The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), sued Fearless Fund, whose mission is to “bridge the gap in venture capital funding for women of color,” in the Northern District of Georgia over its grant program open only to black women. In rejecting the claim and the request for an injunction, Senior Judge Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. wrote in part,
The Defendants, in my opinion, have a message that they are trying to communicate that black women business people have suffered discrimination and lack of equal access to capital to begin, expand, and promote businesses. And the Defendants, with their grants, are trying to send a message that they recognize that and want to support black female business people with their charitable donations. Under the controlling Eleventh Circuit authority of Coral Ridge Ministries media, donating money qualifies as expressive conduct and is entitled to First Amendment protection. That was not a 1981 case, but I have no reason to believe that the Eleventh Circuit would have decided the case any differently under Section 1981.
And the Plaintiff disagrees with that message. They want the Defendants to communicate a different message. Well, that’s not the way it works. The First Amendment protects the Defendants’ right to decide what message they want to promote, and that’s what the First Amendment is all about. So for those reasons, I’m going to deny the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and deny the Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pending appeal.
The asinine “Stand Up For Science” mug I wrote about earlier today still rankles, and I just realized that a video that surfaced this month is relevant to it. I had seen a recently released TEDTalk given in 2013 by S. Matthew Liao. He is the Director of the Center for Bioethics and Affiliated Professor in the Department of Philosophy at New York University, and has previously been on the faculty of Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and Princeton. He’s also the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Moral Philosophy. Several conservative commentators had freaked out over the video; naturally, the mainstream media buried it. They did that because it represents the outer limits of a climate change panic whackadoodle, and this guy is unquestionably not just a SCIENTIST of the sort that the mug-makers want us to fall down and worship as the all-knowing, all-seeing societal architects they are, but also an ethicist as well. I considered it as a post topic but decided against using it, because, well, it seemed too silly to have to point out how irresponsible Liao is.
This embarrassing thing has over 5,000 “likes” on Facebook, including many from friends of mine who I will henceforth have a hard time looking in the eye.
The mug, which is available free of charge “for a limited time only,” annoys me more than the “In this house we believe” signs with their fatuous virtue-signaling, generalizations (“Love is Love”) and rationalizations (“No Human Being Is Illegal”). because the game it plays is more sinister and confusing to the intellectually handicapped. It is a political propaganda device that deliberately uses false equivalencies in order to ridicule and denigrate legitimate dissent from current progressive cant.
The smug mug’s three statements of the obvious (“The Earth is not flat,” “Chemtrails aren’t a thing” and “We’ve been to the moon”) contradict fringe wacko conspiracy theories that don’t require debunking, since only a tiny and insignificant percentage of the public believes in them or ever has, and almost all of that group breathe through their mouths. However, mixed in among those topics as if they are in the same category are reductive generalizations about two public policy issues involving serious and valid controversies. That’s dirty pool, and worse, the statements aspire to end debates that they don’t even fairly reference.
News item: As of this morning, at least 61 people had been arrested in connection to widespread looting over two days in Philadelphia. The looting began Tuesday night with at least 30 people arrested for crimes including burglary, theft and participating in rioting. Those arrested included Dayjia Blackwell, aka. “Meatball,” a Philadelphia social media influencer who helped organize and then live-treamed the looting barrage. The viral lawlessness continued for two more days, with shoe stores, pharmacies, beauty parlors and liquor stores being attacked, among other businesses. At least 25 people were arrested for the looting that took place the nextt evening, Wednesday.. Thursday night businesses across the city hired private security. Police officers were stationed outside several establishments, including drug stores and liquor stores. Claudia Silmeas, the owner of the beauty supply shop that was targeted, told reporters, in tears, “I just want them to stop. Stop. Just stop. We are innocent of all of this. I just want them to stop.”
Someone ask Claudia if she voted for a city government that has emphasized the de-criminalization of non-violent crimes and has enabled hostility to law enforcement to flourish in the wake of the demonizing of police following the Black Lives Matter pathogen. If the answer is yes, she is assuredly not innocent.
I look at these windows and I am disappointed. Our culture has moved away from what should be presented everywhere: the true, good, and beautiful. Let us put these windows to the test.
Are these windows depicting what is true? Yes, things like this have happened. No one can argue on this. Are they depicting what is good? This is harder. The windows have the intent of being understood in several ways, some of them, NOT good. Finally beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that is true, but no one seriously thinks that the rose windows in Notre Dame are ugly. I certainly do no see much beauty in these windows. The signs are jarring and take up most of the space on the windows. The emphasis, therefore, is on signs and messages, not on beautiful pictures.
In addition, I look at this from the Catholic standpoint of stained glass typically showing multiple scenes of import or people to be admired. From that standpoint, I can come up with many better pictures for an attempt at a mostly apolitical set of windows. If one wants to tell the history of slavery even, I have some great ideas. I think our history has more important matters than that, but I’ll give the slavery a shot first. Of course, all of these will have to be simplified for the material of stained glass, but we have had Jesus feeding the multitudes on stained glass for centuries, not to mention all the other Bible stories. A true student of stained glass can simplify anything and do so meaningfully.
A lot of stuff piled up this month and especially yesterday, and I better get it discussed before it all gets lost in October…
1. Regarding that “debate”...I, and many others, owe Donald Trump an apology. He was both wise and right to pass up the Republican debates if they are going to be like the debacle yesterday. No debate with more that three participants is going to be a fair measure of anything but quips and soundbites, but this was especially bad, doing a disservice to the party, the candidates, and the public. Prime among the culprits was Fox News, whose moderators were incompetent and unfair. They couldn’t enforce the supposed rules—candidates who were attacked directly were not, as assured, give time to respond in many cases. Including a Univision open-borders advocate among the three—three moderators is two too many anyway—was despicable: moderators should not have an agenda and she obviously did. She also, in trying to impugn Ron DeSantis, repeated the media and Democratic Party lie that Florida’s guidelines for teaching about slavery suggest that slavery was beneficial to blacks.
Dana Perino, usually one of Fox News’ least annoying hosts, asked one of the most unprofessional questions of any debate moderator in memory, the moronic reality-show inspired, “Who would you vote off the GOP island?”query. Good for Gov. DeSantis, who did a Newt Gingrich impression and scolded her. DeSantis managed to come off better than the rest this time, but it is probably too late; again, the thing was too much of a wreck to really help any of the candidates.
Not that any of them helped themselves much either. Nikky Haley canceled out whatever progress she had made in the first debate this time by shrilly arguing with Vivek Ramaswamy, who is irrelevant to the proceedings except as a distraction (most Americans neither know nor care what TikTok is) and Tim Scott, another irrelevancy, (over a South Carolina gas tax?). Mike Pence continues to be an embarrassment—why does he think he has any chance at all?—and gave the most oogy statement of the night with his boast, “My wife isn’t a member of the teachers union, but I got to admit, I have been sleeping with a teacher for 38 years — full disclosure.” Then Pence blamed DeSantis for the Parkland school shooter getting a life sentence instead of the death penalty, when the killer was charged and sentences before DeSantis was elected Governor of Florida, and would have had no input into the sentencing anyway. The moderators seemed determined to ignore poor Doug Burgum—another example of the uselessness of the multiple debaters format, and Chris Christie, an established ethics villain, had already alienated pro-Trump and anti-Trump conservatives before he insulted everyone with his canned “Donald Duck” line (See, Trump has “ducked” the debates, see. Get it?)
2. Speaking of open borders, CNN’s Jake Tapper had one of his periodic moments of non-partisan integrity when Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley mouthed the ongoing Biden Administration lie that “No doubt about it, our border is secure.”
Tapper was aghast, as well he should have been “You think it is secure? You think the border is secure? Or it’s not secure?” Tapper asked. “The border is secure,” The shameless “Squad” member declared a second time. “But if you have millions of undocumented migrants coming into the country, how is the border secure?” he asked. “If you have people crossing border, it’s by definition not secure,” Tapper said. “Because it is not secure, [illegal immigrants] go on this journey, and one of the arguments that is made — and maybe you disagree with it — is that the border should be secure so as to discourage people from making this journey,” he continued. “But it just seems like just such a refusal to acknowledge reality to say that the border is secure when we all know millions of people are crossing the border illegally every year.” (Ya think?) Pressley’s only response to his question was that the issue “is a conversation for another day,” Tapper ended the interview.
How can so many citizens tolerate such repeated and obvious dishonesty?
The reliably woke, intellectually dishonest and frequently ridiculous New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg issued another one of her propaganda pieces, this time trying to excuse and rationalize the implosion of Boston University’s Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research, which is laying off most of its staff and looks headed for the dustbin of history. As for that, good. Kendi is one of the worst race-hustlers extant, and BU giving him such a platform for his divisive and destructive ranting was academic malpractice.
Goldberg’s dutiful excuse-making in “Ibram X. Kendi and the Problem of Celebrity Fund-Raising,”meanwhile, would be an embarrassment to the Times if it were a legitimate paper any more. She absolves Kendi of blame because he had no management experience and it was irresponsible of woke donors to give him so much money in their rush to signal their virtue. (I guess all those corporations should have just stuck with discriminating against white applicants in their hiring…) What she is admitting without having the integrity to do so openly is that Kendi was and is a blowhard phony who talked big but was untrustworthy. Ann Althouse sharply observes the hypocrisy here:
If we’re going to do critical race theory, let’s not hold back when the insights are inconvenient. Lavishing money on an unprepared — but charismatic — black person and then treating him like a naif when he fails to perform according to existing conventions — that too is racism… under the theory.
The Senate yesterday unanimously passed a bill that requires members to follow a dress code that will include a coat, tie, and slacks for men. Just a bit less than three weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a vulgar and obnoxious capitulation to lowered standards of public conduct and a blatant endorsement of the King’s Pass had ruled that all Senators could dress like Pennsylvania’s senatorial slob, John Fetterman, whose favorite attire is a sneakers shorts hoodie ensemble. This was an itsy-bitsy microcosm of what the party of Fetterman and Schumer are attempting to inflict on American society, and, incredibly, the vox populi rebelled. It seems that a lot of Americans don’t like the idea of their elected representatives in the U.S. Capitol appearing in public dressed like Frankenstein’s Monster on vacation.
The stained glass windows in the National Cathedral show different scenes from American history. Someone made the dunderheaded decision when the cathedral was being designed to have windows honoring Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, which seemed, in a setting with limited opportunities to highlight American heroes, an odd choice even back when the structure was opened to the public.
After a gunman shot and killed nine Black worshipers at a church in South Carolina in 2015 and the movement began to ban all things Confederate, the cathedral management decided that Stonewall and Lee had to go. Six years after the glass’s removal in 2017, National Cathedral has unveiled their replacement, which you can see above. The new windows , titled Now and Forever, show black protesters holding protest signs bearing the words “No,” “Not,” “Fairness” and “No foul play.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is this a responsible, appropriate, ethical decoration for the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.?
Ethics Alarms 