Ethics Dunce: Sec. of War Hegseth

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Oh come on.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth lifted the suspension of Army pilots under investigation for hovering near Kid Rock’s Tennessee mansion last week to give the rabid Trump supporter a “shout-out.” In a post on social media, Hegseth also saluted the B list rocker and said “pilots suspension LIFTED. No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots.”

Kid Rock posted two videos of him waving to the Apache helicopter as it lingered near the pool outside of his Nashville estate. The musician said, “God Bless America and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.” That’s nice. It doesn’t justify or excuse military pilots using government equipment for partisan demonstrations that were not ordered or approved by superiors.

The Army confirmed that two Apache helicopters from the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Campbell had taken part in the frolic flights and that the crews involved had been suspended pending an investigation “The Army takes any allegations of unauthorized or unsafe flight operations very seriously and is committed to enforcing standards and holding personnel accountable,” Army spokesman, Maj. Montrell Russell said in a statement.

Apparently not seriously enough. Kid Rock pooh-poohed the possibility of repercussions for the pilots, saying, “I think they’re going to be alright — my buddy is the commander in chief!”

Yecchh.

Unprofessional, destructive to military discipline, redolent of special dispensations for partisan loyalty, incompetent, irresponsible, foolish and wrong. I’d love to know the genuine reactions of our military personnel. My late father, the major, who was a stickler for military order and discipline, is probably spinning in his Arlington grave.

Friday Open Forum!

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Facts don’t matter, history doesn’t matter, logic doesn’t matter. All that matters to “these people”—I say “these people” because I don’t want to be associated with them in any way—is to mislead and confuse dimwits and know-nothings into not trusting the President and his administration regardless of the policy or decision.

Lincoln fired five generals leading the Army of the Potomac, one of them twice (McClellan), before finding the one he needed to win the Civil War. As a Marine veteran of of combat said succinctly when I told him about the Atlantic’s nonsense, “During a war is when firing generals is most important.”

But I digress. Write about any of the gazillions of ethics issues out there.

I have to watch Opening Day at Fenway Park now…

OK, It Is Indisputable That Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Is An Incompetent, Woke, Partisan Hack. Now What?

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

How do you fix a Justice who’s a moron?
How can you help a judge who cannot judge?
Is there a phrase describing Justice Jackson?
“A DEI curse,” “a Justice whose brain is fudge”?

Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her
Many a thing she ought to understand
But how can you justify
A Justice who will defy
All logic and law to follow a woke demand?

Oh, how do you fix a Justice who’s a moron?
Can law survive this fool who can’t be canned?

The recent horrified response to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s assorted gibberish and idiotic comments during the oral argument regarding the birthright citizenship issue only amplified the dawning realization that President Biden inflicted on the Supreme Court and the nation the most unqualified Justice in its history, and that’s saying something.

Richard Nixon almost got Harold Carswell on the Court, and he was so mediocre that a GOP supporter in the Senate argued that he should be confirmed because less-than-stellar people should be represented on the Court too. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the abysmal Roe v. Wade opinion and the even more head-exploding decision “explaining” why Major League Baseball should be exempted from the antitrust laws (“Baseball is cool” would adequately describe his logic), looks like Oliver Wendell Holmes compared to Ketanji Brown Jackson. Heck, Justice Sotomayor is a veritable Scalia compared to her fellow DEI Justice.

This is incredible a depressing. What can be done about it?

Presumable nothing. If one could impeach a Justice for manifest incompetence, Jackon’s dissent in the recent case of Chiles v. Salazar would surely justify it. Colorado had banned “conversion therapy,” so licensed counselors could not engage in “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The law imposed penalties for those violating the law, including a $5,000 fine and the potential loss of their licenses, even if the therapy was exclusively talking.

Ring any bells? Here’s a hint: “Freedom of speech.”

These bans on such “talk therapy” that endangers LGBTQ orthodoxy are scattered through the statutes of “blue states” across the nation. As I find the arguments for conversion therapy denigrating to gays and others, I had to check the blog archives to make sure that I have been consistent in opposing efforts to make such treatment illegal. Whew! I have.

During the oral argument on this case in October, I wrote,

“One more thing: if this dispute doesn’t prove for all time that progressives are remarkably skilled at holding opposing beliefs in their heads without feeling any discomfort, nothing will. The Left is fighting like honey badgers to allow school personnel to talk kids into thinking they are girls trapped in boys’ bodies or vice-versa, resulting in life-wrenching hormone treatments and surgery, but insist that conversion therapy for gays must be banned as harmful.”

Pages: 1 2

An Axis Trump Derangement Case Study: The White House Ballroom Tantrum

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Above is how a federal judge and all my Trump Deranged friends would like to see the White House East Wing look for the next three years or more.

How dignified and reflective of America’s history and greatness! This makes sense to them, you see, because President Trump took the initiative and decided to fix a long-standing deficiency of the White House, where he lives. Any previous President could have done this without uproar or significant opposition, you see, but as an example of the continuing 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, when the Left decided that it wasn’t going to accept the shocking election of a political outsider to foil their presumed coronation of a corrupt Democrat (but a historic one, see, so it was okay) and set out to obstruct literally anything he decided to do, big or small, important or trivial.

Pages: 1 2

Good Guys and Bad Guys

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Huh. Who, if anyone, are the “good guys” in this scenario from Maryland?

A Maryland woman, Karen Travino, has been accused of hiring illegal immigrants to fix her roof, then calling I.C.E. on them to avoid having to pay for the work. Nice.

In the video shot from the roof of the property in Cambridge, Maryland by Bryan Polanco, a worker with legal permanent residency, federal agents are e seen waiting on the lawn in front of the house, ready to arrest Polanco’s co-workers. His voice speaking over the video explains that he and his colleagues had come at teh woman’s request to fix the her roof, then she called ICE to have them taken into custody as soon as they were done, saving herself $10,000. “We came to fix this lady’s house, and she’s the one who turned us in. Fixing up her house and still with hatred in her heart,” Polanco says. “What she did tell me, and I told one of the other guys, is that if immigrants come back again to finish the project, she’s always going to call ICE.”

Six Guatemalan men had driven 70 miles from Glen Burnie to finish the job, being assured that they would be paid.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that if the allegations against the homeowner are true, she could face legal consequences under the Maryland law prohibiting the use of immigration threats to obtain labor or avoid payment. I don’t see that in the fact pattern. Pro-illegal immigrant activists are now claiming that Trevino threatened the men, forcing them to do the work for nothing or face deportation. That makes no sense, and seems contrived. I don’t know if there is any law covering what the homeowner did, although it would seem that the workers might have a civil suit for the money owed to them under breach of contract. Being illegal doesn’t cancel out the right to due process and protection under the law.

Who are the “good guys” and “bad guys” in this incident? I believe that a citizen is only being responsible to assist in the apprehension of illegal immigrants: that’s a civic duty. But to deceive vulnerable workers, running a veritable sting—that’s not admirable or ethical is it? Even less admirable is Karen Trevino trying to take advantage of illegal immigrants before blowing the whistle on them.

Good citizen and cheap home-owner Karen is complaining because she is being flamed on social media. I’m tempted to say she deserves it.

Are there any victims here? Are there any people to admire?

Pam Bondi Is Fired: Good! [Quote Fixed]

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Now, opinions differ regarding President Trump firing Pam Bondi today. The “buzz” is that her botched handling of the Epstein files, saying they were sitting on her desk, then that there weren’t any, then dribbling them out in a manner guaranteed to create conspiracy theories, was the reason. Others, like the Axis news media, claim that she had failed, in Trump’s eyes, to effectively prosecute “the President’s political foes.” Note the emphasis: that framing makes it sound as if these miscreants’ only flaw was opposing Trump. In truth, most of them, maybe all, deserve prosecution. But never mind.

The main point is that Bondi has been fired, and deserved to be fired; indeed, she should never have been appointed or confirmed in the first place. When she was nominated in November of 2024, I wrote in “Breaking: Trump Has A New Attorney General Nominee, and Arguably, She’s Worse Than Matt Gaetz…”:

“Matt Gaetz was an unqualified pick for AG. Pam Bondi is a corrupt one. Out of the ethics frying pan, into the fire. Nice. (I’m sure she’s loyal, though.)”

As it turned out, Bondi was also incompetent. Let’s see: just this past month, we had this and this, plus this embarrassment. And let’s not forget Bondi’s unprofessional behavior in a hearing in February. None of this was a surprise, but I get a Fredo anyway.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Observations On Byron Noem’s “Bimbofication” Scandal

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

Bryon Noem, the husband of recently fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, was revealed to be fond of dressing up in women’s clothing, often with massive fake breasts, while paying to interact with others portraying “bimbos,” the Daily Mail reported in a “scoop” that appears to be well-sourced.

His wife issued a statement to the New York Post saying she was “devastated” and her family was “blindsided.” President Trump only commented that he felt badly for the family and that his former DHS head’s husband’s odd hobby was “news to him.”

Predictably, the revelation, which 56-year-old Byron Noem has not denied, thrilled progressives, who pointed to his wife’s alleged hypocrisy in opposing LGBTQ rights, and horrified conservatives, who are as kinky as anyone else but don’t like admitting it.

What’s going on here?

Pages: 1 2

What’s the Matter With “Kindness Is Everything”?

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Oh, just everything.

This lawn sign message (and it’s on bumper-stickers too) was referenced in a sympathetic blog post about the ridicule being heaped onto Kristi Noem’s cross-dressing husband Byron. I will write about poor Byron later, if I can work up some enthusiasm for the job. Right now I’ll focus on the fatuous message above.

Kindness is not “everything.” It’s not even close to everything. Anyone who publicly declares such nonsense is either stating something they don’t believe in order to be nice (or seem nice), shamelessly virtue-signaling, or is too stupid to trust with sharp objects. Ethical living, thinking, inter-personal relations and problem-solving requires an acknowledgement of all the ethical values and virtues and a carefully learned and practiced system of balancing them.

Consider the Six Pillars of Character. None of those virtues designated by the Josephson Institute of Ethics are “everything,” and many, though legitimately important ethical consideration in the right context, have proven to be catastrophic when societies consider them to be “everything.” Perhaps the most blazing example is loyalty. Loyalty was the engine of the Third Reich. Even honesty isn’t “everything”; there are situations in which honesty is disastrous.

I find it significant that kindness didn’t even make the cut when the Josephson folks were compiling their “pillars” and the components of each. It could easily be included in the “Caring” pillar, which isn’t #5 in the hierarchy by accident.

“Kindness” is a favorite obsession in the Age of the Great Stupid. Kindness rationalizes open borders, “restorative justice,” and, naturally, “diversity, equity and inclusion.” It also undergirds irresponsible socialism, the destruction of personal responsibility and accountability, and the forgiveness of conduct that should not be forgiven or forgotten. Kindness was exploited to allow Joe Biden to be a zombie President.

No, kindness isn’t everything, or even the most important thing. I recommend caution and suspicion toward anyone who extols kindness to the exclusion of the other ethical values. The Ethics Alarms “Brel” designation comes to mind, awarded to those who embody the French troubadour’s memorable quote, “If you leave it up to them, they’ll crochet the world the color of goose shit.”

Divisive?

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The Great Stupid’s warped values have made the term “divisive” particularly problematical regarding societal ethics. If, for example, a sign condemning sex with children is deemed to be divisive to some sick SOBs, my reaction is, “Good. Live with it. You’re wrong and normal people are right. We don’t care if you feel denigrated. You should be denigrated. And shunned.”

Then we have the divisive appeal for funds I highlighted earlier today. I firmly believe that an appeal for charitable assistance for one “tribe” or group to the exclusion of others who have exactly the same claim to charity, empathy, humanitarian aid and generosity is divisive, destructive, and wrong.

Two examples of controversies involving art and messaging also came across my ethics metaphorical radar screen today….

I. The mural honoring murdered refugee Iryna Zarutska in Providence, Rhode Island. The last moments of the innocent young woman slaughtered for no reason in particular by a deranged criminal repeatedly released to prey on an unsuspecting public is on the left, the now condemned mural in her honor is on the right. Mayor Brett Smiley (D, of course) ordered the unfinished mural, largely funded by Elon Musk, taken down. “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence,” he said in a statement. “I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.” Smiley’s Democrat primary challenger, Rhode Island state Rep. David Morales, said, “We’re seeing a right-wing movement that is exploiting the death of the refugee for the purposes of trying to spread division. Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member that calls Providence home feels safe … and we can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence’s values.”

That’s interesting. What values do the honoring of a young woman who died because of elected officials, judges and law enforcement officials determination not to punish criminals and wrong doers “not reflect”? The fact that Iryna Zarutska was a Ukranian refugee is irrelevant, isn’t it? A young woman named Ann Jones, or a young man named Bill Shaw, or an old fart named, oh, say, Jack Marshall, being murdered while using public transportation would be equally worthy of public anger, wouldn’t it? Is dividing people who care about law abiding citizens being murdered because of irresponsible policies from those who shrug such horrors off as “collateral damage” a bad thing? What kind of people is Mayor Smiley and David Morales standing up for? Killers? Maniacs? Is the mural divisive because this particular maniac was black and his victim was white? I think the message of the mural is “Shame on you!” to all of the progressives, “restorative justice,” “defund the police” activists whose hands are stained with the blood of victims like Iryna Zarutska. Why should that message be suppressed or discouraged?

In its groveling statement sucking up to the woke and offended by justice, the owners of the building where the mural appeared mewled “We heard you [Providence]. We are deeply and sincerely sorry for everything that has taken place over the past week. After reflecting and learning, we have made the decision to discontinue this project and will move forward with removal as soon as possible. We remain committed to fostering unity, safety, and care for all members of our community, and we will continue to listen, learn, and act with those values at the forefront.”

Sure, you foster safety by supporting the removal of a strong statement against pandering to criminals. Got it. You’re disgusting.

[Pointer: JutGory]

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Verdict: It Is Unethical For President Trump To Attend The SCOTUS Oral Argument On Birthright Citizenship

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

As I write this, the Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging the tradition that nearly all children born in the United States, whoever their parents may be and how they came to be here, are automatically citizens.

On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order stating that babies born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants and temporary foreign visitors were ineligible for birthright citizenship. That was an obvious shot across the bow of the U.S. Supreme Court as it challenged an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that has stood for over a century. The President knew his EO would be also challenged, and would eventually end up on the Supreme Court docket.

Because this is an important question that would, if SCOTUS agreed with the President’s interpretation of the Constitutional intent (there were no such things as “illegal immigrants” when the Constitution was written) have massive consequences in many areas, the oral argument is attracting blow-by-blow analysis. That is not my purpose here.

The issue for Ethics Alarms is President Trump’s decision to attend the oral argument. No previous President has done this, although nothing prevents the President from attending. Trump’s predecessors all avoided the option, though there have been many, many cases over the years that the President knew would have a major effect on his policies as well and the matters he had to deal with. President Pierce did not attend the Dred Scott oral arguments. To be fair, he was barely engaged at any time in his miserable four years in the White House. But FDR didn’t sit in while the Court was determining the fates of his many New Deal programs. Nixon didn’t listen to the Pentagon Papers arguments.

Pages: 1 2