Juneteenth Weekend Ethics Picnic, 6/16/2023

This was the day, in 1858, that Abraham Lincoln, just-nominated as the Republican Illinois candidate for the U.S. Senate, addressed the state Republican Convention in Springfield and, speaking to more than 1,000 delegates, crafted a warning for the nation adapted from the New Testament: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It’s ironic, or perhaps appropriate, that the anniversary of the prophetic speech occurs as “Juneteenth,” the federal holiday designed to pander to African-Americans in the aftermath of the George Floyd Freakout makes this a long weekend. Juneteenth is a divisive holiday, based on race alone.

As A.M. Golden asked two years ago at the end of his guest column here, “Any thoughts on how easily America is going to transition into two Independence Days, one for whites, one for blacks?” My thought, based on the two years since: It is likely to transition into a permanently racially-conflicted and divided society, which is apparently just what progressives and Democrats want, only relived by further divisions. I fully expect, for example, for the next push by the increasingly bold and insatiable LGBTQ lobby is for a national holiday honoring the Stonewall riots that began on June 28, 1969. That one, like the federal holiday arriving on June 19, will also be celebrated by only one segment of the public while the others metaphorically scratch their collective heads, or, in the case of weenies, celebrate just to appear sufficiently woke.

I wonder what Abe would say about the dangers of today’s divided house?

1. On the topic of divided houses: NPR host Teran Powell used Flag Day to trash the American Flag and to discuss her anxiety when “surrounded by excessive American Flags.”

“For example, I’m Black American, and over the past few years, I’ve continued to analyze what the American Flag means to me,” Powell said. “Especially considering the growth in extremism in the post-Trump-presidency and those extremists using the American Flag against people of color to say they’re the real Americans.” Then she an anecdote about seeing American flags in Illinois when she was traveling with a friend, saying, “And both of us were like, ‘Yeah, we need to hurry up and leave. And I thought about it like, ‘why did we feel like that?”

Oh, I can answer that one. You feel like that because you live and anti-American, anti-white racist bubble, because you have swallowed Black Lives Matter propaganda whole, facts don’t matter to you because you like the benefits of being a perpetual victim. If NPR wasn’t practicing “diversity,” another bit of George Floyd reparations, I greatly doubt that any radio host who says “like” in consecutive sentences would have a job in radio.

Then, as supporting authority—don’t expect NPR to put on anyone who might say, “That’s bullshit, you know,”—Marquette University philosophy professor Grant Silva got the floor to agree with Powell, though more articulately:

“I also get a little bit anxious around the excessive imagery of the flag in part because in my experience, patriotism quickly slips into nationalism. Especially the simplistic version of patriotism, the flag waving, my country love it or leave it kind of attitude. That is just a hop, skip and a jump away from becoming nationalism.As much as I would like to see the flag displayed in a proud manner, it all too quickly takes on the stakes that, as a non-white person, can mean a lot, right? It can mean a sense of inclusion or exclusion. A sense of belonging or the ascription of perpetual foreigner, perpetual outsider status; that that flag is not for me unless I’m willing to abide by the assimilatory paradigm that some of these individuals that you’re talking about tend to put forward.

Oh nooooooooooooo! Not the assimilatory paradigm! Then he compared the experience of seeing American flags to how he felt when he saw “Immigrant Hunting License” stickers for sale.

We pay taxes to support junk like this. We allow people who reason like Silva to teach the next generation.

2. A racial ethics train wreck that started rolling five years ago has finally ground to a halt. As described here at Ethics Alarms, it all began after police were called to a Philadelphia Starbucks after two African American men refused to leave the coffee store after they were told that they could not use the rest room and needed to buy something in order to stay there. The men were waiting to meet a companion to have a meeting. The store management then summoned the police. Activists turned the incident into a racial grievance, and called for a boycott of Starbucks.The self-consciously Social Justice Warrior-friendly corporation immediately groveled an apology, and even though the store’s staff were following company policy, it promised heads would roll. The company also announced that anyone could use the bathroom in its stores, which became a disaster, but that’s another story.

Shannon Phillips, who worked for Starbucks for 13 years, was the regional director responsible for overseeing 100 stores in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Various white employees were suspended or fired as Starbucks set out to prove to the black community that it was determined to fight racism…by engaging in it. Soon after the Philadelphia incident happened, was ordered to place a white 15 year veteran manager on administrative leave for alleged racial discrimination. When Phillips protested, insisting that the man had done nothing to justify punishment, she was fired. Meanwhile, the district manager of the store where the incident occurred was black, yet he wasn’t reprimanded or disciplined. Phillips sued Starbucks for racial discrimination, claiming she was fired because of the color of her skin.

This week, a federal jury agreed, awarding her $25 million in punitive damages and $600,000 in compensatory damages.

A Popeye: The Mystery Word

It was 11 am, and having dropped my wife off for a physical therapy session and skipped breakfast, I decided to indulge my self in a guilty pleasure: a McDonald’s sausage biscuit. Say what you will about Mickey D’s: their sausage biscuits beat Jimmy Dean’s, and don’t tempt me to talk about the 7-11 barely-edible version.

So I waited in the Drive-Thru line at the nearest branch (the one that only occasionally get its orders right), and when I finally reached the speaker, made a quick and simple request: “A hash browns and sausage biscuit, please. That’s all.”

A woman said in an impenetrable accent, “Sorry, no biscuit. Just [????].” I had no clue what she was saying. It sounded like “eh.” “Pardon me? Could you repeat that?,” I asked. “No biscuit. Only [????].” Well, I had already decided to cancel the order, since the whole point was the item that wasn’t available, but as a matter of principle, I was damned if I was going to leave without knowing what the mystery word was.

Continue reading

Look! A “Great Stupid” Father’s Day Ethics Dunce: Springfield College

If something like this had appeared just a few years ago—you know, before the dark shadow of The Great Stupid had covered the civilized world—it would have been regarded as a joke.

Springfield College in Massachusetts has campus language police guidelines that, among other acts of indoctrination and attempted Orwellian mind-control, discourages students from using the word “father.” I assume that synonyms are similarly taboo, like “dad,” “daddy,” “pop,” and “papa,” and “pappy,” as well as “grandfather,” “granddad,” and “pop-pop.” “Mother,” and other “gender specific” terms like brother, sister, “boyfriend,” “girlfriend,” “husband,” “wife,” “son,” and “daughter” are also considered wrong and harmful.

The list prohibitions are not new at Springfield, and Ethics Alarms has discussed similar Orwellian nonsense at other schools before. I mention this example now because any educational institution that indulges in this kind of Great Stupid woke indoctrination needs to be exposed, mocked, derided, shunned, and driven either to close or reform. This isn’t an educational institution’s job. Constraining communication, serving as propaganda agents for political movements and using its position and influence to advance GoodSpeak is unethical, and extremely so.

Continue reading

Ethics Quiz: The “Chicken Orb”

This is how far Ethics Alarms has to go to avoid Trump-related ethics-issues…

The website for the Chicken Orb boasts,

Chicken Orbs are a supervised chicken foraging enclosure. With a diameter of 55cm, they are perfect for medium-sized pampered pet chickens to allow them to roam the backyard, or to take them on foraging adventures beyond the backyard boundaries. A modern tool for urban farmers to take control over the when, where, and how the hens forage.

No, I’m not making this up.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is this any (ethical) way to treat a chicken?

Continue reading

Open Ethics Forum…Can You Find Something To Talk About Besides Trump? Please?

On Mediaite this morning–that’s the useful if still left-biased news media headline aggregator–there are 38 main stories and 17 of them involve Donald Trump. Quite a few also involve ethics issues, unless you consider the man’s very existence in our world an ethics issue, I have to deal with sorting this out every single day: if I give the constant tsunami of ethics issues raised by this persistent celebrity from Hell the attention and analysis they require, the blog ends up being as much about politics as ethics. Worse, the Trump Deranged apparently can’t process the concept that people can be unethical themselves and still have a right to be treated fairly, so any post delving into that situation, which has been an ongoing ethics scandal since at least 2016 (The 2016 Post-Election Ethics Train Wreck) is immediately attacked as “supporting” Trump. This, in turn, leads to a repetitive scenario like the one we saw twice this week, with two new and prolific single issue commenters flogging their hatred of the man refusing to move on to other topics, getting antagonistic, and forcing me to ban them.

Of course, non-Trump ethics news hasn’t been great lately either. Yesterday, I had to decide if this story—“Penn State professor arrested for having sex with dog”—was worthy of a post. I decided against it, even though I had a great line to use: “His horrified colleagues finally learned what he really meant when he told them, “I’ll be in the lab…”

Over to you, Clarence…

The Disastrous Crash Of Medical Ethics, In Two Videos [Link Fixed]

Earlier this week, I discussed the frightening and discouraging phenomenon of American professions becoming so politicized that they no longer can be trusted to serve public interests objectively and competently. If a profession cannot be trusted, then it is no longer a profession. Laura Hollis’s point in “Death of the Professions” is worth repeating:

The landscape of professional America should be a stalwart bastion of standards and commitment to truth. Instead, it is increasingly pockmarked by the impact craters of contemporary culture: the erosion of standards, the denial of truth, the capitulation to political pressure, and ideological lockstep borne of fear.

The previous post discussed this phenomenon in the context of the legal profession and its legal ethics extension, but arguably the partisan pollution of the medical profession has been worse. It has become a full participant in the newly-recognized Transsexual Promotion Ethics Train Wreck even as it is running down children: so much for “Do no harm.”

Re-watching “The Silence of the Lambs” last week, I was reminded that once the few clinics performing sex-change surgeries would apply stringent standards to applicants. “Buffalo Bill,” the serial killer in the film (and novel) was turned down for such surgery multiple times. Today, apparently, the radical procedures are no longer considered potentially harmful because the medical profession has bought into the deceptive, benign sounding cover-phrase, “gender affirming treatment.”

In the video above, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) pressed expert witnesses yesterday about the scientific justification for sex-change treatments of children and the authority for claims of the potential long-term benefits of these usually irreversible procedures. His Subcommittee on Health has convened to take up a number of proposals concerning health care access and research support, and Crenshaw wants to ensure that taxpayer money is not used to fund sex-change surgery on kids. “This is taxpayer money, and when 70% of taxpayers opposed these barbaric treatments on minors, then taxpayers should not fund it,” he said.

Continue reading

Rhetorical Question: How Can The Public Make An Informed Decision About Who Should Be President With Unethical Journalism Like This?

The answer is “It can’t.”

I don’t know what else to say about the above. Which is worse? PBS’s flagrantly partisan and anti-Trump double standard (the government-funded network had no similar warning appended to Present Biden’s hysterical and irresponsible “Soul of the Nation”diatribe, aka. “the Reichstag speech,” in which he told Americans that his political opposition represented a threat to democracy, or Fox News’ outrageously partisan chryon, which I honestly thought was a hoax when I first saw it.

Continue reading

Trump Indictment Update: The Deceitful Indictment Photos [Corrected]

This one should have been obvious, but was so devious that I missed it. I bet you did too.

The indictment says that Trump’s alleged illegal conduct related to 102 classified documents. What you see above are four of six photos the Justice Department included in the indictment, apparently showing Trumps trove of stolen government materials. I don’t know how large the documents were, but assuming that those photos weren’t staged, they must have been taken before the boxes were examined. I’ll believe they contained paper (unlike the very similar piles of boxes in three of the rooms in my home, which also contain, for example, dinosaur models), but it is wildly unlikely that the boxes contain just 102 classified documents.

Never mind: that’s how all of the news sources presented them, and that is why the Justice Department probably included the photos: to poison public opinion against the former President. Poisoning public opinion is also poisoning the jury pool, and as we know, much of the public doesn’t have to be metaphorically poisoned. I realized this open deceit as I read my Facebook friends’ comments mocking the photos as proving how flagrant Trump’s “crime” was. The photos, in fact, prove nothing, except this: 1) the Justice Department lawyers who prepared the indictment violated the ethics rules and 2) it worked, because so many Americans want to believe that Trump is guilty.

Continue reading

Ethical Quote Of The Month: Elon Musk

“You are the government. They are NOT your kids.”

—Entrepreneur and Twitter savior Elon Musk, responding to the Biden Administration’s totalitarian rhetoric in its latest pander to the LGBTQ lobby.

The White House released a tweet from the Biden-Harris administration that stated, “To the LGBTQI+ Community – the Biden-Harris Administration has your back.” The video accompanying the tweet states, “these are our kids,” and “not somebody else’s kids; they’re all our kids.”

Continue reading

What About Whataboutism?

The agreed-upon “resistance”/Democratic/mainstream media rebuttal of complaints that the Justice Department has fashioned a new set of standards for prosecution in order to neutralized Donald Trump is being met by smug accusations of “Whataboutism.” Whataboutism is one of the Ethics Alarms rationalizations on the list, and high up that list, at #2. Before I wrote this post, I checked what I had written, which was short and to the point:

The mongrel offspring of The Golden Rationalization and the Bible-based dodges a bit farther down the list, the “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse is both a rationalization and a distraction. As a rationalization, it posits the absurd argument that because there is other wrongdoing by others that is similar, as bad or worse than the unethical conduct under examination, the wrongdoer’s conduct shouldn’t be criticized or noticed. As a distraction, the excuse is a pathetic attempt to focus a critic’s attention elsewhere, by shouting, “Never mind me! Why aren’t you going after those guys?”

Moved by the current “Axis of Unethical Conduct’s distortion of the concept, I added the following to avoid future confusion (or corrupt rhetorical misappropriation):

Continue reading