1. From the Ethics Alarms cultural literacy files. I remember this re- tweet by acclaimed novelist Joyce Carol Oates from 2015; I can’t believe I didn’t post on it then. (Pointer to Ann Althouse for reminding me of it today):
Now, I would like to believe that Oates was joking (I’m not sure about Tilley), but she is not known for madcap humor. Apparently “Jurassic Park,” Steven Spielberg and popular culture are beneath her, and she was so focused on literature in school that dinosaurs completely missed her attention. I regard this as being estranged from one’s culture, and I regard that as irresponsible.
2. Question: If Twitter is taking down tweets involving hate speech, why is unequivocal hate like this permitted? Robert Trump, the President’s younger brother, died yesterday. The President wrote,
“It is with heavy heart I share that my wonderful brother, Robert, peacefully passed away tonight. He was not just my brother, he was my best friend. He will be greatly missed, but we will meet again. His memory will live on in my heart forever. Robert, I love you. Rest in peace.”
Yet the hateful, vicious “resistance” couldn’t rise to a moment of bipartisan decency. The hashtag #wrongtrump, is the second highest trending on Twitter, with more than 80,000 tweets last I checked. Among the the ghouls were journalist David Leavitt., ” who tweeted, “What did he promise the devil for the Grim Reaper to take the #wrongtrump ???” (5.7 thousand people “loved” the sentiment), and Bishop Talbert Swan, president of the Springfield, Massachusetts, branch of the NAACP (and a pastor, which will perhaps help illuminate my attitudes toward organized religion), who wrote “Dear Grim Reaper, You took the #wrongtrump.” That one got 10,000 hearts.
These are mean, bad people with dead ethics alarms.
3. Oh fine…this happens in Minneapolis, now. Remember this post from 2018, when I wrote about two police officers who decorated the office Christmas Tree with items associated with African-American stereotypes? I wrote in part,
It is hard to understand how any police officer, in any American city, could do something like this and not know that it is inflammatory, destructive, and wrong. Any police officer who could do it, however, is working in a culture that is itself warped and corrupted….Everyone should forget about the tree and look at the Department itself. In a statement, the police chief said he was “ashamed and appalled by the behavior of those who would feel comfortable to act in such a manner that goes against our core department values of Trust, Accountability and Professional Service.” It should be obvious, however, that these are not the core values of the department. They are words in a manual somewhere, that’s all. If they were a genuine, established, reinforced part of the department’s values, this incident wouldn’t have occurred, because the ethics alarms would have rung long before the first Funyuns bag was hung,
Well, nobody pays attention to me, as the past few years have amply demonstrated. To make things worse, an arbitator has ruled that one of the police officers who was fired for the tree decorations must get his job back, with back pay minus what he loses from a 320-hour suspension.
This will help police-community relations a bunch, as they say in “Fargo.”
4. Polls are junk, and here’s why. Rassmussen asked likely U.S. voters three questions:
1. How concerned are you about the growing level of violent protest in some major cities?
2. Which is closer to your point of view – that police should crack down on the protests to bring them an end, or that the protests should be allowed to continue until the protesters decide to end them?
3. How important is the growing level of violent protest to your vote in November?
Rasmussen and the media reported that 50% of those polled responded that the police should crack down on the protests to bring them to an end, and 38% believed the protests should be allowed to continue until the protesters decide to end them. Eleven percent are undecided. 75% of Republicans and 47% of unaffiliated voters think the police should crack down on the protests, but just 31% of Democrats agree.
But that question, placed between two questions specifying violent protests, is ambiguous. Is the question whether police should stop violent protests, that is, riots and vandalism? In the alternative, is it whether police should stop peaceful protests because they have gone on “too long”? Yes, violent, unlawful protests should be stopped, and the participants arrested and charged appropriately. Peaceful, lawful protests should end when protesters decide to end them.
I usually regard “undecideds” as human slugs, too lazy and uninformed to have an opinion. In this case, however, I’m undecided myself. How can I decide when I don’t know what the question is?
That’s an incompetent poll, rigged to trigger confirmation bias and make progressives look bad. (“38% of Americans are idiots” is the headline on the Citizen Free Press.