More Family Ethics: The Estranged Child Problem

The New York Times now sends me all of its advice columns in a nice, neat, email package. I have ignored “Social Qs” for some time because its columnist, Philip Galanes, is a left-biased goof and his perspective is not to be trusted. (Here was the last time EA pondered a “Social Qs” column.) However, by presumably pure coincidence, Galanes’s latest column supplements the issue raised in this recent Ethics Alarms post about the adult child who wants to have old Mom talk to a bot about her problems because the adult child is sick of listening to her.

The “Social Qs” inquirer named “Mom” says that after a single heated argument with her adult daughter, the daughter declared that she would have no further contact with her mother “and has stuck to it.” She asked Galanes what she should do.

My answer would be along the lines of, “Good luck: you raised an ungrateful, cruel, socially handicapped asshole.” Galanes, naturally, suggests that the mother see a therapist (the daughter rejected joint counseling) because “it would probably mean a lot to your daughter.” Sure it would: that would be a tacit admission that the mother was in the wrong. However, in the course of offering his advice, Galanes made an interesting observation that had never occurred to me but has the ring of truth. He wrote,

“Another observation — which, again, I won’t assume applies to you — is generational: My parents, for instance, believed that family was everything. So they took a lot of guff from their parents and siblings — who, in turn, tolerated unpleasantness from them. But my siblings and I are more focused on our mental health and well-being: You can push us only so far before we make our exit.”

Notice that Galanes said “we,” meaning that he endorses the daughter’s cutting off her mother and might do the same. This comes on the heels of another column from “The Ethicist,” in which an inquirer asked “Is It Wrong to Leave My 85-Year-Old Mother Alone on Thanksgiving?” the Ethicist thought it was a reasonable question and I ruled that even asking it was evidence of ethics rot. My own offspring barely speaks to me despite living rent free in my home and my wife and I rescuing him from an orphanage in a horrible country.

Is this a vile new cultural norm? Did the Boomers raise a generation that don’t respect their elders and look upon their families as casual connections to be cut off on a whim? How did that happen? Is this another side effect of Marxist indoctrination? And most of all, now what?

[Note: that scene above is what I believe is an excellent portrayal of a father-daughter estrangement being healed. The scene was written and directed by Aaron Sorkin. I recommend the film, “Molly’s Game,” highly, from an ethical, legal, and artistic perspective.]

What Price Whimsy?

The New York Times has a provocative article (the issue isn’t political—yet, but just wait a few minutes) about how giant silly roadside attractions like the Paul Bunyan featured prominently in “Fargo” or Tyra the Tyrannosaurus (above), an 86 feet tall T-Rex that looms over Drumheller in Alberta, Canada are increasingly expensive to maintain. I was surprised how many of these frivolous things there are: an estimated 10,000 of them worldwide, mostly in the United States, Canada and Australia. The bulk of the U.S.’s roadside novelties sprung up in the mid-20th century as Ike’s interstate highway system took hold, more people bought cars, and family road trips became a summer vacation staple.

But now the aging structures are facing extinction. Lucy the Elephant (above) in Margate City, N.J. (I’ve visited Lucy!) was built in 1881 and has been designated historic, so a recent makeover that cost $2.4 million was deemed appropriate. But Tyra is coming down in 2029. The world’s largest hockey stick in Duncan, British Columbia, was dismantled in 2024 after 36 years after the community decided there were more practical uses for the $1.5 million it would cost to replace the crumbling wooden structure.

I loved crazy silly things growing up; heck, I still do because I’ve never grown up. Then they were just awe-inspiring and fun; now they are cultural touch-points and a source of whimsy as well as reminders of more innocent and emotionally healthy times.

The recent advances of the far left in the U.S. have some hidden tendrils. Socialist and Communist countries don’t have giant beavers, squirrels, the world’s largest cowboy boots, Vikings, or the likes of Willie the Walleye. Too frivolous. Think of all the hungry children who could be fed, all the homeless who could be clothed…and so on…with the money it costs for construction and maintenance. There’s no practical argument against that position, except that the spirit of a nation is important too, just impossible to quantify. Whimsy, imagination, the pure joy of a child seeing something memorable—these have value too, don’t they?

Nonetheless, I can’t foresee whimsy surviving in a nation that believes in income distribution and clinically obese government. The issue raised by the Times is political, and nostalgia is considered inherently racist and reactionary by our rising (and indoctrinated) generations.

Family Ethics: Apparently “The Ethicist” Has Decided To Only Answer Stupid Questions From Now On…

This is the latest question from an ethics-challenged boob that “The Ethicist” (the New York Times Magazine’s ethics advice columnist, Kwame Anthony Appiah) thinks is worthy of discussion and publication:

“Can I Have an A.I. Chatbot Field My Mother’s Endless Complaints?” “Would using a chatbot as an emotional buffer be compassionate, or would we be failing in our filial duty by substituting an algorithm for a child’s attention?”—Name Withheld

Wow. No wonder you withheld your name from being attached to that disgusting suggestion, Whoever You Are. If you didn’t, everyone with an ethical brain cell left would know you’re a heartless asshole.

The answer is “No!” Sure, you can do it, just as you can set the neighbor’s dog on fire. But it’s obviously unethical, wrong, unforgivable, and a terrible idea. Of course it is. Gee, would it be all right to substitute a bot for actual parenting when your child is upset? Oooh, tough one! Would it be ethical to have chatbot in the confession booth while the priest takes a nap?

I wrote this before bothering to read what good ol’ Kwame wrote. Let’s see…

Ugh. “The Ethicist” actually thinks this abdication of family duty might be justifiable! He writes,

“The fact that a chatbot is no substitute for human companionship doesn’t mean it can’t play a useful role when other people aren’t available. You owe your mother attention and companionship, but not in unlimited quantities. It’s relevant that you and your brother are feeling exhausted by emotional demands that exceed what you can reasonably supply. If your mother would feel better having an A.I. chat partner, that counts as a reason to provide one.”

The last sentence is a despicable cheat. “If your mother would feel like she was getting exactly the same amount of attention and loving concern from a machine that she obviously needs from her children, then why not?” That’s a self-ratifying proposition. It would be just as valid if you substituted “trained snail” or “inanimate carbon rod” for “machine.”

If my parents , or my wife or my sister, or my son felt the need to talk to me, and especially me, for any reason important to them, I would be there for them, and they knew it. There was no limit. There would never be a limit. The same is true of any friend. (My clients, on the other hand, pay for the privilege) If I were running short of time due to other commitments, I would say so with apologies, but promise to be available as soon as possible. What I would never say is, “Hey, here’s a bot you can talk to. Good luck!”

You can read the whole exchange here. If I were you, I’d use my time more judiciously.

Holiday Ethics: Perhaps The Easiest Question “The Ethicist” Has Ever Been Asked—And He Botches It!!!!

When I saw the headline on The Ethicist’s weekly New York Times column: “Is It Wrong to Leave My 85-Year-Old Mother Alone on Thanksgiving?” I thought, “Wait, is this the Onion making fun of The Ethicist?” No, “Name Withheld” really submitted that question, and Kwame Anthony Appiah, who has been The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist since 2015 and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U., really thought it was worthy of publication. The inquirer writes in part,

“…The concern here is that my sibling is going out of town for Thanksgiving with his family. My spouse and I would also like to go away for the first holiday we’ve had to ourselves in a long time! But there’s my mother. She’s pretending our proposed getaway is perfectly fine with her and that she’ll find some way to spend the holiday, but she’s clearly not looking forward to it. I’m torn between thinking, She’s a big girl, she’ll manage, and thinking that my spouse and I should suck it up this year and have Thanksgiving with my mother, and then maybe next year things will be different. I’d appreciate your thoughts.”

What the hell? Mom’s not a “big girl,” she’s an old girl, and at 85, every Thanksgiving, heck, every day could be her last. “Suck it up”? SUCK IT UP????? All the mother has is her family, and her children are choosing to leave her alone in her twilight years on the American holiday that symbolizes loving families.

Here is the brain-dead response from The Ethicist, which I am publishing in all its unethical, incompetent glory:

Final Halloween Ethics Fouls

One doesn’t expect much in terms of intelligence, judgment and taste from a reality TV star, but McCall DePron, who is also an “influencer” so that’s two strikes against her before this conduct (Strike three!), is special. Her whole family is tasteless and clueless or being trained to be. That’s the photo above she posted on Instagram of her clan’s so clever Halloween costumes, evoking, celebrating, mocking, giggling at—I don’t know what to call it—one of the most shattering days in U.S. history

McCall is dressed as Jackie Kennedy the day her husband was murdered while sitting by her side. Her himbo hubby is supposed to be JFK before the front of his head was shot off, and her kids are supposed to be John-John, Caroline, and two Secret Service agents. Caroline Kennedy is still alive and surely thinks this trivializing of the day her world fell apart was a wonderful splash of Halloween fun. And, frankly, I’m alive too. November 22, 1963 was a generational trauma for members of my generation; 9-11 doesn’t come close. The fact that a social media “influencer” is so ethically and historically retarded is yet another cultural canary dying in the mine of U.S. society.

DePron took down her “Happy Halloween!” post that included the disgusting photo. Too late, moron. Attaching “happy” to anything related to that day is signature significance proving a porous brain and rotting soul.

“The Ethicist” Answers a Question So Easy That Having to Ask It Is “Signature Significance”…

…meaning, signature significance because only an ethics-challenged fool who shouldn’t be trusted to keep sharp objects away from children would be unable to answer it correctly in a nanosecond.

Once again, I wonder what criteria Kwame Anthony Appiah uses to pick which questions to answer. With this one, for example, does he assume NYT readers are so dense and ethics-free that many of them need this guidance?

Hmmm. Considering the comments on the Axis’s favorite paper’s usual propaganda, he may be right.

The question from “Name Withheld” is, in sum: “My grandmother is 94 and has dementia. Her short-term memory is very limited, though some recent events, like the death of a cousin, have stayed with her and still upset her….her daughter [ the writer’s mother] has died. The news could cause her real anguish and possibly affect her physical health [or] she might forget and then have to learn, and grieve, the loss repeatedly. At the same time, despite their estrangement, it feels as if she has a right to know.”

Gee, tough one! What to do? Let the poor woman fade away in peace and in a blissful state of ignorance regarding a loss that can’t possibly make her feel anything but worse (the inquirer even says that there isn’t going to be a memorial service or a funeral), or, in the alternative, risk traumatizing her when she is in a vulnerable state because of an imaginary “right” that doesn’t apply to such extreme circumstances. Wow, we need a real professional to solve this one!

Comment of the Day: “The Naked Teacher Principle, Brought To You By “Only Fans” Again and Of Course”

Cees Van Barneveldt argues in this morning’s Comment of the Day that The Naked Teacher Principle (NFP) “is wholly insufficient for today’s educational environment at public schools.” Beginning with a sentence in the final paragraph in my post, “The Naked Teacher Principle, Brought To You By “Only Fans” Again and Of Course,” it moves into new vistas where no previous EA post on the NFT has gone before.

And here it is…

***

...with holding a parent’s trust as a role model and a conveyor of societal values… 

Assume that I were a parent of two teenage sons, and they are both educated at a public school. What reasonable expectations should I have for their education, and their development as young men ready to conquer the next stage of life? I mentioned the word “men” in the previous sentence, as we cannot skip sexual development, and the development of a healthy identity. What good parents want is that their boys grow up to men with character, who are secure in their manhood, who know how to properly interact with others including with the other sex, have healthy friendships, do not grow up to be bullies, are able to form healthy relationships and marriages.

The main responsibility for a healthy sexual and moral development of children lies with the parents. Sending a child to school means that some of activities of raising a child is delegated to a third party; however delegation of that task should leave the ultimate responsibility for moral development with the parents. Delegation requires trust. Trust that the values taught at school do not undermine the values taught by the parents and that are commonly held in the parent’s community. Trust that the schools are transparent to the parents about critical issues pertaining to their children. Trust that the teachers of the school act as proper role models, living out those values. This has implication for which teachers you hire and fire; which the NTP relates to.

The current day public school environment betrays the trust of parents in multiple ways. Schools deliberately undermine existing societal values by aggressively pushing radical social and sexual agenda’s favored by radical minorities by shoving these issues into the faces of very young children. I have mentioned transgenderism in a previous comment. Before the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage (Obergefell) the issue pushed at schools was everything related to homosexuality. This has resulted in a lot of sexual confusion, and a pandemic of children who at a way too young age are put on path of irreversible steps to gender transition. Even worse is that the public schools go to great lengths to hide all this from the parents of the children involved. This type of environments does not generate teenagers who are secure in their sexual identity, who know they are accepted; instead it creates teenagers who are physically and mentally damaged. It creates freaks like Tyler Robinson who was up to his ears in alternative sexualities like furry and transgender, and who proceeded to murder Charlie Kirk.

The current day public school environment betrays the trust of parents by pushing all the DEI and CRT crap on children. “Toxic Masculinity”, “Smash the Patriarchy”, “Men are trash”, “Women are the Future.”A couple of days ago we saw that this junk is aggressively promoted by the teacher unions. The result of this are dispirited and cynical young men who “fail to launch,” and will not leave their parents house until in their thirties, do not date and become INCELs, who resent women, and are open for the racist and antisemitic ideas of Mick Fuentes as a raised middle finger to the indoctrination they got at school.

Peak Lindsay Clancy Ethics Train Wreck Insanity! “The View’s” Sara Haines Can’t Understand Why Clancy’s Husband Divorced Her

@juice5news

🚨 THE VIEW HOST QUESTIONS PATRICK CLANCY FOR DIVORCING LINDSAY CLANCY ‼️ Sara Haines questioned how Patrick’s marital love ended so quickly after Lindsay killed their 3 children. Patrick has since remarried. Do you agree with Haines? #LindsayClancy #PatrickClancy

♬ original sound – Juice 5 News – Juice 5 News

[Sorry for stooping to using TikTok, but it had the only suitable clip that WordPress would let me embed…]

“The View” is trying to get its own private dining car on the Lindsay Clancy Trial Ethics Train Wreck. First Sunny Hostin uses the issue to declare that she was the “lone juror” who got a man declared not guilty after he killed a woman and made her into a delicious soup…and it turns out that she was lying about the whole thing and wasn’t the “lone juror” after all. Now Sara Haines—how can anyone determine which of these opinionated, wokeness-infected, ignorant women is the dumbest?—expressed her shock that Lindsay Clancy’s husband (now remarried) would divorce the woman who murdered his children. After all, Haines says, don’t the marriage vows state “in sickness or in health”?

Well yes, Sarah, but at least the vows I took didn’t have a “whether one of us murders our kids or not” clause in there.

Haines really and truly asks, “How did the marital love end so quickly?” Gee, that’s a real brain-teaser. Domestic abuse activists argue that “marital love” has been abandoned once a husband punches his wife in the face, but that’s obviously bad and inexcusable. Murdering the children is more nuanced. Good question, Sara. I’ll have to think about that….

How is someone as dumb and confused as Haines on television anyway? The inconvenient truth about all journalism is that the vast majority of reporters just aren’t very bright, and certainly not as smart as they think they are. Nonetheless, we allow them to have public platforms and exposure that consistently accomplish the opposite of what our Founders believed made “the press” essential to a functioning democracy. Heck, we allow them to manipulate elections. Haines and her colleagues—not just the confederacy of dunces on “The View” but reporters and pundits generally—make the public less informed, less astute, less ethical and less responsible. Somehow this stupid woman—yes, I hold that asking why a man would divorce his wife after she murdered three children, especially their three children, is signature significance: no intelligent person even thinks that’s a puzzle, never mind announcing it on national TV—managed to be a correspondent on NBC and ABC. What does that tell us about the competence, judgment and trustworthiness of broadcast news?

Related questions:

Will anything cause ABC to recognize that calling “The View” a news program is a disgrace, and that the network metaphorically soils itself and the culture every time it gives this coven of morons gets another hour to lobotomize the public?

How do Democrats continue to get votes when siding with progressives means associating oneself with the likes of Sara, Sunny, Whoopi and Joy, never mind Bernie, Kamala, AOC, Fredo, Ayanna, Jasmine, Gavin, and Zohran?

When did American woman lose their ethical bearings?

Can they be saved?

The Ritz Brothers and The Duty To Remember

I have several of these posts on the EA runway, but I’ve been thinking about posting on the Ritz Brothers for an especially long time.

I mysteriously started getting Turner Classic Movies again from DirecTV several months ago without having it in my package. (“We do that sometimes” was the explanation I got when I asked the satellite service about it.) I had started using a lesser package for economy reasons following the near collapse of my company as a result of what I will forever call “The Stupid Lockdown.” TCM is the cinema equivalent of my now defunct professional regional theater company, “The American Century Theater,” which mounted stage productions that had cultural significance but that the more practical companies never present any more. Since the channel’s return I have been struck by how many major talents have been almost completely forgotten despite the fact that 1) they were once very famous and popular and 2) they deserved to be.

The video above is probably the quickest way to get a crash course in Ritz Brothers lore. In one of the clips in the video , Dick Cavett introduces a segment of his show by saying that “today” most people under the age of 40 probably have never heard of the Ritz Brothers. That “today” was in the 1980s. I have never received a positive response from anyone I have asked about the brothers. Yet The Ritz Bothers, which can best be described as a spectacular vaudeville act that peaked in films in the Thirties and Forties and then almost totally avoided TV while starring in nightclubs, were memorable. Unlike the Marx Brothers or the Three Stooges, two other trios whose cultural legacy is more secure, the Ritz Brothers did not highlight individual members of their team but rather emphasized remarkable unity and coordination. They danced, they sang, they did carefully choreographed physical comedy and slapstick, and were almost completely indistinguishable. Almost. Harry, “the One in the Middle,” clearly had an extra measure of presence and charisma, and it is he who is most cited by succeeding generations of comics as an icon.

Comedy historian Anthony Scibelli writes,

Ethics Alarms Usually Concentrates On The Unethical Conduct Of Current Senators, But In The Case Of Kyrsten Sinema I’ll Make An Exception…

I was glad to see the often rogue Democrat/Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema leave Congress and my ethics scrutiny because she was a one-woman EA spelling landmine: I always wanted to spell her first name “Krysten” and her last name “Cinema.” But a federal judge last week cleared the way for a the wife of a man she had been having an affair with while she was a U.S. Senator to litigate a North Carolina “homewrecker” lawsuit against her.

Good.

To be fair, Ethics Alarms had extolled Sinema a couple times in the past, most recently in 2021, when I wrote:

“Totalitarianism takes a hit! Is it fatal? Senator Krysten Sinema (D-Az) is suddenly evil in the eyes of progressives hoping to ram through SCOTUS packing, gun restrictions, D.C. statehood, HR One and other measures designed to make the US a one party, European-style nanny state until the stars turn cold. She announced that she is unalterably opposed to eliminating the filibuster, meaning that it’s probably here to stay, at least for a while. The ethical response to this development would be for the two parties to stop insisting on extreme positions, and work toward compromises, as our system was designed to foster. Nah.”

Nonetheless, Sinema carried on a sexual affair with her bodyguard (heh!), leading to his divorce. Sinema’s lawyers had asked U.S. District Judge David A. Bragdon to toss the suit, arguing she had no meaningful ties to North Carolina and had conducted her affair with Matthew Ammel entirely in other states. Bragdon, rejected that account in a 13-page order.