As various pundits on Prof. Reynold’s Instapundit are wont to say of such news, “Who had “Presidential candidates with brain worms” on their 2024 bingo card?“
The New York Times tells us today that in 2010, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “was experiencing memory loss and mental fogginess so severe that a friend grew concerned he might have a brain tumor.” After consulting several neurologists, RFK had the mystery solved. His cognitive problems were “caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy says.
Oh.
All righty then! What can we take from this development?
1. Kudos to RFK Jr. for candor and honesty. The other candidates haven’t been so forthcoming. President Biden won’t undergo cognitive testing, or if he will, he won’t reveal what the results were.
2. Yet the Times informs us that despite this startling revelation, Kennedy’s campaign refuses to release his complete medical records. There are worse things in there than the fact that a worm ate part of his brain? Oh-oh…
3. I still salute RFK’s courage. If this doesn’t launch a thousand jokes and memes, I’ll be disappointed. (I won’t offer any, because I don’t want to be accused of “worm-shaming.”)
4. Given Kennedy’s frequently extreme and even bizarre opinions, the reflex response from many will be, “That explains a lot.” Not from me though! Uh-uh.
5. When asked if any of Kennedy’s health issues could compromise his fitness for the presidency, RFK’s spokesperson, Stefanie Spear, replied, “That is a hilarious suggestion, given the competition.”
If she had not taken advantage of a straight line like that, I would have been disappointed. To her credit, Spear deposited that metaphorical hanging curve in the upper deck.
From one perspective, this development seems encouraging. Maybe the lesson of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is finally starting to take down the destructive DEI delusion.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that it will end the use of diversity statements in the faculty hiring process. These statements, typically a page-long, were required of all faculty candidates so they could persuade the institution that they could be relied upon to support and enhance the university’s commitment to “diversity.” The statements are now routine in faculty hiring at many public and private universities, as well in corporations and other organizations. I confess that I had not focused on this development sufficiently; it is scary, and the mainstream media and its pundits apparently felt it was not something “the public has a right to know.” [The only previous Ethics Alarms essay on diversity statements is here. I helped sound the alarm, and then did nothing for two years.]
As she announced the reform, MIT’s president Sally Kornbluth, the lone survivor of the fateful Congressional hearing that led to the dismissal of two other female presidents of elite universities, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, condemned the statements as compelled speech. “My goals are to tap into the full scope of human talent, to bring the very best to M.I.T. and to make sure they thrive once here,” Dr. Kornbluth said . “We can build an inclusive environment in many ways, but compelled statements impinge on freedom of expression, and they don’t work.”
Interesting phrasing. If they “worked,” whatever sinister meaning that has, would she be eliminating them? The diversity statements are not just compelled speech, they represent compelled ideological conformity. That’s fascist stuff. Explain to me again: who are the “threats to democracy”? It also points to the other perspective besides the one I alluded to at the beginning. The fact that diversity statements has infested academia at all is ominous.
No sooner had I posted about the DEI scam trying to hide its spots sufficiently to keep on inflicting discrimination and bias —but good discrimination and bias, of course!—on the American workplace and society in general than news of a sadder and more futile re-branding exercise was announced.
After 114 years of teaching boys ethical values, self-reliance, and life skills, the Boy Scouts of America is abandoning its storied name to escape its sordid recent past, its mismanagement, and its betrayal of its mission and legacy. That’s not the spin, though. The newly named “Scouting America” is being promoted as signaling a more “welcoming” organization. “Though our name will be new, our mission remains unchanged: we are committed to teaching young people to be Prepared. For Life,” Roger A. Krone, president and chief executive of Scouting America, said in a statement today. “This will be a simple but very important evolution as we seek to ensure that everyone feels welcome in Scouting.”
The diversity, equity, inclusion fad arising for no coherent reason out of the death of an overdosing small time hood under the knee of a bad cop in Minneapolis has rapidly iembarrassed itself and its adherents. The discriminatory and intellectually indefensible movement still managed to be profitable for a lot of scam-artist consultants while screwing up too many organizations to list in the process (but Disney quickly comes to mind). It inflicted flagrant incompetents like Kamala Harris, Karine Jean-Pierre, most of Biden’s Cabinet, deposed Harvard President Claudine Gay and so many more on our government and institutions. It produced absurd spectacles like the TV liquor commercial purporting to show a Boston bar’s patrons singing “Sweet Caroline,” the Boston Red Sox 7th inning anthem, with barely a white patron in sight. (When my family would go to Fenway Park, “Find a non-white fan” was a popular game, usually instigated by my mother.)
DEI is justly acquiring a toxic reputation, so the Left’s response is to change its name and start all over again. The plan is to use rhetorical deceit to disguise its intent and meaning while blurring the concept. Of course! DEI fouled itself faster than I expected, but sure, everyone should have seen this coming. Abortion is now “reproductive health.” Using drugs, surgery and indoctrination to turn biological boys into sort-of girls and biological girls into kind-of boys is now “gender-reaffirming care. The cover-word for illegal alaines became “undocumented workers,” then became “migrants,” and now it’s “visitors.” Now the acronym DEI is on the way out. Anti-DEI legislation is gaining traction in several states, and the racial, ethnic and gender preference industry is getting the message. No, it won’t stop advocating and facilitating discrimination against whites and males. The plan is to call the practice something else. After all, the trick has worked before.
“I mispoke and I regret it,” was the serial head-exploding Democratic governor of New York’s attempt at backtracking after she claimed, during a speech at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, “Right now we have, you know, young black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word “computer” is. They don’t know. They don’t know these things.”
“Of course black children in the Bronx know what computers are — the problem is that they too often lack access to the technology needed to get on track to high-paying jobs in emerging industries like AI,” Hochul said in her desperate mea culpa. “That’s why I’ve been focused on increasing economic opportunity since Day One of my Administration.”
If it’s really “Of course,” Governor, then why did you say what you said? And emphasize it three times?
Hochul’s scripted smear of the black children in her state triggered instant, if in some cases restrained, condemnation from her own party. “I’m deeply troubled by the recent statements made by Governor Kathy Hochul,” wrote New York State Assembly Member John Zaccaro Jr.in a statement. “The underlying perception conveyed about Black and brown children from the Bronx is not only disheartening but also deeply concerning.” Assembly Member Karines Reyes tweeted that she was “deeply disturbed” by Hochul’s remarks and “the underlying perception that she has of Black & brown children from the BX” because “Our children are bright, brilliant, extremely capable, and more than deserving of any opportunities that are extended to other kids,” Reyes wrote. “Do better.” Assembly Member Amanda Septimo called Hochul’s comments “harmful, deeply misinformed, and genuinely appalling,” adding that the Governor was “repeating harmful stereotypes.” Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie described Hochul’s remarks as “inartful and hurtful.”
Thirteen federal judges—appellate Judges James Ho and Elizabeth Branch, Matthew Solomson of the U.S Court of Federal Claims, District Judges Alan Albright and Matthew Kacsmaryk, Stephen Vaden, who sits on the United States Court of International Trade; plus judges David Counts, James W. Hendrix,Jeremy D. Kernodle, Tilman E. Self, III, Brantley Starr, Drew B. Tipton and Daniel M. Traynor—have all announced in a letter to Columbia University’s president, that beginning with the entering class of 2024, they “will not hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community—whether as undergraduates or law students.”
“Since the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas, Columbia University has become ground zero for the explosion of student disruptions, anti-semitism, and hatred for diverse viewpoints on campuses across the Nation, ” the letter begins. “Disruptors have threatened violence, committed assaults, and destroyed property. As judges who hire law clerks every year to serve in the federal judiciary, we have lost confidence in Columbia as an institution of higher education. Columbia has instead become an incubator of bigotry. As a result, Columbia has disqualified itself from educating the future leaders of our country.”
After suggesting measures that need to be taken to restore trust in the institution, the judges conclude, “Recent events demonstrate that ideological homogeneity throughout the entire institution of Columbia has destroyed its ability to train future leaders of a pluralistic and intellectually diverse country. Both professors and administrators are on the front lines of the campus disruptions, encouraging the virulent spread of antisemitism and bigotry. Significant and dramatic change in the composition of its faculty and administration is required to restore confidence in Columbia.”
It is a responsible, powerful, and much needed response, both to the institution and the students who have demonstrated both an absence of critical thinking and judicious temperament as well basic respect for their fellow students, liberal education, and the law.
(But claims by Donald Trump that the election was “rigged” are “baseless” and supported by no evidence at all….).
Ben Smith, the former media columnist for the New York Times, is hardly an unbiased interviewer when it comes to his old employer. He’s a product of the Times culture, and the Times culture is, has been and continues to be corrupted and unethical. The message of his recent interview with newish executive editor Joe Kahn is that the Times is all better now and is objective again after a teeny dip, though it hasn’t been objective in my lifetime.
What is revealing about the interview, however, is that if one can wade through the doubletalk, careful caveats, avoidance of direct statements and verbosity, Kahn admits that the Times was in the tank for Biden and the Democrats in 2020 as the pandemic and Black Lives Matter hit, and that it was wrong for the Times to do that, and they are really, really sorry and promise not to do it again.
Strangely, the Times has not apologized to Donald Trump, Republicans, the American voters and the Founders for this. His statement also puts in perspective the rote talking point, every time the news media sneeringly refers to Trump’s insistence that the election was stolen from him, that the claim is “baseless.” That the leader of the U.S. news media still regarded as the role model for the rest deliberately abandoned its already partisan-biased version of journalism for pure advocacy and propaganda in the year of a national election is very much a “base.” Ethics Alarms, among others, has said so, and was saying so in 2020. Remember those scary (and fake) Hunan virus death charts with red spikes reaching through and above the mast head? Yeah, I think we got a little carried away, says Kahn.
Oh, well that’s okay then. Everybody makes mistakes….
The man is, in order, as expert at avoiding speaking plainly as any politician, infuriatingly equivocal, blatantly partisan, and a master of spin. Nonetheless, if you can pick your way through all the fog, the confession is there. Here are some key sections with some commentary by me):
Ben Smith: “Dan Pfeiffer, who used to work for Barack Obama, recently wrote of the Times: “They do not see their job as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power.” Why don’t you see your job as: “We’ve got to stop Trump?” What about your job doesn’t let you think that way?”
Joe Kahn: “Good media is the Fourth Estate, it’s another pillar of democracy. One of the absolute necessities of democracy is having a free and fair and open election where people can compete for votes, and the role of the news media in that environment is not to skew your coverage towards one candidate or the other, but just to provide very good, hard-hitting, well-rounded coverage of both candidates, and informing voters. If you believe in democracy, I don’t see how we get past the essential role of quality media in informing people about their choice in a presidential election. To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda. It is true that Biden’s agenda is more in sync with traditional establishment parties and candidates. And we’re reporting on that and making it very clear. It’s also true that Trump could win this election in a popular vote. Given that Trump’s not in office, it will probably be fair. And there’s a very good chance, based on our polling and other independent polling, that he will win that election in a popular vote. So there are people out there in the world who may decide, based on their democratic rights, to elect Donald Trump as president. It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It’s the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening. It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one.”
And I have absolutely no faith or trust in this arrogant and rotting (a bad combination) institution. But I still didn’t think its leadership could be this stupid. Hence my brains and skull fragments being all over the ceiling…
Harvard’s 2024 commencement speaker will be Maria Ressa, the CEO of the Philippines-based news site Rappler and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Sounds Harvard-y eneough, doesn’t she? Except that in January, Ressa signed a letter accusing Israel of “unabated killing of journalists in Israeli airstrikes since the start of the Israel-Gaza war”while calling for “immediate end to the bombardment of journalists and apparent targeting in some cases of our colleagues in Gaza and the region.” (This a dubious accusation at best.)
I have such a strong visceral reaction to this provocative Comment of the Day, a personal accountby Joel Mundt, that I’m going to eschew my usual introduction and let you make your own judgments without any influence by me. Here it is, in reaction to “Fat-Shaming Ethics” and the lively comments it has generated so far…
***
I’m going slightly off-topic, and I apologize in advance…
I’m of the opinion that shaming is, to a degree, a good thing. In my opinion, it’s a form of non-physical discipline that emphasizes embarrassment and plays on an individual’s need to be liked and to be more like the collective. It’s a way to manipulate desired behavior using something of a “group intervention.”
A perfect example of this is…well…me. As an elementary student, I had a reputation of being really smart, but also talking out-of-turn an awful lot in class, which was disruptive. My 5th-grade teacher, Mrs. Crooks, sought me out and purposely got my name on her class list. Nobody wanted her as their 5th-grade teacher…she had a terrifying reputation among younger students. I didn’t know it until years later, but she had talked to my parents ahead of time, explaining that I would be her student, and she would break me of my disruptive ways.
And she did her best! I was punished in the most imaginative ways for speaking out of turn, like being ordered to walk around classroom without making a sound for 10 minutes while she taught the other students, or playing the part of the “silent i” in front of the class when learning to spell words like “receive”. She was modestly effective…until the day of “the sign”. I was talking out of turn yet again and Mrs. Crooks told me – in front of the class – that my punishment was to write the words “I’m a big mouth” on a piece of paper, then glue it to a piece of cardboard she gave me with a string in it, then wear it around my neck…outside during our lunch recess with the entire school.
Oopsie! Meta, the monster (in many senses of the word) parent company of social media giants Facebook and Instagram, blocked the link to a new, 30-minute infomercial supporting the candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the rebel independent Presidential candidate whom Democrats wish they could vaporize with their bad thoughts. Meta says it was a “mistake.”
Maybe it was. The embargo didn’t last long: the ad was only unavailable from late afternoon last Friday to the middle of last Saturday. A spokesman for Meta said the link had been incorrectly flagged as spam. For some reason, RFK Jr.’s campaign and supporters don’t trust Meta. Tony Lyons, a founder the super PAC that paid for the ad, says his group plans to sue Meta in federal court for censorship and First Amendment violations.
“When social media companies censor a presidential candidate, the public can’t learn what that candidate actually believes and what policies they would pursue if elected,” Mr. Lyons said. “We are left with the propaganda and lies from the most powerful and most corrupt groups and individuals.”
Ethics Alarms 