Waylon Bailey, the social media-user who was arrested by a Wuhan virus totalitarian idiot for making a joke and initially denied justice by a U.S. District Judge who doesn’t know the law, finally was awarded $205,000 in compensatory and punitive damages by a federal jury. It’s not enough, not even close, and the publicity the episode has received (virtually none) underlines that point.
These are the kinds of cases juries should address with $83 million in damages (just picking a number out of the air, there) to make the next Gestapo-inclined officer who considers punishing a citizen for exercising his constitutional rights think twice, or even three times. At least, however, Waylon Bailey was vindicated by our lately maladjusted justice system.
If you think Harvard’s best and wokest mourning the fact that its inept, dishonest DEI president went down in flames is a symptom of an ideological pathogen loose in the USA, you “ain’t seen nothing yet!”
Shorecrest High School in Shoreline, Washington held an assembly on Martin Luther King Day that took time to honor—wait for it!—Fidel Castro as a social justice hero. “Now we are continuing a tradition today to have a candlelight vigil to pay solemn tribute to a selection of the people who were martyred while working on behalf of advancing civil rights, social justice and decolonization,” a student presenter said. “This year we are selecting Black American civil rights leaders as well as leaders of developing nations who valiantly sought to liberate themselves from the shackles of Western imperialism, capitalism and a specter of war crimes.”
The assembled were informed that Castro was “a figure whose impact on Cuba and the world is undeniable.” “As the leader of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Castro aimed to uplift his people by overthrowing the Batista regime and ushering in a new era of social justice. His policies in healthcare and education significantly improved the standard of living for many Cubans, and his politics promoted antiracism,” the assembly script said.
He also nearly started World War III, but there was no mention of that. Nor did anyone address the mystery of why so many Cubans were willing to risk their lives to escape such a workers’ paradise.
The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, is losing support and funding for a very good reason. Israel’s intelligence alleges that at least six UNRWA employees infiltrated Israel on October 7, including two who may have helped kidnap Israeli civilians to be taken as hostage. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Britain’s TalkTV, “UNRWA is perforated with Hamas.”
Last week, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said 12 UNRWA employees were implicated in the Hamas attacks. Of those, “nine were immediately identified and terminated,” one is “confirmed dead,” and “the identity of the two others is being clarified.” In response at least 15 countries, including the United States, have announced a halt to payments to UNRWA, pending further investigations. Officials have expressed fears that UNRWA could run out of money, endangering its humanitarian efforts in Gaza.
Too bad. That consequence should have been considered before allowing terrorism supporting U.N. employees to work for the organization.
The New York Times published an opinion piece by the foreign minister of Norway, one of the nations holding fast to its funding commitments. Espen Barth Eide argues that “we should not collectively punish millions of people for the alleged deeds of a few.”
I may have to fashion that time-honored excuse into a rationalization for the list. We read and hear versions of that entreaty constantly: it is a call to avoid just consequences for unethically run, untrustworthy organizations, agencies, societies, cultures and businesses. The only rational response to that argument is “Sorry. The organization is at fault, not those who make a reasonable and rational decision in response to it.”
No one should give funds to any organization that has proved itself untrustworthy, and UNRWA has. Apologists for the agency keep talking about “alleged misconduct,” but the U.N. acted quickly in firing twelve of the accused Hamas agents in the organization, almost certainly because the allegations were true. UNRWA obviously didn’t properly oversee its activities or properly vet its employees. The agency has has the same leadership responsible for this inexcusable botch; there is no way at this point for nation donors to have confidence that their money won’t be re-channeled into fighting Israel or other illicit projects.
Several things make this particular story necessary this morning. Most of all, it’s an ethics story with a happy ending. I’ve been hearing from several EA readers of late (and a lapsed, much missed commenter who had dropped out) who tell me that they the blog too depressing. So do I, which I suppose means that I need to perk up my tone and perspective a bit. I am generally able to muster enthusiasm and optimism, but I know that’s a bias that sometimes makes me naive. It’s sometimes difficult for me to distinguish between my reaction to some ethics tale that is objectively disturbing and the emotional hangover various crises I been wading through almost non-stop since early in 2020. I promise to do better.
Well, this is an upset. I would have bet almost anything that Kamala Harris or Joe Biden would eventually nail down the 2024 Ethics Alarms Authentic Frontier Gibberish Award, but no. A dark horse has grabbed the award, and with eleven full months to go! But no one can compete with this.
The Harvard Divinity School’s Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging hosted a head-exploding “Gathering to Breathe and Heal” event this week to—are you ready?— help students grieve over the resignation of former President Claudine Gay, who was, in reality, fired, and who richly deserved to be. Moreover, the justification for her removal was irrefutable and beyond debate. “Grieving” for the exit of any incompetent occupant in any job is proof of warped values. “Grieving” for for a cheating and dishonest occupant of any position of leadership demonstrates astounding ignorance of the essentials of being a leader and role model. “Grieving” for the appropriately rapid demise of an incompetent leader and dishonest scholar as the head of a prestigious university is deranged. The exitance of this event on campus is almost as humiliating for Harvard as the debacle of Gay’s short-lived presidency.
I’m saving the spectacular gibberish announcing this loony “Gathering to Breathe and Heal” event until last, because nothing could follow it. Trying to write anything after this is like being next on the program after Houdini, Al Jolson, Judy Garland, Jerry Lee Lewis or Ray Charles. Submit your favorite babble: I’m leaning toward “it is a container for holding emotions in community knowing that the circle holds us all.” Rarit!
This has been a banner few months for “The Squad.” The one male member of the frighteningly incompetent, unethical and offensive band of far Left Democrats of Color disgraced himself by setting off a false fire alarm to try to block a vote in the House and claiming it was an accident, an obvious lie. Rep. Tlaib got herself censored for publicly advocating wiping Israel off the map. Rep. Omar recently proclaimed that her first loyalties were to Somalia rather than her adopted country, the U.S. Rep. Cori Bush, by most estimates the dumbest and least qualified of the gang, is being investigated by the Justice Dept, for misusing campaign funds. AOC, of course, is perpetually ridiculous. Let’s see, what has she done lately? Oh, she’s accusing Israel of “genocide” because it is waging war against the region that launched a surprise terror attack against its civilians, as it should and must. It’s an ignorant and indefensible position, but that’s Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. She’s like that pretty much all the time.
Yet amidst all of this, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass) has been out of the limelight, and not keeping up her end of the bargain in behaving appropriately Squad-like. I’ve been disappointed in her. Fortunately, she came out smokin’ this week, accusing Walgreens of engaging in a “life-threatening act of racial and economic discrimination” in its decision to close one of its branches in Boston’s overwhelmingly black neighborhood of Roxbury.
I have always thought not, but the tale of Pookie and Jett, the silly couple pictured above, is causing me to re-think that conclusion.
Because of my oft-mentioned sock drawer issues, I never heard of TikTok stars Campbell Puckett and her hubby Jett, and was happy in my ignorance.
The Georgia couple, like so many entertainingly trivial people, became prominent and wealthy on TikTok because—and I do NOT understand this— Campbell, aka “Pookie,” posts videos of the pair modeling their outfits as Jett blathers on about his wife. “Pookie looks absolutely amazing,”says in a recent video. It has been viewed over 6 million times.
The Times article focuses on the almost inevitable result of social media fame and fortune: eventually, someone sets out to dig and find dirt on the “stars” to bring them down. On Reddit, someone posted photos of Pookie, including one in which she was posing in front of a Confederate flag. This, of course, means she’s a racist and is a defender of slavery, or something. Another showed her wearing a “Gone with the Wind”-style gown as a costume for an “Old South” plantation-themed ball. Mrs. Campbell has told publications that she regrets the photos, but that she was 20 and “didn’t fully understand the impact of my actions the way I do now.” She has grovelled an apology “for the harm this may have caused for some and take full responsibility.” Of course she has. She’s an aspiring “influencer” with nothing to justify her power and influence but her popularity.
The episode has been cited by the Times as a teachable moment, demonstrating how “everyone should understand the speed and ease with which everyone’s entire online experience is available for public consumption.” That’s worth thinking about, but I’m wrestling with whether my reaction to Pookie’s Predicament should be sympathy or a Nelson…
My general ethics position here is that no one should be held to account for old social media posts unless the posts have direct relevance to a current public figure’s statements, positions and stated values, and even then, evidence that a previous impolitic, undiplomatic or otherwise disreputable statement no longer is a fair representation of that individual’s character should be considered definitive. Attacking a star baseball player for dumb tweets he made to a handful of friends in high school is wildly unfair, for example. Old social media posts that indicate that rabid leftist propagandist such as, just to pull a name out of the hat, MSNBC’s prime racist Joy Reid, was an unabashed homophobe and gay-basher before her cable TV gig are a bit more justifiable, especially when they provoke a reaction like Reid’s, which was to lie her head off.
Part of me wants to say that social media dirt-farming is a valid and ethical enterprise when it exposes hypocrites, villains and poseurs, with “influencers” like the Pucketts falling into the latter category. That same part is inclined to argue that people who influence millions with no real expertise or special powers of perception are irresponsible and dangerous, and taking them down a hundred pegs or so is a virtuous objective That part also believes that public figures invite public scrutiny, and if their past actions and statements can’t stand up to that scrutiny, well, that’s good to know.
Another part, however, feels that setting out to harm someone’s reputation and livelihood when an individual isn’t doing anyone any harm is mean-spirited and wrong.
Playing a practical joke on a friend and traveling companion is acceptable, providing one is confident that no harm will attach to the victim, and that you would have no issue if the same were done to you.
Posting a video of said friend looking like an idiot, however, or not making certain that a third party is not recording what transpires, is unethical absent the victim’s explicit consent.
If I were maintaining a “lie database” on Joe Biden (like the Washington Post does, among others, on Donald Trump) this would go right on it. And yes, I have not read a single analysis on any source that explains the deceitful quality of the President’s latest executive order. Unlike several of the others, this one is constitutional. It is just completely misleading, and deliberately so.
Yesterday, Biden ordered financial and travel sanctions on Israeli settlers accused of violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank. That explanation at the top of the New York Times story cleared up initial confusion on my part. “Biden issues executive order targeting Israeli settlers who attack Palestinians” was the headline at Axios, and similar headlines abound. Huh? Does Biden think that he, like Leonardo DiCaprio, is King of the World? What power does the President of the United States have over citizens of foreign nations who aren’t in the United States? The answer, for those of you praying that J Biden and the Democrats can save democracy from the previous President who abuses presidential power, is none. None. The executive order is grandstanding of the most cynical sort. Biden literally could issue similar fanciful orders “sanctioning” Parisians who annoy visiting Americans by being rude to them with as much effect.
That cartoon above, showing apparent Zionists (as in “Jews”) sipping Gazan blood like wine, is probably the most outrageous of political cartoonist Dwayne Booth’s works…I don’t know, maybe this one is..
All a matter of taste, I guess. The ethics question is, now what, if anything?
Booth is a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communication having joined the school as an adjunct faculty member in 2015. Political cartooning is certainly a valid courss of study. He currently teaches two classes, but since Hamas’s October 7 terror attack, his off-campus cartooning has become especially controversial.
Booth publishes political cartoons under the pen name “Mr. Fish.” One of his classes teaches students the political cartooning art by exploring “the purpose and significance of image-based communication as an unparalleled propagator of both noble and nefarious ideas,” according to Penn’s website. “Work presented will be chosen for its unique ability to demonstrate the inflammatory effect of weaponized visual jokes, uncensored commentary, and critical thinking on a society so often perplexed by artistic free expression and radicalized creative candor.”
You can see more of Booth’s anti-Israel cartoons here. As far as I can determine, there is not sufficient basis for disciplining him or ending his association with the school. Political cartooning, though I personally view it as a crude, over-rated and deceitful form of editorial, is by nature extreme in device and approach. Booth’s own political opinions and obvious anger at Israel that he expresses as “Mr. Fish” or on social media are not relevant to his value teaching the political cartooning craft, and would seem to be squarely within the margins of both academic freedom and the first Amendment, provided that his commentary in class and on campus are not directed at Jewish students.
However, if a school, like the University of Pennsylvania, decided that, at a time when there are unusual tensions around the Gaza-Israel conflict its lecturer should cool his public fervor or consider another teaching position elsewhere, that would be a fully ethically defensible position. He’s right at the line now.
Ethics Alarms 