Last January, Ethics Alarms introduced the “Bite Me!”, an Ethics Alarms designation reserved for either an individual whose “response to being bullied, pressured and threatened into submissiveness is to say, “Do your worst. I believe in what I am doing, and I don’t grovel to mobs,” or as used several times in the course of 2023, the author of unethical conduct that demands the response, “Bite me!”
Our increasingly (under President Biden) power-abusing and dictatorial federal government ranks the first “Bite Me” of 2024 for this “Karen”-ish nonsense: the federal government is asking state agencies to stop posting traffic signs using humor, like one above in Maine, and has given the states two years to ease off the funny stuff, after which the “or else” will kick in. DOT says that funny signs can be distracting, and, of course, since all Americans are hopeless sheep who must be protected from even the periodic ill-timed giggle, Biden’s micro-managing minions think it is in their legitimate jurisdiction to dictate the tone and wording of traffic messages.
“So… it didn’t work to change the culture temporarily, to deal with Trump, that horribly abnormal President. The old culture didn’t just pop back into place when Trump was gone. You have to take care of a culture and maintain its values in good times and bad.”
—Retired law professor and active blogger Ann Althouse, reflecting on how the cultural norms violated by the Left to “get” Donald Trump didn’t recover once he was out of the White House.
Campus Reform and College Fix are two generally excellent sleuth sites from the Right that focus on progressive misconduct and indoctrination in higher education. There are no equivalent sites on the Left, because such sites would have material to report about once a week, if that. Since the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down affirmative action, which was always unfair and illegal, all manner of anti-white discrimination in academia, government, the corporate world and the professions are being exposed, attacked in court, and being reversed. The sheer number of these is staggering, however, and eternal vigilance is the price of an ethical culture. How many of these prejudicial and discriminatory programs are there? After careful research and statistics gathering, I can safely say “A lot.” Also: “Too many.”
Campus Reform threw its metaphorical flag on USC and Compton College, which announced that they have created a “Faculty Prep Academy” for “students of color” only. You could stop right there: that’s illegal, and the schools must know it’s illegal. Never mind: apparently the theory behind such efforts is that they can get away with it.
Last March, Ethics Alarms reported on the stunning lack of ability and expertise being demonstrated by some of President Biden’s appointments to federal judgeships. At least Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) had some fun exposing their incompetence, though Democrats and pundits in the mainstream media mocked him for what they termed his “gotcha!” questions….you know, horribly unfair queries like “What’s a Brady motion?,” which any first year law student should know.
The worst of Biden’s dim legal bulbs was probably Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren, nominated to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Washington. Kennedy’s questioning revealed her to be almost completely unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution. Kennedy asked her, “Judge, tell me what article V of the Constitution does?” “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment, she replied. “How about article II?” he asked, Her response: “Neither is Article II.” I wrote of the judge’s performance a year ago,
This is more than evidence of incompetence, it shows arrogance. The woman is going to be vetted in a Senate hearing; wouldn’t you think she would at least do a little bit of preparation? Nah…she knows she’s assured of being confirmed, because no Democrat would dare vote against a female nominee “of color” no matter how unqualified she appeared to be, After all, as Senator Murray said, Murray said, what matters most is “a judiciary that reflects the diversity of this country.”
And indeed, Sen. Murray really did say she was very qualified for the job and “truly exceptional”—as in exceptionally not-white and exceptionably female. Well, it turns out that Murray was wrong, and so was I. Bjelkengren was informed that she wasn’t going to make it after all, and is one of five nominees whose nominations to the bench expired at the end of 2023 who was not among 18 nominees the White House resubmitted to the Senate this week.
“The Ethicist,” Kwame Anthony Appiah, was oh so sensitive answering this query from a concerned parent:
….I have just found out that my [college age] son is a “model” on a pornographic streaming service. My initial reaction was shock, revulsion and shame. But the longer I think about it, the more I wonder, is there really anything immoral or otherwise wrong about what he is doing? He does it from the privacy of his home, alone, and seems to earn a substantial amount of money. If he likes what he does, is there any reason on my part to feel alarmed, ashamed, guilty or worried?
The NYU philosophy prof essentially says that nobody is being hurt by the son’s activities, so they cannot be called “wrong.” He then explains, as I cut through the verbiage…
“If we agree that your son’s camming isn’t wrong, what explains your initial sense ofrevulsion? Part of your response might arise from the familiar intrafamilial squeamishness about sexual disclosures. That response, then, may have been connected not with what he was doing but with you, as his parent, knowing about it….you can also have prudential concerns. How would his prospects be affected if word got out about his webcam gig?Livestreams can be recorded and uploaded. Even if you think that erotic livestreaming is neither wrong nor shameful, it’s natural, as a parent, to worry about how others might react…There’s nothing hypocritical about compartmentalizing a cam gig. Pretty much all cultures — and subcultures — have ideas about modesty, privacy and discretion, and so understandings about the contexts where erotic display or simply nudity is appropriate.”
It’s pretty obvious that Donald Trump is going to lose his case before the three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel. The former President is claiming that all former Presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution for crimes they may have committed while in office. It’s easy to knock that argument down as just bad policy, and the judges did just that at oral argument this week.
Judge Florence Y. Pan asked Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, demanding a yes or no answer,“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Sauer answered that prosecution would only be permitted if the President were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Of course that can’t be right. It would mean that a President with a large majority in both Houses of Congress could do virtually anything without legal consequences. One might argue that such a clear “crime or misdemeanor” would always trigger a bi-partisan impeachment, but after seeing most Republicans refuse vote to eject certified rotter George Santos from the House and Democrats line up behind Rep. Bowman after he set off a fire alarm to disrupt a House vote and then lied about it, I am no longer sure.
Oh…that’s lovely “Emily Pellegrini” above, the sensational digital model created with the assistance on an AI program. After just four months on Instagram, she has nearly 150,000 fans and is well on her way to being a web influencer. I think Natalie Portman should sue, especially since Emily may be a better actress than she is.
But I digress. See if you can find some of the beauty in ethics today.
…or the politicians and untrustworthy elected officials who use both for unethical ends.
Further reinforcing his Ethics Alarms status as an Ethics Villain, the now retired Dr. Anthony Fauci blithely told lawmakers on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic this week that “social distancing guidelines”—warning the public to keep six feet apart from anyone else supposedly to limit the spread of the Wuhan virus — “sort of just appeared” without scientific input, and was “likely not based on scientific data.”
Oh! That’s nice! Schools remained closed well into 2021 substantially as a result of the social distancing guidelines that he stood by and allowed to be issued without scientific data. I was screamed at in several public places because I knew the social distancing edicts were garbage from the beginning, just like the “don’t touch your face!” nonsense and 95% of all masks. My sister has been a phobic about physical contact ever since March of 2020: she has yet to allow me into her house, and will only speak to me at my home ten feet away on the front yard. Research studies and other health officials pooh-poohed the social distancing mandates early on while media scaremongers—-after all, it was vital to wreck the Trump economy if he was going to be brought down—were quoting some “experts” saying that we should all wear masks and socially distance forever. Fortunately my pop culture addiction served me well: I recognized all of the CDC recommendations from the 2011 pandemic movie “Contagion.” They were exactly the same, proving to me that “social distancing” and the rest were just boiler plate “Do something!” measures off the CDC shelf. (They didn’t work in the film, either.)
“If debates had been forums where legitimate policy differences were explored in a long-form, meaningful way, then I’d probably be frustrated by this chaotic turn. But they weren’t, they sucked, and now they’re (mostly) dead.”
—Reason’s Liz Wolfe reviewing the Haley-DeSantis debate along with Trump’s counter-programming “town hall” on Fox News
She adds elsewhere in her article,
“Has the old-school debate format been broken? In the past, debate stages were crowded, debates were relatively few, and nobody really dared opt out of them—even during primary season. Now, it’s all just chaos… if you didn’t watch any of the debates or counterprogramming, you probably made a good choice.. it’s actually kind of awesome how the pageantry of debates has been cracked open, how more formats than ever before are being experimented with…and how candidates such as Trump are making unconventional campaigning choices—opting out of all primary debates—in lieu of playing the game.”
It’s too bad, but Wolfe is right. From the very beginning, debates have injected random, misleading factors into the election process. For every instance where a debate legitimately illuminated something important about one of the candidates, there have been 20 where they had a disproportionate effect on public opinion. The main problem is that debating skill, or even public speaking skills, are not necessarily markers of leadership competence. Vivek Ramaswamy has been giving a master class on that.
The Julie Principle comes into play when an undesirable or annoying characteristic or behavior pattern in a person or organization appears to be hard-wired and part of their essence. In judging such a person or entity, it is useful to keep the lyrics of Julie’s song from “Show Boat” (“Can’t Help Lovin’ That Man O’ Mine,” lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein Jr., music by Jerome Kern) firmly in mind, when she sings…
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…I’ve gotta love that man til I dieCan’t help lovin’ that man of mine!
It comes into play when one is tempted to keep criticizing and calling attention to such individuals or organizations behaving in the same unethical way they always do when there is no chance, literally none, that they will, or will even want to, change their habits. Beneficiaries of the Julie Principle on Ethics Alarms in recent years have included Kamala Harris, who always babbles semi-incoherently, White House paid liar Karine Jean-Pierre, who is forever incompetent, New York Times anti-white bigot and Trump Derangement victim Charles M. Blow, and PETA, which is reliably ridiculous.
It is true that Donald Trump will always get the benefit of The Julie Principle here in one area: his characteristic oblique and stream of consciousness manner of communicating. However, as recent outbursts have vividly illustrated, he cannot be julied—yes, I just invented a verb—when he (relatively) clearly states his intentions, beliefs, or versions of reality. Attention must be paid.
A recent feature in the intermittently cretinous New York Magazine feature “The Intelligencer” by the thing’s demonstrably inept editor Margaret Hartman illustrates the problem. Here are what she ranked as “8 Awful Things Trump Said in Iowa.”
At one rally, Trump said, riffing on U.S. aircraft carrier technology, “Think of it, magnets. Now all I know about magnets is this, give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that’s the end of the magnets.” I can’t let that kind of ignorance go. That’s signature significance for someone who has inexcusable gaps in his basic knowledge, and who therefore cannot be trusted to make responsible and competent decisions. It also suggests the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Trump is ignorant and doesn’t know he’s ignorant, or he would not be broadcasting his ignorance in public.
In contrast, this quote: “First they say, ‘Sir, how do you do it? How do you wake up in the morning and put on your pants?’ And I say, ‘Well, I don’t think about it too much.’ I don’t want to think about it because if I think about it too much maybe I won’t want to do it, but I love it because we’re going to do something for this country that’s never been done before” is pure Trump Derangement fodder. He’s kidding around, but the dedicated “Get Trump!” bashers can’t resist treating such Trumpian flights of fancy as important. This is an example of why Trump critics are so biased that they can’t be trusted.
Hartman writes, “Trump claimed [the Civil War] — much like the Ukraine-Russia war and the Israel-Hamas war — could have been avoided entirely if we had a master dealmaker like him in the White House back in 1861.” Trump has opined thus before. It is mandatory left-wing cant that to even suggest that the Civil War could have or should have been avoided is evidence of racism, so naturally Hartman pounced. Trump is certainly dead wrong that Lincoln could have avoided the Civil War without just letting the Confederate states leave the Union, but the position that more competent Presidents than Lincoln’s immediate predecessors Pierce and Buchanan (both in the finals of the Ethics Alarms “Worst President” competition) might have been able to come up with a compromise that eased slavery out without a disastrous war is held by a small group of historians. It’s not an “awful” thing to say.
#5 on Hartman’s list is so bizarre that it qualifies as another example of her own Trump Derangement. Read it yourself. Apparently it’s “awful” that Trump objected to a Ron DeSantis campaign ad. This is so dumb that I don’t need the Julie Principle to ignore it. “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” works just fine.
Trump did nasty imitations of Biden, his speech issues and his confusion. Verdict:Pure Julie Principle. Hartman finds this disgusting and so do I, but that’s who this guy is, and anyone paying attention knows it. It’s not worth reporting or complaining about at this point.
Trump again mocked the late Senator John McCain’s physical disabilities while condemning his decisive vote that killed the attempted Obamacare repeal. That’s not Julie Principle stuff, that’s insanity. It broadcasts Trump’s flat, indeed declining, learning curve, and shows that a man who wants to be President is obsessed with grudges and revenge, which is scary. Trump’s attacks on McCain when the ex-prisoner of war was alive cost him support from many veterans. Mocking him now again is beneath what even I thought Trump was capable of. No Julie here.
“He glorified January 6 insurrectionists” writes Hartman.Anyone who calls the rioters “insurrectionists” forfeits the right to be taken seriously or trusted. Trump said they are being persecuted, which is true. He called the Biden-enabled stampede of illegals at the border an insurrection, which is sloppy hyperbole, but that’s typical Trump, and Julie Principle all the way.
The worst of Trump’s “awful things,” according to “The Intelligencer” was that when he touched on the recent school shooting in Iowa, he said,
“I want to send our support and our deepest sympathies to the victims and families touched by the terrible school shooting yesterday in Perry, Iowa.It’s just horrible, so surprising to see it here. But we have to get over it, we have to move forward.”
That’s Trump, through and through. It’s not Julie Principle territory, though. It’s worth pondering. He is right, after all, in the sense that these tragedies cannot be allowed to get in the way of facing immediate long term problems. This is a competent military leader’s attitude, as well as a typical CEO’s. Our current reaction as a culture is to turn particularly horrible tragedies into opportunities to appeal to emotion and signal our virtue: Trump doesn’t do virtue-signalling, and I regard that as one of his strengths much of the time. On the other side of the matter, effective leaders have to know when to play mourner -in-chief. This instance show that Trump can’t perform that function: if he had to announce the Challenger disaster as President, he would have said, “This is a terrible tragedy, but we can’t let it slow down our space exploration,” instead of quoting “High Flight,” as Ronald Reagan did. This is useful intelligence regarding Trump. Verdict: No Julie Principle pass.
The final tally: only three of Hartman’s “eight awful things” are worthy of special attention, and escape the Julie Principle’s pass.
***
A diversion: In that video clip from the MGM “Showboat,” Ava Gardner as Julie is being dubbed by singer Annette Warner, who was not credited. This was back in the day when studios dubbed actors routinely if they weren’t primarily singers; today, the pendulum has swung completely, so the voices of non-singers like Russell Crowe (in “Les Miserables”) are inflicted on audiences. The dubbing of “Can’t Help Lovin’ That Man of Mine” was particularly unfair, for Gardner could sing, and worked hard on the song. She didn’t know until she say the movie that Warner had taken over her vocals.
Warren, I discovered researching the story, was still performing as recently as 2017, and is apparently still with us at the age of 101. Ava Gardner, born in the same year, has been dead for 33 years.
Ethics Alarms 