Something To Be Thankful For: Transmania In Women’s Sports Is Finally Reaching Its Tipping Point

Little by little, bit by bit, this insanity is being exposed and opposed…

Item: The International Cricket Council this week barred transgender women from competing against biological females. The organization says the “new gender eligibility regulation” is intended to protect the integrity of women’s cricket and was established in the name of safety.

Item: Mid Vermont Christian School is suing after it was barred from all athletic competitions when the team refused to play against a Long Trail girls high school basketball team that had a (big and strong) biological male on their team earlier this year. The Christian school’s complaint alleges that it was “irreparably harmed by being denied participation” and “losing out on playing competitive sports as well as academic competitions.” Ethics Alarms designated the team an Ethics Hero here.

Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “What Do You Conclude From This Woman’s Head-Exploding Rant?”

Do you know what I am thankful for? I’m thankful for the engaged, wise,, articulate and loyal group of commenters Ethics Alarms has. Thank-you. You all make every day an adventure and a revelation. And you make me laugh.

For a vivid example, I awoke this morning to this Comment of the Day from Rob Thompson, who doesn’t weigh in here often—the last time was four years ago—but makes his contributions count. Here are his thoughts on this the likely roots of this horrifying and annoying video and its likely roots, which I apologize for having to post again but the discussion can’t be fully appreciated without it.

This is Robert Thompson’s Comment of the Day on the post, “What Do You Conclude From This Woman’s Head-Exploding Rant?”…and have a wonderful, warm Thanksgiving, everyone.

***

Her video typifies what we see every day. Many high school students follow this mentality of “I wasn’t taught this” placing the onus on the educational system. And while this has merit, it isn’t the only problem.

Continue reading

The Worst President Ever? Part 5.

One might view posting this today, on the anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, as being in questionable taste. I would argue that it is the perfect day to consider the legacy of President #35, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1961-1963).

For JFK was saved from historical infamy by moral luck, once for certain, and maybe twice. The first was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a culmination of blunders that could have started World War III and would have, if a less rational Soviet leader had been Kennedy’s adversary. The second was the assassination, recalling snide comments by various wags that the early deaths of Elvis and Truman Capote were “good career moves.” Kennedy’s death transformed him into an icon, frozen in youth and vitality, a brilliant leader whose death caused darkness to fall. In truth, Kennedy’s three years in office were marked by few successes and serious mistakes that outlived him, like his continuing U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In an era in which the news media were less inclined to keep secrets for a President, JFK might have been impeached. His obsessive adulterous escapades endangered national security: among his many conquests were a Mob moll and an Israeli spy.

Kennedy cannot be fairly judged one of the worst Presidents, however, because he filled the crucial role of President as Symbol of America and the living flag as well or batter than all but a few modern Presidents, in a small group that includes FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama. This, plus the fact that he had less than three years to add something positive beyond the Peace Corps and the space program to his legacy, takes him out of the Worst President race.

Verdict: DISQUALIFIED.

#36, Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1969), also doesn’t make the cut. For all the pain and national scarring the Vietnam War inflicted, Johnson didn’t start it (or end it), and few Presidents, maybe none, would have been able to successfully negotiate the cultural A-Bomb of the Sixties.

Anyone who doubts LBJ’s effectiveness should listen to the archived phone tapes of his personal maneuvering, cajoling and threatening former Congressional associates to get his Civil Rights bill passed. For some reason historians like to say that Kennedy, if he lived, would have signed a similar law; that’s a dubious assumption. Kennedy probably wouldn’t have won in 1964 by a landslide: Nelson Rockefeller might have been the next President, and it was the Southern Democrats, Johnson’s cronies, who were the main obstacles to civil rights. You don’t have to agree, with the benefit of hindsight, with all of “The Great Society” to agree that Johnson was one of our most skilled Presidents, though a flawed and unlucky one.

Verdict: DISQUALIFIED.

Now, at last, we come to a genuine contender for Worst President Ever: Richard Milhous Nixon, #37 (1968-1974). Even he’s problematic: although he is the only President so far who would have been legitimately impeached and convicted, Nixon was, before the Watergate conspiracy, another very skilled and effective President. He was one of our smartest White House residents (but then so was Wilson), and understood the office from the start as few have. Nixon had many important policy achievements as well, and those accomplishments came in the teeth of strong opposition and bias from the news media (though nothing as extreme as Republican Presidents have faced in this century), and almost unanimous hate from an entire generation.

Continue reading

How Can A Cheater Make Amends For A 50-Year-Old Double-Cross?

He can’t.

Next question!

Well, let me expand on that a bit. The Ethicist received this query from someone with a guilty conscience:

“I’m from a West African country, and I moved to the United States to attend graduate school. I am a recipient of two academic scholarships, sponsored by the local and federal governments of my birth country. The paperwork I signed before departing for the United States specifically stated that, on completing my studies, I would return to assume a government post commensurate with my academic accomplishments and professional experience. [Instead of following through on this commitment] I stayed, became a naturalized citizen, raised a family, held several academic and administrative positions in the United States and retired in the thick of the pandemic.

I had long concluded that my research activities — e.g., publishing peer-reviewed research in books and journals, reviewing research proposals and doctoral theses, presenting conference papers and giving workshops — could serve as an acceptable proxy for returning to my birth country after graduation by contributing directly to its economy and well-being. Now I am increasingly concerned about such a justification, particularly in the absence of data that my academic products had any measurable impact on government policymaking. How do I make taxpayers in my home country whole, following a robust government investment in my master’s and doctoral education?”

The Ethicist, being more diplomatic than I and having to fill his column, says, “I’d urge you to turn your gnawing guilt into something of genuine value.” His suggestions: “In this age of Zoom, would you be able to provide expertise as a consultant to worthwhile development projects in your home country? Is there a charitable venture there that you could help raise money for? Could you help create a partnership between a research institution in this country and that one? Could you serve as a mentor to students or young professionals there?” Prof. Appiah also muses, “One way to think about what you owe is to ask what the current value of the money would have been if it had been a loan, assuming a modest percentage of interest for intervening years. You could consider spending that much on projects in your country of origin over the next few years. But I doubt you could afford to do it.”

Continue reading

The Cognitive Dissonance Scale And Jobs Lost After Hamas-Israel War Outbursts On Social Media

The scenario has been a theme this week. Someone shoots off his or her metaphorical mouth showing ignorance and probable anti-Semitic bias in a social media post designed for public consumption, and loses a job when the employer decides that it doesn’t want to lose business from those who might wonder, “Why do they hire people like that?”

It is not a First Amendment issue. It is a an irresponsible employee issue. Hollywood has been especially busy. Spyglass, the company that owns the “Scream” film franchise, fired actress Melissa Barrera from the upcoming “Scream VII” (There are going to be seven of these?) after she posted standard issue “genocide/innocent Gazans/ cruel Israel messages. “THIS IS GENOCIDE & ETHNIC CLEANSING,” she concluded.

1) No, it isn’t, and 2) You really don’t understand the Cognitive Dissonance Scale, do you?

It’s really quite simple, Melissa…

For the vast majority of Americans who pay attention and aren’t intersectional fanatics, supporting the Palestinian-Hamas “From the river to the sea” mission is at the bottom of the scale. People who want to see movies must regard the films and its stars above zero, ideally quite a bit above. If that film or its stars associate themselves with a deeply negative point of view or conduct, that connection (think of being tied to an anchor) drags the positive attitudes down, meaning fewer tickets sold, and in turn fewer profits.

Continue reading

What Do You Conclude From This Woman’s Head-Exploding Rant?

Trust me, I know this thing painful to watch all the way through, but please do it, and then reflect with me upon what this ridiculous person’s monologue portends. Her name is Savrienna Abrre, and she is now residing in Canada, as she tells us repeatedly, compelling the response, “GOOD!” That’s one less vote for, oh, I don’t know, Robert Kennedy Jr, or maybe Woody Woodpecker.

Savrienna is the kind of person, apparently, who becomes a social media star, which is to say, she’s a narcissistic cretin. It does take some kind of talent to babble on like she does so assaultively and continuously, smiling like a zany and never thinking, “Wow, like, I’m sounding like a complete idiot!,” but I don’t know what that talent is called. I am willing to lay odds that she is courting the same fate at the hands of her husband as the subject of this limerick by the late, great Edward Gory:

There was a young woman whose stammer

Was atrocious, and so was her grammar.

But they were not improved

When her husband was moved

To bash in her teeth with a hammer…

Savrienna blames the American public school system. As I am a constant critic of that institution, aka, “smoldering ruin,” you might think that I sympathize with her, but I do not in the least. She is an incurious fool of stunning intellectual laziness, whose choice of friends and associates has reflected her shallowness.

Continue reading

Ethics Mystery: How Many Of These Disasters Will It Take For Progressives To Realize That Their Woke Delusions Are Just Plain Wrong?

Case study: In 2021, Oregon became the first US state to decriminalize hard drugs like heroin, crack and fentanyl. After all, possession and sales are “victimless crimes,” right? And non-violent, too. Nobody’s hurt when family members, parents, spouses and employees become addicts except the drug-users themselves! Oregon’ brainwashed progressives overwhelmingly voted for Measure 110 in a referendum in November 2020, believing the left wing/ libertarian cant that making the possession and use of narcotics legal would make it easier to get addicts treated.

Just three years later, an Emerson poll shows that 56% of voters want to make the drugs illegal again. Why? I bet you can guess, even though the voters in Oregon couldn’t figure it out since wokeness ate their brains. The addicted are flocking to the state, requiring Oregon to deal with more addicts than it can handle. Under Measure 110, those in possession of the now-legal drugs are issued a ticket that results in a theoretical $100 fine, but the penalty will be lifted once the individual calls a self-help line and seeks treatment. Not surprisingly, the system is a bust. Eugene’s police chief reported that out of 6,000 people cited, fewer than 125 followed through.

Continue reading

A New Zenith For The Great Stupid! Now We’re Told To Use A Roman Emperor’s “Preferred Pronouns”…

Hello! My name is Elagabalus, and my pronouns are She, Her, and “Nutcase”…

Boy, every time I think The Great Stupid has peaked, something like this arrives…

The North Hertfordshire Museum has decreed that the 3rd-century AD Roman emperor Elagabalus should be referred to as “she” to be sensitive to his pronoun preferences.

The museum in Hitchin, England owns a coin minted during the reign of Elagabalus and includes it in LGBT-themed displays. (Don’t ask me why a museum has LGBT-themed displays). Because the Roman historian Cassius Di wrote that Elagabalus was “termed wife, mistress and queen, ” told one lover, “Call me not Lord, for I am a Lady,” and allegedly inquired about how he could be outfitted with female charms, the museum is persuaded that he would consider himself “transgender” in 2023. (As well as really, really dead.) Prior to this Great Stupid brainstorm by the museum, historians have assumed that Dio was just smearing the predecessor of his patron, Emperor Severus Alexander, who gained power after the mad Elagabalus, was assassinated.

Continue reading

Revisiting 2005’s “Good Night And Good Luck”: Yikes!

Re-posted below from July, 2019 is an Ethics Alarms essay about the ironic and troubling thoughts George Clooney’s film “Good Night And Good Luck” triggered when I viewed the 2005 film for the first time.  I watched it again last night, and its commentary on politics, journalism, the McCarthy era and television struck me as even more relevant than it did the first time. I highly recommend seeing the film again, and definitely watch it if you missed the movie entirely.

The last line in the post was “I think George Clooney might want to watch it again.” Now, maybe not: I think George is smart enough to  understand its resonances now.  July 2019 was in the middle of the Trump Presidency, and the McCarthy era’s political use of imaginary conspiracy theories to impugn and destroy its enemies seemed uncannily similar to the Russian collusion witch hunt recently completed to try to bring down President Trump. But 2019 was before the Biden administration, and its concerted effort to use any means necessary to make the U.S. a single -party nation. McCarthy wanted to the public think the Democrats were surreptitiously advocating Communism as he and his allies employed totalitarian tactics to prevail. Today it is the Democrats who have chosen to make the public fear the other party, only in 2023, they really are embracing Marxism, and use Orwellian tactics to cast Republican as aspiring fascists. Continue reading

It’s Not Just Democrats And Progressives Showing Their Ignorance: Candace Owens Joins The Hamas-Israel Ethics Train Wreck

I’m relieved to say that I have only mentioned Candace Owens here occasionally and in passing, so I’m not embarrassed by her being revealed as an ignoramus. Owens’ shtick is that she’s an attractive, black, female conservative pundit who has supports Donald Trump. Who knows what she really believes, but conservatives jumped at having her around to annoy progressives. (Owens’ biography shows many flip-flops to advance her career, and little to indicate she is more than a skilled hustler with charisma and a good agent.)

Now their cynical embrace of an opinionated college journalism-major drop-out is coming back to bite them, and it serves them right. Owens has been flapping her gums on various forums accusing Israel of “genocide,” which, among other things, shows that she doesn’t know what the word means. The David Horowitz Freedom Center, a conservative organization that was complicit in allowing Owens to become a case study in the pundit Peter Principle, today washed its virtual hands of her, and emphatically so, saying in part,

Continue reading