Yikes. I just rescued seven comments from spam, a few of which were first-time commenters. That shouldn’t happen, and I’ll pursue it with WordPress. A few were a couple of weeks old. Please, if your comment doesn’t post, email me. I hate to see comments lost. This was a record.
I apologize to all.
Ann Althouse, who reads a magazine I gave up on when it went full Trump-Deranged, flagged an article called “Too Many People Own Dogs: If you love dogs, maybe don’t get one.” Ann belongs to a dog-loving family so she has some credibility in the area, but the author, Rose Horowitch, who talks about ethics a lot in the article, is seriously confused, and I’m surprised Ann doesn’t see it.
The article begins with a discussion of dogs on Prozac and how anxious people make their dogs anxious. First, the average dog owner is not going to put a dog on Prozac. It is true that dogs, being natural empaths, often mirror the moods of their owners; on the other hand, dogs without behavioral issues make anxious people less so. Dogs also want a job, and if keeping an anxious adult from freaking out is their role, that’s fine with them.
What makes a washed-up child star like Alyssa Milano think that her analysis of the Hamas-Israel war should carry any special weight with the President of the United States? What makes any of the other acting Leftists who signed the statement—this predictable crew—
—think their letter should be taken any more seriously than, say, one signed by 60 or so dog-walkers or 7-11 clerks? It shouldn’t, you know. I know lots of actors; some of my best friends are actors, really and truly. But with notable exceptions, their political views are the product of working and socializing in a bubble where there are virtually mandatory political beliefs. Most of my acting friends–“artists”–would watch an hour of MSNBC and say, “Sounds good to me!” because they lack the historical perspective or depth of understanding to challenge the woke orthodoxy of their peers and employers.
Alyssa’s screed goes off the rails immediately. There is no “Palestine.” People who elect a terrorist group to represent them are responsible for the predictable consequences. As one wag neatly put it, Hamas “pearl-harbored” Israel: that’s a brutal act of war, and demands a response that will teach the lesson forever that you can’t do that, and if you do, the results will be dire. Hamas uses Gaza’s children as human shields, and that tactic must never be allowed to work. Calling for a cease fire when the piper is about to be paid makes Hamas’s intolerable conduct practical. Calling for Palestinians to benefit in any way as a result of the terror attack validates terrorism.
—New York Magazine reporter Eric Levitz on Twitter/X, going for the all-time record in Hamas-excusing spin.
Oh. What?
Yes, it’s come to this: a progressive reporter, naturally inclined to make excuses for the Palestinians because they are “of color” and supposedly oppressed, twists reality and his brain into pretzel-shapes in order to discredit the confirmed reports of Hamas terrorists beheading Jewish babies.
Let me see, what else could explain baby carcasses with missing heads? 1) Maybe they never had heads in the first place. 2) Maybe their heads just fell off, like the coughing jaybird’s head in the old song. 3) Maybe the heads were still attached, but these were turtle-human hybrid babies, and they just pulled their heads inside. That’s about all I can think of. You?
Old friend (and one of my board members at the American Century Theater) John Podhoretz caught this one, commenting, “I suppose there has been a worse set of sentences ever written but I can’t quite imagine what they might be.”
Woo woo woo.
Yesterday, I was moved to re-watch “Bridge of Spies,” the excellent Spielberg and Coen Brothers-told tale of James Donovan, the lawyer (portrayed by Tom Hanks) who negotiated the release of Francis Gary Powers in exchange for convicted Soviet spy Rudolf Abel. Maybe something in the deep recesses of my mind was triggered by yesterday’s post about the rigged prosecution, trial and conviction of the four Minnesota police officers involved in George Floyd’s death. What was striking about the movie was that Donovan is shown being recruited by his law firm to defend Abel, described as “the most hated man in America” at the height of the Cold War, to demonstrate to the Soviets that we guarantee a fair trial and zealous legal representation to everyone accused of a crime, irrespective of public opinion and the nature of the crime. Everyone has the same rights.
Donovan did defend Abel, even though it is made clear in the film that the judge was determined to see him convicted and that Donovan himself as well as his family were endangered by his taking the case. After Abel was convicted despite the fact that the evidence used by the prosecution should have been excluded as the “fruits” of an illegal search, Donovan appealed the result all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, defying his firm’s opposition to him continuing the case. His partners argued that the unpopularity of Abel risks alienating clients. Donovan’s initial representation sent the required symbolic message, they said, and even though the conviction may have been unjust, there was no reason to be obsessed with those due process and rights details, not for an enemy spy who might have been facilitating an enemy’s nuclear attack.
1. The Fox News headline reads, “Democrat blocks Hawley’s resolution to condemn antisemitism on college campuses.” That’s not exactly fair and balanced. The gist of the headline, of course, is to make it sound like Democrats enable anti-Semitism. BAD Fox! BAD. That Democrat is Maryland Senator Chris Van Holland, and he wasn’t blocking a generic Senate resolution condemning anti-Semitism, which like a resolution condemning police brutality, would be virtue-signaling with little significance. This was something else.
Conservative Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri called upon all of his colleagues to give unanimous consent on his resolution condemning Hamas, pledging support of Israel, confirming that nation’s “right to exits” and condemning the pro-Palestinian statements and demonstrations by student groups on college campuses. It is clear, however, that what the resolution was really targeting are students. Hawley’s resolution begins with the usual list of “Whereas’s,” with nine of the thirteen referring directly to student reaction to the October 7 Hamas attack.
“Almost as disturbing as the facts of these terrible attacks themselves is the response of some people in this country. On our college campuses in this country who promptly took to the streets, to the courtyards of these campuses, the airwaves, to broadcast their support for this genocide against the people of Israel,”said Hawley on the floor introducing his resolution. “Students at Ohio State praised the heroic resistance in Gaza. Heroic — it’s now heroic to massacre Jews in cold blood. It’s now heroic to try and carry out a genocide against Jewish people. Calling for the death of Jewish people is not just another opinion. Calling for the genocide, celebrating the genocide of Jewish babies is not just another opinion. Celebrating the assaults on Jewish people in this country is not just another opinion, and the Senate should be clear and stand with moral clarity and say ‘this is wrong.'”
Ringing words, except that the same kind of argument could be raised against students opposing the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision or in support of affirmative action. Hawley’s resolution should give pause to anyone under the delusion that only Democrats are hostile to free speech and expression when it doesn’t please them.
Guest Post by Steve-O-in NJ.
[This is a comment posted by Steve-O in response to the post, “KABOOM! I Have To Take Back Every Positive Thing I Ever Said About Mitt Romney.” Properly it would be a Comment of the Day, but I decided that in both theme and length it deserved to be a free-standing guest post. I know comments are usually written with less precision than the authors might apply if they knew they were going to be highlighted—I know my comments are—so I did edit Steve’s work a bit, not substantively, and I hope he approves. JM]
I don’t know if this is even worth talking about very much, since Romney is headed toward the door and will exit as an also-ran. In his day, he amassed quite an impressive resume, certainly much more impressive than Barack Obama’s. He did a reasonably good job as governor of Massachusetts. That’s why it strikes me as odd that he did not run an effective presidential campaign, nor did he seem to grasp that campaigning on the national stage in 2012 was very different than campaigning 20, 10, or even 5 years before that.
The other side had one goal, and they stuck relentlessly to it: destroy Mitt Romney, by all means fair or foul. Positive campaigning has been pretty much dead since the days of Bush the Elder. It’s negative campaigning that moves the numbers, and Romney didn’t seem to grasp that. He tried to run a gentlemanly campaign when the other side and the media were prepared to fight as dirty as possible. This country didn’t give a damn about his resume or his plan for fixing the economy, at least not enough. They wanted things to be better, but Mitt just couldn’t make his case.
Let’s begin with a side bet: What will you wager that any major mainstream media outlet will report this?
Alpha News tells us that (the bolding is mine)…
Behold the third in a series of Comments of the Day on the post about the woman who started screaming as her measure response to a speaker whose opinions she didn’t want to hear, and has ordered out of her “gayborhood.” This one is by Sarah D (the others are here, and here); the inspiration was the post, “Perplexed Ethics Thoughts On This Video…”:
***
Assuming that this man is preaching peacefully on a street corner, even if he is stating things this woman disagrees with, and she came up and accosted him (perhaps not fair assumptions), her screaming like this seems to me to be res ipsa loquitor on the matter.
As for how we can engage people like that, well, I think what we need to do is treat them the way I treat my four year old when she engages in such behavior. However, I do not believe the law allows me to ask a person over the age of eighteen (I refuse to call this woman an adult) to stand in a corner, be grounded, scrub baseboards, or be spanked. If my eldest, still in single digits, acted like this, I’d never have to clean my house again.
My ethics alarms just don’t ring very loudly on this incident. Maybe yours do.
A pregame trivia video before a Michigan State football game included a photo of Adolf Hitler on the Spartan Stadium scoreboard. (The question asked where Der Fuhrer was born.)
Though I have seen no record of whether there were complaints, the school felt it necessary to issue a profuse apology:
Really? Displaying a photograph of a historical figure who appears in hundreds of movies, is spoofed in multiple comedies and film classics, as part of a bland trivia question (It’s not like the question was about the Final Solution) requires an apology and results in a contract cancellation?
Your Ethics Alarms “Please explain this to the ethicist” Ethics Question of the Day is…
