I'm Embarrassed

We live in an age of protest. An age of outrage. Of righteous indignation.

That's not news. I've said it before, and even then it was common knowledge. But the media have no compunctions about repeating themselves when they think it's to their political advantage, or when it pleases readers, so I'll do the same.

What prompted this rant? An article from the New York Times entitled “Does Trump Embarrass You?” which is a couple of months old but just sent me by a friend. The author, Neil Gross, concludes that most Americans would answer that question affirmatively. I know I would. The President appears to be impulsive, not fully aware of the details of international politics and of his office, and self-absorbed. But he is our president.

And I am equally, or perhaps more, embarrassed by those who glory in any fault they can find in America and use it for political advantage while ignoring similar activities that don't support their cause; people who are eager to advertise whatever will embarrass America. They claim to love their country, but they display outrage when it suits their purposes. They're the professional provocateurs and their useful idiots. They tend to be a small, but very vocal, group. And though a tiny minority of all citizens, they usually greatly outnumber those they are trying to intimidate and silence. They get more press that way.

I said “silence” and that's what I meant. Those of whom I speak claim they're only exercising their right of free speech but meanwhile they silence others trying to do the same. They do it in the hallowed halls of ivy and on the streets. They're protecting all of us from the vile speech of those they oppose, while crying wolf about their own rights. That's the current fashion – mark the opposition as a band of evil tyrants while you are the protectors of American values. But they do it primarily for political and public relations purposes. It's simply an extension of negative campaigning when you have no accomplishments of your own. And those protesting rely on the belief of the public that it's heartfelt and patriotic, rather than political, vindictive, and hypocritical. (They take pride in their “humility” and want everybody to know it.)

I meant that too. It's hypocrisy. Those who protest in the name of American values and patriotism didn't see a need to protest when fellow citizens burned American flags and their draft cards before fleeing to Canada. They applauded their pardons when they returned later at a time there was no risk for their fellows, although others had died to defend their rights. I am embarrassed by those who silence others as they demand free speech for themselves. They talk of nazi-ism now while they didn't protest Skokie but applauded the Supreme Court's decision that the march of Nazis through a neighborhood of survivors was only an expression of First Amendment rights. And I'm saddened by those who decry the violence of their opponents while never acknowledging that of their supporters.

I'm appalled by their indignation over the death of one black by police, while uninterested in the assassinations of numerous police officers, black and white and I'm troubled that they are outraged by the death of one protester in Charlottesville while there were no marches to protest the murders of hundreds in Chicago and elsewhere. And while protesters bemoaned the death of one of them by automobile, I am not aware of their protests of similar incidents in France, England, Spain, and Israel, although many more were killed. Are they only concerned about problems in their own country? Do their compassion and sensitivity not extend beyond our borders?

The most recent issue concerns the complaints that President Trump visited Texas too soon after Hurricane Harvey. “It was all political.” President Bush had been faulted for visiting Louisiana too late, although there were only a few days' difference between the timing of the two trips. It suggests that the protesters are simply looking for issues, and that their outrage is selective.

Also recent – though starting before Harvey – is the expression of sensitivity over Confederate War monuments. The Civil War ended over one hundred and fifty years ago and there have been many gains since, even while the monuments stood. But suddenly we discover that any reference to the confederacy, especially statues, must be expunged because it inhibits progress. Recently (and continuing now) there has been a rash of removals of names from institutions and buildings for reasons of sensitivity to the perceived evils of those who had donated the funds necessary for the institutions' existence, and, hence, the renamings, as well as the destruction of our heritage, good or bad. It is more suggestive of “1984” or Soviet practices than a tribute to American history. And now Columbus is on their chopping block.

America has faults. It isn't perfect. But, in my opinion, it's closer to the ideal than almost any nation, now or in the past. The illegal immigrants about whom the protesters are so concerned chose to come here rather than stay in their own countries because of the United States' positive features. They demonstrated that those who are truly unhappy about where they live, and can afford to move, do so. And if they decide to stay it is to improve their country, not to prove that it is imperfect.

Yes, I am embarrassed by President Trump for whom I did not vote. But I'm more embarrassed by those who demean their country in the hope of national and international political gain. It all boils down to the acts of blindered ideologues and fanatics.

September 1, 2017

The Context Of Charlottesville

Today I sent the following letter to The Wall Street Journal. I doubt that it will be published, but it has a message that I believe to be valid.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

August 16, 2017

Dear Editor:

While I assume that the president was correct in his attribution of responsibility for the violence in Charlottesville, there is no excuse for murder, and the blame rests solely with one individual, not “both sides.” Saying what the president did was poor PR and bad politics, irrespective of the facts. But there is no moral equivalence between the speech of those who consider themselves aggrieved, and murder.

Unfortunately, however, the media view the incident without context. In fact it is part of a big picture which is threatening to trigger a second Civil War. There are daily protest marches, and vicious statements around the country by people for whom “he is not my president” – often organized and promoted in social media by ideologues whose aim is to provoke reaction and publicity. And when that reaction occurs they can express their righteous indignation. (Several CEOs, several days after the incident, resigned from government panels after seeing the polls and, presumably, deciding that it would be bad for business not to demonstrate their virtue.)

But, as Jason Reilly points out (Trump follows Obama's Example …) there have been other examples of violence which were directed against police (representatives of the government) and they did not provoke the same angry reaction and protests by those who see evil in anyone they oppose. Indeed, they drew statements from then President Obama which condemned and justified the crimes at the same time. It shouldn't have happened but it was the victims' fault and it was understandable. In his view, there may be moral equivalence between the speech of those who consider themselves aggrieved, and murder.

And when some incidents occur they blame the police for using force against unstable individuals with weapons. They minimize the threat from the sick. Such people get a pass. Surely the driver in Charlottesville was disturbed but, contrary to American ideals, even before trial he is judged guilty. No defense by him is acceptable.

We face a society seeking confrontation. Both sides. And we wring our hands when we get it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you are unaware of the incident, it began with hate-mongers of the KKK, and neo-Nazis, as well as other hate filled white supremacists, holding a rally denouncing the removal of Confederate Civil War Monuments, and those protesting the rally and its participants. An unstable young supremacist drove a car into a crowd of those opposing the rally, killing one person. There is no question about the heinous nature of his act, but the major reaction, what prompted the primary complaints, was that the denunciation of the events made by the president was insufficiently condemnatory and specific. Perhaps that is true, but the president has been under attack by the same people since his election, and it is difficult to separate this particular verbal attack from those that preceded it. The fact that an unsatisfactory statement was made by a president under attack does not justify any deficiency it may have had, but it is background that cannot be ignored.

The righteous indignation displayed by protesters might be more believable if they displayed similar concern when an individual drove a car or truck into a crowd in Paris or Jerusalem; their outrage at what the KKK has to say and the need to silence it might be better understood if they protested the words of those who defame our country; their indignation at the murder might carry more weight if they had protested the assassination of police; their anger at President Trump's “moral ambiguity” if they had condemned that of his predecessor. Selective indignation is hypocrisy. It is a political pretext which ignores context, because by doing so it can be used to sell a message.

There is no justification for murder, but there is also no justification for protests whose purpose is to incite. And for the protesters there is another message, one illustrated by “The boy who cried 'wolf.'” It tells everyone that constant meritless complaints will lead to deafness to those that are justified.

August 16. 2017

Never Amazed

I was going to note that I'll never cease to be amazed at the hypocrisy of politicians, but then I realized that for them that it was business as usual. And they have very short memories. Like the media.

The particular origin of my concern is the brouhaha around Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There seems to be grave concern about his meetings with Russians last year, and about his failure to acknowledge them during his confirmation hearings. Afterward it came out that such meetings actually occurred, although he claims that they had nothing to do with election politics.

I don't know the truth of the allegations, and they are not the subject of this essay. I'm far more interested in the reactions to it. I'm not surprised by them – more amused by their predictability.

There are demands by Democrats for his recusal from any investigation of Russian interference with the presidential election of 2016 (and he has recused himself – a wise move – under pressure both from members of the Democratic Party and from his own) and for his resignation from office. There are demands as well for a special prosecutor to determine the legality of his actions and of the situation that precipitated it since the election won't be overturned – the view that the Russians tipped it in favor of the Republicans. The truth of such assertions is irrelevant – only the publicity it can garner.

President Trump has labeled the rhetoric of the Democrats a “witch-hunt,” and blames its origin on the loss last year of Secretary Clinton. He is opposed to the very idea of a special prosecutor and he defends his Attorney General.

But it should not be forgotten that he favored a special prosecutor, and, indeed, indictment, when it was learned that Secretary Clinton had lied to Congress and to the American people about her private e-mail server and about the situation in Benghazi.

On the other hand, those demanding action against Attorney General Sessions are, by and large, those who pooh-poohed any investigation of Secretary Clinton for illegal acts. They deemed such suggestions as political. Now, when the accusations are against the other party rather than their own, the are righteously indignant at the violation of trust of public officials. They seem to have very selective memories and reactions.

And they're aided – both sides – by media that favor one party or the other, and by popular figures in other fields who have relatively little knowledge (nor interest in the realities), but strong political opinions. Responses are predictable irrespective of the facts. Publicity is “the name of the game.” Only it's not a game, and the “players” are playing for keeps.

A similar situation pertains in the actions of political figures in other controversies. Each party opposes the candidates of the other; each belittles – indeed they're “horrified” – at the actions of their opponents, never acknowledging that they did the same things when it was in their interests. When they did it it was justified. When the other party does it it's an abuse of power.

The same applies to legislation. Compromise is impossible because whatever the other party proposes – even if it's a carbon copy (remember carbon paper?) of what they demanded before – is contrary to common sense and to American values. “The loyal opposition” doesn't exist. Hypocrisy and obstruction are more important political tools than truth and progress. There's nothing new in the recognition that those involved in the political process prefer to “spin” rather than act directly to advance our agenda. There are very few “good guys” any more. “Winning is the only thing.” Hence all the negative political ads and statements, and their publications in the media.

So what's new? Everyone's in it for himself (or herself) and there's no tool like decrying the actions of others irrespective of what they are. And a short memory helps in that regard. If you don't love it, ignore it. Change is unlikely.

Nobility

In 1895, Alfred Nobel's will provided for the annual presentation of five prizes for signal achievements in specific fields. Nobel was a scientist, and the majority of the prizes were in scientific fields – Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology and Medicine. A fourth was to be given for literature.

There was also a fifth prize which was awarded in Norway rather than Nobel's home country of Sweden where the others were presented. Whether in Sweden or Norway, however, the ceremony is held in the presence of the King. These are noble prizes and merit the honorable supervision of nobility. Why he decided on the second venue is uncertain, but the prizes awarded by the Norwegian committee are usually the most prominent, and they have certainly caused the most controversy that the award has received. (A sixth prize, in Economic Sciences, was added in 1968 but it was funded by a Swedish bank and, although awarded at the same time and equated with them, it is not actually a “Nobel Prize.”) Although there is disagreement over the relative merits of their accomplishments, there is rarely any question about the worthiness of the ultimate winner of an award in one of the scientific fields. And while the literature prize recipients may be more subjectively chosen, the laureates are almost invariably meritorious and well chosen (although James Joyce was passed over for an award).

Would that the same could be said of the Peace Prize. There has been much criticism of the committee choosing the winners, as well as extensive second guessing of some of the recipients. In part this probably results from the public being better able to understand the issues involved than it might be in regard to, for example, physics. But the level of consternation that some of the awards have engendered reflects the fact that personal biases and politics have played a significant role in some of the choices. The awarding of a Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat is enough to make one wonder what the aim of the committee was, and honoring Henry Kissinger, for ending a war that was still going on, was, at best, premature. Many, however, considered it a mockery. Tom Lehrer, who wrote satirical songs in the latter half of the twentieth century, is reported to have said “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger 'was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.'”

Another questionable award took place in 2009 when the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to a President who had been in office for less than a year. It was for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” During his term, in the quest for peace as he sees it, he has angered our friends, lost the respect of our enemies, and diminished our nation's prestige. And in his entire term the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize he has not brought our nation a single day when we were not at war. The award was a victory of political bias over reality and common sense. It didn't reflect any accomplishments because there were none. It was merely a slap at the President's predecessor. Skoal.

I raise these points now because of the death last week of Elie Wiesel, 1986 winner of the award. [This essay is being written on July 7^th, 2016.] Notwithstanding the slanders of pro-Palestinians, Wiesel was one of the first to speak out about the horrors of the Holocaust, and one of the most vocal advocates of action to deal with other atrocities in whatever countries they occurred.

In his presentation speech, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, spoke of the terrible period of the Nazi crimes which Wiesel and millions of others had endured, and then said

… The duty and responsibility which Elie Wiesel preaches are not primarily concerned with the fear of the terrors of the past repeating themselves. It is much more an engagement directed at preventing the possible victory of evil forces in the future. The creative force in this process is not hate and revenge, but rather a longing for freedom, a love of life and a respect for human dignity. Or as Elie Wiesel has said himself: "I will conquer our murderers by attempting to reconstruct what they destroyed." … It is in recognition of this particular human spirit's victory over the powers of death and degradation, and as a support to the rebellion of good against the evil in the world, that the Norwegian Nobel Committee today presents the Nobel Peace Prize to Elie Wiesel. We do this on behalf of millions — from all peoples and races. We do it in deep reverence for the memory of the dead, but also with the deep felt hope that the prize will be a small contribution which will forward the cause which is the greatest of all humanity's concerns — the cause of peace.

And in his acceptance speech Wiesel said

… Words of gratitude. First to our common Creator. This is what the Jewish tradition commands us to do. At special occasions, one is duty-bound to recite the following prayer: "Barukh … shehekhyanu vekiymanu vehigianu lazman hazeh" — "Blessed be Thou for having sustained us until this day." … Do I have the right to represent the multitudes who have perished? Do I have the right to accept this great honor on their behalf? I do not. No one may speak for the dead, no one may interpret their mutilated dreams and visions. And yet, I sense their presence. I always do — and at this moment more than ever. The presence of my parents, that of my little sister. The presence of my teachers, my friends, my companions … This honor belongs to all the survivors and their children and, through us to the Jewish people with whose destiny I have always identified. … [Having suffered myself] I swore never to be silent whenever [and] wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. … Our lives no longer belong to us alone; they belong to all those who need us desperately.

This time they got it right.

An Unfit Candidate

According to the Washington Post, Secretary Clinton has concluded that

Trump is ‘dangerously incoherent,’ [and] ‘temperamentally unfit’ to be president.

I agree. But he's not the only one who's unfit.

In a statement dated July 5, 2016, James Comey, the head of the FBI, though recommended that no charges be filed against her because “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” But, said Mr. Comey, “We are pleased … that no further action is required. … We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

As the Secretary would put it, let's put this behind us and move on. (Mr. Trump doesn't agree with Mr. Comey however. Citing the actions taken against General David Petraeus – the filing of criminal charges – for mishandling classified information, he concluded that “the system is rigged.”)

Lack of criminal intent is a very low bar to exoneration. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for criminal behavior, the conduct of “participants who know, or should know,” but who lack criminal intent, should be viewed with even greater concern. And when the perpetrator who takes such an action is a public official and by doing so places at risk “seven email chains concern[ing] matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level,” our country is placed at risk. And lying about it – covering up – compounds the crime.

In its lead editorial today, the Wall Street Journal notes that

Mrs. Clinton claimed that her email was stored in a safe and secure manner, and not hacked. Mr. Comey said “hostile actors” had accessed the private account[s] of “people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.” Her personal email was known about and “readily apparent.” ... it is possible that hostile actors gained access gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

It would be prudent to determine if the Secretary would have any security clearance were she anyone else. I suspect it would be denied her. And her “careless” behavior places us all at risk.

The Secretary has urged that we “move on” from the discussion of her email activities, and from the lack of action that her State Department took during the difficulties in Benghazi. We should “put them behind us” although they relate specifically to her job performance as a member of the cabinet. They are recent events.

At the same time she raises issues about the actions of Mr. Trump, a private citizen rather than a government official, in the last century – twenty or thirty years ago. We mustn't put that behind us or move on from there. It is relevant and makes him unfit for public office. Perhaps it does. Certainly when considered along with his subsequent performance it seems that his presidency would be an unhappy experience for our country. But the Secretary has already demonstrated that her service as Commander-In-Chief would put us all at risk.

All that is left is prayer that delegates to the conventions rethink their commitments and offer to the American people candidates who can be trusted to govern us sanely and safely.

Johnson and Weld might be able to fill the bill, but in this real and dangerous world they're not going to win.

Sharing And Caring

According to the Washington Post a few weeks ago (August 1, 2014), “The United Nations slammed Israel for possibly committing war crimes in its fight against Hamas – and then backed that accusation by suggesting the Jewish nation ought to be sharing its Iron Dome defensive technology with the very terror group it's fighting. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said to members of the media at an 'emergency' meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council that Israel was falling short in its duty to protect citizens in the Gaza Strip from getting killed by its [sic] rockets.”

Without specifying who might be responsible of individual acts, Commissioner Pillay suggested that the deaths of Palestinian civilians might represent war crimes. Crimes, of course, attributable to Israel.

Not surprisingly there were howls of rage from around the world, and a lot of laughing, too. The idea that one side in a war should share its weapons or defense systems with its enemy seemed to be parody rather than reality. But with time to consider the implications of the idea and its justification, it becomes clear that the accusation by Commissioner Pillay is both logical and rational. Indeed, it is so obvious that one is hard put to understand why it has taken this long for it to be expounded. The problem, however, is that with Jewish control of the media there will never be a fair hearing given to the Islamic perspective. And since there are far more Muslims in the world than Jews it makes sense to understand that perspective. For it is much more in line with International law than the rationalizations given by an outlaw state that was admitted to the U.N. in a moment of weakness.

Let's review the law. Islamic and Jewish law apply. International law, in accordance with Sharia, recognizes all lands ever occupied by Muslims as Islamic – whether or not there are Muslims there at present. (It is axiomatic that Islamic presence, however it was achieved and in whatever numbers, qualifies a country as Islamic.) And there is a mandate to wipe out the Jews. As the Koran says, "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” (Note that it is “the Jews” who are to be eliminated, not the Israelis. It's a worthy goal, but at the moment the primary enemy for us all is Israel.) If Muslim civilians die during the hostilities they are martyrs, even if they are being used unwillingly by honorable jihadists as cover for military actions.

Jewish law, however, forbids killing. It's one of the Ten Commandments. Perhaps the killing of soldiers during a war is understandable, though not forgivable, but the murder of civilians, or their death resulting from the hostilities, cannot be justified no matter what rationalizations the Jews make. Civilians must be protected at all times. So the deaths of those not in uniform when photographed by Hamas photographers or properly screened colleagues constitute war crimes. Commissioner Pillay was right.

How can such a situation be addressed? It's unlikely that the outlaw nation will stop responding to missiles launched against their people from Gaza, even if the death of civilians is inevitable. But the deaths of Palestinian non-combatants can be limited if the Iron Dome system is used to protect them from misdirected Hamas rockets (the fire from Israeli planes is not the type for which the system is designed, but the poorly designed and inaccurate Hamas missiles intended to kill Israeli civilians sometimes fall in Gaza and kill Muslims). That must be the meaning of “its rockets,” the terminology in the original statement. When Israel, which has Muslim citizens (making it an Islamic state subject to Sharia), does not protect Gazans from Hamas rockets it is committing a war crime. Indeed, defending itself at all is repugnant.

The U.N. and the world are right in condemning Israel for its actions. Their advantage over the Muslims is unfair and fully deserving of our censure. As long as they exist they are obligated to ensuring the safety of those they battle.

Better Things For Better Living

                                                                                  

Mark Rothko committed suicide.ⁱ So did Diane Arbus, Gorky, van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf. And George Sands was insane, along with Nietzsche, Nijinsky and, perhaps, Leo Tolstoi. Yet all were great artists. According to Plato, in Phaedrus, a “divine madness” is responsible for the productions of great artists.

Allen Ginsberg took hallucinogens. His “divine madness” was augmented by LSD. And other great artists have also taken drugs.ⁱⁱ Keith Haring, for example, and Cary Grant, Ronnie Gilbert and Aldous Huxley. If their art was thus improved, were they guilty of taking “performance-enhancement” medications? And if they took those medications, is their art in any way less valuable and enduring?

“Performance-enhancement” in sports is perceived as one of the great evils of our times. Most newsworthy nowadays is Lance Armstrong, who lost both medals and endorsements because of the scandal, but overall such behavior is best exemplified by Barry Bonds who, it is alleged, took steroids to build up his body and, with it, his home run production. He “cheated.”ⁱⁱⁱ For this he was condemned by Congress, team owners and other baseball officials. But, using an expression from another sport, perhaps we've jumped the gun. Perhaps our society is of two minds about such drugs and “cheating.”^iv

When preparing for the SAT's, numerous students take courses to improve their scores. Isn't that the academic equivalent of taking performance-enhancement drugs? Countless Hollywood stars undergo cosmetic surgery to help their careers. They, too, are enhancing their performance artificially. They, too, are “cheating.”

If a team prays together before a game, or a public figure smokes a cigarette to relax before an appearance, is that unjustified performance-enhancement?^v If, before a battle, an officer “psyches up” his forces, is he doing something wrong? If we have a drink or two at a cocktail party to help ourselves produce small talk and immunize us to that of others, have we broken some kind of social convention?

And when candidates prepare for a debate – when they practice their “spontaneous” responses to questions they expect, or to anticipated comments by their opponents – is that any different? But there I go again.

As a society, we're not sure. Milli Vanilli was drummed out of the entertainment industry for lip-syncing its own songs^vi while Deborah Kerr, Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood and Marilyn Monroe, among others, were praised for their wonderful performances even though Marni Nixon dubbed “their” musical numbers. And there is no question about Sid Caesar's comedic genius. We don't fault him for mouthing jokes by Mel Brooks, Woody Allen and others.

We live at a time when team owners offer huge salaries for stars who bring fans to the stadium. Records help to bring out the fans, and that's what's really important,^vii so whatever accomplishes that goal is justified. If steroids achieve it, owners will look the other way irrespective of long-term deleterious effects of the drugs. As long as it doesn't become public.

In the history of baseball for example, the ball itself was made more “bouncy” so as to go farther, designated hitters have been used to increase run production, and baseball stadiums have been designed to match the strengths of hitters, while players are chosen who will do well in a particular setting. That's the sport's way of improving performance, excitement, and attendance. Everybody does it.

Of course, “everybody does it” is not justification for doing wrong. But if, in fact, everybody does it, perhaps we should look again and reevaluate whether “it” really is wrong. Cosmetic surgery will not make a bad actress a good one, nor will steroids turn an average baseball player into a superstar.

Certainly those who perform exceptionally are exceptional, though artificial aids may enhance their glitter. When a superstar tries to improve his image to get more of the money that owners are throwing around, it is understandable. But we don't want our children to see our hypocrisy, so we castigate publicly what we simultaneously encourage. Perjury by anyone, including our heroes (in this case falsely denying the use of drugs – before Congress or the courts) is never permissible. We expect honesty of our superheroes, and justifiably so. But if one is faced with the possibility of losing his market value though, because society is looking for a scapegoat, falsification is understandable, even if inexcusable.

So is “performance-enhancement” acceptable? Maybe yes, maybe no. The answer isn't quite as obvious as we'd like to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

Next episode:  "Paying The Bills" -- Avoidable.

 

 

i      Look it up. The examples that follow, as well. I'm too tired to document all this.

ii     We can't sanction “immoral” behavior so we ignore it and focus on the results. At least most of the time. We sometimes reject the results of immorality and unethical behavior. It's high-minded, even if it's sometimes foolish. Indeed, it may be immoral to ignore the results of medical research performed unethically, when the use of those results would help people, although some consider that the “right” thing to do. But that's a subject for another time.

iii    Breaking the rules by sports figures is not permitted because it's so public. Gambling may be an important fund-raiser for casinos and governments but, as Pete Rose discovered, it's forbidden for athletes.

iv     Many of them, having “done” marijuana or other drugs in the past, sound silly criticizing the athletes, especially if the critics' children are aware of their past (or, perhaps, ongoing) behavior.

v      It's certainly bad for his health, but it may calm him down.

vi    Actually they were scorned because they were caught and their actions publicized, embarrassing everyone else.

vii   Money makes the world go 'round.