Saturday Ethics Freakout, 6/20/2020: Fake News, Resignations, Topplings And Cancellations…But Also Hope

I know just how you feel, Homer.

1. Mainstream media journalism, 2020. I thank Tim Levier for this classic, from NBC News:

Fake news. First, the Court did NOT rule that Trump cannot end DACA. The opinion by Chief Justice Roberts said explicitly that he can. Second, “Dreamers”  were not legal immigrants so they cannot magically become legal immigrants. At best, they will be illegal immigrants who have been given a pass for their violation.  The tweet is deceptive, misleading, and incompetent.

2. Cancellations, Resignations and Topplings Update! The current list of entertainment celebrities and politicians who have been documented as wearing blackface for one reason or another is long, and if one falls to the mob, the rest might start feeling awfully nervous.

The list includes Justin Trudeau, Ralph Northam, Howard Stern, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Joy Behar, Sarah Silverman, Ted Danson, Gigi Hadid, Julianne Hough and Billy Crystal.  Right now rumors are swirling around the irredeemable Jimmy Kimmel, who has suddenly announced a hiatus, with many speculating that he is holding on to his job by a thread…and if he goes, the innocuous Fallon may be next. Though Stern, Kimmel and Behar are blights on the culture whose professional demise I would cheer, long past blackface dabbling should not be used to punish any of these people now….except perhaps the Virginia Governor.  Northam is a special case, because his party is wildly hypocritical to allow him to escape accountability when it is cheering on the mobs. However, again, a law school costume has no relevance to the Governor today.

As for Trudeau–I don’t care.

3. Cancellations, Resignations and Topplings Update, Literary Division. At the Poetry Foundation earlier this month,  leadership was forced to resign because its official grovel to Black Lives Matter and the George Floyd mob was deemed not abject enough. The Foundation had issued a brief, four-sentence statement on June 3, expressing “solidarity with the Black community” and declaring faith in “the strength and power of poetry to uplift in times of despair.” This prompted a critical uproar from the progressive poets, with another letter from members calling the statement “worse than the bare minimum” and an insult to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and other African-American victims of police violence. The foundation’s president and board chairman then quit, because, I suppose, poets are lovers, not fighters.

“As poets, we recognize a piece of writing that meets the urgency of its time with the appropriate fire when we see it — and this is not it,” the letter said. “Given the stakes, which equate to no less than genocide against Black people, the watery vagaries of this statement are, ultimately, a violence.”

Genocide! Talk about poetic license.

4. Cancellations, Resignations and Topplings , Maoists at Work.  In San Francisco, rioters and activists went on a cultural bulldozing orgy last night, defacing and toppling  monuments to Union general and former President Ulysses S. Grant, the Catholic saint Junipero Serra, “Don Quixote”  author Miguel de Cervantes, and “Star Spangled Banner” author Francis Scott Key.

The attack on Grant’s honor shows that the anti-American motives of this mob has little to do with civil rights, or history, or logic. Grant defeated the Confederacy, which has supposedly been the boogie man justifying most of the statue toppling until recently. Ron Chernow, author of the recent biography “Grant,” has explained that Grant “was the single most important figure behind the Reconstruction process in the South and presided over the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote, and landmark civil rights legislation outlawing discrimination in public accommodation. The imperishable story of Grant’s presidency was his campaign to crush the Ku Klux Klan, which tried to overturn the Civil War’s outcome and restore the prior status quo.”

My son is named after Grant, incidentally.

5. Cancellations, Resignations and Topplings, continued…Not quite as Maoist, but close—perhaps more Soviet-style?—was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who ordered the portraits of four previous House Speakers removed from the U.S. Capitol Building . The justification is that all four men later joined the Confederacy. The four are Robert Hunter of Virginia, who served as speaker from 1839 to 1841, Howell Cobb of Georgia (1849 to 1851), James Orr of South Carolina (1857 to 1859), and Charles Crisp of Georgia (1891 to 1895).

All were Democrats. Pelosi’s statement was characteristically fatuous:

“This Juneteenth must be a day of reflection that moves our nation to finally confront and combat its long and shameful history of systemic racial injustice targeted at communities of color. That is why, this week, I have ordered the removal of portraits of Confederate leaders from the U.S. Capitol and, earlier this month, renewed my call for the removal of statues of Confederate soldiers and officials displayed in this hallowed space. The halls of Congress are the heart of our democracy and should reflect our highest ideals, not memorialize men who embody racism, bigotry and hatred.”

No, the Capital represents the entire history of the United States and Congress, in all its complexities, and must not have large chunks hidden from the public because censors like Pelosi fear facts. And I vow to defend her statue, when a future movement tries to topple statues and monuments of toxic assholes in our history.

The U.S.’s tenth President, John Tyler, joined the Confederate Cabinet. I’m waiting for Disney to announce that his audio-animatron is being banished from the Hall of Presidents.

6. I saw this one coming! As soon as I read the book review of “Cult of Glory,
The Bold and Brutal History of the Texas Rangers” by Doug J. Swanson, I thought, “Uh-oh. How long before the mob demands that MLB’s Texas Rangers changes its name?”

It didn’t take long.

The book apparently documents how, contrary to myth, legend, and the Lone Ranger, in the course of their nearly 200-year history “Rangers burned peasant villages, slaughtered innocents, busted unions and committed war crimes. …They were as feared on the United States-Mexico border as the Ku Klux Klan was in the Deep South. They hunted runaway slaves for bounty, and violated international laws with impunity. They sometimes moved through Texas towns like a rampaging gang of thugs.”

So far, the MLB Rangers are refusing to cave.

7. And yet, there is hope! Apparently even the Washington Post’s progressive readership recognized how unethical the paper’s decision was to make a satirical Halloween costume at a private party two years ago “news” to shame its wearer (and the Post’s own editorial cartoonist), and enable the vendetta of two obsessed social justice warriors “of color.”  (The EA post is here.)

John Sexton of Hot Air summed up the response so I didn’t have to read more of the Post than would be good for me. “The comments section is overwhelmingly full of people who think the article was a mistake,” he writes. Among his highlighted responses:

  • “An appropriate Post followup to this personal attack might be an apology on page 1, above the fold, in the Washington Post print edition together with a job offer at a salary 10% or so above that of the job the article cost her.”
  • “A manufactured witchhunt on stale news. Free pub!”
  • “Black Lives Matter … Blackface a party two years ago with an explanation of the character does not matter.”
  • “What a terrible thing to do to a private person, for no discernible reason. Awful lapse in judgment by the Post.”
  • “I have to admit, the more I let this article sink in, the more disgusted I become with it. My comments were fairly mellow at first in the sense of ‘people make mistakes…move on’. Now, I’m really actually very angry at these two women and the WaPo for publishing this as news as opposed to a gossip column. Dear Editors of the WaPo, please print an apology or retraction. This is TERRIBLE journalism.”
  • “To have some random woman dragged in your pages over a 2-year old insensitive action at a party, then lose her job (so casually mentioned in the article) is not the mission of this, or any, news organization. Examine not only the last step in this path (the publishing), but also all the previous steps that led to so many people at your company thinking this was a good idea.”
  • “I am black. This article is cruel. A big mistake. I don’t care if some private person made an ill attempt at satire by wearing black face to a Halloween party. This was a private incident between private people who have little to no power. Shame on the Washington Post for publishing this.”
  • “If the point of the story is too demonstrate insufferable self righteousness, it was a success.”
  • “Wow – have read probably hundreds of comments here and don’t ever remember seeing them as one-sided as this. Deservedly so.”
  • “Blackface is bad, yet somehow this article is worse.”
  • “Seeing the Post publish this ridiculous article is like watching someone you respected and admired stumble out of a door naked and drunk, to then defecate in the street.”

And so on.

I’d love to know why the author of the last comment admired and respected the Post after its performance over the past, oh, decade.

19 thoughts on “Saturday Ethics Freakout, 6/20/2020: Fake News, Resignations, Topplings And Cancellations…But Also Hope

  1. On 7
    The reason the last commenter loved and respected the Post was because he or she never considered how the such stories might one day be used against them. For that person it was a reckoning that his or her past behavior could one day be in the Post as a result of another SJW.

  2. There are a few significant statues of William T. Sherman here and there. Apparently, they haven’t attracted attention yet, but it can’t be far off.

    By modern standards, he would be a war criminal for his acts against civilians during the war, and a genocidal monster for his later campaigns against indigenous peoples. Worse, to our PETA friends, was his work in killing off most of the buffalo.

  3. Apparently a lot of people don’t know their presidents or their Civil War history. The man on the statue in Richmond is Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and General-in-Chief of all the Confederate Armies. The man in the San Francisco Park, although likewise bearded and in the uniform of the time, is his polar opposite. Born Hiram Ulysses Grant in Ohio, he adopted the name Ulysses Simpson Grant when he was admitted to West Point to avoid the embarrassing initials H.U.G. Graduating 21st of 39, he never planned to be a career officer.

    During the Mexican-American War, where he was “an untidy young captain” as opposed to Lee being pronounced “the very finest soldier I ever saw in the field” by General Winfield Scott, and which he opposed as a land grab, he discovered he was actually a skilled officer, and began to change his mind about what he would do for a career. However, he left the army in 1854 after he was found drunk on duty and offered the choice of resigning or being court-martialed.

    For the next seven years, Grant struggled between farming, real estate trading, and a few other things, none of which he was very good at. At one point he pawned his gold watch to buy his family Christmas gifts. He did not vote for the first Republican candidate for the presidency, John Fremont, because he could see this would probably lead to the country splitting in two. He did during this period acquire a slave named William Jones from his father-in-law. However, he found he didn’t have it in him to force him to work, and manumitted him before a year had passed. As the election of 1860 approached, he found himself becoming increasingly opposed to slavery.

    Grant was a civilian when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, and initially Lincoln’s top military officer, George McClellan, turned down his request to be recommissioned. However, before the month was out, the governor of Illinois made him his military aide and a colonel, tasked with mustering in the Illinois militia. By August, old General Fremont, who he hadn’t voted for, made him a general himself and a district commander. That November he won the first major Union victory of the war at Fort Donelson. The following April his victory in the bloody Battle of Shiloh (for which he was roundly called a butcher and accused of drunkenness again) killed Confederate hopes of conquering the Mississippi Valley. That November he assumed command of the Army of the Tennessee, and ordered freed slaves to be incorporated into the ranks.

    You probably know or should know the rest: the taking of Vicksburg, the brief reverse at Chickamauga, the taking of Chattanooga, his naming to supreme command (btw, before this, only Washington had held the three-star rank), and the slow, methodical advance into the South on five fronts. It took a year and was not without some reverses and mistakes, but ultimately he forced the Army of Northern Virginia under Robert E. Lee to withdraw from the Confederate capital at Richmond and flee west. On April 9, 1865, Lee tried to break through the Union cavalry screen, but was forced to abort the attack when he topped a ridge and saw two untouched full corps of Union infantry. He had no choice but to surrender.

    Grant was actually heartbroken to receive the surrender of a man he had served with, even though he considered the Southern cause one of the worst ever fought for. He granted generous surrender terms, including letting the officers keep their personal sidearms and the soldiers keep their horses. He also stopped all celebration among his own men, reminding them that the rebels were now their countrymen again. He later personally opposed any attempts to try Lee and his officers for treason, since he had promised otherwise at the time of the surrender.

    He actually became Secretary of War for a time during the presidency of Andrew Johnson, but issues with the appointment led to a complete break between the two men. He remained popular, though, and was elected the next president, in an attempt to unify the nation. During his presidency he actively fought the Ku Klux Klan and fought for civil rights for the freedmen, including the Fifteenth Amendment. His policy toward the Indians unfortunately fell apart in his second term. His reputation among historians was low until recently, due to scandals among his cabinet. It has enjoyed a revival recently, starting with a biography by Edward Jean Smith in 2001.

    So, what do we take away from this long story (which could be a lot longer)? Ulysses S. Grant was, like all men, human, and like most humans, had feet of clay. Like most men, he passed through some difficult times, some of which were his own fault, and, like most men, he was probably given some opportunities that he might not have deserved. However, I can confidently say that he made more than the most of his second chance in the US Army, and was the right man at the right time to deal with the greatest crisis this nation has ever faced on the battlefield. He was as good a strategist and tactician as Lee, he just had the good fortune to have at least three lieutenants who were almost on the same level (Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan), while Lee had only the one (Jackson, whose loss he never recovered from). I can say with confidence that he was a man of his word, even when it might have been expedient not to be. I can also say with confidence that he did the best anyone could with the almost impossible task of putting a broken and embittered nation back together again.

    He never betrayed the oath he swore twice, and he never once considered turning against his nation, although he did leave its service for a time. He never struck a blow against a fellow American, save one who was in open rebellion. He was not in sympathy with the Southern cause, and thought it was wrong, however, in the end he realized that continued hostility toward the defeated states would be counterproductive. He did not display any particularly racist attitudes or belief that one race was superior to another, in fact he incorporated freed slaves into his army.

    Arguably, the one thing he did that seems unforgivable now is own a slave he was given for less than a year, and not be against slavery from the get-go. Other than that, he was a hero, a great captain, and a statesman.

    So why, I ask, did his statue meet the same fate as those of several of his opponents on the battlefield, who DID break the oath they swore and were, in very big part, fighting for the right of man to own man, against the duly elected government?

    Was it simple ignorance, that led to him being lumped in with the other side because he came from the same time and the uniform looks similar? Was it just mob mentality that led to the destruction of anything that could easily be destroyed? Or was it something else, something far more sinister?

    Everyone knows or should know about him from middle school or high school. Everyone knows or should know the two basic facts that he was the UNION general instrumental in winning the Civil War and later elected president. There is no basis in what everyone knows or should know that would make him a target. There is also no nexus between the mistreatment of George Floyd that led to his death and anything Grant did or didn’t do.

    However, it’s obvious that the current movement, or whatever you’d like to call it, has moved FAR beyond justice for Floyd or even an advance in racial justice. At this point it’s about a cultural revolution, that seeks to destroy everything that predates, oh, I’d like to say 1964, but I think even that’s a stretch, as individuals get targeted for things they said or did as recently as the 1970s and 80s. It’s also a movement that destroys unfairly, with individuals declared evil and unworthy for acts that were relatively small compared to the good they did, or the great things they achieved, or for being people of their time, or for something as small as one stupid or insensitive statement or one attempt at a dress-up episode that is no longer considered acceptable, while those held up by the movement as heroes are above criticism, despite the fact that they may have done some very wrong things, and really not much that is significant beyond being a victim of a bad act.

    I spoke three years ago about the left wanting a monopoly on honor. That attempt then failed. This is an attempt to gain not just a monopoly on honor, but complete control by destruction and intimidation. If you are deemed unsuitable, you will be erased. If you disagree, you will be punished. We can only hope that, as this nation began to suffer from “quarantine fatigue” and has decided that enough is enough, this lockdown is over, that it will start to suffer from “mob fatigue” and say enough is enough, no more tearing everything in sight apart.

    • My son thanks you. Of course this is a Comment of the Day.

      Grant was ranked dead last with Harding in Arthur Schlesinger Jr.s partisan ranking of the Presidents when I was growing up. Wilson, in that ranking, was in his “great” category. Largely because of their civil rights records (though there were a lot more black marks on WW that have come to light), I think Grant should rank higher than Wilson now.

      That’s an awfully thorough overview of Grant’s life in very few words. As you know, I like the lesser known details with Presidents, and among my favorites with Grant:

      He was weirdly modest for a military man, and refused to let anyone see him naked—even, some believe, his wife.
      He was pretty clearly an alcoholic, and quit cold turkey after being elected President. It almost killed him.
      On the day of his daughter’s wedding, he was found weeping uncontrollably in his bedroom.
      He probably wrote the best autobiography of any President, and did so while suffering horribly (He was dying of throat cancer)and under great pressure, as the book had to pay off his debts.

      I’d take issue a bit with your assessment of Lee’s lieutenants. He trusted AP Hill and Longstreet greatly, and I share the opinion of many historians that Lee should have listened to Longstreet more often, especially at Gettysburg. They both had the advantage over Jackson of not being nuts. And Lee’s bench depth was far better than Grant’s. Lee never had to delegate to a complete incompetent like Burnside, for example.

      • Thanks Jack. When I was in high school, I remember “worst president” being a toss-up between Harding and Grant. I thought very highly of Wilson for a while, as a man who tried to be the great moral conscience of the human race, until I learned just how big of a racist he was and came to understand his STAGGERING arrogance. Frankly, the difference between God and Woodrow Wilson is that God did not think He was Woodrow Wilson. Then there’s the question of him keeping his disabling stroke hidden and letting his wife and closest advisors run everything.

        Lee probably should have listened to Longstreet more, especially at Gettysburg. However, he also shouldn’t have made John Bell Hood
        (good as a brigade and division commander, but out of his depth with anything bigger, also in constant pain) an army commander, who went on to lose the most decisive tactical battle of the war at Nashville. Jubal Early did ok for a while (the Union commanders in the Shenandoah valley were unimpressive until Sheridan arrived) but fell apart at Cedar Creek. Braxton Bragg was an incompetent who got lucky once, but later had the dubious honor of losing the Confederacy’s last port at Fort Fisher. Jeb Stuart was mostly competent (though not as good a cavalryman as Forrest), but deprived him of his services at Gettysburg when he could have used him the most. Forrest was an effective leader, but morally, yuk! He is actually the only Confederate officer to have earned a place on my list of the 30 greatest villains of history.

      • On the other end of the spectrum from their lieutenants — Grant had Lincoln. Lee had Davis.

        Davis, as I recall, thought he was a military strategist but never did put together a real strategy for winning the war. To be sure, the South’s only realistic hope was that the North would give up at some point, but still… Lincoln, on the other hand, recognized his ignorance in the beginning and made himself into a pretty decent grand strategist. He wasn’t one to micro manage, but he did have a clear conception of how the war ought to be fought.

        An interesting thought exercise: What would’ve happened if Lincoln actually had decent generals to start the war? Say the 1863 Grant or even a twenty years younger Scott? Would the war have even lasted long enough for Lee to appear on the scene? Would there even have been an Emancipation Proclamation? That was truly not included in Lincoln’s original war goals.What would have happened to the slaves? How long would emancipation have taken in that instance?

        • Oh, and a followup question for extra credit: Do we think — today — that it was worth the extra, say, 400,000 soldiers killed (and untold wounded) for us to be able to end slavery in 1865 rather than whenever it might have ended had the South been crushed in 1862, perhaps in the Peninsula campaign?

          That was one of the effects of the Proclamation, I believe: It ensured that the war would continue to the bitter end, no matter the cost, until the South was defeated.

        • What would’ve happened if Lincoln actually had decent generals to start the war? Say the 1863 Grant or even a twenty years younger Scott?

          Or requiring less fantasy, Lee, who was offered the job?

          The fact that Lincoln happened to be a better military strategist than Davis is pure moral luck, as is the fact that the US just happened to elect a genius.

    • Steve has provided a masterful tale that outlines the distorted, romanticized mythology of the North’s successful war to defeat the Southern attempt to achieve independence. The myth has become one the mythological stories intimately connected with America’s civil religion. And here both Steve and Jack demonstrate that they are ‘religious preachers’ of these doctrines. I have said many many times that in order to understand Our Present we have to become willing to examine ‘causal chains’. But this also means that we have to have the intellectual freedom to do so. That is, to do this free from coercive restraint. The Northern Myth of the ‘righteousness’ of its action of depriving a people of their freedom and independence is a relevant topic in our present because the Lincolnian United States was created out of a war against freedom and independence and lie as they might — and lie they will! — all the syrupy sermons cannot, and never will, succeed in fully obscuring the truth. To believe it is to believe a lie.

      I posted this talk by Charles Lundford on another thread. It is a brilliant *take-down* of the entire structure of the Northern mythology-as-lie. It inverts the entire *narrative*, to insert here this important word that references how ubiquitous is the *spin* and the deceptive story in obscuring people from getting to the truth. Steve and Jack are heavily invested in this *story* and I bring this up because I have set myself the task, against all opposition, of telling the truth about our present. And that means getting out from under the obscuring power of LIES. Obviously, I do not gain many friends. But this is the price I pay. I reject sophistries. Yet many of you are profoundly wedded to sophistical and self-deceptive stories.

      It is my philosophical object, and my moral and ethical duty, to counter-propose to these crafty lies that support your radical progressivism. Because this is what the topic must immediately turn to: Radical American Progressivism infuses Americanism, and this Americanism is a propaganda achievement of the Northern power-structure. There is a link between the Radical Progressivism Jack and Steve represent . . . and the radical usurping politics we see going on around us. Conservatives did you say? False! To the degree that you are wedded to false and lying narratives about the North’s essential action in turning against the Spirit of Liberty of the Revolutionary War, and the degree that you purposefully employ lies and distortions, is the degree that you cannot be trusted to be thought of as genuine conservatives.

      In our present one of its main features is the Failure of Binding Narrative. This is a fact. Anyone can see it. Why and how has this come about? Well, that is essentially what the entire question must revolve around, mustn’t it? When the binding power of a binding narrative weakens it does so because it no longer is seen to contain cohesive truth. Not only is this going on in the United States but it is a phenomenon that is happening in many different places. The binding glue comes undone.

      Essentially, Jack and Steve put forward in their general discourse a vision of reconciliation based on the reestablishment of a Myth of Americanism. This is an hallucination. But that myth is no longer part-and-parcel of how people, the demos, actually see and understand them self. So, to regain it, to reestablish it, will come about through impositions. And it is in this sense of ‘imposition’ that political control, that must necessarily turn against Liberty, becomes tyrannical. And this assertion of mine circles back to the essential action of conquering and subjugating a people that made the effort to declare its freedom and independence. You see, what the Northern Mentality does is to pathologize the will to freedom and independence even as it declares ‘freedom and independence as its primary object! Talk about mind f***.

      You see? To uncover all of this is a very very difficult endeavor. But this is what I have determined I will do and I must do. Our own self gets wedded to these lies and mythologies and we invest our self with them. We *buy into* these myths because we receive a concrete benefit for our purchase. So, I suggest a close and dedicated analysis of the Structures of Myth that inform this phoney American *Conservatism* — the willing handmaiden of American Progressivism! — and the inner divorce from Lying Narratives. To become wealthy again one will have to relinquish the attainments of false-wealth, of wealth ill-gotten.

      We are in times of a) idea-wars of consequence that also dovetail into b) political and economic wars that will unfold on a world-scale, that are unfolding. We cannot afford to lie, and we definitely cannot afford to self-deceive, and it is a sin to lead by the force and strength of lies.

      • Alizia;
        But you must understand that the Northern “Righteous Cause” mythology cannot be questioned, cannot even be examined, if one desires to be accepted in polite society. We in the South have had to (“officially”) acquiesce to the fact that the only “acceptable” Civil War history was written by the victors. Hell, they can’t even get the name right, since the CSA had no desire to overthrow the national government, only to leave it. In my dotage I am leaning toward another such exit.

        • Studying this conflict opened the door for me to seeing and understanding America differently, and also to listening to and appreciating a range of people who have been driven underground for their ideas.

          What seems most noticeable to me about the present time — the last 10 years or so — is the emergence of many different people with very different ideas about many different things in relation to America and the world.

          The *System* that we are in seems to try to do everything possible to exclude a range of ideas and opinions, and to keep the ‘conversation’ within limits they manage — the ‘polite conversation’ you refer to.

  4. What Democratic strategists know was that during the 2016 election, a huge, significant chunk of Trump voters only supported Trump in the sense that Roosevelt supported Stalin.

    So how to turn these “Roosevelts” reluctantly supporting “Stalin” into “Trumans” who vehemently oppose “Stalin”?

    These “Roosevelts” do not like Trump.

    A significant minority of them voting for Obama twice.

    They also do not like defunding the police, defacing or destroying statutes of Presidents and abolitionists. They also oppose arbitrarily labeling things as racist (Gadsden flag, Betsy Ross flag, OK symbol, Aunt Jemima).

    I am guessing a majority of these “Roosevelts” oppose cancel culture.

    • Roosevelt never should have run for a fourth term and met Stalin at Yalta. He naively thought he could charm Stalin and pushed Churchill aside. It was a disaster for Eastern Europe. Even though I’m not a Truman fan, he was certainly right about Stalin.
      I think it’s wishful thinking that Trump’s base isn’t solidly behind him unlike Biden’s.

  5. I anxiously await the conditionally blind Left’s discovery of the Elihu Yale back story.

    Anywho, Cancel Culture? The way I see it, we haven’t gone far enough. You’s want cleansing? Let’s do it up right!

    If memory serves, the Progressive Eugenicist desire to…um…regulate reproduction and the population wasn’t restricted to a certain segment of humanity, and a strong case could be made that they were far more diabolically hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, elitist, classist, and raccist over a far greater spectrum than any fringe group of White Supremacists or the Ante-Bellum South.

    Why? Because they sought a Greater Good>, and they had the approval of their own consciences.

    Not to over-simplify, but back at the turn of the 20th century, the newly minted BIG GUBMINT Administrative State was coming off a clear victory of disabling the EVIL Corporate Trusts. A goal achieved no longer motivates and, feeling their oats, what next? Hey, howse about improving humanity?

    Natural selection improved society over time, but a glacially slow pace; could these whiz kids jump start that with “Scientific Selection?”

    C’mon, you could improve flora-n-fauna by selective breeding, am I right? Why not extend those efforts to humans? Heck, what could possibly go wrong?

    My alma mater, the U.W. Madison (GO BADGERS!!), was in the thick of the Eugenics craze.

    Selective breeding, forced castrations & sterilizations, work camps, elimination of “inferiors,” ad infinitum ad naseum, Eugenics had everything nascent totalitarian Lefties could want, and then some.

    U.W. academics Charles Van Hise, Edward Ross, John R. Commons, and “Progressive Political Economist and Social Gospel Advocate” Richard T. Ely were of…um…similar mindset; all but Ross would be considered for a Bucky Mt. Rushmore.

    Have their books, awards, scholarships, plaques, their freakin’ memories, been the subject of any weepy hand-wringing? Not that I’ve heard.

    Van Hise Elementary School has “sister” Velma Hamilton Middle School, which may soften some of the historical stigma, of which most aren’t aware.

    And I’ve heard no call for renaming Van Hise Hall on campus yet; you?

  6. 5. Pelosi

    Nan (do you mind if I call you Nan?) said:

    “The halls of Congress are the heart of our democracy and should reflect our highest ideals, not memorialize men who embody racism, bigotry and hatred.”

    Well, then she needs to cancel and rename her own party. That the Democrats, the party that has been synonymous with racism up until about fifty years ago, ignore their historical complicity by trying to airbrush their own members from history without identifying them as such is more than arrogant.

    If all Americans must atone for the evils of slavery, how much more so than the party who single-handedly institutionalized it?

    But does the media find this in the least bit ironic, or even embarrassingly deceitful? Do black Democrat voters bother to even think about holding the party responsible for their past sins, like they want to do everyone but them?

    All I hear is crickets.

    7. Hope

    “Seeing the Post publish this ridiculous article is like watching someone you respected and admired stumble out of a door naked and drunk, to then defecate in the street.”

    This one made me cackle. Thanks for the laugh, it’s always welcome.

    Nice job by the Post readers, who seem blissfully unaware that they are singularly responsible for enabling this loathsome article by demanding (to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh) “drive-by journalism.” This type of transparent virtue-signaling and willingness to sacrifice an otherwise anonymous person’s life to the “woke” gods should be an eye-opener to the Post’s readers.

    But it won’t be. A quick, dashed off rebuke, and then back to applauding the garbage journalism of the Post. Perhaps the Post will receive a Pulitzer for the piece. In today’s environment, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t in consideration.

    And Jack, your eternal optimism is uplifting. Naive, but uplifting. It never hurts a soul to be uplifted a little.

  7. There happen to be some real real “reprehensible” statues SanFranNan wants removed from the halls of Congress in our Nation’s Capital, statues she’s passed every work day (a reference I use advisedly) for the last 30 plus years.

    It gets worse.

    05/02/1948, former Baltimore Mayor, the late Thomas D’Alesandro Jr:
    “Today, with our nation beset by subversive groups and propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity, we can look for inspiration to the lives of (Robert E.) Lee and (Thomas “Stonewall”) Jackson to REMIND US TO BE RESOLUTE AND DETERMINED IN PRESERVING OUR SACRED INSTITUTIONS” (bolds/italics/caps mine)

    Funniest thing: Not only is SanFranNan from Baltimore but, and this is where it gets GOOD, her maiden name is D’Alesandro.

    Hey; you don’t think…nah…couldn’t be…could it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.