Except for one brief moment of frustration and madness, Ethics Alarms has been consistent in its derision of the concept of reparations for slavery. Illogical, legally unhinged, divisive, anti-democratic and most of all, impossible, this really bad idea, a favorite of get-rich-quick racial grievance hucksters and reality-resistant progressives, still hangs around like old unwashed socks, and no amount of argument or reasoning seems to be able to send them to the rag pile. Recently both California, where terrible leftist ideas go to thrive and ruin things, and New York, which really should be moved to the West Coast, have both at least pretended to endorse reparations for slavery. California’s ridiculous reparations task force has proposed giving $223,200 each to all descendants of slaves in California, on the theory that it will be a just remedy for housing discrimination against blacks between 1933 and 1977. The cost to California taxpayers would be about $559 billion, more than California’s entire annual budget (that the state already can’t afford), and that doesn’t include the massive cost of administrating the hand-outs and dealing with all the law suits it is bound to generate.
Brilliant. But that’s reparations for you! Logic, common sense and reality have nothing to do with it.
Now comes two wokey professors from—you guessed it, Harvard, to issue a scholarly paper published in “The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences,” titled “Normalizing Reparations: U.S. Precedent, Norms, and Models for Compensating Harms and Implications for Reparations to Black Americans.” The thesis of this thing is essentially that reparations for slavery should be paid because “Everybody Does It,” offering variations of the #1 rationalization on the list that don’t properly apply to slavery at all. (What? The descendants of slaves are not like fishermen facing depleted fish stocks?) The paper is being called a “study”: it is not a study, but rather an activist advocacy piece. (I would have bet that both scholars are black; nope, just one is, although I would not be surprised to learn that Linda J. Bilmes signed on just to help Cornell William Brooks avoid the obvious accusation of bias and conflict of interest. And, naturally, at Harvard taking on such a mission, certifiably bats though it is, can only enhance her popularity on campus.)
To a substantial extent, the aftermath of the oogy Presidential debate this week has been more revealing than the debate itself. Nobody who has been paying attention should have been surprised by President Biden disturbing performance. Just the fact that he was willing, or was allowed, to participate in the debate at all had me thinking that day, “Well, I guess they must have figured out some way for Joe to keep his dementia at bay for 90 minutes.” They hadn’t. Biden could have pulled out of the debate with relatively minimal damage, citing his health (he did have a cold) or something else. The blow-back and speculation would have not significantly more critical than what he received for skipping the traditional Presidential live appearance on the Super Bowl broadcast.
There is speculation that Joe was deliberately set up to fail. In the previous EA post about this debacle—and anyone who was pleased or amused by Biden’s distress needs an ethics transplant—I attributed the President being subjected to the national and international humiliation to his party’s, campaign’s and staff’s incompetence. Hanlon’s Razor still compels that verdict, but I must say some of the recent conspiracy theories sound increasingly plausible.
In this post from May 21, I harshly criticized George Mason professor Jeremy Mayer’s USA Today column headlined, “How Biden Can Save America From Trump’s Return To The White House: Drop Out of the Race.” Professor Mayer was gracious, good-natured and gutsy enough to come here to defend his position and also join the comment wars. He’s an admirable person and a thoughtful one, obviously. I just realized that I never apologized for calling him an “idiot” in my post. I still disagree strongly with his article, but he’s not an idiot, and I hereby apologize for that slur. It was unfair and wrong. I’m sorry, I regret it, and I will try to restrict my use of “idiot” in the future to genuine idiots.
But I digress. I would be fascinated to know how the events of this week have altered his position, if at all. To quote the USA Today piece: “Biden could announce, anytime this summer, that he’s out. He could use the same logic that got him the nomination in 2020. He sincerely and accurately believed that he was the Democrat with the best chance to beat Trump. Now, he is one of the few national Democrats who could get Trump reelected.”
Based on Biden’s defiant rally yesterday, I don’t see how he could reverse himself and withdraw without looking bullied and being further humiliated. One thing we know about Biden’s personality is that he is insecure, and as a lifetime over-achiever he bristles at criticism and being, in his view, underestimated. Many are evoking the model of President Lyndon Johnson, who withdrew from his re-election campaign in 1968. Johnson was more popular than Biden at the time, and he withdrew much earlier, in March. He also had a divisive and much hated Republican looming as his likely opponent, Richard Nixon. But Johnson really was, as George W. Bush claimed to be, “a uniter not a divider.” He saw his presence in the race as further dividing what was already an ominously divided country, as well as his party. Biden has actively encouraged division as President. Biden’s no Johnson.
Is using Nelson Muntz to introduce a post about last night’s debacle for President Biden and the Democrats too mean? Too cruel? Unnecessarily harsh? I don’t think so. The alternative was one of many devastating shots from last night of dead-eyed Biden staring into space, seemingly zoned out. Nelson is fair and appropriate, because no degree of mockery, resentment or schadenfreude is excessive as a response to this corrupted and arrogant party being exposed beyond denial (though many are trying) for their unforgivable infliction of a mentally rotting, place-holding shell on this great and essential nation as its leader. I would be furious, but I was already furious about this before Biden was nominated. His physical and mental deterioration was obvious then. It was also obvious that the party and the news media were hiding it. It has been obvious the Biden is getting worse too: already unfit to be President, he was deteriorating further right in front of us—-and the Party’s response was that the evidence was all “cheap fakes.” Pure 1984 and aspiring totalitarianism, and yet the desperate Trump Deranged applauded it, excused it, and enabled it. Shame on them, shame on everybody. Well, they got what was coming to them last night. Good.
Just as the Far Left plays into the worst conservative stereotypes about them with demands like abortion right up to birth and open borders, the Far Right parodies itself with Constitution-defying laws like Louisiana’s requiring the Ten Commendments to be displayed in public school classrooms. Now Oklahoma says, “Hold my beer!”with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters announcing in a memo today that every Oklahoma school must teach students the Bible the 2024-2025 school year. “The Bible is an indispensable historical and cultural touchstone,” Walters said in a press release unveiling the mandate. “Without basic knowledge of it, Oklahoma students are unable to properly contextualize the foundation of our nation which is why Oklahoma educational standards provide for its instruction. This is not merely an educational directive but a crucial step in ensuring our students grasp the core values and historical context of our country.”
There is no chance, none, zip, nada, that this obviously religiously motivated law will stand up to judicial scrutiny. This is pure grandstanding.
I was looking for another version of this video not linked to “End Wokeness,” or “Holy shit!” because what’s good about it has nothing to do with “wokeness.” I couldn’t find one quickly enough, so there it is.
If I had the time and inclination, I could locate dozens of trenchant quotes from Orwell and others making the same crucial point: fear is the enemy of liberty, and that aspiring dictators recognize that a population in fear of its safety will inevitably bargain away the freedoms and the autonomy of themselves and others. “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery” was the way Thomas Jefferson put it, although usually in Latin. The idea behind America and its crucial unique rebellious character was that as a people we are worthy of democracy because we have the guts and fortitude to resist the siren song of peaceful security. Hence Ben Franklin’s much-quoted, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” FDR, clever and cynical, inveighed against the dangers of fear (“We have nothing to fear but fear itself!”) even as he made brilliant use of fear to make himself the nearest thing to a dictator the U.S. has ever had.
There was more traffic on that post than there has been on any post here not linked by some mega-site like “Instapundit.” The truth hurts. Ironically, I just stumbled upon an example of our now thoroughly corrupted scientific establishment wielding the tactic of fearmongering by the device of arguing that the public is denying the truth, with the truth being, “EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE! THE WORST EVER! WE’RE DOOMED IF THE SMART PEOPLE DON’T RESCUE US!FAST!“
No weenie he! If only every thinking person confronted with this standard “it isn’t what it is” dodge by open borders advocates responded with similar force. Unfortunately the best part, “That’s sweet!” was muffled by the cross-talk.
Symone Sanders-Townsend is trying hard to catch up to Joy Reid as MSNBC’s most repulsive ideologue. Imagine: Bernie Sanders actually employed this woman as his spokesperson! While discussing an illegal immigrant’s rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, what Sanders-Townsend is most concerned about is describing him in a manner that hides the criminal’s actual status. How can anyone of sound mind and ethical orientation respect people like this, much less vote for the party they are working for?
We knew, or should have, that the medical profession was not immune from the ethics rot brought upon us by the advent of The George Floyd Freakout, the 2016 Post-Election Ethics Train Wreck, The Great Stupid (and its DEI sub-cult) and the rest. Here is a throbbing example.
At the University of California, San Francisco, one of the nation’s most respected medical schools and teaching hospitals, medical students and doctors have been protesting the war in Gaza. Chants of “intifada, intifada, long live intifada!” could be heard by patients in their hospital rooms at the U.C.S.F. Medical Center. It doesn’t really matter what the chants were: they could bebeen “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” (one of my personal favorites.) Medical personnel should never promote political views in a hospital. Why isn’t that obvious?
I’ve been meaning to try this for some time, so “here goes nuthin.” These are the ethics-relevant headlines (with links) in today’s print version of the New York Times. If you tell me in the comments which ones you would like me to share in a special “gift” format that takes them out from behind the paywall (I can’t do that for all of them) I’ll go back and do that.
Louisiana became the first state to mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, showing poor judgments and no spine, signed this foolishness into law. Louisiana is the first sate to do this because no others state is this stupid, apparently. The law is obviously, flagrantly unconstitutional, a bright-line First Amendment violation. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations are going to sue, they will win, and a lot of time and money will be wasted so Louisiana Republicans can grandstand.
Brilliant! The Democrats are basing their 2024 election hopes on painting Republicans as anti-democratic fanatics who would just love to live in a theocracy, so the GOP does this.
An exchange between Republican Louisiana state Rep. Lauren Ventrella and CNN host Boris Sanchez illustrated just how dim-witted the Louisiana GOP’s reasoning is—and Sanchez isn’t exactly Clarence Darrow; a sharper interviewer could have made metaphorical mincemeat out of Ventrella’s lame arguments.
Ventrella began by stating that faith, as represented by the Ten Commandments, are a significant historical component to the founding of the U.S. OK, but that’s not the issue. If schools are going to teach that, the lesson has to be faith-neutral, and using the central religious code of Christianity and Judaism as a centerpiece isn’t neutral.
“Sure, but do you also recognize that the Constitution of this country, its founding document, doesn’t include the word God or Jesus or Christianity and that’s for a reason and that’s because the founding fathers founded this country as a secular one,” Sanchez said. “You don’t see that?”
Ugh. Stay on point, Boris! All that matters is that the Supreme Court has held emphatically that the Constitution forbids the state from dictating religious beliefs. Where the line should be drawn is still a live question, but that the Ten Commandments are over that line is not.
“Boris, I bet you CNN pays you a lot of money. I bet you got a lot of dollar bills in that wallet,” Ventrella replied. Ugh again. She’s after the old “In God We Trust” motto. This is like the open border activists who cite the poem on the Statue of Liberty as evidence of a national policy. Both the motto and the poem are irrelevant.
“What does this have to do with the network that I work for or what I’m getting paid?” Sanchez asked. “Don’t make this about that, answer that question. Why did the founding fathers not include God in the Constitution if they wanted this country to be the way that you see it?”
Boris apparently didn’t see the silly motto argument coming. Well, you know: CNN.
“In God We Trust. We’ll make it about me. I’ve got a dollar bill in my wallet. In God We Trust is written on that dollar. It is not forcing anybody to believe one viewpoint, it’s merely posting a historical reference on the wall for students to read and interpret it if they choose,” Ventrella explained, making no sense. What is stamped on money isn’t the equivalent of highlighting a particular religion in schools. Sanchez then stated the obvious, that the Ten Commandments are more than merely “historical” and obviously advance specific religious beliefs. Of course, and Ventrella and her ilk know this, which is why the party wants the Ten Commandment in the classes rather than the Magna Carta. Her argument is completely disingenuous. And stupid.
“This is a very valuable document. Look, this nation has gotten out of hand with crime, with the bad, negative things that are going on. Why is it so preposterous that we would want our students to have the option to have some good principles instilled in them? If they don’t hear it at home, let them read it in the classroom,” she said. “Which is different than the Mayflower Compact which is mentioned in the document as well. I don’t understand why this is so preposterous in that litigation is being threatened. It doesn’t scare us in the state of Louisiana, we say bring it on.”
Wow. What a moronic rant. Has she read the Ten Commandments? The first one tells readers not to have any other god, and the next three are purely religious edicts. That’s 40%! A poster stating the messages of the next six commandments would be harmless and constitutional, but this law’s intent is promoting juddeo-Christian religious beliefs, despite Ventralla’s posturing
“Because if someone has a home in which they choose to believe something different, which is welcome in this country. It’s literally why people fled to come here to found this country to begin with. Then they should be allowed to. And it’s not really an option if you’re requiring it to be put up in the wall of the classroom,” Sanchez said. To this, Ventrella shrugged that students, parents and teachers who don’t share the “religious views” of the Ten Commandments should just avoid looking at it.
Ooooh, good one, Lauren.
The CNN host compared the Ten Commandments poster to hanging up the Five Pillars of Islam in public school classrooms. That is an excellent analogy, and, of course, all the state rep could do was babble. “This is not about the Five Pillars of Islam. This bill specifically states the Ten Commandments. It is a historical document …” Boris cut her off, since she was ducking the issue or, just as likely, too dumb to comprehend it.
“Sure, but I’m presenting you with a hypothetical that would help you put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not understand and their point of view,” he said. “How would you feel if you walked into a classroom and something you didn’t believe in was required to be on the wall? You can answer that question.” Ventella had no answer, because, again, she knows the objective of the law is religious indoctrination.
“I appreciate you, Boris. I cannot sit here and gather and fathom … you could give me a thousand hypotheticals. But again, this specific bill applies to this specific text. The Quran, or Islam, that is a very broad statement. We’re specifically talking about a limited text, on mind you, a piece of paper that’s not much bigger than a legal sheet of paper. Some kids might even need a magnifying glass to read all of this. This is not so preposterous that we’re somehow sanctioning and forcing religion down people’s throats. I’ve heard the comments and it’s just ridiculous,” Ventrella answered. Translation: “Huminahuminahumina…” She’s got nothing.
She also kept calling the Ten Commandments “historical.” Inigo Montoya has an observation:
There is no justification for calling the Ten Commandments a “historical” document. There is no historical evidence that Moses and the Ten Commandments as stone tablets ever existed, or that the Exodus occurred. These are religious stories, and Moses has the same “historical” status as Adam and Eve, Noah, and other Old Testament figures. A school even calling them “historical” is a religious assertion.
Neither the Constitution, nor precedent, not common sense backs her “it isn’t what it is” blather. Sadly, the conservative media immediately fell into line defending the law, wounding their own credibility in the process. Newsbusters:
This story is ultimately less about the actual Ten Commandments than about what they represent in this particular instance: a challenge to the left’s monopoly on what can be taught in schools. Said differently, Louisiana challenges the (secular) religious orthodoxies of the public education system as run by left-wing administrators in unison with the teachers’ unions…. The media have no problem with kindergarteners being taught on gender, or on third and fourth-graders having access to graphic sexual materials in school libraries. But the Ten Commandments are a bridge too far.
One final Ugh. The story is about the Ten Commandments, and Louisiana’s transparent effort to force a religious code on students in violation of the Establishment Clause. There’s nothing in the Constitution prohibiting public school indoctrination regarding sex. There is very clear prohibition against public schools promoting specific religions.
