Hopeful sign #1: On this date in 1962, in the middle of the Kennedy administration, now hailed as the dawning of a new liberalism, the iconic folk group known as the Weavers’ appearance on “The Jack Paar Show” was cancelled because the four members refused to sign a loyalty oath. The Weavers had been blacklisted during the Red Scare (they were, in fact, Communists), but it is impossible to imagine an artist being required to sign a loyalty oath today. That’s progress. Of course, an artist today is at risk of being “cancelled” for not mouthing sufficiently woke sentiments to satisfy the left’s social media mobs. That is definitely NOT progress.

(I don’t  believe 2022 is “high noon for democracy,” but that is definitely the message both political parties and their ideological allies are pushing to begin the new year.)

1. More hope...the New York Times readers aren’t as brain-washed as I thought they were. The Times reader poll to name the top books published during the 125 years of the Times Book Review supplement chose as #1 Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird.” This occurred despite the increasing drum-beats from Woke World to declare the classic racist, mainly because its iconic hero, lawyer Atticus Finch, teaches his daughter that it is important to try to understand people who think differently than you do, including racists, and that even those with racist beliefs can be good people.

I would have assumed that Times readers would have fully assimilated that narrow view of Lee’s masterpiece; clearly they did not. Also encouraging is the third place ranking of George Orwell’s “1984,” which I would argue is the single most important book for students to read in 2022….maybe for everyone to read.

2. But then there is this: Here was the Tournament of Roses Parade float yesterday called “Vaccinate the World”…

Sometimes I wonder if the idea is to make as many Americans as possible afraid of the vaccines. Here we see a scary robot nurse wielding a giant hypodermic needle, as another needle almost as big as she is lies on the floor. Who approved this thing? Continue reading →

Was 2021 a more ethical year than 2020? The question reminds me of the debate in “Stand By Me” over whether Superman could beat Might Mouse in a fight. I’d name 2020 as more unethical because of the George Floyd freak-out, the media support of rioting, the manipulation of the pandemic for political gain, the irresponsible closing of the schools, the unethical 2020 election, the defund the police movement, the corporate pandering (especially by the sports leagues) to Black Lives Matter, and the incompetent Trump legal team’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election as sufficient to give 2020 the nod, but not by much, and at this level of cultural rot, who cares? Both years were terrible, destructive, and likely to leave permanent scars.

Unless we are very, very lucky, I do not expect 2022 to break the trend.

1. About those “democratic norms” progressives are so concerned about…Chief Justice John Roberts delivered his year-end report on the state of the judiciary which almost nobody will read, but it was notable, other than for a long section singing the praises of his predecessor William Howard Taft, for this passage, buried deep in the nine-page document:

“Decisional independence is essential to due process, promoting impartial decision-making, free from political or other extraneous influence. The Judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government.”

Perhaps he should have said more on the topic, but that easily could have crossed the line into partisan debate. For the main attacks on judicial independence have come against his own court, and onlt from one side of the political divide. Prof. Turley regarded Roberts words as a “denunciation,” which is an example of the professor seeing what he wants to see, but Turley does a good job of pointing out where the threat is coming from, writing in part,

We have been discussing the ramped up threats from Democratic leaders that the Court will either vote with the liberal justices on key issues or face “consequences,” including court packing….What Democratic members are demanding is raw court packing to add four members to the Court to give liberals an instant majority — a movement denounced by figures like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.

Last year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority.  This follows threats from various Democratic members that conservative justices had better vote with liberal colleagues . . . or else.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., recently issued a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or face a “revolution.”  Sen. Richard Blumenthal previously warned the Supreme Court that, if it continued to issue conservative rulings or “chip away at Roe v Wade,” it would trigger “a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

For her part, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioned the whole institution’s value if it is not going to vote consistently with her views and those of the Democratic Party: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren seems to be channeling more AOC than FDR. Roosevelt at least tried to hide his reckless desire to pack the Court by pushing an age-based rule. It was uniquely stupid. The bill would have allowed Roosevelt to add up to six justices for every member who is over 70 years old. Warren, like AOC, wants the Democratic base to know that she is pushing a pure, outcome-changing court packing scheme without even the pretense of a neutral rule.

Despite the fact that the Court has more often voted on non-ideological lines (and regularly issued unanimous decisions), Warren denounced the Court as an “extremist” body that has “threatened, or outright dismantled, fundamental rights in this country.” Those “fundamental” values do not apparently include judicial independence.

Did you know that Donald Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy? Continue reading →

That Barbra Streisand—what a racist.

1. Incident at the Tower of London. Some idiot tourist parents let their kid run into the path of marching guards at the Tower. The guards knocked the boy down but deftly avoided stomping him…

…but a controversy erupted on social media with the usual “Think of the children!” hysterics claiming that the guards should have broken formation to go around the boy. Maybe stop, pick him up, and deliver him safely to his parents. Buy him an ice cream while they were at it. Tell him a story.

Let’s have a kid run in the way of a firefighter trying to put out a fire and see what happens. The guards were doing their jobs, and if the precedent were established that they had to stop for irresponsible tourists and their kids, it would become a game, like people making faces at the guards at Buckingham Palace. The parents in this case should be prosecuted, and if there isn’t a law that allows that, there needs to be.

I’m not going to mention that the child wasn’t hurt, because that’s moral luck; he easily could have been. If he had been hurt, the guards would have been blameless.

Why does everything make me think of Kim Potter lately? [Pointer: Steve O-in-NJ]

Continue reading →

Those in charge of Council Rock Elementary School in Brighton, New York have decided that the school won’t include “Jingle Bells” in its music curriculum and holiday events any more because of the song’s possible connection racist minstrel shows and slavery. They are utter fools, but more importantly they carry an unethical social and intellectual malady that must be addressed and snuffed out if democracy, free thinking and reason are to survive in the United States of America.

Too strong? I don’t think so. I do not even know where Brighton, New York is (though I know Brighton, Massachusetts well) and I would feel no great loss if I never had to listen to “Jingle Bells” and its hack second verse (“Upsot?”) again for the rest of my life. But the “Jingle Bell” censors and and their like carry a fearful, dim-witted determination to cauterize the variety, history and joy out of life in teensy-weensy slices that nobody sane feels are worth the trouble to fight about. They will destroy our culture and the richness of life if they aren’t stopped. The “Jingle Bells” idiocy is as good a place to make a stand as any.

Continue reading →

I’m always a bit depressed in the period between Christmas and New Years, and scenes like the one above, which have proliferated in Alexandria, don’t help. It looks like a massacre has occurred, not that I haven’t been tempted to rub out some of the more horrible inflatable lawn displays, like the 25 foot penguin, the Christmas Imperial Walkers (I do NOT understand), and especially the giant Mickey Mouse in a Santa suit that looms across the street and has embarrassed the entire neighborhood. There is clearly no generally accepted ethical standard requiring neighbors to make certain their Christmas displays are, if not artistic, aesthetically pleasing, dignified or restrained, at least not eyesores.

1. I’m beginning to wonder…if the guilty verdict rendered against Kim Potter might not be reversed after all, as it should be. If the current feeling is that Minnesota judges don’t have the guts to buck the mob by addressing the injustice in this case, the mob’s consensus seems to be weakening. The fact that the black officer who deliberately shot and killed an unarmed January 6 rioter has faced no punishment, never mind imprisonment, has been noted extensively, and I was shocked this morning to see two letters published in the New York Times declaring Potter’s conviction to be unjust. One made the point, which has come up in Ethics Alarms comment threads, about the contrast between how Potter’s fatal mistake was treated and how deadly errors by doctors and nurses are virtually never the object of criminal prosecution. Continue reading →