The most famous event that occurred on this day in U.S. history was the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968. Assassinations are unethical, of course, though Bobby Kennedy was quite likely a dangerous man to have in the White House, as he was perhaps even more of a sociopath than the typical Kennedy, such as Jack and Teddy. Less dissonant as an ethical landmark is George Marshall’s 1947 speech planting the seeds of the Marshall Plan—the name has a certain ring to it, somehow!—by calling on the United States to aid in the economic recovery of postwar Europe, which it did by sending billions of dollars to Western Europe to rebuild the war-torn countries. This was not altruism, however, but pragmatism: there was a quite legitimate fear that the contagion of Communism was in the air and likely to spread. The Marshall Plan was a Cold War strategy, and nobody can say whether it “worked” or not. Western Europe was able to resist communism, but that might have just been moral luck.
A notable unethical historical episode was the work of President Grover Cleveland, known as “Grover the Good.” The name “Grover the Mixed Bag” would be more accurate. This time, in 1888 (as Jack The Ripper was getting ready to murder his first victim in Whitechapel). Johanna Loewinger’s Civil War veteran husband died 14 years after being discharged from the army. Upon his death in 1876, his pension was discontinued. Johanna, applied for a widow’s pension, but was denied since her husband died from suicide by cutting his own throat rather from wounds suffered while fighting for the Union. (He had been discharged for chronic diarrhea.) His widow claimed that the war had driven him mad and was the reason for his death. After she failed to get the pension she felt she was owed, Johanna appealed to a member of Congress to petition the President. Grover denied the widow’s petition.
1. I don’t even know what to say about this. Here are Burger King Austria’s special Pride Month Whoppers, with two bottom rolls or two tops. I thought it was a joke. It’s not.
2. Who does he think he is, Ricky Gervais? David Weigel, who covers politics for the Washington Post, retweeted a tweet that said,: “Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.” His colleague Felicia Sonmez, who also covers politics, wrote: “Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!” Allowed! I agree that the tweet was inappropriate in a workplace setting, but the proper response would be a little reminder from the brass. Weigel, however, felt it necessary to grovel, and tweeted, “I just removed a retweet of an offensive joke. I apologize and did not mean to cause any harm.” Washington Post COO Kris Coratti Kelly announced, “Editors have made clear to the staff that the tweet was reprehensible and demeaning language or actions like that will not be tolerated.”
The action was a joke. It had the form of a joke, and was intended as a joke. If I cared enough and my sock drawer weren’t a mess, I’d do some research into the kinds of jokes about men, Republicans, President Trump and his supporters Post staff have retweeted. I’m pretty sure what I’d find. Like everything else, satirical humor goes in only one direction in D.C., and the reverse “will not be tolerated.”
3. Speaking of bias..Take the New York Times. Please! I have a Facebook friend who really and truly announced that he was a fan of Times op-edderess Michelle Goldberg. She is biased as well as intellectually dishonest, and does not deserve a regular platform in the Poughkeepsie Weekle Packet, much less the New York Times. Her continued existence there is signature significance, so I felt vindicated to see this column last week: “The Amber Heard Verdict Was a Travesty. Others Will Follow.”It began, “The verdict in Johnny Depp’s defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard is difficult to explain logically.” Difficult to explain logically to whom? Heard got the Washington Post to publish her op-ed that made defamatory accusations against Depp that she couldn’t back up, statements that alleged as fact matters that could not be shown to be fact, which is the essence of libel. Not only that, she promised the ACLU a large contribution in exchange for assisting in writing the piece, and the organization testified that she stiffed them, not that they didn’t deserve being stiffed, since taking sides in celebrity domestic disputes is not exactly in the organization’s mission statement. Heard was unequivocally exposed as a serial liar, but never mind: Goldberg makes it clear Heard should have won the suit because other women have been abused by powerful men, and because “Believe all women” must be the norm. The jury should have rejected Depp’s defamation claim because his victory hurt the cause. “Even if Heard lied about everything during the trial — even if she’d never suffered domestic abuse — she still would have represented it,” Goldberg writes. Continue reading →
Ethics Alarms 
