End Of September Ethics Songs, Part I

A lot of stuff piled up this month and especially yesterday, and I better get it discussed before it all gets lost in October…

1. Regarding that “debate”...I, and many others, owe Donald Trump an apology. He was both wise and right to pass up the Republican debates if they are going to be like the debacle yesterday. No debate with more that three participants is going to be a fair measure of anything but quips and soundbites, but this was especially bad, doing a disservice to the party, the candidates, and the public. Prime among the culprits was Fox News, whose moderators were incompetent and unfair. They couldn’t enforce the supposed rules—candidates who were attacked directly were not, as assured, give time to respond in many cases. Including a Univision open-borders advocate among the three—three moderators is two too many anyway—was despicable: moderators should not have an agenda and she obviously did. She also, in trying to impugn Ron DeSantis, repeated the media and Democratic Party lie that Florida’s guidelines for teaching about slavery suggest that slavery was beneficial to blacks.

Dana Perino, usually one of Fox News’ least annoying hosts, asked one of the most unprofessional questions of any debate moderator in memory, the moronic reality-show inspired, “Who would you vote off the GOP island?”query. Good for Gov. DeSantis, who did a Newt Gingrich impression and scolded her. DeSantis managed to come off better than the rest this time, but it is probably too late; again, the thing was too much of a wreck to really help any of the candidates.

Not that any of them helped themselves much either. Nikky Haley canceled out whatever progress she had made in the first debate this time by shrilly arguing with Vivek Ramaswamy, who is irrelevant to the proceedings except as a distraction (most Americans neither know nor care what TikTok is) and Tim Scott, another irrelevancy, (over a South Carolina gas tax?). Mike Pence continues to be an embarrassment—why does he think he has any chance at all?—and gave the most oogy statement of the night with his boast, “My wife isn’t a member of the teachers union, but I got to admit, I have been sleeping with a teacher for 38 years — full disclosure.” Then Pence blamed DeSantis for the Parkland school shooter getting a life sentence instead of the death penalty, when the killer was charged and sentences before DeSantis was elected Governor of Florida, and would have had no input into the sentencing anyway. The moderators seemed determined to ignore poor Doug Burgum—another example of the uselessness of the multiple debaters format, and Chris Christie, an established ethics villain, had already alienated pro-Trump and anti-Trump conservatives before he insulted everyone with his canned “Donald Duck” line (See, Trump has “ducked” the debates, see. Get it?)

2. Speaking of open borders, CNN’s Jake Tapper had one of his periodic moments of non-partisan integrity when Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley mouthed the ongoing Biden Administration lie that “No doubt about it, our border is secure.”

Tapper was aghast, as well he should have been “You think it is secure? You think the border is secure? Or it’s not secure?” Tapper asked. “The border is secure,” The shameless “Squad” member declared a second time. “But if you have millions of undocumented migrants coming into the country, how is the border secure?” he asked. “If you have people crossing border, it’s by definition not secure,” Tapper said. “Because it is not secure, [illegal immigrants] go on this journey, and one of the arguments that is made — and maybe you disagree with it — is that the border should be secure so as to discourage people from making this journey,” he continued. “But it just seems like just such a refusal to acknowledge reality to say that the border is secure when we all know millions of people are crossing the border illegally every year.” (Ya think?) Pressley’s only response to his question was that the issue “is a conversation for another day,” Tapper ended the interview.

How can so many citizens tolerate such repeated and obvious dishonesty?

Continue reading

More Cause For Hope! NYT Readers Call BS On Ibram X. Kendi And Michelle Goldberg

The reliably woke, intellectually dishonest and frequently ridiculous New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg issued another one of her propaganda pieces, this time trying to excuse and rationalize the implosion of Boston University’s Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research, which is laying off most of its staff and looks headed for the dustbin of history. As for that, good. Kendi is one of the worst race-hustlers extant, and BU giving him such a platform for his divisive and destructive ranting was academic malpractice.

Goldberg’s dutiful excuse-making in “Ibram X. Kendi and the Problem of Celebrity Fund-Raising,”meanwhile, would be an embarrassment to the Times if it were a legitimate paper any more. She absolves Kendi of blame because he had no management experience and it was irresponsible of woke donors to give him so much money in their rush to signal their virtue. (I guess all those corporations should have just stuck with discriminating against white applicants in their hiring…) What she is admitting without having the integrity to do so openly is that Kendi was and is a blowhard phony who talked big but was untrustworthy. Ann Althouse sharply observes the hypocrisy here:

If we’re going to do critical race theory, let’s not hold back when the insights are inconvenient. Lavishing money on an unprepared — but charismatic — black person and then treating him like a naif when he fails to perform according to existing conventions — that too is racism… under the theory. 

Bingo.

Continue reading

Yes, This Goes In The EA “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Files, But I’ll ‘Loquitur’ About It Anyway: Only 6% of New S&P Jobs Went to White Applicants After The George Floyd Freakout

Bloomberg revealed this a couple of days ago. You missed it, as I did, because the mainstream media chose not to report it. It’s a separate issue, but gee, why do you think that would be? Because it isn’t news? Because the public doesn’t care if major corporations deliberately discriminated against the largest racial group in the nation? Because this is smoking gun evidence of woke-driven, illegal racial bias in the workplace supported by a political party that the news media is dedicated to supporting? Because the strategy of race-based threats, riots, violence, lies and extortion works?

Nah, it couldn’t be for any of those reasons. Maybe it’s because Biden’s dog bit its 11th victim: THAT made it into news headlines, but not this. But I digress…

Let me plug the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news source so derided that it seldom makes news aggregator sites with its headlines, which did report the Bloomberg revelations. It wrote in part,

Continue reading

See? Cultural Rot CAN Be Reversed!

The Senate yesterday unanimously passed a bill that requires members to follow a dress code that will include a coat, tie, and slacks for men. Just a bit less than three weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a vulgar and obnoxious capitulation to lowered standards of public conduct and a blatant endorsement of the King’s Pass had ruled that all Senators could dress like Pennsylvania’s senatorial slob, John Fetterman, whose favorite attire is a sneakers shorts hoodie ensemble. This was an itsy-bitsy microcosm of what the party of Fetterman and Schumer are attempting to inflict on American society, and, incredibly, the vox populi rebelled. It seems that a lot of Americans don’t like the idea of their elected representatives in the U.S. Capitol appearing in public dressed like Frankenstein’s Monster on vacation.

Continue reading

Ethics Quiz: The National Cathedral’s New Windows

The stained glass windows in the National Cathedral show different scenes from American history. Someone made the dunderheaded decision when the cathedral was being designed to have windows honoring Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, which seemed, in a setting with limited opportunities to highlight American heroes, an odd choice even back when the structure was opened to the public.

After a gunman shot and killed nine Black worshipers at a church in South Carolina in 2015 and the movement began to ban all things Confederate, the cathedral management decided that Stonewall and Lee had to go. Six years after the glass’s removal in 2017, National Cathedral has unveiled their replacement, which you can see above. The new windows , titled Now and Forever, show black protesters holding protest signs bearing the words “No,” “Not,” “Fairness” and “No foul play.”

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Is this a responsible, appropriate, ethical decoration for the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.?

Continue reading

Language Ethics: Hollywood Writers Are Insulted That Their Work Is Being Called “Content.” Tough.

New York Times critic James Bailey takes offense on behalf of his pals in the Writer’s Guild, whose expensive strike is about to end, with a lament called “Emma Thompson Is Right: The Word ‘Content’ Is Rude.”He took off from a statement by Oscar-winning actress (and apparently now screenwriter—at least enough to put her in the union) Emma Thompson, who told the Royal Television Society conference in Britain last week,“To hear people talk about ‘content’ makes me feel like the stuffing inside a sofa cushion.” She continued, “It’s just a rude word for creative people.I know there are students in the audience: You don’t want to hear your stories described as ‘content’ or your acting or your producing described as ‘content.’ That’s just like coffee grounds in the sink or something.”

You see, the main impetus of the writer’s strike is the threat of artificial intelligence generating “content” and putting “creative people” out of work.

Writes Bailey (in part), applauding her indignation,

 She’s right about the real-world impact of what is, make no mistake, a devaluing of the creative process. Those who defend its use will insist that we need some kind of catchall phrase for the things we watch, as previously crisp lines have blurred between movies and television, between home and theatrical exhibition and between legacy and social media.

But these paradigm shifts require more clarity in our language, not less. A phrase like “streaming movie” or “theatrical release” or “documentary podcast” communicates what, where and why with far more precision than gibberish like “content,” and if you want to put everything under one tent, “entertainment” is right there. But studio and streaming executives, who are perhaps the primary users and abusers of the term, love to talk about “content” because it’s so wildly diminutive. It’s a quick and easy way to minimize what writers, directors and actors do, to act as though entertainment (or, dare I say it, art) is simply churned out — and could be churned out by anyone, sentient or not. It’s just content, it’s just widgets, it’s all grist for the mill. Talking about “entertainment” is dangerous because it takes talent to entertain; no such demands are made of “content,” and the industry’s increasing interest in the possibilities of writing via artificial intelligence (one of the sticking points of the writers’ strike) makes that crystal clear.

Perhaps the finest example of this school of thought can be seen at Warner Bros. Discovery…The “content”-ization of that conglomerate’s holdings is the only reasonable explanation for the decision to rename HBO Max as simply Max — removing the prestigious legacy media brand that most clearheaded, marginally intelligent people would presume to be an asset. It lost 1.8 million subscribers in the process, but that’s merely the battle; it won the war, because when you visit Max now, the front-page carousel is a combination of scripted series, HBO documentaries, true crime and reality competition shows. It’s all on equal footing; it’s all content. But “Casablanca,” “Succession” and “Dr. Pimple Popper” are not the same thing — and the programmers of a service that pretends otherwise are abdicating their responsibility as curators...

The way we talk about things affects how we think and feel about them. So when journalists regurgitate purposefully reductive language, and when their viewers and readers consume and parrot it, they’re not adopting some zippy buzzword. They’re doing the bidding of people in power, and diminishing the work that they claim to love.

This is, to quote a word that arose from past Hollywood “content,” gaslighting. Reality show writers marched shoulder to shoulder with the “artists” Bailey is extolling, and what they were striking over is money, not art, as the unionized writers try to fend off the threat of robots who are either capable or soon will be of producing the kind of swill I see in 80% of the TV and Hollywood content I watch ….and I watch a lot.

Continue reading

The Judge’s Fraud Ruling Against Donald Trump [Opinion Link Added]

Justice Arthur F. Engoron of the New York Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Donald Trump repeatedly inflating the value of his assets, thus constitution fraud on banks and insurers. Thus New York Attorney General Letitia James will no longer have to prove fraud in her lawsuit against Trump. She is seeking a penalty of $250 million in a trial scheduled to begin next week. Justice Engoron ruled that the annual financial statements submitted to banks and insurance companies by Trump agents “clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business.”

He also fined Trump’s lawyers $7,500 each for persisting in making arguments that he had previously rejected, and warned them that the arguments in question bordered on being frivolous. The former president, the judge wrote, ignored reality when it suited his business goals. “In defendants’ world,” he wrote, “rent-regulated apartments are worth the same as unregulated apartments; restricted land is worth the same as unrestricted land; restrictions can evaporate into thin air.” Trump’s defense was that the banks made large profits in their dealings with the Trump Organization and could not be called victims, and that valuing property is subjective. This is the classic and often successful defense offered in many tax fraud cases.

Continue reading

Depressed Ethics Observations On A Jury Nullification Verdict In NY

Clarence Darrow would have loved the resolution of the Jennifer Nelson case in Suffolk County, New York yesterday. The U.S.’s most famous and iconic defense attorney achieved many of his most important victories by slyly arguing for jury nullification, which is now grounds for a mistrial and ethics sanctions in all states but one (New Hampshire) See Note below. Of course, Darrow never used that term, but when he told juries to “send a message” with their not-guilty verdict, that’s what he was talking about.

Jennifer Nelson, 36, a Long Island mother, faced up to 25 years in prison for driving her car—twice— into a 15-year-old boy, the leader of a pack of bullies that had plagued her teen son last October after she concluded that he had taken his Adidas Ye slides . The jury deliberated less than four hours to declare her innocent of an intentional attack, instead finding her guilty of leaving the scene of an accident when there were serious injuries. Her attorneys say they will seek a sentence of just probation, and if they get the right judge, that may be all the punishment Nelson gets….for attempted murder.

Continue reading

Trump, Biden, And “The Roosevelts”

Something made me watch Ken Burns’ documentary “The Roosevelts” again last week. I was not looking for current perspective or political enlightenment, and the stories told are all very familiar to me, being an admirer of Teddy from childhood and fascinated by the complexities and contradictions that were Franklin. But history always surprises, and it often resonated differently depending on when it is examined. I realized, for the first time, that the Roosevelts have much to teach us about the conflict roiling the nation now….and the worse roiling that seems to be on its way.

Continue reading

Unethical Quote Of The Week—And ‘Will No One Rid Us Of This Troublesome (And Incompetent) Paid Liar?’—White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre

“This President has been so zeroed in, so laser-focused, on lowering costs for Americans — and we’ve done that!”

—Incompetent, insulting, dishonest and embarrassing White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who not only has wrapped up the title of the worst White House mouthpiece in history, but also may be the most incompetent Presidential staff member in history as well.

She is also a Rationalization #64, “It isn’t what it is” champion, which is quite an achievement in a tough field. For example, more than one member of the Biden Administration has claimed that the “border is secure.”

Biden hasn’t lowered the cost of anything. That statement is an absolute, irredeemable lie. Here is one list of how prices have gone up since Biden was elected, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

  • Groceries up 20%
  • Food away from home up 18.5%
  • Energy costs up 43%
  • Gas prices up 62.5%
  • Electricity prices up 26%
  • Used cars and trucks up 33%
  • New cars up 20%
  • Furniture up 17%
  • Clothes up 11.4%

Continue reading