I didn’t foresee a this supplementary post being necessary after parts 1 and 2 a month ago. The evidence was overwhelming already that the Democratic Party was, with record-setting gall, accusing the Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular of being an existential threat to democracy while their own party was deliberately undermining the Constitution. Part 2 listed 15 examples; it was far from complete. However, one of the more absurd examples, which I originally flagged in this earlier post, is apparently being seriously pursued.
Although the moldy oldie Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified by a sufficient number of states before the Congress-imposed deadline for doing so expired, Democrats want it to be declared the 28th Amendment to the Constitution anyway. Turley explains,
I think I know where I come out on this, but I may be wrong. Let’s see what you think…
Donna Johnston, a licensed social worker, said she was interviewing to teach sociology at Bridgewater State University in Connecticut last summer when she was asked by her interviewer to contemplate and defend her “white privilege” and told that “black students may not be able to relate” to her because of it. She took the questioning to mean that she had to defend being white, and alleges in a law suit that her “whiteness” cost her the job.
Johnston’s lawyer says that “If somebody had said to a black applicant, ‘let’s talk about your blackness, or how does your blackness affect something,’ there’d be outrage.” Yes, I think that’s a fair assumption. But the school claims, in its defense, that their questioning was appropriate as a way to give Johnston an “opportunity to show … how she would use her experience and teaching skills to overcome a common obstacle as a social worker and teacher.”
WordPress won’t let me embed TikTok and Instagram videos (or I can’t figure out how to do it), so if you are unfamiliar with the with the collaboration by the White House and web comic “Benny Drama” to convince Gen Z-ers to take their Wuhan vaccine, the above overview will have to do. The video debuted in August, but Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham aired part of it—with a sneer on her lips—just a couple of days ago.
This date in 1865 marked one of the great hypocrisies of all time. The Confederacy, back to the metaphorical wall and facing defeat, approved the use of black troops. Slaves were the last source of recruits left for the Confederacy, but forcing them to fight against their own interests was as cruel as it was illogical. One Southern politician asked, “What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?” Another pointed out, “If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong.” Ya think?
Focused only on military survival, General Robert E. Lee’s brutal contribution to the debate was “We must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves.” At least Lee asked that the black soldiers who fought for the Confederacy be ensured their freedom, but the Confederate Congress’s bill authorizing black soldiers on March 13, 1865, did not include that feature.
1. What is the ethical reply to a Facebook comment like this? An old friend and nice guy weighed in on a Facebook thread entirely occupied by tunnel-visioned, knee-jerk progressives (like him) and launched by a fatuous comment about what a great leader Zalinsky is and how the U.S. has no similarly admirable political leaders. My friend wrote, “Biden’s doing a good job!” I had to wrestle my fingers to the ground. By what possible perspective could anyone of any political persuasion say that Biden is doing a “good job”? My friend isn’t especially political; he’s not lying: he must really think that, and, of course, all of the knee-jerks “liked” that assessment. I ultimately decided to let his statement go, and instead wrote that bravely refusing to accept defeat during an invasion and inspiring your nation is a narrow band of admirable leadership in a very specific kind of situation, but it doesn’t, by itself, make someone a “great leader.” Before the Russian attack, nobody thought of Zalinsky as a great leader. He has guts and principles, but there is more to leadership than that.
I know: it’s doubtful that Popeye even knows how to play chess. But it’s Saturday night, as usual only the hard core is visiting Ethics Alarms, and this particular blot of laziness and incompetence has been driving me bananas for decades. Today was the final straw.
On a new Amazon Prime BBC documentary series “A Very British Murder with Lucy Worsely,” the final episode had Lucy talking about the gamesmanship going on in “Golden Age” British murder mysteries. As she rattled on, we saw a mid-game chessboard, and a hand was seen moving a piece. The chess board was set up incorrectly. The board, which we were shown from the White player’s perspective, had the black square in the right-hand corner. Continue reading →
In Virginia, an unexpected chance to use Dean’s definitive rendition of this cheerful winter song for the last time (I assume) before “The Flowers That Bloom In The Spring (Tra-la!)” is more appropriate…
Dog-walking ethics reflections: one of these days, I am going to stop and admonish the dog owners I see walking their four-legged companions in any of the following ways:
Dragging the dog on the leash at a breakneck pace and not allowing it to stop and sniff, which is roughly the equivalent of forcing a toddler to walk blindfolded.
Walking the dog while engrossed in a bluetooth or cell phone conversation, not interacting with the dog at all.
Walking far in front of the dog, without ever making eye contact or physically interacting with it.
Riding a bicycle with a dog on a leash, forcing the dog to run along to keep up.
Dogs want to be close to their humans and be acknowledged. Spuds gets so excited about going out that he can barely contain himself. I talk to him on our walks, try to accommodate his whims and interact with him as much as possible. The practices I see with too many other dog owners come just short of animal cruelty. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but yesterday was especially bad, as I saw one neglectful walker after another.
Now I’m taking Spuds out. He loves to eat fresh snow.
1. This drives me crazy. The House voted last week to pass a multi-trillion-dollar “omnibus” spending bill that was more than 2,700 pages. Members of Congress received the 2,700+ page bill’s text in the early morning hours with the vote scheduled for the same afternoon. Obviously, the vast majority of the House voted without reading the bill—-I’m pretty sure none of them read that fast. I have serious doubts about whether some of them can read at all.
Voting on mere summaries is irresponsible on the Members’ part, and not providing adequate time for Members to perform due diligence is unethical on the part of House leaders. Complains Brad Polumbo, “And, of course, if they voted against this bill, they will now be accused of opposing pay increases for soldiers and being obstructionists who shut down the government.”
Too bad: they still have an ethical obligation not to vote blindly. Each House Member should have to certify under oath that he or she has read any bill they vote for. If they are not given sufficient time, they should withhold their vote as a matter of responsible government. Continue reading →
Cutting to the metaphorical chase: Friends University in Wichita, Kansas, refused to allow a student recital honors project titled “The Shows They Don’t Want Us to Produce: A Study of Censorship Throughout the History of Musical Theatre,” to take place on campus. Yes, Caitlyn Fox’s show about censorship was censored.
Brilliant.
Some of the songs Fox would sing in her recital were “Aquarius” from “Hair,” “Maybe This Time” from “Cabaret,” “Gethsemane” from “Jesus Christ Superstar,” “Schadenfreude” from “Avenue Q” and “My Unfortunate Erection” from “The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee,” among others. The program had been approved, Fox had been assured that all was well, and then the university’s vice president of academic affairs and dean of the faculty sent Fox an email that kicked the recital off campus. He wrote in part:
“I’m writing to let you know that in the past few hours we have received significant complaints from staff members and donors regarding [your] Recital/Honors Project. People who have worked at and/or supported the university for a long time are considering withdrawing their support if we move forward with having the recital at Friends.”
I hate to repeat myself, I really do. Unfortunately, unethical people keep doing the same damn things over and over while the rest of the public has short memories. I could write this post almost entirely by cutting and pasting from a 2017 post I already re-posted once, in 2020, but it has more ethical implications for us now.
Last week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that it will not move the time on the infamous “Doomsday Clock” closer to “midnight,” which symbolizes curtains for civilization. This, said the Washington Free Beacon, raised “questions about the practices of an institution several legacy media outlets refer to as scientific.” A whether the clock would move forward after citing criteria the organization used in the past, such as armed conflict involving countries with nuclear weapons, a spokesman from the group said the time would remain unchanged and declined to answer any follow-up questions about how the heck that could be the case.
After all, last week President Biden was openly talking about World War III. Russian president Vladimir Putin has put his nuclear arsenal on “high alert,” and NATO has mobilized its response force for the first time since its inception. The West has installed crippling sanctions against Russia, which Putin, who is alleged to have gone nuts, has pronounced as acts of war. So why is the clock frozen in place when one would think it would be speeding terrifyingly forward?
Shut up! These are scientists! Why don’t you trust them? They’re smarter than you, and they know best! Science denier! Now put your damn mask on and trade your car in for a bicycle.Continue reading →
The slow-onset of warmer weather always puts me in mind of Pat Boone, who long ago gave us two classic warm weather love songs, “April Love” and “Love Letters in the Sand.” So many people and memories make me feel old these days; I resent it, because one really is as old as one feels, and I usually feel like I’m 12. Wrinkled child stars from my distant memories make me feel old; photographs make me feel old (which is why I don’t own a camera); worst of all are old friends who act old, or who always complain about the indignities of age. Pat Boone, however, is something else. He’s a lot older than me, 87, and hosts a once-a-week show on the Sirius Fifties Channel. Each installment includes recordings from Pat’s era, including some of his hits, but also many others, with Boone’s commentary and reminiscences. He’s a superb disc-jockey, conversational, articulate, glib, informative and funny: I know how much time and effort it takes to prepare an hour like that. Unlike so many singers and actors of his generation, Pat’s voice is as clear and mellifluous as always; his energy is high, his enthusiasm for his topic is delightful, and there is always a smile in his demeanor. Pat Boone is an inspiration: if that’s what results from clean living, he’s also a great role model. Pat’s going strong when he’s old enough to be my father.
And he makes me feel young.
1. Is a warning enough for a teacher like this? Anacortes High School teacher Casey Anderson has a tissue dispenser shaped like a cat, and the tissues are pulled from the cat’s ceramic butt (the appropriateness of this object is a separate question). Asked by one student how she refilled the supply of tissues, she said, “I turn down the lights, then put on some soft music and use a LOT of vaseline…”Then she retrieved a big container of petroleum jelly she had in her closet and placed it right by the “cat.” Somehow, parents had a problem with this.
The school district issued a statement saying that it had conducted an investigation and “formally reprimanded the teacher. This behavior is unacceptable and not tolerated by the district. We received several complaints from parents. The formal reprimand becomes part of an employee’s personnel file. We’re working with the employee to ensure that professional standards are met in the future.” Anderson is also the “Gay and Sexualities Alliance” adviser at the Washington high school, though the episode would be exactly as inappropriate whatever her role or personal orientation.
Parents need to trust teachers, and that means trusting their judgment and ethics alarms. Is it reasonable to trust a teacher who behaves like that even once?
From the Facebook community standards: “We remove content that glorifies violence or celebrates the suffering or humiliation of others…”
Required addition: “…except when its violence we approve of or that sufficient number of our users will cheer.”
As I noted in the previous post: the Big Tech leaders are untrustworthy people. The fact that they wield so much power and influence over American beliefs and attitudes is terrifying.
