On Musk Derangement Syndrome

Perhaps the clearest sign that a formerly mentally competent Facebook friend has gone over the rainbow to Progressive Wacko Land is if they write nasty things about Elon Musk.

Trump Derangement I can understand. Oh, at this point it’s juvenile and embarrassing to the sufferer as well as his or her family, but I can understand it. I easily could be a victim myself: “There but for the grace of God go I!” [a quote attributed to John Bradford (1510–1555) who was imprisoned in the Tower of London for crimes against Queen Mary I and burned at the stake.]

After all, from 2011 to 2016 I wrote dozens of Ethics Alarms posts about how awful Donald Trump was and a fair amount of very critical posts since then. Trump’s personality, rhetoric and conduct are so far removed from the nation’s historical template for its Presidents that the gag reflex is completely understandable, though if his style causes an individual to fail to appreciate what he has done (or tried to do) that is courageous, necessary and important (what we call “substance”), then bias has indeed made that individual stupid.

Elon Musk, however, is an unquestionable Ethics Hero. He will eventually get honored with a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and could justifiably get the honor tomorrow. Musk’s purchase of Twitter rescued civic discourse from the slowly tightening grip of progressive/Democratic Party control over what the public could read, learn about, consider and write. It is very likely that without the platform’s transformation to “X,” the Democrats would have held on to the Presidency despite their Politburo-like management of it under Joe Biden. That unselfish and patriotic purchase alone should guarantee appreciation even from those who disagree with Musk politically; that it doesn’t reveals ominous aspect of the Left’s priorities and values.

Continue reading →

The Last “Snow White” Post (I Promise)

Why is the Cognitive Dissonance Scale the graphic I chose for the final word on Disney’s “live-action” remake of Walt’s biggest and most important hit, 1937’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”? (For some perspective, realize that we have the same relationship on the timeline to that film that it had to the Presidency of Millard Fillmore.) It is clear that this cultural ethics train wreck, which EA has been dutifully covering (here, here, here, here here, and here), is now stuck inextricably in cognitive dissonance territory. For most viewers, what they think about the movie will be influenced far more by their biases and what they associate with the movie than the movie itself.

That’s how the scale works, as I keep explaining ad nauseam. If Disney is generally a plus-5 on a ticket-buyer’s scale (once upon a time, Disney would have been a plus-10 or higher on everyone’s scale) and the movie in a vacuum would be at “Meh”-level Zero, Disney would pull the film into positive territory. If Disney is in negative territory already for a different viewer, the film begins with an anchor chained to its metaphorical ankles.

Thus it is hardly surprising to see this as the early returns on the film (which doesn’t officially open in theaters until tomorrow):

Now that’s polarization!

What’s going on here? Well, a lot…

Continue reading →

An Unethical Cascade…Thanks, Metropolis!

The photo above carries the caption: “Metropolis parking utilizing AI to create drive in drive out parking without the need for a ticket and validation. This lot is at 236 S. Los Angeles in Little Tokyo in Downtown Los Angeles.” Here’s my caption: “Metropolis parking can bite me.”

And did, come to think of it.

Continue reading →

The 2024 Gallup “Americans’ Ratings of Honesty and Ethics of Professions”

I write a post about this annual Gallup survey every year, but my observations apart from the obvious have been increasingly redundant. This will be reflected in my comments this year as well, largely because little has changed significantly since 2023. Gallup writes in its introduction,

Gallup began measuring public trust in various professions in 1976, initially covering 14 jobs. Over the years, the list has changed, with some occupations added and others removed. Since 1999, 11 professions have been tracked annually, while others have been included periodically.

The average very high/high ethics rating of the core 11 professions has decreased from routinely 40% or higher in the early 2000s to closer to 35% during most of the 2010s. It rose slightly in 2020, to a seven-year high of 38%, reflecting enhanced public trust in healthcare workers and teachers during the pandemic. Thereafter, the average declined each year through 2023, when it reached 30%, and it held there in 2024. This mirrors the long-term decline in Americans’ confidence in U.S. institutions.

There is mordant humor in that text: the enhanced public trust in healthcare workers and teachers was wildly misplaced. The healthcare profession was inept and dishonest during the pandemic, and the teachers unions crashed the economy by lobbying to keep the schools closed for their own interests. It also reflects the trend I’ve see in these surveys for years: the public tends to trust occupations they have to trust, explaining why pharmacists and nurses have always been among the most trusted professions.

One reason the trust freefall has slowed, I believe, is that so many professions are trusted so little now that there isn’t much farther for them to fall. Only 8% of those surveyed trust Congress strongly: I’d assume that just the number of apathetic ignoramuses in the population would account for that number. It will be interesting to see if this clown show…

…drives trust in Congress lower still in the 2025 survey. And who knows what horrors are to come?

Continue reading →

Three Word Summary of “Working at Anheuser-Busch, I Saw What Went Wrong With the D.E.I. Movement”: “It was D.E.I.”

“The principles that built great American companies are simple: Hire the best people, serve your customers well and let merit and financial results determine success. While expanding opportunity and making employees feel welcome are worthy goals, how D.E.I. policies were carried out often strayed from these foundational principles and might have even created other forms of discrimination.”

It might have even created other forms of discrimination! Gee, ya think?

In a jaw-dropping example of the “Tell me something I don’t know” variety of journalism, the New York Times gives us “Working at Anheuser-Busch, I Saw What Went Wrong With the D.E.I. Movement” (Gift link!). Anson Frericks tells us that water is wet with the solemnity of a doctor announcing a cancer diagnosis. He was shocked–shocked!—when his company, having announced its commitment to “DEI,” turned down a beneficial distribution arrangement with another company because “being associated with Black Rifle was too politically provocative, especially in progressive circles.” This, in 2022, two years after the beginning of the George Floyd Freakout, made Anson realize that his employers were more interested in virtue-signalling to the Looney Left than selling beer.

What did he think “diversity, equity and inclusion” was going to mean?

Continue reading →

The Merle Oberon Story, or “Sometimes Those ‘Historic’ Oscar Nominations Aren’t So Historic After All” [Corrected]

In 1936, Merle Oberon, best known today because of her co-starring role opposite Laurence Olivier in “Wuthering Heights,” became the first Asian actress to get an Academy Award nomination, for her role in “The Dark Angel.” But in 2023, Michelle Yeoh was widely hailed as the Academy of Motion Picture Sciences’ first Asian Best Actress winner. That is because Oberon hid her ethnicity from journalists and the public for her entire career in order to have a career at all. It worked: in addition to getting the much-sought role of Kathy in “Wuthering Heights,” Oberon played Anne Boleyn (in the Charles Laughton classic, “The Private Life of Henry VIII”) at a time when non-traditional casting was unheard of.

Oberon died of a stroke in 1979; it wasn’t until four years later that it was revealed that she had been born in Bombay, India, the daughter of an Indian woman who had been raped by a white man. Written before the secret was revealed, the Times obituary seems naive in retrospect: “A diminutive 5 feet 2 inches tall, Miss Oberon was of an almost exotic beauty, with perfect skin, dark hair and a slight slant to her eyes that was further accentuated by makeup.” Almost!

Continue reading →

Regarding the Washington Post’s New Opinion Page Policy…

Do you understand what this means? I don’t.

Since a lot of writers work for Jeff, I would have suggested that he have one of them draft that statement with his oversight. Presumably he means that the Post will no longer publish op-eds like this…

…but he could have just as easily written that the Post will no longer give a platform to Trump Deranged nutballs like Jennifer Rubin, who had already quit anyway. My best analysis is that Bezos has just officially said that the Washington Post is leaving the Axis, and will no longer be a reliable ally and propaganda organ of the Far Left and the Democratic Party, which now consistently advocates that the U.S. become a European-style nanny state and that personal liberties be pared back, especially those enshrined in the First and Second Amendments. If that’s the idea, it is an admirable goal, though I think it is far too late for the Post to change course, and that the 95% Democrat city of D.C. is the worst possible place to try.

It is fun to see and hear the Angry Left freak out over the announcement. Here is one of the Post’s most unethical propagandists, the eloquent Phillip Bump:

Continue reading →

Guest Post: An Open Letter To My Progressive Friends…

by Arthur in Maine

To my progressive friends (and I am proud to have many) who have been posting memes about boycotting on 2/28, I have a suggestion: Stop.

I mean it. Just stop. You’re revealing nothing other than your own ignorance of how money and commerce work. At best, you’re preaching to your own choir and changing no minds. You’re advocating tactics fifty years past their sell-by dates. I know this, because fifty years ago, I was a left-wing activist. We used the same tactics. They made us feel good. They didn’t work then, and they won’t work now.

More to the point, this boycott gag has been tried numerous times since and nothing ever happened. The companies you’re “boycotting” know they’ll get your money anyway, as soon as you need a tank of gas or a basket of cheap groceries. They don’t care when you buy. February 28, March 3, hey – it all fits neatly in the quarterly projections. First quarter, y’all. At minimum, time these things to the last week of a reporting quarter – that might make a minimal dent. Timing it this way is sheer ignorance.

You don’t like Trump? Fine, I get it. I don’t like him either. But consider that a plurality of the country thought that the agenda the Democrats advanced in the last four years is nuts, and voted accordingly. Consider that a plurality of the country rejected the previous administration and its patch job when it was clear that said admin was led by a puppet, and offered up a another puppet to replace him. From my perspective, a plurality of the country said “we may not like Trump, but he’s still better than what we’ve been offered.”

Continue reading →

I’m Not Forgetting The Alamo This Year, and Other Concerns…

That is one of several plaques around San Antonio that memorializes William Barrett Travis’s desperate but inspiring letter on this date in 1836 calling for assistance as the fortress Travis commanded found itself under siege by the Mexican army. Last year at this time, I’m ashamed to say, I was too preoccupied to write about the Alamo, its defenders and its importance in American history and lore. I’m just as preoccupied now, frankly, but also determined not to neglect my duty to give proper respect and acknowledgement to 220 or so volunteers who, by their courage, comradery and dedication to a cause, displayed the best of the American spirit. Travis, Bowie, Crockett, Bonham and the rest would have really gotten a kick out of Trump’s post-assassination attempt theater.

Meanwhile,

1. I won’t be using the History Channel’s daily history prompts from now on. It seriously hacked me off, first by insisting that I consent to an A&E “Consumer Agreement” and not making a way to consent to it evident, but worse, presenting me with this monster (skip to the end; for God’s sake don’t try to read it!)

I have lectured and written abut this before. No ethical lawyer should prepare such a thing which they know with 100% certainty that literally no one can or will read. That’s not informed consent. That’s chicanery. Nor should a consumers have to pay lawyers to explain what what they are agreeing to. If I were asked to advise a client about the propriety of inflicting such a document on anyone, I would a) end up charging them several thousand dollars for my time and b) tell them that if they couldn’t cut the agreement down to three pages while defining every legal term in it, I would regard it as signature significance for an untrustworthy company. Give consumers a video to listen to that explains what the document covers in simple English. Something…anything but that mess. This is how Disney ended up using the agreement to sign up for a free trial on Disney+ to try to dodge a negligence suit at EPCOT. Over the past year, as I have been digging out from a financial disaster, I’ve become really good at saying, “You know what? I don’t want or need this service enough to tolerate the way you manipulate and mistreat customers. Screw you.”

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “More Re-Branding Ethics: ‘What is This “Boy Scouts” of Which You Speak’?”

Brad Davidson. the father of two Eagle Scouts and a silver award Girl Scout, wrote this Comment of the Day to defend the re-named Boy Scouts of America. now “Scouting America,” from a critical post here from May, 2024. Despite the criticism, I was very pleased to see his passionate, well-argued rebuttal. As I noted in the original essay, Jack Marshall Sr. regarded the organization as his savior, because the Boy Scouts gave him structure and a support network when he was a fatherless only-child growing up in Kentucky during the Depression. Dad would have been crushed if he had lived long enough to watch the Bot Scouts staggering under the terrible publicity it suffered in the wake of its child molestation scandal and the subsequent lawsuits that drove it into bankruptcy.

Since Brad mentions it more than once, I must pause briefly to to defend my use of the term “rot” to describe the Scouts ( I never used the terms “ethics rot,” “ethical tot” or “moral rot.”) I hold that any organization that has many episodes of adults in authority criminally molesting children under its auspices—and the Scouts had almost 93,000 claims across all 50 states and the District of Columbia when the organization went into Chapter 11—by definition has allowed its culture to fall apart in metaphorical chunks. The Boy Scouts induced families to entrust its sons to their care, and then did not adequately execute that care. Such widespread criminal activity cannot exist without an organization’s leadership engaging in contrived ignorance. The fact that other organizations were equally negligent is not a defense.

Here is Brad Davidson’s Comment of the Day on the post, “More Re-Branding Ethics: ‘“’What is This ‘Boy Scouts’ of Which You Speak?’” I combined his comment on EA with a subsequent email he sent me off-site, with his permission.

***

You have made some claims about Scouting that are just that–claims, not based in reality. “Decades of ethical rot” is a claim, and I see no proof, other than you hate the name change.

I was a Cub Scout and then a Boy Scout (and then Scouts BSA) leader for 12 years, and have 2 sons who are Eagle Scouts. My daughter was in Girl Scouts, and I was a leader for that group as well but took a back seat to two women who really ran the group. My role was more of the “get ’em outdoors” role for the girls.

First, I am not sure what the “ethical rot” entails. Was it un-banning homosexual scoutmasters and scouts? Scouting is not the place for sexual education nor sexual encounters; we don’t care what you do outside of scouting, provided it is legal and has no influence on your scouting experience. This is the real world, scouting goes up to 18, and there are times when boys or adults get in legal trouble, and we had to make a judgement call–but again, if it involved sex, other than criminal sexual activity, none of it is our business. “Morally straight” gives us an opportunity to talk about personal relationships in general, but we are guys who take kids camping, not sexual educators.

Second, GSA and BSA are not related organizations. They actually compete, and from my point of view, don’t like each other. Scouting America (the new name) is part of an international scouting movement; it was not founded here in America, nor is it headquartered here. The global scout movement is overwhelmingly co-ed. We were one of the ONLY scouting organizations that had limits on female participation. We ended this in large part because, frankly, it’s hard for families to join and have the girls not involved. My daughter did a LOT of homework at scout meetings, and wished she could have gone camping instead of selling cookies.

Continue reading →