In Lake Oswego, Oregon, Ellen Sawo was giving a “Career Day” presentation at Lakeridge Middle School. Apparently she was not getting the response from students that she felt was appropriate, because she snapped, started swearing at them and finally slapped one student in the face.
Gee, even Judge Duncan didn’t do that, and the Stanford Law students wouldn’t let him speak at all!
Perhaps Career Day speakers need to be more carefully vetted in the future. Anyway, Sawo was escorted from the school and was later arrested by police.
I wonder what career she was promoting. I sure hope it wasn’t “professional ethicist.”
It’s a bit early in the day for the Dave Clark Five, but they do bring back memories…It’s amazing to think back on, but when they first appeared on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964, the group was widely regarded as indistinguishable from The Beatles, just another British Invasion group that teenage girls were screaming about. This song even knocked “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” off of the #1 spot on the UK Singles Chart.
A weird housekeeping note: a recent entry into the comment wars who ripped off over a hundred comments in just a handful of days has gotten himself/herself/themselves (in case it’s conjoined twins) suspended indefinitely for refusing to send me a real email address and a full name as the Comment Policies clearly require. I don’t understand this at all. It’s not an unreasonable request. I am also fascinated that the participants from just one side of the ideological spectrum behave this way, showing deliberate contempt and disrespect for a forum in which they are guests and beneficiaries. This isn’t the first time.
It’s really frustrating to attempt Diversity and Inclusion of viewpoints here when so many progressives enter determined to act like jerks.
1. Clearly, I spoke too soon about rejoining Twitter. Becoming active on Twitter will require a huge time commitment, and having re-joined to support Elon Musk’s mission to restore the platform to a forum not being manipulated to advance a particular party’s agendas and narratives, I am rapidly feeling misled and betrayed. I’ve got an account again , but the chaos under Musk continues. This mess, part of the craziness described in “After Matt Taibbi Leaves Twitter, Elon Musk ‘Shadow Bans’ All Of Taibbi’s Tweets, Including The Twitter Files” strongly suggests that he is too mercurial and unstable to deliver on his promises, or that it may have always been impossible to do so.
2. The latest “book banning” controversy: I don’t know what to make of stories like this one, and there are a lot of them. “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” was removed from a library at Vero Beach High School after Moms for Liberty in Indian River County claimed that the book was inappropriate. The school’s principal either agreed with the objection or didn’t have the guts to oppose it (most principals are weenies and will always choose the path of least resistance) and the book was removed. The book at one point shows Anne walking in a park, admiring female nude statues, and describes her proposing to a friend that they show each other their breasts. It also has relatively little context regarding the Holocaust.
To the Left, this is just another example of Cro-Magnon conservatives “banning” books that are insufficiently de-sexualized. To the Right, the book is needlessly edgy and not the kind of thing that belongs in school libraries. A favorable review of the book by the Times of Israel is here.
What lines in school library collection decisions should be drawn? Is it really necessary to include a graphic novelization of Anne Frank’s story that has Peter whispering “Penis!” to Anne during dinner and imagines her commenting about another girl, “Did you see that pair of melons she’s sprouted?” Yet even if the good taste of those choices is debatable, does that justify removing the book?
Incidentally, removing a book from a school library is hardly “banning” it.
3. Today’s gun control “Do something!” virtue signaler: Criminal defense attorney and Fox News contributor Ted Williams (not the headless frozen baseball great). In response to yesterday’s mass shooting in Louisville, Williams told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Saying he was “sick and tired” of the shootings, Williams said,
The assumption of reporter Mark Abramson is that the more the food costs, the more the tip should be, presumably because anyone who can afford $388 for sushi should share the wealth. But a delivery driver does exactly the same amount of work for the sushi order as a he would for 20 bucks worth of egg rolls. Why is he entitled to the same level of tip as a waiter or waitress who ideally contributes to a pleasurable dining experience?
Well, he isn’t. And though the Times readers are as woke as they come, this bit of working class hero victimization propaganda was too tough to swallow. Some examples…
Even though Budweiser choosing a silly, female- (and male) mocking trans “influencer” to promote a product with a market base guaranteed to find the campaign offensive, it made sense to do it anyway. How? Why? The answer shows just how difficult it will be, and already is, for the United States to maintain its unique values, ethical, political and otherwise, in a global culture determined to force our outlying experiment in individual liberty into conformity.
That video above is from Refinitiv, a hugely influential international company I never had heard of before last week. It is an American-British global provider of financial market data and infrastructure, founded in 2018 as a subsidiary of London Stock Exchange Group. The company has an annual turnover of $6 billion with more than 40,000 client companiesin 190 countries. Though it presumes to rank companies according to their “ethics,” it is a soul-less, ethics-free company itself. For example, Refinitiv bowed to pressure from China during 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, censoring over 200 stories by Reuters by removing them from its Eikon platform for consumers in Mainland China. The company then developed a “Strategic China filter” to block politically-sensitive stories from readers in Mainland China.
This is the company that Budweiser was submitting to by turning Bud Lite into a DEI pandering product. Refinitiv wields a powerful Diversity and Inclusion Index “designed to measure the relative performance of companies against factors that define diverse and inclusive workplaces.” Woke and “socially conscious investors, including institutional investors, rely on the index to make investment decisions. A declining or inadequate index can mean billions in lost investments.
Budweiser’s seemingly incomprehensible decision to do a complete 180 degree reversal in its public image was driven by slavish fealty to this made-up index, which has power because people and organization have chosen to give it power. In this it resembles the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing advocacy group that can brand an organization as “racist” or as a “hate group” just by saying so. To Refinitiv’s world view, making a trans celebrity a spokesperson justifies gold stars and bonus points.
The Dalai Lama has apologized for asking a boy if he wanted to suck his tongue.
I considered ending this post right there. Res ipsa loquitur.
This was caught on video, which also showed the elderly spiritual leader kissing the child on the lips.
“His Holiness often teases people he meets in an innocent and playful way, even in public and before cameras. He regrets the incident,” a spokesman said. I bet he does! Nevertheless, an apology is not sufficient in a case like this. Not to bring everything back to Clarence Thomas, but it’s the same issue: trust. People tend not to trust holy men who ask children to such their tongues. Nor should they. And the best the Dalai Lama can come up with is “I was kidding”?
If the name Henry Bergh rings an ethics bell, you’re better informed than I, or have a better memory. I dimly recall having read the name, but only today, checking for ethics landmarks on the date, did I realize his significance.
Bergh was the diplomat and philanthropist who, on this date in 1866, founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In a New York City speech following a trip to Europe where he had been horrified by the treatment of work horses, he appealed to human compassion for “these mute servants of mankind” and argued that protecting animals was should not face any class or partisan disagreements. “This is a matter purely of conscience; it has no perplexing side issues,” he said. “It is a moral question in all its aspects.” Bergh then introduced his “Declaration of the Rights of Animals.”
Soon after, the New York State legislature passed a charter incorporating the ASPCA, the first animal cruelty law in the United States was passed, authorizing the ASPCA to investigate complaints of animal cruelty and to make arrests. Bergh, meanwhile, was frequently ridiculed for his passion, as in the cartoon above that was accompanied by an article calling him a “traitor to his species.”
Morons. To the contrary, Bergh’s personal rescues of mistreated horses and livestock inspired activists and social reformers taking up the cause of abused children. In 1874, they founded the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Henry Bergh served as one of the group’s first vice presidents.
1. I’m tempted to post this one from yesterday again...Maybe it was Easter’s fault, but The Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck Jumps The Rails In Tennessee attracted far fewer comments than the silly tale of Bud Light thinking a ridiculous trans “influencer” was a perfect choice to be a beer spokesperson. Meanwhile, the mainstream media is barfing up op-eds about how Tennessee Republicans punishing three Democratic legislators for helping a mob shut down the work of the legislature in order to demand that “something” be done about gun violence shows that Republicans are hostile to democracy. What head exploding hypocrisy! I wrote,
The behavior of the three (Democratic, of course) state reps was indefensible. No one has explained why Republican members of Congress who supported the January 6 protest against what many believed was a rigged election were threatened by Democrats with a Constitutional ban from running for office as punishment, but the Tennessee legislators whoactually participated in disrupting the government were pronounced by the same news media and party that condemned the Republicans as heroes. This is because it can’t be explained: it’s mind-blowing hypocrisy and a flaming double standard. What the Tennessee Democrats did was clearly worse: no Republicans too part in the January 6 attack on the Capital? Noriot in Nashville, you say? That’s because, and only because, of moral luck. Police did not try to force the Nashville demonstrators to leave and didn’t have the numbers to even try. The anti-gun protesters, as you might expect, did not have a contingent of wackos prone to violence, though they might have. The news media’s near unanimous position is that people disrupting a Republican-run legislature in the midst of doing government business is admirable, but disrupting a Democratic-run Congress is an “insurrection.”
The three members yelled “No action, no peace” and “Power to the people” as their colleagues objected to their stopping the legislative process. Undeterred, the three refused to allow “business as usual” to continue. Nothing says deliberative debate like a bullhorn. American politics, it seems, has become a matter of simple amplification. Many on the left lionized the three for their disruption of the legislature. President Biden denounced the sanctioning of their “peaceful protest” as “shocking, undemocratic, and without precedent.” There was little criticism of the members for obstructing the legislative business or refusing to accept the democratic process that rejected their gun-control demands. Today, for many, there is no room for nuance. Instead, they live in a world occupied only by “fascists” and “insurrectionists.”…This is now our “historic reality.” Liberals and the media, long criticized for downplaying violence from the left, are now rationalizing a disruption of legislative procedure as “good trouble” because the cause is considered to be correct.
2. Speaking of unethical Federal judges, since debating the blatantly unethical conduct of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dominated much of Ethics Alarms’ time and space over the weekend, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas issued a power-abusing decision that made the entire judicial branch look bad, cancelling the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, the first drug approved for an abortion pill, 23 years after it was first approved. This is the first time in history that a court has asserted the power to pull a drug from the market after FDA approval, and it is an abuse of power at that. Kacsmaryk is a passionate abortion opponent, but that does not allow him to decide based on anti-abortion activist assertions that a drug is unsafe and that the FDA is less qualified to declare a drug safe than he is. Within an hour of its release, his ruling started a constitutional crisis when a federal judge in Washington issued an injunction ordering the FDA to allow mifepristone in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
This isn’t an ethical issue regarding abortion. The ethics issue is abuse of power and process—again, as in the previous story, an ideological claim that laws, rules and ethical principles can be ignored to make “good trouble” in Prof. Turley’s term.
Right on cue, after the post earlier today mentioning how the hysteria over school shootings was giving kids a false belief that they were not safe in school, comes this story:
Psychology teacher Jeffrey Keene, a teacher at Dr. Phillips High School in Orlando, gave his 11th and 12th grade students an assignment ahead of a scheduled active shooter drill.
He told them to write their obituaries. Some of the students reported the assignment to school administrators, and by the end of the day Keene, who as a new hire was on probation and could be fired at will, was.
Keene, to his credit (no weenie he!) was unrepentant, telling reporters,
Stipulated: In theory, the ethical course of action is for Justice Thomas to resign, because the institution of the Supreme Court functions based on the assumption that the justices are not corrupt, i.e. they do not accept incentives to influence their decisions. Anything that introduces serious doubt about that assumption damages trust in the court’s integrity, and is unethical.
Ethics does not exist as a set of arbitrary rules. The purpose of ethics is that it puts a society in a better position in the future. For Justice Thomas to resign would demonstrate a measure of good faith on his part (albeit diminished by having gone on the trips in the first place). It makes a statement that conservative justices value trust in the Supreme Court as an institution more than they value a political advantage. It indicates they will respect progressive justices for stepping down in a similar situation, that they would not press a political advantage which might incentivize progressive justices not to do so.
The reason that some people feel it is more desirable for Justice Thomas to remain on the court is because it seems like a critical short-term measure, a stopgap. If the point of ethics is to build the trust that allows society to function at its best, it seems to them that starting with this situation would build very little trust at the cost of sacrificing political power* to people who are perceived as destructive and unreasonable. If you apply ethics as you would in an ethical society, and it has a heavy short-term cost because of unethical actors, you had better be sure your sacrifice is helping set up some long-term change towards a more ethical society, or it’s a pointless gesture.
TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney, a self-promoting trans-girl who for some reason is an internet “influencer,” posted a video last week promoting the brand’s Easy Carry Contest, in which participants must demonstrate how many cans Budweiser’s worst brew they can carry to win $15,000. Bud Light had sent Mulvaney a commemorative can featuring an illustration of the Ex-Man’s face with a message congratulating her on “365 days of girlhood.”
Then all hell broke loose. Conservatives are calling for a boycott of Bud Light. Kid Rock posted a video of himself wearing a MAGA baseball cap, shooting up a case of Bud Light and saying, “Fuck Bud Light, and fuck Anheuser-Busch!”
It’s understandable that people of good will lose their minds, perspective and good judgment over the emotion-packed problem of school shootings, but someone has to stay rational and ethical. It might as well be me.
There are three major public affairs sagas currently occupying the media’s efforts and the public’s mayfly-like attention: Donald Trump’s indictment, Clarence Thomas’s betrayal of his sacred obligation as a Supreme Court justice, and the messy aftermath of the latest school shooting, this one by a transsexual with a history of mental health issues. The first is the culmination of one of our most long and continually-running ethics train wrecks. The second is a dangerous, Titanic-leval gash in the side of an American institution crucial to the survival of our democracy. The third is arguably more noise and angst than substance, but a more spectacular example of the ethics train wreck phenomenon that either of the other two. As the genre requires, everyone boarding the thing is acting unethically, including the journalists covering it.
I am going to, for once, only lightly touch on the mainstream media’s unethical handling of the shooting and the reactions to it by pointing out this: The New York Post’s Alexandra Steigrad reported last week that CBS News ordered its staffers to avoid “any mention” that Tennessee school shooter Audrey Hale was a transgender individual. The apparent theory is that doing so will undermine the cause of transgender activists, so the news must be scrubbed to advance the greater good, or something.
Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!
After the tragedy, the mindless took over. There has been a powerful, passionate anti-gun movement in the U.S. for as long as I can remember. When I was a child, it was handguns that the activists wanted to ban. Now it is semi-automatic weapons. The immovable object then and now was the Second Amendment; it just isn’t going anywhere, and that increasingly drives gun-haters crazy with frustration, as banging one’s head against a steel wall will do. This became a full-fledged ethics train wreck in 2012, when a mentally-ill 20 year-old man, Adam Lanza, stole his mother’s guns and attacked the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, murdering 26 people, twenty of them children between six and seven years old. It was a previously unimaginable act of pure evil, and it propelled the anti-gun crusade into hyperdrive by adding the pure emotion of the “Think of the children!” rationalization (#58) to what was already a witches brew of propaganda, bad facts, bad civic literacy, historical and cultural ignorance, hysteria, incompetent ethical analysis and cynical partisan exploitation. In the intervening 20 years, every active shooter on a college campus or in a school has set off another intense outburst of the vile “Second amendment supporters care more about guns than the lives of our children!” mantra. (more about that shortly.)
On March 30, Democratic state representatives Justin Jones, Justin Pearson and Gloria Johnson joined demonstrators in the statehouse who disrupted the legislature with a boisterous protest to demand “stricter gun control laws,” despite there being no evidence at all that any such measures would have prevented Hale’s rampage. The three House members assisted in the disruption in the chamber, even leading chants of the ever-popular “No Justice, No Peace!” through a bullhorn. Jones held up fatuous a sign that read “Protect kids, not guns.”
Ethics Alarms 