I’m busy today, but fortunately I am being inundated by ethics stories that write themselves. Watch that video above. A Minneapolis dog park is being decommissioned because someone discovered it was on “sacred Native American land.” The rational response to that “problem” is “so what?” If it was sacred, the reasons are lost to antiquity. Not one living human being is harmed by supervised dogs running free in the area. Nonetheless, this uber-woke stste is besotted with victim-mongering and its culture embraces the batty “land acknowledgments” progressives are now addicted to. (One was read before the official dedication of Obama’s “The Empire Strikes Back” styled library.)
And please someone tell me: why are unleashed dogs more disrespectful to dead Indians than leashed dogs?
It continues to amaze me that so many once intelligent, reasonable people have been indoctrinated, bullied, and propagandized into such madness. But they have.
Recently esteemed veteran Ethics Alarms commenter Michael West has been active in commenting again. For as long as it lasts this time, I am grateful. Under his initial handle texagg04, or “tex” for short, Michael elevated the level of discourse here, and notably vanquished Ethics Alarms’ most aggressive progressive/libertarian warrior among the commentariate, the legendary tgt. (Don’t get me wrong: I like and miss tgt, who was sharp, articulate and civil, but he fled the battlefield.)
One of Michael’s most interesting recent contribution is the one below, which examines exactly the issues I was hoping to have discussed when I composed the ethics quiz about the dogs on the Titanic. Before I turn the floor over to Michael, I want to emphasize a few points that have been obscured in the discussion:
One reason I offered this quiz was because I am so sure that my late wife Grace would have wanted to stay with the sinking ship rather than let a beloved pet die alone. I would have had to put her in restraints and drag her into the lifeboat, and she would have divorced (or murdered) me for doing it if I somehow survived. I’m not kidding. And I would have been the one comforting the dog…
Several commenters said that they would never take a dog on a ship because of the implied danger. Remember that there were no planes in 1912. For anyone leaving the US to stay overseas or vice-versa, the choice was to bring their non-human companions, not to go, or leave them behind.
Passengers did and do take dogs on cruise-ships, and while Michael in other posts reminds us that the Titanic was never exactly marketed as unsinkable, it was marketed as the safest ship there was, which was translated in the minds of travelers as “virtually unsinkable.”
I don’t want to contribute to false history. As I stated in the post, there is no evidence that Ann Elizabeth Isham chose to die with her dog, or even that she had a dog with her. She was one of the four First Class women who didn’t get into a lifeboat when the rule was “women and children first.” The others stayed with their husbands, so the story about her Great Dane was posited as an explanation. She could have saved herself and didn’t. Nobody knows why.
The sinking of the Titanic is one of those historical events that is so studied and written about that new evidence and theories still keep, ah, surfacing. We may not have heard the last of Ann and her ghostly Great Dane.
According to J. Joseph Edgette from Widener University, there were twelve dogs that have been confirmed as passengers on the iconic doomed ship, which sank in April of 1912. Three of the dogs survived; they were all small breeds that their owners could wrap up in blankets and hide in their coats. The crew told passengers (only the First Class passengers brought their dogs) that the limited number of life boats meant that dogs would have to be left behind.
When the ship struck the iceberg and it became clear that it was going down, the dog-loving steward in charge of the ship’s kennel released all of its canine occupants, which then ran all over the ship, surely confused, while the chaos intensified. (How did James Cameron not use that in his movie?) The three survivors were all kept in their owners’ staterooms. Lady, a Pomeranian belonging to passenger Margaret Hays, was one; Sun Yat Sen, a Pekingese belonging to Myra Harper and Henry Harper, was another, and a second Pomeranian owned by Martin and Elizabeth Rothschild was the third lucky dog.
The larger dogs that died included a King Charles Spaniel, a Poodle, a Borzoi, an Airedale, another large terrier, a Chow-Chow, a Fox Terrier, a French Bulldog and a Great Dane.
According to Titanic lore, Ann Elizabeth Isham owned the Great Dane pictured above. Rather than leave him to die alone, she chose to stay behind and comfort her beloved dog as the sea rushed in. Isham was one of the four first-class female passengers who lost their lives on the Titanic, but the only one who allegedly decided to die rather than leave her pet.
In fact, there is no evidence that she really died that way, or that she ever owned a dog, much less died with one. Nonetheless, Isham has acquired a saintly reputation among dog lovers, so let’s assume she did die rather than abandon her dog.
Your Ethics Alarms Change-of-Pace Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Was that decision rational and ethical or emotional and irresponsible?
Would you do that under similar circumstances?
I’m pretty sure my late wife Grace would have.
Incidentally, there is another famous dog story about Titanicthat has also been debunked. Supposedly a Newfoundland named Rigel belonging to Titanic’s First Officer William Murdoch was able to withstand the freezing waters after the ship sank. As the rescue ship Carpathia approached, nobel Rigel barked so loudly that the ship could locate the lifeboats.
The tale is fiction. Murdoch had no dog on board. No survivor mentioned “Rigel.” The story apparently first popped up in 1912, in“The New York Herald.” See? The news media was making stuff up even back then. The news reporter also claimed that Donald Trump was to blame for the sinking.
(I originally published this post without a graphic, waiting for the memes to come out. I decided on the one above…)
Israeli officials not only released a bombshell report this week extensively documenting Hamas violence on and after the October 7 terrorist ambush, but they are also suing The New York Times for libel as a response to its publishing Nick Kristof’s outrageous claim that Israel was torturing Palestinian prisoners by, among other methods, having them sexually assaulted by trained dogs. The Times also released the libelous accusation on the day before a new, thoroughly sourced report on Hamas violence, “Silenced No More,” was scheduled for release. The Times, almost alone among news outlets, refused to publish that because it reflected poorly on Hamas. It preferred to assert that Jews are training Lassie and Rin Tin Tin to get off on anal rape.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry announced May 14, “Following the publication by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times of one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press, which also received the backing of the newspaper, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar have instructed the initiation of a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.”
The news media has been abusing its privilege under New York Times v. Sullivan with increasing boldness in recent years, and many have suggested (including me) that the standards for punishable slander and libel need to be re-thought in light of a profession no longer committed to honesty and independent public service. To be fair, it is jolly decent of the Times to eliminate any question that the paper is nothing less than a Democratic talking point propaganda organ. Democrats hate Israel and Jews now, or perhaps you haven’t noticed. The Times has, as I wrote here (#6), even doubled-down on Kristof’s evidence-free claims.
As CNN token conservative Scott Jennings wrote on “X”: “Dying on dog rape hill. What a choice.”
There are some cultures and some immigrants, refugees and illegal aliens that a nation has good reason to avoid letting into its territory. Islamic culture and Muslims are a blazing example. Europe and the UK are learning this hard lesson—that cultural diversity is only a boon if a nation’s traditional culture is nurtured and protected—too late. It remains to be seen if the U.S. will.
The flashing neon sign that the Mad Left will pooh-pooh, shrug off, deny or refuse to acknowledge? This:
Nearly 70 dog breeds in the UK could be banned under proposed new legislation on the sham theory that they are “unhealthy.” A new 10-point checklist of “extreme” physical characteristics will decide which dogs will suffer from health problems due to certain physical characteristics. The excuses for banning the breeds include “mottled coloration,” “excessive” skin folds (like English bulldogs), “fat faces” (like pit bulls and mastiffs), “temperament,” bulging outward-turning eyes (pugs), drooping eyelids, being low to the ground (like Queen Elizabeth’s Corgis) and more.
Don’t kid yourself and believe that this assault on freedom and family has anything to do with canine health. This an assault on dogs by Muslims, who believe that dogs are “unclean,” as Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a recent social media post. This led Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) to reply, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” In response to that, Congressional Democrats are demanding that Fine be censured, because, after all, tearing down American culture is part of the current party’s mission.
[Apologies to all: I was so eager to get Steve’s Comment of the Day up that I forgot to add the headline!]
The historically literate, unrestrained Ethics Alarms veteran commenter Steve-O-in NJ returns to the familiar(to him) Comment of the Day podium making the case that Rep. Fine was not being one bit unreasonable and certainly not “Islamophobic” when he responded to a New York City Muslim activists assertion that dogs should not be kept as pets in the Big Apple with the quip, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
In casual conversation about Fine’s line (not to be confused with “a fine line” ) I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn’t feel he got the better of the exchange. One lawyer friend, known for his combative courtroom style, opined that the woman’s ‘Islam is right that dogs are dirty’ remark was such a metaphorical hanging curve ball that it would have been unethical not to hit it out of the park.
Islamic attitudes toward dogs vary. Some think of them as okay to use as working animals (herding, hunting etc.), but not pets. Judaism also for a time was anti-dog, and I think that ported over to Islam, same as the rule against pork.
I for one have never owned a dog, but I have known many, and I think they are useful in a number of ways, including as companion animals. They assist the disabled, protect and direct livestock, find people (or bodies), save those stranded on mountains, assist the emergency services, and even tow carts with Christmas trees or other evergreen decorations (the Bernese Mountain Dog is the usual breed for this). I’ll take a large gentle dog or an affectionate energetic dog (little yappy dogs are not my thing) over a hyper-religious neighbor who wants to tell me what to do any day. I’ve said a few times that Islam is not compatible with Western values, and this is just one other reason why it isn’t.
Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a social media post that dog poop littered snowdrifts in the city proved that dogs should have no place in society as indoor pets because, she wrote, “like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”
Responding to this obnoxious assertion of foreign values and priorities over American ones, Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) replied, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
Naturally the Mad Left exploded with horror and indignation, with the usual calls for the insensitive Republican’s resignation and worse. But the truth is, if we are being honest about our own culture and priorities, if every Muslim in the United States joined in a mass ultimatum stating, “This is non-negotiable. Either the United States gives up its dogs as house pets, or we’re leaving!” the overwhelming majority of Americans—including me—would say, “Gee, that’s a shame. Well, bye! Good luck in your future endeavors!”
The Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Was it unethical for Rep. Fine to say what he did?
Pennsylvania looks poised to complete the passage of legislation requiring judges to consider the welfare of “companion animals”—you know, pets?— in divorce proceedings. House Bill 97, sponsored by dog-loving Rep. Anita Kulik, D-Allegheny, is heading to the statute book unless Governor Josh Shapiro has the guts to alienate a rather passionate voting bloc by vetoing it.
The bill amends the state’s Domestic Relations statute to add a special category for companion animals, recognizing them as sentient, “living beings that are generally regarded as cherished family members” and not property to be treated as such. As of now, pets in Pennsylvania divorces have the same status as furniture or appliances. Under the new law, judges would decide which member of the dissolving union should get custody of pets based on…
…whether the animal was acquired before or during the marriage.
…the pet’s basic daily needs, and who is best able to fulfill them
…which party was usually in charge of veterinary care and took care of the animals’ exercise and social interaction.
…which party is most likely to comply with compliance with state and local regulations regarding pets.
…who haa the greater financial ability to support the animal.
Reasonably, the legislation also presumes that a service animal should remain with the party who needs the service.
My late wife, an animal junkie who got far more upset over movies where a dog dies (as in “Turner and Hooch,” “Old Yeller,” “My Dog Skip”…actually, the dog usually dies in dog movies) than when, say, Ali MacGraw died in “Love Story,” would have loved that law. She never forgave Tom Cruise for treating his dog “like a piece of furniture” in “The Firm.”
I virtually never return Christmas gifts. I cannot remember the last time I did. This stems from a Christmas childhood trauma. My poor father, who loved my mother dearly, would always pick out for her major Christmas gift a robe, a night gown, a blouse or dress that either didn’t fit, that was identical to one she already had, or that she hated. My mother, for all her wonderful traits, never gave him a break either: she would open the gift and immediately register disappointment. And Dad was always crushed. It got so he would make a joke about it, handing over a package he had lovingly wrapped while saying, “Well, Merry Christmas, let’s see what’s wrong with this.”
As a result, I have never reacted with anything but unalloyed joy when someone gives me a gift. Whatever it is, I love it. It could be chocolate-covered ape placenta, and I will still say, “Oh, this is wonderful! I’ve always wanted to try it!”
Nevertheless, the current practice among retail stores to charge “return fees,” some as high as $9.00 per item, is despicable as well as dumb. If stores want to drive people to Amazon, that’s the way to do it. If I ever did have to return a gift, and I won’t, especially now that there is almost nobody who is likely to give me one since my son/daughter has “cancelled” me for some reason, a store charging me for the privilege would land on my blacklist forever. It is also not consistent with the spirit of the season: I bet Kris Kringle would never let Mr. Macy do that without earning a cane to the noggin.
1. Once, a guilty pleasure of surfing the web and social media was seeing amusing videos of dogs and cats, and other animals too, behaving anthropomorphically, spectacularly, or adorably. Now, “thanks” to artificial intelligence, no such video can be trusted. The more remarkable it seems, the less trustworthy it is. Unethical people seeking views on Facebook and elsewhere post these fake videos as real, because viewers knowing they are staged and manufactured robs them of most, if not all, their entertainment value.
Above is a screen shot from one of the suddenly ubiquitous videos showing dogs frightening other dogs with Halloween masks. The link to the video, which WordPress wouldn’t let me embed, is here. It’s fake. Dogs, in my experience, are seldom fooled by masks. No dog would tolerate having a mask like that fastened to its head. No dog would go along with the gag and creep up on a sleeping canine companion. And no American Bully could leap like that all the way to the sofa.
Ethics Alarms 