Ann Althhouse

Does Anyone Really Have To Ask This Question?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Ann Althouse, who for some strange reason is obsessed with AI in general and Grok in particular, asked her favorite bot, “Which U.S. First Ladies have received the cruelest treatment in the press (and in public conversation)? Especially which ones were disrespected as, essentially, whores?”

Anyone who doesn’t know the answer and the runner-up is both politically and historically ignorant. Obviously Grok informed Ann that Melania Trump is the “winner” and that it isn’t even close, telling the bloggress in part (my comments interspersed in bold),,

“Melania Trump stands out among actual U.S. First Ladies for receiving some of the most explicit, sexualized public disrespect in the modern era—being directly called a “hooker,” “whore,” or accused of having been a prostitute/escort. This came from tabloid stories, a New York Times reporter (who was reprimanded after a model publicly called out the comment), social media, and partisan commentary tied to her pre-White House modeling career and alleged links to escort services. She filed (and later settled or pursued) defamation suits, including a $150 million claim against the Daily Mail over “elite escort” allegations, which the paper retracted. Media and online discourse frequently framed her as ornamental, aloof, or unworthy in ways that veered into slut-shaming, far more personal and vicious than typical policy or style critiques faced by others. Some contemporary observers (across outlets) described her overall press treatment as among the worst for any modern First Lady.”
SOME? There’s no contest! Melania is first, second, third…American First Ladies have always, always, been treated with respect by the news media, though there have been partisan critics of some First Ladies like “Lemonade Lucy” Hayes, Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan and Michelle Obama, but nothing close to the venom heaped on Malania. Back to Grok…
“No other serving First Lady matches this level of direct “whore/prostitute” framing in the historical record… The single most brutal sexual character assassination of a presidential spouse involved Rachel Jackson (wife of Andrew Jackson) during the 1828 campaign. Opponents dredged up her first marriage’s messy divorce and her subsequent union with Jackson, labeling her a bigamist, adulteress, “whore,” “harlot,” and woman of “open and notorious lewdness” in newspapers and pamphlets. She was devastated, withdrew from public life, and died of a heart attack shortly after the election (before inauguration). Andrew Jackson blamed the “slander” for her death and had “A being so gentle and so virtuous, slander might wound, but could never dishonor” inscribed on her tombstone. 
Note to Grok (and Ann): It wasn’t a “messy divorce,” it was a legally invalid divorce, so technically Rachel was a bigamist.
Pages: 1 2

I See That Ann Althouse Has Recognized the Increasingly Totalitarian Orientation of Progressives These Days….

/ Jack Marshall / 97 Comments

The betting is that te retired Madison, Wis. law professor and longtime bloggress will still vote for Biden and the Democrats—like Bill Maher, Ann talks a good neutrality game, but always seems to come home again—but still, her observations are frequently spot-on.

This morning she notes that “the top-rated comment — by a lot — at “A.I. Is Getting Better Fast. Can You Tell What’s Real Now?” is..

“Passing AI images off as real ones for the sake of commercial or political gain should be prosecuted as fraud.The severity of the penalties should match the level of risk that disseminating these images poses to our society; i.e., they should be extreme.”

Ann adds, “How terribly punitive and repressive, and yet, isn’t it what you’ve come to expect from the segment of America that reads the New York Times?Notice the aggression mixed with passivity. The comment-writer doesn’t want to face the challenge of becoming more perceptive and skeptical dealing with the onslaught of A.I. images. They want the government to do the dirty work and do it good and hard.”

Continue reading →

Saturday Ethics Warm-Up, 7/25/2020: The Congressional Playpen And Other Embarrassments

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Good Morning!

Bulgaria has a holiday called “July Morning” that celebrates freedom, friendship, and love of life.

Maybe I’ll move to Bulgaria…

1. I cannot believe this doesn’t alienate more people than it pleases. I watched the Red Sox-Orioles game last night to open the Strangest Baseball Season Ever in Boston, and would have enjoyed it completely ( the Sox won 13-2) had I not had to constantly avert my eyes from the Red Sox management’s ostentatious virtue signaling, if you can call it that, since pandering to Black Lives Matter is far from virtuous.

Not only was the special BLM MLB logo at the back of the pitcher’s mound (BLM MLB is a palindrome!), but the full Black Lives Matter name was emblazoned on a banner, about 250 feet long, across the empty bleachers.

I’d love to know how many Red Sox executives, or if any of them, actually know what the “movement” the team is pimping for intends. My guess is that the decision to promote BLM was a cynical go along to get along decision that had nothing to do with substance, but rather was made in fear and expediency.

2. On the Fox News harassment accuser. The sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Tucker Carlson by Cathy Areu now appears to have fatal flaws. Continue reading →

Mail-in Voting Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments

Ann Althouse flagged this tweet by “Dilbert” cartoonist/Trump-whisperer Scott Adams, and as is her wont sometimes (unfortunately), uses it to get tangled up in the logical conundrums she finds amusing. I’m not sufficiently amused: Adams is wrong, but he did put his finger on one of the problems with mail voting that advocates for the process refuse to acknowledge.

There is only one way to complete a vote: the voter does something that directly registers his or her choice without any intervening agency or process. No voting procedure that permits voting with intervening agency or process is sufficiently secure and reliable. Those who advocate such systems are to be viewed with suspicion and presumptions of either bad intent or faulty reasoning.

Both Adams and Althouse seem to be laboring under the misconception that someone who accepts the responsibility of mailing someone’s vote has a choice. Such an individual is, under the law, a gratuitous bailee, meaning that they have accepted an obligation without compensation. That means that if they fail the obligation, the one whose task they defaulted on usually has no legal recourse, but it doesn’t change the ethical situation at all. The gratuitous bailee promised to do something for someone, that individual relied on their promise, and the “friend” engaged in betrayal. Continue reading →