Ethics Quiz: Being Fair To Kamala Harris

This is a short one, but not am easy one, because bias is so likely to be involved.

Althouse posted the [I almost wrote “horrifying,” but that would be biasing you]clip above that has “surfaced” from a podcast earlier this year. (Isn’t it fascinating that virtually no one was paying attention to Harris most of the time until she was suddenly anointed?).

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is it fair to conclude that Harris is an idiot from that response?

Or can her supposed endorsement of astrology (which in my view is about like saying you worship the Greek gods) be excused as just typical politician pandering to a substantial voting block? Althouse links to a list of ten leaders who supposedly believed in astrology, a collection which I would take with about about a truckload of salt. The claim that Ronald Reagan “leaned on astrology for guidance” is particularly weak: he met with an astrologer once, and he indulged Nancy’s interest in the nonsense, as most loving spouses would.

One question that occurred to me as I looked at the list: what is the cut-off point before which it is fair to attribute an individual’s belief in astrology to the absence of scientific knowledge generally?

Ethics Alarms Is Ready To Predict the Winner of the 2024 Election…

And it is...Abraham Lincoln!

It’s just one poll, but it’s a New York Times poll, and if any left-leaning, biased polling result is likely to try to bury bad news for the Democrats, it’s this one. The New York Times/Siena national poll was released this morning, and showed Donald Trump starting to regain the edge he had before Joe Biden was forced out and the news media joined the Democrats in a “She Isn’t What She Is” campaign of excitement, joy, and virtually no substance whatsoever.

Trump now leads Kamala Harris nationally among likely voters by a 48–47 margin, and Trump hasn’t received as much as 48% at the ballot box yet, not in 2016 or 2020. Though Newsbuster’s analysis shows Harris getting over 80% positive press coverage in this period (for doing nothing but repeating boilerplate, non-substantive speeches off teleprompters and avoiding any one-on-one interviews with even friendly journalists), and though she has reversed many of her most radical positions (more on that in a second) while saying that “her values haven’t changed,” whatever that means, “the ruse isn’t working,” as Jeff Blehar says at the Never Trump National Review:

Continue reading

Another Parent Is Being Charged With Manslaughter Because of His School-Shooter Son. Good.

I surmise that the woke establishment has concluded in its unparalleled wisdom that parental responsibility is just a scapegoat for society’s evil gun problem. What will stop these mass shootings, see, is “sensible” and “common sense” gun laws that never seem to have any features that would prevent the tragedies that have triggered the anti-Second Amendment crowd.

Colin Gray, the father of 14-year-old son, Colt Gray, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter following his son opening fire at his school this week, killing four people and wounding others. (Yes, the shooter was named after a gun.) The AR-15-style rifle he used was a Christmas gift from his dad. Fourteen-year-olds can’t legally own guns, of course. Still, in Georgia, giving a child a gun is not a crime, nor does Georgia have a law requiring guns to be locked away from children. But Jennifer and James Crumbley were convicted of involuntary manslaughter earlier this year in Michigan because their son started shooting up his school. Prosecutors convinced a jury that the Crumbleys knew of their son’s dangerous proclivities and mental problems, and allowed him access to a gun anyway.

Georgia is following what seems to be that precedent despite having far weaker gun laws than Michigan. The elder Gray isn’t being charged with breaking a gun law. The criminal prosecution is more akin to the theory behind the prosecution of dog owners who let their untrained and dangerous canines roam free and the pets rip someone to pieces.

The anti-gun Left’s reaction is nicely encapsulated in Times reporter and anti-gun zealot Megan Stack’s op-ed in the Times,

Continue reading

Unethical Quote of the Month: President Biden

“We should have named it what it was.”

 —President Joe Biden,  speaking Thursday at an event in Westby, Wisconsin this week, crowing about the “progress we’ve made together by our ‘Investing in America’ agenda.” Biden then said, “I’m proud to announce that my, uh, my investments, that through my investments, the most significant climate change law ever. And by the way, it is a $369 billion bill. It’s called the — uh, we, we should have named it what it was.”

Did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? Ah, but you can trust President Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats to tell the truth—you know, like deceptively naming a bill that had literally nothing to do with inflation (except to potentially make it worse) “The Inflation Reduction Act” because the regime was under fire for exploding inflation since it took over from the Trump Administration. “See?” the bill’s title was supposed to convey to members of the public with IQs below 90, “We’re fixing the problem!” Admitting that what was stated to the public as fact was really false after the goal of the lies has already been achieved is an example of how telling the truth can be almost as unethical as the lie itself. It is rubbing salt into the wound, like shouting “Sucker!” at the victim of a scam.

Continue reading

Unethical, Illegal…But Clever! The Pop Music Streaming Scam

Every technological advance creates opportunities for the far-sighted, creative and clever to achieve great things, or, at very least, make great profits. Artificial Intelligence is one of the most significant technological advances we have experienced in quite a while, and the good, the bad and the ethically ugly are just beginning to see all of its possibilities. Michael Smith, 52, seems to have been ahead of most of them. He is in the last category.

The enterprising con man [time for “allegedly” here] used artificial intelligence to create hundreds of thousands of fake songs, attached them to imaginary bands, then put them on streaming services where he had them downloaded by non-existent listeners. This resulted in a very real haul of about $10 million, according to a federal indictment that was unsealed this week.

Smith, who is a trained musician and who knows a bit about computers too, used A.I. to create music and assigned it to computer-generated artists with names redolent of the sillier band names in the Sixties, notably “Strawberry Alarm Clock”: “Callous Post,” “Calorie Screams,” “Calvinistic Dust.” The songs had equally nonsensical titles, like “Zygotic Washstands,” “Zymotechnical” and “Zygophyllum.”

Continue reading

KABOOM! “The Ethicist” Enables Voting Fraud…

My head exploded because I cannot imagine how someone who calls himself an ethicist could possibly answer this question…

“My Grandma Has Dementia. Should I Help Her Vote?”

…any other way but “NO! Of course no. What the hell’s the matter with you?

Incredibly, Prof. Appiah, an NYU philosophy professor, answers in part,

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “First Friday Open Forum of September!” (‘Comment Moderation’ Thread)

[Tom Parker has issued a useful and perceptive Comment of the Day on a topic that has taken up too much space on Ethics Alarms lately: commenter behavior and my blog moderation practices.

A while back I predicted that “the most important election ever” would bring dedicated ideologues and partisan warriors to Ethics Alarms, and I could have predicted with similar accuracy that they would misbehave, requiring responses from me including admonitions, suspensions, limitations, probation, and banning. Sure enough, more commenters were banned in August than in any previous month in EA’s nearly 15 year history.

We have seen trolls, sealioning specialists, commenters here solely to discredit your host, and participants who qualified for “The Stupidity Rule.” Meanwhile, we have experienced repeated incursions by previously banned commenters, led by, ironically, the self-banned “A Friend,” previously EA’s resident New York Times apologist.

What readers don’t see are the first-time comments that never get out of moderation. Believe it or not, these are seldom critical comments or those that disagree with a post, unless the comment is non-substantive (“You are wrong!’). I ding insulting comments (you get some leeway in insulting me according to your status as a veteran and constructive commenter: at this point, Glenn Logan and Tim LeVier can get away with calling me “Satan”), vulgar comments, ungrammatical comments, racist, sexist and homophobic comments, ad hominem comments, and comments that are so factually wrong that I have little hope that the aspiring commenter can be trusted.

I never censor a comment from an accepted commenter, until that commenter’s banning, if that sad day comes. One famous (or infamous) commenter here, the legendary Ablative Meatshield, employed a style that mixed often abusive and obscene rhetoric with perceptive commentary. Imagine Newt Gingrich if he was addicted to adding “Eat a bag of dicks” to his trenchant observations. I allowed this to go on much too long in a misguided effort to support freedom of expression. I regret it. Blog moderation is hard; it is also an important part of defining what this space is. I continue to learn.]

Here is Tom Parker’s Comment of the Day on the comment moderation thread on yesterday’s open forum.

Continue reading

Thoughts On An Unethical Meme…

The meme above appeared this morning in Powerline’s usually amusing and occasionally brilliant “The Week in Pictures.” It was also used to illustrate “Tucker Carlson’s bad history,” an excellent essay by The Washington Examiner’s Dominic Greene on the same topic as the recent EA post about Tucker’s slobbering endorsement of a Hitler apologist and Holocaust denier.

Greene wrote in part,

The latest imbecile to visit Tucker’s virtual shed is Darryl Cooper. Cooper’s eccentric rambles through the thickets of history have won him virality on X. Unfortunately, the virality is akin to intellectual syphilis. Once you’ve convinced yourself that the truth is hidden, nay, occulted by dark forces, you can mask the worst symptoms of infection, but the mind rot is hard to cure. Cooper has convinced himself that Winston Churchill was a “terrorist” installed in power by “Zionists” and “financiers” so he could be the “chief villain” of World War II. Cooper also claims the Holocaust was an accident and that prewar Europe really did have what Hitler called a “Jewish problem,” rather than a problem with Jews.

Carlson introduced Cooper as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” Cooper blew it by admitting that he’d prepared for his interminable podcast series on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by reading six books and then recited a medley of baseless suppositions, false generalizations, and open “secrets” about the origins of World War II. Had Carlson attempted actual journalism, this tissue of lies would have disintegrated like cheap toilet paper. Instead, Carlson toggled between his customary facial expressions (frowning as if struck by a bolt of historiographical lightning, slack-jawed and mindblown as though he’s still following the Grateful Dead) and failed to question any of it.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In the kingdom of the illiterate, Mr. Six-Books is a regular Arnold Toynbee. If your “research” skips primary documents and foreign languages but convinces you that Hitler was misunderstood (he wasn’t), that Churchill was a “terrorist” (he wasn’t), that the Germans invaded Poland without a plan for what to do with prisoners of war (they didn’t), and that the Holocaust was accidental (it wasn’t), you might have an ax to grind — perhaps a double-headed ax with runic symbols. But why is Tucker fawning over a poor man’s Pat Buchanan?

Continue reading

Oh-Oh. If a Journalist I Regard As Incompetent Just Wrote Something Almost Identical To What I Would Write, What Does That Say About Me?

Chris Cillizza alternately writes the obvious as if it is a new revelation, follows the mainstream media’s pro-Left lockstep, He now in in the opinion for profit business, unlike me, who is in the opinion for free business, and yes, I realize that this places my criticism of Cillizza’s acumen on shaky ground immediately.

He recently wrote a substack essay (his newsletter is called “Chris Crucial”….no, I’m not kidding) titled “What does Kamala Harris *actually* believe?” criticized the “She Isn’t What She Is” candidate for so flagrantly flip-flopping to pander to voters who might be inclined to oppose a radical progressive, which is what she had been literally up to this moment. The essay concludes,

“Harris staked out all of her more liberal policy positions when she thought that the path to the 2020 Democratic nomination would be to portray herself as a more electable Bernie Sanders. Now that she is the Democratic nominee, she is walking away from them because she needs to appeal to the electoral middle. I get it! But it also makes me wonder — and should make you wonder too — whether she actually believes in any sort of specific policies. Or whether everything is negotiable based on her political circumstances.”

Hasn’t anyone not in thrall to the Democratic Party no matter who or what it nominates figure that out about Harris? And yet this unremarkable analysis unleashed the whirlwind on poor Chris, resulting in that declaration of independence above. I have written almost the identical sentiments as each of Cillizza’s points on Ethics Alarms, usually in comments, some of the many times. The problem is that Cillizza is hack as well as an idiot. I wrote about him in one post,

“….journalists, as a group, just aren’t that sharp. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions: this is a field that has never attracted the best and the brightest, and it is a structural problem that has become a major problem in the age of the “new journalism,” which is advocacy journalism, as in unethical journalism. The people with the largest metaphorical megaphone lack the wisdom, acumen, education of critical thinking skills to justify their having it. Yet they really think they know best, and have the right and the duty to use a job that was supposed to be about informing the public to manipulate public opinion for what journalists think is “the greater good.” They don’t know what the greater good is. Most don’t know what “good” is.

Chris Cillizza isn’t just any journalist: he’s supposed to be one of the better ones. Horrible thought: he probably is. He’s an editor at CNN, and before that he wrote the daily political blog of The Washington Post, and was a regular writer for the Post on political issues as well as a frequent panelist on “Meet the Press.” He also has a long rap sheet on Ethics Alarms, despite the fact that I avoid following his regular forays into fake news, propaganda, and biased punditry. Who knows what I’ve missed.

What I haven’t missed is plenty, though. In a 2019 post, for example, Cillizza wrote that Secretary of State William Seward’s purchase of Alaska from Russia “didn’t work out too well,” which is why it is called “Seward’s Folly.” When I finished taping my skull back together, I wrote,

It is astounding that Cillizza could write this, and that CNN could allow it to be published. Never mind that Alaska has the largest oil field in North America. In Harvard historian Oscar Handlin’s book,”Chance Or Destiny: Turning Points In American History,” the purchase of Alaska is #5 out of ten. Written during the Cold War (I have an old copy of it right here, because unlike Chris Cillizza, I know something about American history, ’cause I read and stuff…), the book explains that had it not been for Seward’s prescient purchase, “the bases that today flank the northern  ocean would not have been American, pointing toward  Asia, but Russian, pointing toward the United States.  If our citizens, in the air age, still feel that distance from the potential enemy gives some security to their national  borders, it is in no small measure due to Mr. Seward’s  bargain.”.

That’s right, bargain. Alaska’s location is now  considered critical protection for the continental United States, and has been for about a hundred years. The state is uniquely positioned for supporting space surveillance and satellite control networks, tracking thousands of orbital objects on a daily basis, and providing access to refueling tankers and the Greenland ice sheet.

Did it ever occur to Cillizza to do a little research regarding Alaska, since he obvious knows less than nothing about it (knowing what isn’t true is less than nothing)? Nah. Nobody checks facts at CNN anyway.

Saying that the Alaska purchase is known today as “Seward’s Folly” is like saying that the sun never sets on the British Empire, or that Babe Ruth holds the career home run record. Try to keep up, Chris: the name “Seward’s Folly”—cartoonists drew Alaska as a worthless and uninhabitable iceberg, which is what most Americans, who were like Chris, though they had an excuse, it being the 19th Century and all—- was officially retired in 1896. That was when the Klondike Gold Rush brought over100,000 prospectors to Alaska , creating “boom towns,” businesses, and eventually, a new state.

The man is an idiot. In another infamous post, Cillizza put his name on a story headlined, “The New Sneaky Issue in the 2022 Election.” The “new issue”? Illegal immigration. In 2020, Cillizza claimed that President Trump’s use of the word “riots” to describe Black Lives Matter riots was racist. The Cillizza EA dossier is full of either throbbing progressive, anti-Trump bias, or disqualifying outbreaks of journalism malpractice, and yet there he is, sounding just like me.

Where’s a wood-chipper when you need one?

Wow. The Corrupt Journalism “Profession” Really Doesn’t Get That Ethics Thingy, Does It?

A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, wrote an op-ed for the Times’ arch rival the Washington Post that was so jaw-droppingly infuriating that it took me three tries to finish it. It had the Axis-speak headline “How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America.” (I have a pay-wall-escape link for you.)

The publisher of one of the most influential fake news purveyors in the media thinks Donald Trump is planting the seeds of censorship by correctly, fairly, and invaluably having the guts to call what the current plague of “advocacy journalism” really is. His tagging of the mainstream media as an “enemy of the people” was similarly apt, and just as important.

At its core, Sultzberger’s indignant screed amounts to “How dare he?” That is a ludicrous stance for the publisher of a newspaper that has abused its mission openly by (among other things) stating on multiple occasions that it would slant its reporting against Donald Trump. “Fake news,” far from being an invitation to censor the press, is a necessary reminder not to trust the press as well as the rest of the mainstream media.

Indeed, the op-ed is, ironically, an excellent example of why this bunch is so untrustworthy. Althouse wrote today,

The #1 thing I didn’t say but wanted to say was that contrary to Sulzberger’s perverted argument, criticizing the press is not censorship. Criticizing the press is more speech. Trump has been criticizing the press. It is Trump’s antagonists who have pursued censorship, for many reasons, including his criticism of the press.

The news media was given great power by the First Amendment as well as the right to abuse it, which it has increasingly in recent years. Media censorship of the news that doesn’t support the narratives and policies favored by alleged journalists who lack the skills and intellect to responsively wield control over public knowledge is the real threat to democracy, not Donald Trump calling it what it is.

Althouse also quotes Glenn Reynolds, who wrote yesterday,

Well, if you guys would stop lying so much — *cough* Russian Collusion *cough* — and start reporting actual news *cough* Hunter’s laptop *cough* — maybe he wouldn’t have gotten traction with [“fake news”]. But in fact you’re the guys trying to shut down reporting and opinion that run against your chosen storylines, which are often false. And now that people have noticed you’re trying to shift the blame. Stop trying to pretend that we have healthy, normal institutions. We don’t. You aren’t.

I would have coughed a lot more, notably after Sulzberger’s repeated defense of “independent journalists.” Does he really think that anyone paying attention regards Times reporters and pundits as “independent”? Or is “independent” his deceitful way of making readers think he’s talking about objectivity?

I suspect the latter. Objectivity only intermittently creeps into the reporting of the Times, the Post, and…well, you can recite the list. Because you often can’t tell when that blessed event has occurred, the default attitude of any alert citizen has to be skepticism. That, Mr. Sulzberger, is why it is so important to call attention to fake news as a phenomenon and the frequency of its appearance in your media product and others. Its proliferation precludes trust.

And the news media has no one to blame for that but themselves.