Ethics Villain Revealed: Barack Obama [Corrected]

For once, the New York Times is reporting one of those over-heard conversations from an anonymous source who is violating trust to reveal it that harms the reputation and image of a progressive hero, though maybe the Times staff is so far gone that it doesn’t realize the import of the leak.

Former President Barack Obama, the Times revealed, phoned New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani today, November 1. The architect of the foundering progressive take-over of American government and culture spoke with the front-runner for “roughly 30-minutes.” According to the leakers, who spoke “on condition of anonymity” to describe the private conversation, Obama said that he “was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success” beyond the upcoming election. The two (Muslims?) “talked about the challenges of staffing a new administration and building an apparatus capable of delivering on Mr. Mamdani’s agenda of affordability in the city.”

On the call, Obama reportedly spoke admiringly about Mamdani’s campaign. “Your campaign has been impressive to watch,” he told the charismatic communist, according to the sources.

During the campaign (and before it) Mamdani has made it Waterford crystal clear that he supports Hamas and does not believe that Israel has a right to exist. As a watermark of the anti-Semite, he has repeatedly described Israel’s legitimate armed response to the Gazan terror attack of October 7, 2023, as “genocide.” Those not in favor of obliterating Israel might well have regarded these themes in Mamdami campaign for mayor serious missteps. Obama, if the account is to be believed, seems to think being anti-Israel is just hunky-dory, but as we’ve seen, that’s where his party and its most fervent members have been tending for years.

Obama offered to be a “sounding board”—as in coach, mentor, advisor— when Mamdani wins the election, with the two agreeing to meet in person at some point in Washington, D.C.. Mamdani reportedly thanked the former president for the encouragement and told him that he had drawn inspiration for his own recent speech on Islamophobia from Mr. Obama’s speech on race during his first presidential run.

That Mamdani speech was the one in which he implied that voting against him was a sign of bigotry. Yeah, there’s no reason in the world for New Yorkers to be wary of Islam. What did Muslims ever…oh. Right.

A spokeswoman for Obama refused to verify the report, but a spokeswoman for Mamdani said, “Zohran Mamdani appreciated President Obama’s words of support and their conversation on the importance of bringing a new kind of politics to our city.”

You know. Communist politics.

My guess is that Obama is quite ticked off, because this leak almost certainly came from the Mamdani camp, which has seen its candidate’s support dwindle in recent days, though probably not enough.

Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: The Los Angeles Dodgers (Not Really)

Normally this kind of item would be in a potpourri post, but I’m being pulled hither and yon today, so I may be putting up some minor matters piecemeal.

Dodger pitching icon Sandy Koufax was a spectator at all three of the 2025 World Series games at Dodger Stadium last week, including the epic 18 inning Game 3. However, his seating in Game 5 was the object of some controversy. The Dodgers were called out by Mets announcer Howie Rose, among others.

“How does Sandy end up in the second row?” Rose asked on social media. “Maybe those are his permanent, personal seats but Sandy Koufax takes a back seat to no one. Especially at Dodger Stadium.” Others were infuriated that Koufax would rank supposedly lesser seats than celebrity hucksters Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who were also at Game 5 in the seats in front of Sandy.

I like to see American taking the opportunity to denigrate the Renegade Royals: it seemed especially timely given the stupid “No Kings” rallies and L.A.’s position as Trump Derangement Central. Yeah, why not sit the Royals in the bleachers? Behind a pole, maybe! (There are no obstructions in Dodger Stadium.) But the complaint made no sense for many reasons.

  • As even Rose noted, those are Sandy’s regular seats.
  • I speak from experience: at the field box level, the front row is inferior to a few rows higher. Harry and Meghan’s seats were inferior to Sandy’s
  • Magic Johnson, like Koufax an LA sports icon, was in the same row as Koufax—and he’s a part owner of the team.

Still, bashing the Royal Family still feels a lot more American to me than when everyone was salivating over the late Princess Diana. This is progress.

The Sec. of Transportation Tells Kim Kardashian That She’s an Irresponsible Ignorance-Spreading Fool. Good!

In an episode of the reality show “The Kardashians” (My god, is that still on?) Uber Kardashian Kim, the only one of the breed who earned her celebrity (with a sex tape and a huge derriere), told actress Sarah Paulson that she had watched interviews with Buzz Aldrin, who was on the Apollo 11 mission with Neil Armstrong and the second person to walk on the moon, and they convinced her that the moon landing was a government hoax.

“I don’t think we did. I think it was fake,” the Kimster announced. “I’ve seen a few videos on Buzz Aldrin talking about how it didn’t happen. He says it all the time now, in interviews.” Does anyone know what the hell she’s babbling about? The last time I heard about Aldrin in relation to the moonwalk conspiracy theory, he punched a guy in the face for claiming it was true.

Then Kardashian repeated a trope of the ancient conspiracy theory: “There’s no gravity on the moon. Why is the flag blowing?” I view that statement all by itself as signature significance: anyone who says it once is too gullible to be let outside without a keeper, and anyone who says it publicly is an idiot. The “mystery” can be answered by viewing the archived videos or by 3 seconds of googling. Who goes on TV and asserts a non-fact that anyone, including her, can prove false in a trice?

This time, however, big guns were trained on the specific idiot. Sean Duffy, the US Transportation Secretary and acting administrator of NASA, rebutted the whatever-she-is on X. He wrote: “Yes, Kim Kardashian, we’ve been to the moon before … Six times! And even better, NASA Artemis is going back under the leadership of [President Trump]. We won the last space race and we will win this one too.”

Madison, Wis, bloggress Ann Althouse, in one of her “it’s not the topic, it’s the tangents” posts, asks,

“Why is a government official calling out a private citizen who expresses interest in a conspiracy theory? We’re Americans. We have our conspiracy theories. Keep your government nose out of our business. You’re only giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. Why stick your neck out to deny what isn’t true? You’re making it more fun to believe the theory!”

Ann is evoking the “Streisand Effect” with her “You’re only giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.” She’s wrong, maybe even at an Ethics Dunce level. This conspiracy is hardly unknown: there was even a movie about it, and I have encountered moonwalk skeptics periodically ever since the event. “Why is a government official calling out a private citizen who expresses interest in a conspiracy theory?” Because, Ann, celebrities are not “private citizens.” They are public citizens; they make their millions by being famous and by appearing, speaking and misbehaving in public. More Americans by far know who Kim Kardashian is than who know who Sean Duffy is. A disturbing number of Americans, maybe even a majority, believe that being a celebrity (and appearing on TV) indicates virtue, wisdom and intelligence. Celebrity culture helped get Donald Trump elected President. Doesn’t Ann Althouse understand that? Hasn’t she ever heard the rejoinder, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?”

Continue reading

Is Harris Really Going With The Absurd Argument That It Is Easier Being President Than Running For President? [Corrected]

Apparently! Which is a mass insult to everyone since it is, you know, obviously nonsense.

That recent interview with an Australian journalist was just the easiest one for me to find: she has said this over and over. Biden may have babbled like an idiot in his debate with Trump, but it just indicated weariness and lack of stamina that made it mandatory to replace him at the top of the ticket. Otherwise, and Kamala’s fellow DEI beneficiary Karine Jean-Pierre has been claiming one her book tour for a ghost-written hack job nobody in their right mind should want to read, Biden was “sharp as a tack.” Never mind that nobody believes Biden was “sharp as a tack” in 2024 (he has never been sharp as a tack in his life), who could possibly believe that campaigning competently is tougher than leading the nation competently?

I guess this fantasy is comforting to Harris, who was one of the most inept campaigners for the White House ever in a tough field that includes Hillary Clinton, Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, John McCain, Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, Walter Mondale and more. But isn’t it sufficiently ridiculous on its face that nobody is so gullible as to believe it? Being President, if one intends to do the job, requires astounding stamina: look at President Trump. It’s a killing job, for most of our history, literally. If being tired robs a POTUS of the ability to think with more clarity than your average dementia patient (“We beat Medicare…”), how can such an overwhelmed leader be trusted to answer the proverbial “3 AM phone call”?

Harris’s repeated assertion, apparently market tested by one of the same consultants whom she relied on during her disastrous campaign, is “It isn’t what it is” on crack. She really thinks the public is stupid.

Continue reading

Ethical Motive, Stupid Idea: The 6 pound Smart Phone

There are quite a few posts on Ethics Alarms about the scourge of smart phones: mothers’ eyes glued to the screen when they should be watching the kids; dog-owners ignoring their canine companions on walks, teens interacting with the web while ignoring the world around them; narcissism-feeding selfies; intrusive assholes looking for social media fame while destroying any semblance of privacy by taking photos and videos of everyone and everything, and more.

But start-up company Matter Neuroscience has a solution! Their masterstroke is to create the most inconvenient smartphone case imaginable to make using one’s phone tiring and uncomfortable. It’s stainless steel phone case weighs 6 pounds, mote than a 16-inch MacBook Pro laptop and light dumb-bell. Two separate pieces that screw together around the phone ensure that you can’t wait to put the damn thing away unless you’re a pro arm-wrestling champ in training.

The stainless steel smartphone case won’t fit in your pocket and becomes more annoying the more you check your phone. The 6-pound smartphone case is currently in the crowdfunding stage on Kickstarter, but you can pre-order one for $210, or opt for the brass version, which is heavier and costs a $500.

I cannot imagine any adult, even one acknowledging that he or she is addicted to cell phones, buying one that is inherently inconvenient to use. Maybe, maybe, giving unwieldy phones to one’s kids will have some appeal, using the “Look, it’s this, two vans with a string, or nothing” ultimatum.

I doubt it, however. The too-heavy phone gets ethics points for good intentions, but loses them and more for incompetence.

Matter Neuroscience has a $75,000 crowdfunding goal, but has raised just $17,000.

Friday Open Forum, Halloween Edition

I have a two-hour Zoom ethics seminar to teach this morning as lawyers who have waited until the last minute to get their ethics CLE credits in will be counting on me to rescue them.

Please help me out by leaving some ethics treats here at the open forum.

Meanwhile, if you have access to Disney+ and haven’t seen the “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” segment of the Master’s “Ichabod and Mr. Toad” since you were a tot (or ever), I recommend it highly. The first segment (an adaptation of “The Wind in the Willows”) is also excellent but not Halloween-themed.

Ethics Alarms Encore: An Ethics Tale, A Romance, And A Ghost Story…

Happy Halloween, from Ethics Alarms!

***

The Highwayman

By Alfred Noyes

The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees.   

The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas.   

The road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor,   

And the highwayman came riding—

         Riding—riding—

The highwayman came riding, up to the old inn-door.

Continue reading

Needed: A Smart Phone and Social Media Code of Ethics (At Least)

Begosh and begorrah! “Rolling Stone” published a useful ethics essay! The topic: Gen Z altering their conduct and becoming wary of social contact because of fear of public shaming.

Eli Thompson writes in part,

At the Chicago high school I graduated from in June, phones were out during private and public moments. It could be in class when someone fumbled a presentation, or the cafeteria when someone tripped. Most clips stayed in private Snapchat group chats, shared among a few dozen kids. But they could spread further, and cut deeper. Last year, a friend from another school was filmed in his attempt to ask a girl out in the hallway. Even though it was awkward, he didn’t do anything crazy in the video and it was mostly just a rejection. But someone recorded him and posted it on a Snapchat story. The video had the caption, “Bro thought he had a chance,” and over 200 people saw it by the time he got to lunch…Trends such as “fail compilations” or “cringe challenges” — posts showing awkward mistakes or uncomfortable situations meant to make others laugh — encourage people to document embarrassing moments…After seeing these moments play out, I realized this was no longer a far-off fear. It changed how young men conducted themselves in real life. The threat of public shaming makes normal interactions risky and at times can lessen the chance young men will pursue relationships or go on dates. Constant fear of embarrassment can leave some young men too hesitant to take the social risks needed for dating. The fear of online exposure doesn’t just stop certain young men from asking girls out — it can plant seeds of resentment that threaten to fracture gender relations for a long time. 

Continue reading

Ethics Quiz: The Charlie Kirk Statue

(See? I spelled “Charlie” right this time!)

Utah Valley University is where conservative activist Charley Kirk was murdered. Reasonably, the school has proposed erecting a statue in honor of Kirk, who was widely admired for his character and legacy, the student group Turning Point USA, a spearhead of the conservative and MAGA movements.

The proposal has sparked furious controversy on the campus, however. UVU Students for a Democratic Society, a progressive group, argues that Kirk is not worthy of such an honor, that students oppose a statue that will make them feel “unsafe” (as in “represents viewpoints that they disagree with.” I know, I know…) and that they don’t want “outsiders” coming on the campus to gawk at a statue.

“We’re out here because we want to protest any sort of Charlie Kirk memorial,” a student protester told reporters at a recent rally. “We don’t want his likeness on campus; we don’t want his likeness sort of immortalized.” Signs at the group’s rally had legends like “No Kirk on Campus” and “Memorial For Unity Not Hate.”

There are dueling petitions pushing for and against a statue to Kirk, with the opposition threatening to tear down a Kirk memorial if one appears. Considering how the Mad Left went on a statue-toppling rampage not long ago, this does not seem like an idle threat—or, if you like, an idol threat.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Is it respectful and responsible for a school to erect a statue that inspires such strong divisions on campus?

I regard this as a tough ethics call. Even if the protesters represent a vocal minority, even if their hatred for Kirk is based on misunderstandings or extremism, even if not erecting a Kirk statue will constitute a successful heckler’s veto, I question whether insisting on a statue (that is certain to be defaced, vandalized or destroyed) of a political figure in the current polarized environment on campuses and elsewhere is simply fanning flames that need to be extinguished.

____________

Pointer: College Fix

‘Bias Makes You Stupid’ (And Untrustworthy) Case Study: Jonathan Chait

Oh dear. So disheartening.

Jonathan Chait is a policy analyst and pundit who has, in the course of only writing for progressive and Axis publications and offering opinions on similar platforms in the broadcast news realm, has shown himself capable of principled disagreement with his party (guess which) and progressive cant. On the other hand, he is Trump Deranged, as he demonstrated the last time I criticized him. Then he wrote regarding the first stupid “No Kings” protest in June, “The No Kings protests appear to be a massive success.” (My comment: “Success at what?“) But Chait is clearly intelligent and capable of perceptive analysis, which is why the tweet above is so disturbing aside from the fact that it forces me to again think about Karine Jean-Pierre.

She’s on a book tour hyping her memoir of looking like a fool almost every day as Joe Biden’s paid liar for two years, “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines.” Jean-Pierre describes what she considers the Democratic Party’s betrayal of Joe Biden: “I watched Democratic leadership abandon, and in the end betray, a man who’d led our country through a pandemic and a time of historic political turmoil,” she writes.

Jean-Pierre’s gimmick is that she claims to be so outraged that the party pushed Biden to step aside as the Presidential nominee after his Presidential debate meltdown against Donald Trump, and that it “couldn’t articulate the achievements of the Biden/Harris administration well enough” that she has decided to leave the Democratic Party and become a political independent.

Talk about chutzpah: this woman is estopped from complaining about anyone’s failure to articulate anything.

Continue reading