Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 71

Thread: 2017 and the End of Ethics

  1. #1
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070

    2017 and the End of Ethics

    2017 and the End of Ethics

    DECEMBER 24, 2013 4:00 AM
    2017 and the End of Ethics

    Will the Obama-era hypocrisy continue when the next president takes office?

    By Victor Davis Hanson

    Will there be a scandal if the new political appointees at the IRS sic their auditors on Moveon.org? What will the Washington Post say should the new president keep Guantanamo Bay open for five more years, quadruple the number of drone missions, or decide to double renditions? Will it say that he was shredding the Constitution, or that he found the terror threat too great to honor past promises?

    Will NPR run an exposé on our next president should she tap into Angela Merkel’s cell phone, or monitor the communications of Associated Press reporters — and their parents? Will investigative reporters go after the president should he falsely claim that an ambassador and three other U.S. personnel died in the Middle East during a video-sparked spontaneous riot? Or if he then jails the filmmaker for a year on a trumped-up parole-violation charge?

    In other words, because for the past five years the members of the Washington press corps have abdicated their traditional adversarial role as watchdogs of the executive branch, can we still have watchdogs at all in 2017? If the next president falsely swears that his new health-care program will not affect citizens’ current coverage, what consequences could possibly follow? If the New York Times went after such perfidy in 2017, would the new president just say, “Where were you when Obama did it?”

    If a conservative should be elected, and his Justice Department decided not to enforce federal gun laws in certain cities, would not the president say to his critics, “You were happy to ignore the flouting of federal immigration law in sanctuary cities, so why not exempt gun control too?”

    Or if the new attorney general were Asian, and called his fellow Americans “cowards” over their inability to address past discrimination, or referred to Chinese- or Japanese-Americans as “my people,” how could African-American activists or any other group possibly object?

    If, in 2017, we begin another five years of 7-plus percent unemployment, will the media call it a “jobless recovery” — as they have not since 2009, but most surely did in 2004 when George W. Bush ran for reelection with a jobless rate of a little over 5 percent?

    What will court watchers do should the next president weigh in on pending trial cases — claiming, for example, that the son he never had would have resembled a murdered young man, or arguing that the police acted stupidly when they arrested a favorite of the president’s?

    If our next president says there is a red line, ignores infractions of it, and then says he never said it, will the press go after her as it went after George W. Bush in 2003 when the promised stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction did not turn up in Iraq? If a debate moderator interrupts our next president’s reelection debate to incorrectly point out that his challenger is wrong about the facts, will we chastise her as unprofessional and ban her from further debates?

    If a conservative president is elected, will the media object should he editorialize about personal success and wealth — suggesting that novice entrepreneurs should build their own businesses without federal help, reminding the struggling that they have not yet reached a point where they have made enough money, chiding some that we need to create wealth, not spread others’, or advising us that it is always the time to profit? Would the press object that the president’s serial and unsolicited sermonizing was proving a bit much? Or would he have to accuse doctors of lopping off limbs and ripping out tonsils for profit to win rebuke?

    Will NBC object if our next president plays 150 rounds of golf in his first five years in office? Would it seem at all excessive to ABC if our next chief executive were declared a “god” by colleagues in the press corps, or if the president promised to lower the level of the seas and cool the planet?

    In 2017, if the next president attempts to freeze new drilling on federal lands, only to brag that more oil and gas have been produced (on private land) during her tenure than ever before, how would CBS respond to such disingenuousness?

    For that matter, in 2017 will novels again be written about killing the president, and prizes once more be awarded for docudramas about his assassination — and will he be called a “Nazi” and “Brown Shirt” by his political opponents, as President Bush was?

    During the next presidency, will the filibuster still be bad, or will it suddenly be good again? Will there be a nuclear option again? Recess appointments? Executive orders? Signing statements? Votes against extending the debt ceiling? Are these again to be excesses, or is it a case of “It depends”?

    What will the media do if the next president hires lobbyists, ignores the revolving door, or wins record donations from Goldman Sachs — while promising to run the most transparent administration in history? Will minority activists hound the next president should their constituents’ employment rate and income nosedive? Or is the answer to be, “It depends on the president’s race”?

    If in 2017 the chief executive urges his supporters to “punish our enemies,” what will be the media reaction?

    Will the Los Angeles Times object should the next president borrow $6 trillion in his first term? If we have four more years of zero interest, will that policy be deemed reckless and inflationary?

    The predictable answer, of course, to all these questions is, again, “It depends.” If a liberal like Hillary Clinton wins, then the same exemptions will almost surely continue, even in the absence of the race card. But if a conservative should be elected, then the old hypocrisy will reappear and we will be treated to the damnation of a Christie, Paul, Rubio, or Cruz as “the worst president ever” or an “amiable dunce” or one of the other sorts of boilerplate disparagement accorded Reagan and the two Bushes.

    Yet, I am not so sure that it will be quite that simple for a decade or so. We have become inured to the press as an adjunct Ministry of Truth and to the notion that the president feels that he can do whatever he wishes without much worry over public audit. Such obsequiousness and exemption are now institutionalized, just as, after the divine Emperor Augustus, there was little accountability for the emperors or free speech allowed in criticizing them. So we are entering a new period in presidential history, and it may be difficult to go back to the status quo ante 2009, when reporters were not state megaphones and the president paid a price for not telling the truth.

    More likely, the members of the national press corps do not even now quite get it that they have been completely discredited. Whether they toady up to a liberal president or revert to standard criticism of a conservative, I doubt anyone will much care any more. If the next scandal is an open-mike slip to Putin, a linguistic flub like “corpse-man” for a Navy corpsman, a barefaced lie like swearing the president never spoke to his own disreputable uncle, or a complete distortion such as bragging of the energy production that she sought to stifle, the media will face a novel situation: If they object, then the public will wonder, “But why now all of a sudden?” If they keep silent, the public will shrug, “Oh, more of the same.”

    Nor have we fully appreciated that a president who has supposedly taught constitutional law has done more to damage the Constitution than did Richard Nixon — and, so far, without consequences of any sort. The next president in theory can tap the communications of his opponents, pick and choose which laws are to be enforced and which are mere suggestions, and use federal agencies to monitor the politically suspect. He can go to, ignore, undermine, or praise the U.N. as he sees fit. He can bypass Congress to bomb a foreign country, and give pressure groups amnesty from any federal law he chooses. If the next president’s chief adviser claims that liberal Democrats are analogous to the mass-murdering Jonestown cult, would it really matter?

    So we are living in scary times. The nation has grown used to the idea that what the president says is probably either untrue or irrelevant — and yet it does not really any more care which.

    The people also assume that it doesn’t matter if our pundits talk of the person in the White House as a “messiah” who prompts tingling legs, or if they take notice of perfect pant-leg creases, or, of course, if they declare that he is the smartest president ever.

    The result, in the Age of Obama, is a deeply rooted cynicism that works out something like the following: The president of the United States is now an iconic figure and thus cannot be held to the minimal standards of veracity demanded of other Americans. The press is an advocate of his agenda and picks and chooses which scandals can be half-heartedly pursued without endangering their shared vision.

    How could the media possibly repair its sullied reputation without appearing abjectly hypocritical or artificially zealous? How can the next president resist assuming the extra-constitutional prerogatives of the current one?

    We have three years before January 2017. If we are to have any credible press left at all, it has just 36 months to rediscover its ethics and professionalism — or more or less forfeit its integrity for a generation. The president too must either start respecting the Constitution or expect that his successors will follow in his footsteps in pressing their agendas by any means necessary — while always citing the Obama example. Will the next president simply drop the employer-mandate portion of Obamacare? And if he did, would the media point out that he was not faithfully executing the laws that had been enacted?

    Because we are now right in the middle of this conundrum, Americans often fail to appreciate how low we’ve sunk — and how little time our president and press have to restore the institutions that they have so undermined for such paltry political advantage.

    — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,270
    NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.
    Sarcasm much?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,270
    It seemed more polite than just saying "check source."

  5. #5
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Somebody who actually examines the democrat party rather than reprint their press releases?
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  6. #6
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    There is a woman. Her name is Meriam Ibrahim. In roughly 1 months time she will be taken from the cell where she and her 2 year old son are currently shackled. She will be permitted to give birth to the child she currently carries then will receive one hundred lashes before being beheaded. Her crime is that she refused to convert from Christianity to Islam. She is married to an American citizen and so is entitled to citizenship herself. Her two year old son and her unborn child are both American citizens.

    Apart from 'right wing crazies' sites you will most likely not see this reported in the United States. You will continue to see photos of Michelle Obama holding up signs saying @bringbackourgirls.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Pari, I think that applying for citizenship must be done in person. She ever applied for one? Was it granted?

    Is her born son really a US citizen? Moreover, how can you give a citizenship to an unborn?

    Short of sending SOF guys to extract her from Sudan, I can't see what US Administration can do overtly, but some noise.

    Media angle is not surprising me at all.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  8. #8
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Pari, I think that applying for citizenship must be done in person. She ever applied for one? Was it granted?
    yes and 'in progress', she is automatically entitled but US immigration has failed in three years so far to complete the paperwork.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Is her born son really a US citizen? Moreover, how can you give a citizenship to an unborn?
    yes and when born the child will be a US citizen
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  9. #9
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Pari, I think that applying for citizenship must be done in person. She ever applied for one? Was it granted?

    Is her born son really a US citizen? Moreover, how can you give a citizenship to an unborn?
    All children born to an American citizen, or legitimized at birth as having an American father (no war bastards) are American citizens.

  10. #10
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Dec 13
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    All children born to an American citizen, or legitimized at birth as having an American father (no war bastards) are American citizens.
    What about kids born to non-American parents on American soil? Either on American soil officially (on Visa, etc.), or unofficially (illegals)?

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by sated buddha View Post
    What about kids born to non-American parents on American soil? Either on American soil officially (on Visa, etc.), or unofficially (illegals)?
    How lazy are you on Saturdays?

    Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    All children born to an American citizen, or legitimized at birth as having an American father (no war bastards) are American citizens.
    Doesn't sound like something that is done automatically, but I am sure you are right.

    If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
    the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[8] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
    at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.[9]
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  13. #13
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Dec 13
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Thanks.

  14. #14
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    There is a woman. Her name is Meriam Ibrahim. In roughly 1 months time she will be taken from the cell where she and her 2 year old son are currently shackled. She will be permitted to give birth to the child she currently carries then will receive one hundred lashes before being beheaded. Her crime is that she refused to convert from Christianity to Islam. She is married to an American citizen and so is entitled to citizenship herself. Her two year old son and her unborn child are both American citizens.

    Apart from 'right wing crazies' sites you will most likely not see this reported in the United States. You will continue to see photos of Michelle Obama holding up signs saying @bringbackourgirls.
    No she is not automatically entitled to US citizenship. She can apply to emigrate on a marriage visa. That does not give her citizenship, that gets her a "green card".

    The children may, or may not be US Citizens. The father is a naturalized citizen. Acquired citizenship in 2005. Travels back and forth to Sudan. For the child to have "Birthright citizenship, the father must have been physically present for 5 years in the US. His time in Sudan does not count. Also The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

    It sounds like he did not previously register the marriage, nor the birth of his first son with the US Embassy. Now they want proof.

    This from the Dailymail
    Mr Wani said that when he appealed to the State Department for help in freeing his condemned wife and child from prison, he was asked to provide DNA evidence proving that the toddler was his biological son.

    ‘I will have to take a DNA sample in Khartoum, then send it to the USA for testing,’ Wani told the news site Morning Star News. ‘I have provided wedding documents and the baby’s birth certificate, and doors were closed on his face.
    As for not seeing this reported on anything but "right wing crazy sites", I read about it on CNN.

    U.S. to Sudan: release Christian woman – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

    It was also reported at CBS

    Senators try to save pregnant woman sentenced to death in Sudan - CBS News

    And on the TV news ABC.CBS,NBC,CNN, MSNBC. Yep all the right wing crazy places
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  15. #15
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Doesn't sound like something that is done automatically, but I am sure you are right.
    And if you actually google Meriam Ibrahim you will see her husband, the father, fits all the criteria. As do the children. As does Miriam.

    The only criteria they don't fit is the democrat narrative, therefor the story remains untold within the US, the point of the original OP and this particular example.
    I have plenty more, would you like a list?
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ethics of Teaching One's Son to Love Pro Football
    By JAD_333 in forum Sports Bar
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 20 Jan 14,, 19:41
  2. The concept and ethics of modern warfare.
    By AdityaMookerjee in forum Warfare in the Modern Age
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29 Nov 11,, 06:22
  3. Rangel refuses to step aside after ethics slap
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04 Mar 10,, 20:51
  4. For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Feb 08,, 05:31
  5. Which philosophers most closely mirror your ethics?
    By Gio in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 16 Oct 04,, 16:19

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •