Ethics Among the Rain Drops, 9/22/2021

Today is a big ethics date: on September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln announced that his Emancipation Proclamation was on the way. Finally issued on January 1 of the next year, its primary initial significance was that the document defined the Civil War as a fight to abolish slavery, not merely to restore the Union. In fact, the Presidential order to come couldn’t free anyone, since it only applied in practice to Northern states where slavery was already banned. On this date, Lincoln told blacks in the Confederacy that they would be free within 100 days. Well, theoretically, anyway. The proclamation, when its official version arrived, also called for the recruitment and establishment of black military units among the Union forces. An estimated 180,000 African-Americans went on to serve in the army, while about 18,000 served in the navy.

The redefinition of the war’s mission announced on this date was a political masterstroke. Suddenly, backing the Confederacy meant favoring slavery, so anti-slavery Great Britain and France could not ally themselves with the South.

1. Not a play review, just more propaganda for open borders...New York theater is back, and so is the “Good Illegal Immigrant” trope. A new play called “Sanctuary City” is being cheered on by critics, although, or perhaps because, its theme is that it’s just so mean and cruel for the United States to enforce its laws against “undocumented immigrants” (that’s illegal immigrants to the honest). The review is headlined, “Slamming a door on a Dream.” The use of the dream metaphor is deliberate deceit; that one may dream of achieving one’s goals by breaking laws doesn’t make the act of breaking those laws any more justifiable. As with “they just want a better life!”, this is an appeal to emotion over facts. Bank robbers want to be rich_–they just want a better life too. So do cheating husbands who kill their wives for the insurance money. That the news media continues to enable this dishonest and unethical theme shows us just how untrustworthy they are. Here’s nauseating last line in the review by Jesse Green, a regular panderer to the woke: “Newark may be a sanctuary city, but there is no sanctuary to protect you from the necessary betrayals of those you love — including your adopted country.” No. It is a betrayal of U.S. citizens to allow lawbreakers to force their way into our country, and it isn’t a foreign citizens’ adopted country until we choose to adopt them.

2. Nah, the critical race theory movement being pushed in the schools isn’t racist! Look:

Bad white parents

Yes, this is the largest teachers union in Pennsylvania eagerly promoting a workshop that attacks parents based on their race. Verdict: racism is unethical. So-called anti-racism based on racism is unethical. The sky is blue, and the sea is wet. [Source: Not the Bee]

3. More race-baiting in Boston. As I wrote here, the fact that Boston rejected its black mayoral candidates is being attributed to racism by some commentators, without referencing any special attributes or virtues of the defeated candidates besides their skin color. Apparently the city’s major newspaper, the Globe, is committed to the claim. In another piece today, the Globe asks, “How did Acting Mayor Kim Janey, armed with the benefits of that office, fail to advance to the Nov. 2 general election?” She’s black, you see, so if Boston wasn’t so racist, of course she would have made it through the primary. “Data from the MassINC Polling Group show that white-majority precincts had a higher turnout than more diverse precincts,” the Globe says. ” And of the 50 precincts with the highest turnouts, Janey did not win a single one, according to that group.” Racism! Of course, if that split occurred because black voters voted for a black candidate just because she was black—you know, like the black vote for Barack Obama in 2008, when he had fewer qualifications for President than Sarah Palin—that’s not racial bias, it’s just striking a blow for equality.

Janey is female and black, and had no leadership experience whatsoever when by charter she became acting mayor in late March this year after Biden picked Mayor Marty Walsh as Secretary of Labor. She got that job because she was voted City Council chair by the other members. Janey had been elected to the city council twice by Boston’s mostly black District 7; before that she was a “community organizer.” By all accounts, in five months as acting mayor she did nothing to distinguish herself while looking uncertain and out of her depth, so Bostonians voted for more promising candidates.

You know. Racism.

4. Hard evidence that the 2020 Presidential election may have been “stolen” as Donald Trump says, just not in the way he thinks...Finally, the mainstream media is admitting that the damning Hunter Biden laptop story that was deliberately, falsely, discredited and buried by the mainstream media and Big Tech in the run-up to the 2020 election was, in fact, true. Naturally, Glenn Greenwald, who was driven out of The Intercept, which he co-founded, when he tried to publicize the fact, is saying “I told you so” as loudly as possible, and he is also pissed, writing,

“…[T]he intelligence community, in partnership with Big Tech and the corporate media, disseminated massive lies and disinformation, using censorship and other manipulative techniques, to shape the outcome of what was a close election….After observing what they did, I hope and believe you will have a similar reaction to the one I had after spending the day compiling and reporting it all. No matter how much you despise this sector of the corporate media, it is nowhere near close enough to the level of contempt and scorn they deserve.”

We will never know, of course, whether this effort changed the results of the election. Trump lost, and if this was the reason, the bad guys got away with it. But at very least, we should not let them pretend that the election was fair, and that voters were supplied with the information they needed to make an informed choice.

Here is Greenwald’s new video on the topic:


19 thoughts on “Ethics Among the Rain Drops, 9/22/2021

  1. Jack you wrote ” In fact, the Presidential order to come couldn’t free anyone, since it only applied in practice to Northern states where slavery was already banned.” I assume that you mean that it it had no real impact because the southern states were not going to adopt it as they had seceded nor would it affect northern states that had already abolished slavery making the the proclamation moot. Slavery was not banned in all states that remained in the union . Four states Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri permitted slavery well beyond 1862. General Fremont put Missouri under martial law and declared southern sympathizers would have their property confiscated and the slaves freed. Lincoln directed him to reverse that policy and later removed him from command.

    I think we can assess Lincoln’s objectives in the editorial published by the Daily National Intelligencer, August 1862. To paraphrase he said if he could save the union without freeing any slave he would do it; and if he could save the union by freeing all the slaves he would do it; and if he could save the union by freeing some but not all he would do that as well.

    • Lincoln specifically did not include the boarder states, because he didn’t want them to turn against the North. And he had no jurisdiction over the Confederacy until, and if, the North won the war.

      • Precisely.

        The Emancipation Proclamation was used to incite the southern slaves to revolt or escape to the north, where the fugitive slave laws could not be enforced, primarily to disrupt the south’s supply chain. The point is that the proclamation was less about curing the evil of slavery but more about military and geopolitical strategy. The whole notion of Juneteenth is suspect because it is based on when Union forces told the Texas slaves about the Emancipation Proclamation not when the thirteenth amendment was ratified.

      • The Proclamation was specifically directed at those states (or portions of them) currently in rebellion, which were detailed in the text. So anywhere that U.S. armies occupied (Tennessee, parts of Louisiana and Virginia, and West Virginia) was excluded, meaning that he freed the slaves in only those parts of the country he could not enforce the decree. But it put the Confederate states on notice.

        He issued this proclamation under his constitutional authority to put down the rebellion.

        I believe this was both a political and diplomatic master stroke. Lincoln ensured that the Abolitionists would support the war to the bitter end. As long as the United States kept its resolve, the Confederacy ultimately was doomed.

        Public opinion in Great Britain was anti-slavery, and this meant that recognizing the Confederacy would be siding with slavers. Not impossible, but the U.S. would have to really provoke the British — and Lincoln consistently made sure we would do no such thing.

        Lincoln tried more than once to get the Northern slave states to accept some sort of gradual emancipation, but they never would agree to it. Ultimately Lincoln had Congress pass the 13th amendment, abolishing slavery throughout the country.

        • You also need to keep in mind that freeing slaves in Union states would be a taking under the 5th Amendment. Freeing slaves in Confederate states costs nothing.

          That is another reason it was done that way, I believe.


  2. #2. I’ve been in the education biz for over four decades, and I thought I’d heard all the silly jargon. I was wrong. What the hell is a “pre-listening session”?

    • It is where group think is created. Everyone in the group ostracizes those expressing opposing opinions and the group becomes of one mind. Only then do they pretend to listen

    • It appears this brainwashing, er, I mean, educational event is centered around a podcast, so I assume the “pre-listening” session is the first session, in which the attendees will be told what they’re about to hear, and what the correct opinion about it is supposed to be. Then they will listen to the podcast, and return for the “post-listening” sessions, where they will be told what thoughts and feelings they should have had about the podcast.

      • In and of itself, not that odd, it’s common enough to tell audiences like this what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them. The rest of it, forget it.

  3. “Nice White Parents” — so poorly written with mixed antecedents all over the place — is the best proof I’ve seen lately that all they are doing is trying to replace one form of racism with another. Racism against blacks is not okay; racism against whites is okay. Can they not see the basic irrationality of this position? If I am automatically a racist because I am a nice white parent, how will things change with my intrinsically racist portion of the population — +/- 80% — impervious to change? I just fail to understand. It looks like grandstanding to me, because who are they trying to convince? Not me, I guess: since I am clearly an ignorant, knee-jerk racist slob who supports racist behaviors and institutions as a matter of genetics, not thought or decision-making.

    • “Racism against blacks is not okay; racism against whites is okay. ”

      Bullseye. That’s why cities will have Black History Month and Hispanic History Month, but if you dare mention anything from Europe you get shut down. A continent of 44 nations, a dozen or more faiths and hundreds of ethnic groups and languages, barred from celebration. You’re also not allowed to challenge it, or even ask why, since “every month is white people’s month,” and “only a racist would say that, now, if you want to put yourself there, go right ahead.” Heads I win, tails you lose.

        • Americans hold their breath when a white girl gets lost in the woods behind her house or falls down a pipe in the back yard, because it doesn’t happen that often. A black kid gets killed and frankly no one cares unless it can be pinned on a white police officer. After all, black people are thought of as the people of broken families, absent or inattentive fathers, etc. If a black kid gets in trouble or dies, a lot of people just shrug.

          “Why wasn’t God watching? Why wasn’t God listening? Why wasn’t God there for Georgia Lee?” So wrote songwriter Tom Waits about the death of 12yo California black girl Georgia Lee Moses. However, the answer is right there in the second verse – “Ida said she couldn’t keep Georgia from dropping out of school, I was doing the best that I could, but she just kept running away from this world, these children are so hard to raise good.”

          I find myself saying that God didn’t fail Georgia Lee. The country didn’t fail Georgia Lee. Her family failed her – her father presumably by dropping out of the picture early on, her mother by not keeping her in school and home, where 12yo girls belong. Plaintive melody or not, we’ve all heard this story a dozen times too often, and when it happens…yet again…we just say to ourselves it’s just another black kid from a broken family, what did you expect?

          All this goes double when it comes to young black women. It’s too easy to say they were doing something dumb, drugged up, involved with some guy named D-Lovah who just saw them as a fuck-and-truck opportunity, or just too foolish to stay out of trouble, because of all these missing factors in their formative years.

          This isn’t supposed to happen to white girls, who come from intact families, whose fathers are present and even dote on them, who live in safe communities and whose lives are pretty well regulated sunup to sundown by family, church, and school. They’re supposed to do things right, including get with decent guys, and, if the guy turns out to be no good, they either get the hell out of there or their daddy and their brothers come to the rescue. If they in fact disappear, then something has gone very, very wrong. We the audience see the pictures of her in pigtails at five with her doll or bear, of her in a batting helmet making a run for second base, of her smiling at her high school graduation. We all default to the thought that she must have been a sweet kid, a good kid, with the world at her feet and her whole life ahead of her. Like it or not, this makes for good ratings, AND it also distracts from what might be going wrong in DC or at other levels of government. Missing white women and missing planes are the guaranteed distractors. I remember both being used at least once in Obama’s time. I remember neither being used during the Trump administration, when it was, presumably, deemed more important to keep getting on the president 25/8.

  4. “We will never know, of course, whether this effort changed the results of the election. Trump lost, and if this was the reason, the bad guys got away with it.” Which is true, but they have two opposing accusations here.

    This feels like a classic “if… then”.

    IF the Steele accusations have any grounds in reality at all, then the reverse must be true. There are a lot of people who are convinced of this idea that he was elected by Russia.

    If Tump could be elected by disinformation and information suppression by Russia then he could be un-elected by disinformation and information suppression by mainstream media and tech giants. #64 strikes again. This is a classic dodge, again, by the illiberal left.
    Strange times we live in. I’m not sure this is any different than what used to play out in political campaigns though. Whatever strengths Trump has, in reality he’s not all that great at that part of the game. The part where accusations are put to you and you use things like “facts” and “reason” to diffuse them. Like the one where they claimed he didn’t do anything about the virus, but during his presidency we had 3 vaccines made in under a year.

  5. The redefinition of the war’s mission announced on this date was a political masterstroke. Suddenly, backing the Confederacy meant favoring slavery, so anti-slavery Great Britain and France could not ally themselves with the South.

    That’s a considerable misreading of the internal dynamics of Britain* and France. It did not at all render them unable to ally themselves with the South. They were still perfectly capable of that, politically speaking, just as they had recently been able to support slave holding Turkey against a Russia that was transitionally emancipating its serfs, in the Crimean War. It was not a political but a diplomatic master stroke, in that it aligned with their agendas on that particular topic and gave them a cost for intervening against their own agendas. But it could still have been trumped by other things if those had come up, as had very nearly happened with the Trent Incident.

    To get a general sense of contemporary British perspectives between the Trent Incident and the Emancipation Proclamation, read Trollope’s “North America”. You will find it very detached and unlikely to be swayed by the internal rhetoric of outside parties without something substantial to go with it (like Lincoln’s actual and effective response to defuse the Trent Incident, which involved very substantial action).

    * A technical but material point: Great Britain is only the main island of the archipelago of the British Isles and does not include Ireland.

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 )

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.