Weekend Ethics Warm-Up, 9/26/2021: Down The Hole As We Vilify The Good Guys To Advance An Agenda


Well, it worked with the false Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown narratives, so why not try it again? I was about to devote a segment here to the hysterical “Border Patrol whipping poor migrants” tale neing manufactured by the administration and the media, but it warrants a full post. I’ll just note the smoking gun huminahumina response from DHS Secretary Mayorkas last week when Peter Doocy of Fox News—gee, why don’t the reporters from other outlets ask administration officials tough questions?—asked him why President Joe Biden accused Border Patrol agents of “strapping migrants.” Doocy asked, “You said on Saturday — or rather, on the 20th, ‘To ensure control of the horse, long reins are used.’ The person who took these photos of the Border Patrol agents says, ‘I’ve never seen them whip anyone.’ So, why is the President out there today talking about people being ‘strapped?'” Hmmm. Because Biden has always been a shameless hack? Because nobody tells him what’s going on? Because creating sympathy for illegals while villifying law enforcement officials for doing their jobs is central to the Left’s open borders agenda? Mayorkas babbled,”So let me, um, uh, let me correct, um, uh, the statements in your question, if I may…” When Doocy (you know, for someone who only has his job because of outrageous nepotism, he has been performing admirably) countered, “They’re direct quotes,” the Secretary of Homeland Security said, “It was on Friday when I was, uh — actually, it was on Monday, I believe, uh, when I was in Del Rio, uh, on the ground, uh, and I made the statements without having seen the images. I saw the images on the flight back, and I made the statement that I did with respect to what those images suggested.The horses have long reins, and, uh, the image in the photograph that we all saw that horrified the nation, raised serious questions about what it— about what occurred and of — as I stated quite clearly — it conjured up images of what has occurred in the past.”

That’s as close to an admission of deliberate obfuscation for political ends as you’re likely to see. What should matter is what was really happening, not what images were conjured up by confirmation bias and or what photos “suggested.”

1. The Great Stupid comes for “Lonesome Dove.” As a lifetime Western movies aficionado, I have concluded that the TV mini-series of Larry McMurtry’s “Lonesome Dove” is the greatest Western ever made. Watching it again yesterday to cheer me up after I woke up with Churchill’s “Black Dog” on my head, I was nauseated to find that the streaming version now carries a warning about “Culturally insensitive portrayals.” After all, the story about cowboys moving a herd to Montana told from their perspective included some dangerous and violent Indians. Of course, for every mean Native American there were about ten cruel and ruthless whites, but somehow I don’t think the trigger warning was referring to them.

2. Speaking of the “Zimmerman murdered innocent teen Trayvon Martin” lie…New York Times drama critic Salamishah Margaret Tillet , the Henry Rutgers Professor of African American Studies and Creative Writing who is essentially an activist uninterested in fair or objective analysis, meaning that her reviews are propaganda, wrote about the re-opened Broadway play “Pass Over” by writing of the playwright,

“Nwandu originally wrote “Pass Over” in response to the killing of Trayvon Martin, seeking to channel the grief and rage that so many African Americans were grappling with. Its latest iteration, she has said, is speaking to the widespread racial justice protests of the summer of 2020. As a result, “Pass Over” is one of the few works of art that really charts Black Lives Matter as a movement responding to the racial justice needs of its day.”

But if the play, which involves a white cop called “master” threatening and menacing them was a response to Martin’s death, it was a response based on media lies and deliberately divisive warping of facts to vilify whites and police. That rage and grief was manufactured for political ends, and the investigation and the trial exploring Martin’s death had to be deliberately ignored for Tillet to write such a paragraph and for the Times to publish it.

3. Well, since I’m going down this hole I might as well keep digging...Police officials in Rochester, New York filed departmental charges against Mark Vaughn, the officer who was the central figure in arresting Daniel Prude, a black man who died in March 2020 after the police pinned him face down on the ground and put a mesh hood over his head. The officer faces charges of excessive use of force and unprofessional behavior. Is there any legitimate doubt that Vaughn is facing the end of his career solely because the Rochester police are trying to cater to Black Lives Matter-triggered indignation and race-baiting despite the fact that the officers involved followed department protocols and policy? Moreover, a grand jury refused to indict Vaughn after community activists protested and demanded “justice.”

Officer Vaughn and three other officers faced off against Prude on March 23, 2020, when they answered 911 calls about a man behaving erratically in the streets. Prude had run from his brother’s home shirtless and without shoes into the snow, and the responding officers found Prude naked and shouting that he had Wuhan virus. Police restrained him and placed a hood over his head after he began to spit at them. They then pinned Prude to the ground for more than a minutes, according to police records. He lost consciousness, was resuscitated, and died a week later after being placed on life support. Once George Floyd died in Minneapolis, a target was on Vaughn’s back. Naturally the department is being sued by Prude’s family, and naturally the city will give them millions. Elliot Shields, the lawyer who represents the Prudes, tells the press that “The city of Rochester has yet to hold officers accountable when they violate people’s constitutional rights. Every single officer at the scene had a duty to intervene to prevent the unlawful use of force against Mr. Prude.” Except that there is no indication that the force used was unlawful, and other than the fact that Vaughn is white and Prude was black, there is no evidence that race played any part in the episode. Vaughn is going to be sacrificed under the wheels of the George Floyd Ethics Train Wreck.

4. In related news…Last year saw the biggest spike in murders on record, according to federal-government data. The Atlantic is puzzled. Why is this happening? What could be causing it? It’s such a mystery!

Murders are spiking while police have been vilified and threatened for doing their jobs, which includes pro-active policing and placing their lives on the line. A disproportional percentage of the criminals they are likely to encounter are black, for many complex reasons. If cops engage with these criminals, they risk the fates of the many officers, like Vaughn, who will be targeted as racists if a death results. Officers are retiring, quitting, pulling back and being wary, while politicians and activists continue to attack the entire concept of policing.

But let’s not leap to conclusions…

9 thoughts on “Weekend Ethics Warm-Up, 9/26/2021: Down The Hole As We Vilify The Good Guys To Advance An Agenda

  1. At this point young Doocy has proven himself as a good reporter. He may gave been helped early in his career because of his dad but it is unfair to suggest he is only there due to nepotism. He is the only one asking real questions. Biden is doing only what the activist groups who are pulling his strings tell him to say. The man cannot process information he merely regurgitates what his handlers want said. He has always been that way which is why he lies so often.

    • But he is there only due to nepotism! The fact that by pure moral luck he has turned out to have some talent doesn’t change the fact that he was able to avoid all manner of tough competition because of his father’s position with Fox. It’s like saying that because George Stephanopolos has proven competent and popular as a news anchor, he would have gotten the job had he not been Clinton’s high-profile press guy.

      • With all due respect,
        Only there due to nepotism? Probable maybe but absolutely not proven. I don’t know what competition he faced before being hired.
        I was hired by a family member to unload trucks when I was eighteen. I worked rings around the others who did half the work in the same time. That is not moral luck. That is differential attitude about delivering value.
        It would be wrong to assume that he only got his job because of nepotism when he proves to be more competent than his cohorts in the media when they have proven to be useless propaganda mouthpieces. None on the air today appear as capable.
        Attributing the opportunity afforded to young Doocy’s to nepotism and the outcome in Doocy’s case to moral luck is no different than saying Colin Powell’s elevation in rank is due to affirmative action and the outcome is moral luck.

        • No, I don’t think that’s a fair analogy at all. There is no established course or process to being hired for plum network news positions as there is in the military, where the process of promotion is based on substantive measurable achievements rather than subjective assessments. News reporting, for the typical non-celebrity kid, is a process of working one’s way up the ladder through local affiliates, often after work on college and university news stations. Peter Doocy was hired right after college, with a degree in political science rather than journalism, as a Fox News general assignment reporter in New York City, while his father was one of the most recognized hosts of one of Fox News’ most watched shows. What a coincidence! Chris Wallace, in contrast, while it certainly didn’t hurt that his father was famous Mike and his step-father was president of CBS News, served a long, long apprenticeship involving college reporting, grunt local news reporting with local stations, and jobs at other networks before he finally landed at the scene of his father’s triumphs. His career show no signs of line-jumping.

          • You have far more info than I do so I will concede the point. I was just unwilling to assume nepotism which is what my analogy was based upon. I have never researched the background of any journalist and since I only have assumptions to go on I assume each new face has similar histories. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Keep in mind nepotism may get you in the door first but it can’t always keep you in the room. My question is if a beneficiary of nepotism turns out to be outstanding is it ethical to keep reminding people that he only got the opportunity due to nepotism?

            • “Keep in mind nepotism may get you in the door first but it can’t always keep you in the room.”
              Very true, and Doocy is apparently someone doing that, which is to his credit. I can’t blame him for taking advantage of having connections, but if I were an aspiring journalist left out in the cold, I sure would. FDR would have probably never been President if he hadn’t been named Roosevelt, but he made the most of his opportunity, unfair as it was to the competition.

              I admire the rare sons and daughters who go out of their way to fight the advantages having famous parents in the same fields. Robert Lincoln, who was a genuinely skilled public servant, was neurotic about it, to the extent of declaring that he would never accept a nomination to run for office, because it would be his father, not him, people would be voting for. Stephen King’s son calls himself Joe Hill and had his first horror novel published and sold without revealing that he was related to King.Mariska Hargatay probebly delayed her stardom for years by using he father’s name and refusing to exploit the fame (and apparently the contacts) of her mother, Jayne Mansfield.

          • “Peter Doocy was hired right after college, with a degree in political science rather than journalism”
            I would think that with the education in journalism that is available these days, a journalist would be far better off studying anything but journalism.

            Also, a friend of mine once said “It’s not what you know, it’s not who you know, but who knows what you know”.

            • The journalism degree I received in 1975 prepared me well to see that the biased BS that passes for journalism today is anything but. Whatever happened to “alleged” and “claimed” and scrupulously avoiding judgement ? Gone with the wind, it seems. Thank goodness I learned to make a living writing code instead.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.