On Twitter/”X,” the advocacy organization “Restore Childhood” documents the horrific case study of a little boy pushed into “gender affirming care” by his woke-lunatic mother, facilitated by unethical medical professionals. Below is the tweet series. You can watch the disturbing videos here.
I guess I understand how this could happen, but I don’t want to.
Student cheerleaders at Evans Middle School in Lubbock, Texas displeased their cheerleading coach by doing the “wrong cheer,” whatever than means, and she disciplined them by ordering the girls to do “bear crawls” and “crab walks” for miles on an outdoor track when in was nearly 100 degrees in Lubbock and the temperature on the track was well over a hundred. Some of the girls became sick under the sun, all of the cheerleaders ended up with first and second degree burns on their hands and knees, and at least one had to go to a burn center.
When they complained that the track was painful, the coach reportedly said that she didn’t care, and to keep crawling. Parents are furious, naturally, and the evil teacher has been placed on leave (she should be prosecuted—Special query for Humble Talent: Would it be unethical for me to add, “and should be shot”?), but what bothers me is that none of the girls had the sense, character and courage to refuse to accept the cruel punishment, and when the coach said that those who didn’t “crab walk” on the hot track would jeopardize their “cheer careers” (Remember, this is Texas, aka. Bizarro World), at least one girl—we would call her a “leader”—didn’t say, “Well take this cheer and shove it, I’m out of here!,” stop crawling, and walk away on her feet. Movie fans of the original “Carrie” will recall that the protagonist’s chief foe refused to do push-ups as her gym teacher’s punishment for mocking her vulnerable classmate in the shower. That character is a jerk, but she is a gutsy jerk.
I know I have written about this general phenomenon before, but my sense of urgency is increasing.
Today, while walking Spuds on a gorgeous, sunny, breezy Northern Virginia day, I saw two young boys sitting near a field under a tree, They looked to be 10 or 11, maybe older. I watched them for almost 20 minutes: I was fascinated. They were within a foot of each other, and never said a word or looked up…from their smart phones.
The internet is the most stunning example of a technological development having unanticipated and in many ways devastating effects on society and culture at least since radio, yes, I think even more television. A close second, however, is the cell phone.
I remember as a kid the constant refrain from my parents was that it was a beautiful day and that I should go outside and “play” instead of watching TV. I’m pretty sure I watched more TV than most kids then, but I also did a lot of stuff outside with my friends. And we talked to each other—about our parents and siblings, our neighbors, cool things we had read, yes, TV episodes, movies, the Red Sox, girls, school, and our dreams. We even talked about politics. It is amazing how many groups of children and especially teenagers I see hanging out but not saying a word to each other, because they are texting, or following social media, or staring at little screens for other reasons.
I was trying to imagine “Stand by Me” with cell phones. All of those adventures, intimate conversations, fanciful exchanges and the rest wouldn’t happen today. Gordy and his pals would just stare at their “devices” and never get to know each other at all. They would have shallow friendships, shalllow experiences, and grow up to be shallow adults.
One of the half-completed posts that has been sitting stalled on the EA metaphorical runway for years has been an essay on life competencies. No doubt about it: mastering new technology is one of those crucial life skills, but so is learning to communicate verbally, recognize a person’s moods and body language, and to learn to function and thrive “unplugged.” For all their many advantages, the cell phones that dominate our children’s attention—and ours, but that’s another set of issues—are crippling them. They are growing up lacking the ability to reason with each other, argue, inspire, learn, flirt—so much more.
I would advocate parents forcing their kids to surrender phones when they leave the house “to play,” but modern parents are terrified that a phoneless child will be preyed upon by the evils that lurk outside. I would advocate limiting smartphone time, or making minors settle for actual phones and not wield mini-computers, but that horse has left the barn too.
This is a social pathogen, and one would think it could be flagged as such and dealt with. I have no idea how we can do that now. One of the Ethics Alarms mottoes is “Fix the problem!” What the consequences will be if we don’t, I am incapable of prognosticating.
But they won’t be good.
Early favorites for “Parents of the Year”!
Darien Urban, 21, and Shalene Ehlers, 20, decided to sell their baby to a stranger while they were at a camp ground. (No, they weren’t married: why would you even ask?) As Mom explained later, having to deal with a baby while taking care of three dogs was just too much. All they asked for was a six-pack of beer and a thousand bucks. What a deal!
“I, Darien Urban and Shalene Ehlers, are signing our rights over to [Cody Martin] of our baby for $1,000 on 9/21/24,” their contract read. Good: these things should be legal. “After signing this there will be no changing y’all two’s minds and to never contact again,” it concluded.
I don’t grant the 10-year-old this honor because of his assessment of Harris, but because he had the guts and the integrity to give that answer, without blinking, to a CNN propagandist.
I fervently hope after our indoctrination factory in the public schools get their hooks into him, he maintains the fortitude and independence he declared here. Oh, I’m sure it’s likely that his parents would answer the same way. Nevertheless, it was a bracing moment. There is hope.
I’m surprised CNN didn’t “factcheck” him….
However, I did summon George Costanza…
CTV News in Calvary, Canada blithely reported this as if it made perfect sense…
“Calgary police have released a photo of a suspect wanted in connection with a fire in the community of Riverbend that damaged multiple homes. Emergency crews were called to a home in the 100 block of Riverglen Crescent S.E. at 12:40 a.m. on Thursday, Aug. 22 for reports of a blaze. The fire gutted a garage and caused damage to two homes. No injuries were reported.”
And here’s the photo police posted:
Yup, it was that infamous Dick Tracy villain, Blur-Face! “Because police think the suspect is a teen, they blurred the face in the photo that was released,” the CTV says. Oh. Makes perfect sense—in Canada, maybe. “The identity of young offenders is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act,” we are told.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if young offenders’ identities are protected, why are police asking people to identify this one? Officers are hoping someone may recognize the teen’s clothing, you see. My brain hurts: so they can publicize aspects of a “young offender’s identity” as long as it’s…what, not sufficient to be likely to identify him?
How does it advance respect for law enforcement to have police do something this pointless without out their appearing to acknowledge it’s probably futile? How does news media justify reporting the senseless as if it makes perfect sense?
Apparently a biological male who “identifies as female” plays on the Plymouth Regional High School girls’ soccer team in New Hampshire. When the team played its regional rival Bow High School, some Bow parents, protesting the presence of the player whom they regarded as a danger to the born-female players on the Bow team, wore wristbands like the ones above as a silent protest. The Bow High athletic director had told concerned parents before the contest that “in the wake of a federal judge’s ruling that the term ‘girl’ includes males who identify as female,” he felt he was powerless. (He’s a weenie. If he agreed with the parents, he could simply have his team refuse to play the Plymouth team, accept the consequences, and raise the issue.)
When the parents’ “XX” bands appeared at the game, school officials stopped the soccer match, ordered the parents to remove the wristbands, and even “issued [a] police-enforced ‘No Trespassing order’” against two parents who refused.
I presume I don’t have to explain all of the ethics alarms pinged by this amazing tale from academia….
An event this week at Arizona State University, “Jenny Irish’s HATCH: A Speculative Future for Reproductive Rights” held both in person and via Zoom, featured Irish, an English professor at ASU, and Professor Angela Lober, director of the Academy of Lactation Programs [ Wait, WHAT???] at ASU’s Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation.
Professor Lober began the one-hour moderated discussion by stating that she “got into this space because the United States hates women and everything the female body does.” Okaaaay—that’s certainly not “misinformation”…or inflammatory. Lober went on to say a “lack of financial incentives in breastfeeding and maternal-child health care” was proof of this hostility and showed that economic interests often override health concerns.
…I guess that’s encouraging in a faint-praise sort of way.
Seven-year-old Loki Skywalker Mowbray, pictured above, was recently denied a passport to accompany his parents on a family vacation to the Dominican Republic because the British Home Office, which is in charge of the nation’s immigration, security, and law and order, claimed it couldn’t print “Skywalker” on the document because of Disney’s copyright on the name. Some idiot told the shocked parents they either had to change the child’s name or get permission from Disney to use “Skywalker”—and we all know how reasonable Disney is about such things.
After an initial scare, non-morons in the Home Office prevailed eventually. The vacation wasn’t wrecked, and the child got to keep his name (Now watch Disney try to sue the parents.)
A more justified instance of government over-reach would have been questioning the fitness and judgment of parents who name their child after a Marvel villain (even in Norse Mythology Loki is a bad guy) and who feel compelled to saddle a kid with “Skywalker” because he happened to be born on May the 4th, as in “May the forthe be with you,” which is how Obi Wan said it after his front teeth fell out.
At least they didn’t name him “Chewbacca” or “Darth.”
Final tangential thought: Not too long ago Ethics Alarms used to have an entertainingly didactic British commenter whom I could count on to “pounce” on posts like this. I miss him…
I’m paraphrasing there, just to be clear. The actual statement, from Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small’s lawyer referring to his client and his client’s wife being charged with child abuse, was this head-blower:
“In fact, since elected mayor, Mayor Small has faithfully discharged all the duties, responsibilities and obligations of his office. So there is no public element to this indictment. It is all about private family affairs within the Small household.”
You are wrong, Zealous Representation Breath, but nice try anyway. Small’s lawyer, Edwin Jacobs, was stressing that the indictment did not accuse Small of official misconduct in his role as mayor, as he tried to assist his client in avoiding the political backlash from the charges (which Small denies, of course). This is arguably justifiable nit-picking in defense of a client, but it is also the kind of technical lawyer-speak that makes the whole profession look slimy.
Ethics Alarms 