an aspiring dictator and an orange Hitler. No balanced coverage is in the offing: the news media, incredibly, is more openly allied to the Democrats and united against Trump than ever before, which is amazing. The objective is to terrify as many Americans as possible, so they will be panicked and desperate if and when the Republicans win the White House.

Continue reading →

Well, ugh. This is one of those complicated ethics issues that takes a long time to understand and write about, requires a great deal of my time and yours, and on a cost-benefit basis, seems like a misalignment of resources. However, I can’t ignore it, and it is an important case.

As you know, Substack has exploded in recent years as a profitable web platform for subscription opinion newsletters across the political spectrum and on almost every topic imaginable. (As a result, free blogs like mine are going the way of the Diplodocus.) In November, The Atlantic published a piece by Jonathan Katz titled “Substack Has a Nazi Problem.” It’s behind a paywall, but the gist of the article is stated up front:

“…just beneath the surface, the platform has become a home and propagator of white supremacy and anti-Semitism. Substack has not only been hosting writers who post overtly Nazi rhetoric on the platform; it profits from many of them.

Substack, founded in 2017, has terms of service that formally proscribe “hate,” along with pornography, spam, and anyone “restricted from making money on Substack”—a category that includes businesses banned by Stripe, the platform’s default payment processor. But Substack’s leaders also proudly disdain the content-moderation methods that other platforms employ, albeit with spotty results, to limit the spread of racist or bigoted speech. An informal search of the Substack website and of extremist Telegram channels that circulate Substack posts turns up scores of white-supremacist, neo-Confederate, and explicitly Nazi newsletters on Substack—many of them apparently started in the past year. These are, to be sure, a tiny fraction of the newsletters on a site that had more than 17,000 paid writers as of March, according to Axios, and has many other writers who do not charge for their work. But to overlook white-nationalist newsletters on Substack as marginal or harmless would be a mistake….

Reacting to Katz’s article, nearly 250 writers hosted on the platform signed an open letter on the issue, beginning with “We’re asking a very simple question that has somehow been made complicated: Why are you platforming and monetizing Nazis?” and concluding with, in part, “Why do you choose to promote and allow the monetization of sites that traffic in white nationalism?… We, your publishers, want to hear from you on the official Substack newsletter. Is platforming Nazis part of your vision of success? Let us know — from there we can each decide if this is still where we want to be.”

The Substack management responded with this. The short version:

Continue reading →

That’s probably the most Dean Martin-ish of all Dean Martin records, and since I didn’t get to post it as I usually do during the holidays, since it snowed all day here yesterday, and since I miss Dean terribly, there it is. Speaking of snow, if I was like the climate change-obsessed (Science!) and had no shame, I’d cite the MLK Day storm along with the fact that it didn’t snow once the whole year when I first came to Northern Virginia over 50 years ago as evidence that Al Gore’s pet issue is a lot of over-hyped hooey. I’m not like Them, however, so I won’t.

Now, some MLK Day ethics notes:

1. Stop making me defend Joe Biden!

The conservative media and its pundit piled on President Biden for saying yesterday, of all days, “Even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did.” It is a strange and annoying statement to make on a holiday honoring King to be sure, but Joe’s brain-fog is likely to make him say all sorts of strange things. That statement is, sadly, spot on. Dr. King’s life had a historic impact on the U.S., but his assassination made less of a ripple world wide than the death of Princess Diana. Here, there were race riots in several cities (especially D.C.) following his death in April of 1968, but they were less destructive than the previous summer’s rioting. President Johnson used the riots to speed the passage of his signature legislative package, the Civil Rights Act of 1968. It probably would have been passed anyway, but that’s just speculation. MLK Day celebrates the importance of King’s life, a catalyst for civil rights advances, the end of Jim Crow policies in the South and the nation’s acceptance of integration. George Floyd, in contrast, had no positive effects on society while he was alive. It is absurd that his death, a non-racial episode exploited by activists, led first to the massive rioting it did and the subsequent rise of Critical Race Theory-inspired indoctrination in schools as well as intense DEI-fueled discrimination against whites across all sectors, but it is undeniable. Would some other incident have triggered the same response if moral luck hadn’t claimed the life of Floyd? Sure. Nonetheless, Biden was right, just as he would have been right to say the assassination of an obscure Austrian duke in Sarajevo had more “worldwide impact” than the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Continue reading →