The Ethics Incompleteness Theory, The Bigot Doctor,”The Hader Gotcha,” And The Apology Scale

Yes, she actually has both arms. She’s also photogenic: the Democrats should nominate her for Congress.

I christened the Hader Gotcha last year after several athletes were forced to apologize for youthful social media comments that suggested a bigoted or insensitive state of mind. The ethics Alarms position on people looking through old social media posts to embarrass public figures and force them to grovel apologies to which ever group their comments offended was summarized in this post in the moderate, calm manner for which I am justly praised:

As I have written here before, searching for lingering social media idiocy that an athlete authored before he could drink or vote is despicable conduct, as is anyone making an issue of  what the deep Twitter dives expose. First, what a baseball player said or thought—they are often not the same thing—in the past has nothing to do with his job, which is playing baseball and not making social policy, and second, nothing anybody says or even does before their brain has matured should be held against them in adulthood, unless it is criminal, and even then the law urges us to be forgiving. I know that a lot of social justice warriors think that any racist, sexist or homophobic comments made post birth should be treated a crimes, but they are anti-democratic nuts, and hostile to free thought and speech, so to hell with them.

That post was largely ignored, because too many readers here still fail to grasp that ethics issues arising in baseball often, indeed usually, have broader wisdom to convey. Since I wrote it, the employment of the Hader Gotcha has been expanded outside the realm of sports, most notably the recent example of Kevin Hart, the popular comic who was attacked the very day he was designated as the host of the upcoming Oscars. Hart was forced to withdraw because a Hader Gotcah exposed old anti-gay tweets. This time, however, I agreed that the tweets mandated his withdrawal, writing,

To be successful, an MC has to be liked and trusted by his audience, which is, for the Oscars, the people inside the theater above all. A huge percentage, even a half or more, of the Oscar audience is gay. No one can host the Oscars while it is known that he once said, even eight years ago, that he was terrified that his son might grow up to be gay. It doesn’t matter that he may have “evolved.” Hollywood is a substantially gay community, and the host of its biggest party of the year should neither be nor be suspected of being homophobic.

In other words, the general ethics rule I applied in the posts about athletes don’t always apply when the circumstances are different. What I should have pointed out, but didn’t, was that this illustrates the Ethics Incompleteness Principle:

No system or rule is going to work equally well with every possible scenario, which is why committing to a single ethical system is folly, and why it is important to keep basic ethical values in mind in case a pre-determined formula for determining what is right breaks down.

I still hold that searching for dirt in old social media posts is a miserable thing to do to anyone. Nonetheless, sometimes a miserable someone attempting the Hader Gotcha will uncover information that can’t be ignored, and shouldn’t be. For example…

The Cleveland Clinic in Ohio fired Dr. Lara Kollab, 27, who worked as a resident there, after several of her old tweets from 2012-2014 were uncovered and went viral on the web.  in September 2018. Kollab is of Palestinian heritage, and tweeted out, for example,…

and

There were many others in the same vein.

Was the Cleveland Clinic right to fire her? How could they not? For liability purposes alone, no hospital can responsibly keep a doctor on staff who jokes about giving any patient the wrong medication, not can a doctor who regularly spewed hate about an ethnic group whose members  she might be called upon to treat be regarded as trustworthy.

Now she has issued a public apology:

In many respects, this is a standard Hader Gotcha apology: Those words do not represent who I am today. All the athletes, and Kevin Hart, said the same thing. Maybe it’s true in all of their cases, as well as with Lara Kollab.

The problem with Kollab’s apology, and what keeps it from being a Level I apology—the best—on the Ethics Alarms Apology Scale, is that she never specifically apologizes to the people she denigrated. The problem isn’t offensive words. The problem is the animus and hate she focused on Jews. The fact that she could not bring herself to reassure Jewish patients who might have to trust her care and professionalism that she no longer regards them as dogs or those who would like to poison, while including in the apology references to Jewish “injustice and brutality” strongly suggests that she only regrets her “insensitive” and impolitic expressions of anger and antipathy that still exists. Thus this is not  a #1,

“An apology motivated by the realization that one’s past conduct was unjust, unfair, and wrong, constituting an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing as well as regret, remorse and contrition, as part of a sincere effort to make amends and seek forgiveness,”

or even a #2,

“An apology motivated by the realization that one’s legitimate and defensible action or words caused unanticipated, excessive, or unnecessary harm to a particular party or parties. The apology expresses a sincere regret that the harm occurred.”

It is, rather, a #7 at best…

 A forced or compelled [apology] , in which the individual (or organization) apologizing may not sincerely believe that an apology is appropriate, but chooses to show the victim or victims of the act inspiring it that the individual responsible is humbling himself and being forced to admit wrongdoing by the society, the culture, legal authority, or an organization or group that the individual’s actions reflect upon or represent .

and perhaps even a deplorable Level 10:

An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.

In other words, her apology isn’t good enough. It isn’t close to good enough. Not only should no Jewish patient trust her, no patient of any nationality or faith should trust a doctor who jokes about giving patients the wrong medicine. Nor should any medical facility hire such a doctor until she can prove that those tweets no longer apply to “who she is.”

 

 

 

25 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Health and Medicine, Law & Law Enforcement, Professions

25 responses to “The Ethics Incompleteness Theory, The Bigot Doctor,”The Hader Gotcha,” And The Apology Scale

  1. Arthur in Maine

    There have been many news reports over the years concerning Palestinians who were seriously wounded in Intifadah actions who expressed astonishment that Israeli doctors treated them, instead of letting them die.

    Yes, we all grow, and yes, we all make mistakes and say preposterous things when we’re young. Even into our twenties and thirties… heck, even longer than that. The issue is really at what point we sufficiently mature such that we’re beyond that.

    This woman should never be allowed to practice medicine again. Take that a step further: she should never have been admitted to medical school in the first place. That she’s smart isn’t in question; med schools don’t accept unintelligent people. But the level of racism expressed in posts that were made while she was in training clearly demonstrate that she carries deep-seated hatreds that would certainly at least tempt her to violate the first precept of the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.”

  2. Michael R.

    Prediction: Next month, she will show up as a regional leader of ‘The Women’s March’.

    Remember: These tweets are not from a foolish high school student. She was in medical school while she was making some of these tweets. She may have been treating patients as an intern while she was making these tweets.

  3. Chris Marschner

    She cannot use the youthful indiscretion excuse. One cannot give the wrong meds until one has completed med school. That would make someone about 25. If her education did not impart any understanding about ethical choices then she does not deserve to practice medicine.

    Actually, I would wonder if any firm would underwrite her malpractice insurance. Any good attorney would use these tweets as evidence of malice or willful misconduct in the event of a lawsuit from a Jewish patient.

    • Emily

      While totally agreeing with Jack, just wanted to point out that she’s 27 now. The one you’re referring to looks like it was from 2012, making her 21, and written in future tense. She was probably pre-med or planning to go to medical school at the time.

      • Don’t matter. res ipsa loquitur

      • Michael R.

        In 2014, she would have been 23 or 24. That is the first or second year of medical school. Med students often start seeing patients in clinics at the end of their first year now.

        • Emily

          Sure, but his specific point here was that med school should have taught her some ethics, and it hadn’t. The drop off after 2014, early in med school (where she might even have taken an ethics class) could be read as exactly that.

          More likely she just didn’t have much time for racist tweeting, but the argument “If her education did not impart any understanding about ethical choices then she does not deserve to practice medicine.” does not hold water, since she did stop around the time she was recieving that education.

          • Emily,

            It seems to me you are making as big an assumption as what you criticize. What evidence do you have that she learned anything? Were there later tweets that recanted, or praised Jews? Did she just go silent on the matter, and you therefore assume she learned better?

            Given our experience with this particular brand of hatred, I think it is safe to assume the opposite. I certainly would not knowingly visit a medical professional who believed this way, even though I am not a Jew: if someone can view anyone else as subhuman, they are a short rationalization from viewing YOU that way.

          • Michael R.

            Emily,
            I took your response to be excusing her action as a youthful indiscretion that had no bearing on her current life (it was before medical school). I was pointing out that she had this attitude into medical school at a point where she might have been seeing patients.

    • Some contrary thoughts …

      It seems to me you are making as big an assumption as what you criticize. What evidence do you have that she learned anything? Were there later tweets that recanted, or praised Jews? Did she just go silent on the matter, and you therefore assume she learned better?

      Given our experience with this particular brand of hatred, I think it is safe to assume the opposite. I certainly would not knowingly visit a medical professional who believed this way, even though I am not a Jew: if someone can view anyone else as subhuman, they are a short rationalization from viewing YOU that way.

      1) She was fired and should have been fired for obvious reasons. As I said ‘there is no way to salvage this one’.

      2) Like all people, and in all situations, and with you and with everyone who writes on this Blog, she likely has her private thoughts about all manner of different issues, and in this case about Israel and about Jews. Note that there are hundreds and thousand of Jewish Israelis that understand her sentiments and would defend her anger.

      3) Many Israelis also have their rather dark opinions about Arabs and Palestinians. I have listened to Israelis talk about ‘scraping Gaza off the map’ in a semi-joking tone, laughing and excusing themselves ironically for their ‘slightly fascist opinion’, yet it is humor that expresses real feelings. Because those feelings exist.

      4) Her ‘apology’, as with most such apologies, had a function: to salvage her reputation. Those ridiculous public apologies should never be trusted to be sincere apologies. I would suggest that the rehearsal of asking / demanding that people make these ‘apologies’ be examined. It is turned into a ritual performance. It is absurd.

      5) It is not at all impossible that her intense anger — justified in my view — could have become modified. She joked in very bad form about giving a Jew the wrong meds. It was in a ‘future’ and indefinite form, and this future tense and the indefinite form is often used in off-color jokes. You have likely used such a verbal form as has most on this blog at one time or another. (But I hope not in public media!) Her mistake was to make a private joke public.

      6) I am not so stupid and gullible as to assume that she would ever take action on her indefinite joke. And no one else should be. She was fired, and there is no way around doing this. But the question is if her life will be destroyed. I don’t think it should. But those who pursue her will not give up.

      7) She explained how her anger came to be, and the conditions that produced that anger. And hundreds and thousands of Israelis also feel similarly, and understand her. And you ask her that she ‘recant’ and then ‘praise’ Israelis?

      8) What you seem to ask of people is absurd. I don’t even know how to express it. You do not and will not allow her to have the opinion, the sentiment, the feeling, the belief or the understanding that she has. What will you do? Put her into some neurological machine that will delete the feelings and the ideas that you don’t like? What about some prolonged chemical therapy? Or a lobotomy?

      9) “Our experience with that particular brand of hatred”? I hate to mention this but this sound a little SJW-ish! That is a loaded phrase, and trust me I have studied antisemitism in considerable depth (and have dealt with it directly). Trachtenberg, Hay, Prager and Telushkin and numerous others. The way that that descriptive term functions (antisemitism) it is absolute and allows no shading. It is entirely possible to be Judaic-critical (critical of Jewish religion as in anti-Talmudic); Jewish-critical (critical of the activities of a unique people, most often post-emancipation); Israel-critical, and even to hate and despise Israel as a nation, insofar as you might have lost your land, your culture, your groves, to that aggressive state. If the American Indians 150 years ago ‘hated’ colonists, would you make it illegal to have such sentiments?

      10) “… if someone can view anyone else as subhuman, they are a short rationalization from viewing YOU that way.”

      You are demonstrating how this is amplified into something it was not. She just made a bad future-tensed ‘imaginary’ joke about giving a Jew the wrong meds. That’s it. People when they are very very angry, and also hurt, say such things all the time. There is no indication that she intended to act on her bad joke, and there is no reason why a balanced person would conclude that she would.

      11) She is being punished now, and it is likely her punishment will only continue, as the social media mob piles on. It will go on for years — decades. The retribution will be taken to the absolute limits and will exceed her crime a thousand-fold. Ah, but that is the point!

      12) And what about the day when such a thing happens to you, for something you have said, which someone took and blew out of all proportion?

      • Alizia, I first thought you were replying to ChrisM (nesting error in my email, I guess.) Since the quote is mine, I will reply.

        1) She was fired and should have been fired for obvious reasons. As I said ‘there is no way to salvage this one’.

        Agreed. This would be harsh in many situations, but one who has great impact on life (and death) must be held to a higher standard. A judge who joked ‘I would sentence all black defendants to death!’ must be taken at his word: it is res ipsa loquitur of being unfit for the responsibility. Police, Federal Agents, and medical professionals have to be trusted, or they cannot perform their function.

        2) Like all people, and in all situations, and with you and with everyone who writes on this Blog, she likely has her private thoughts about all manner of different issues, and in this case about Israel and about Jews. Note that there are hundreds and thousand of Jewish Israelis that understand her sentiments and would defend her anger.

        Her anger is irrelevant. Who shares her anger is irrelevant. She violated a public trust in public, making her unfit to serve.

        We all have our darker thoughts. This is human nature. We are held accountable for when they become action, in word or deed, notwithstanding progressives inventing thoughtcrimes out of the fevered imaginations.

        3) Many Israelis also have their rather dark opinions about Arabs and Palestinians. I have listened to Israelis talk about ‘scraping Gaza off the map’ in a semi-joking tone, laughing and excusing themselves ironically for their ‘slightly fascist opinion’, yet it is humor that expresses real feelings. Because those feelings exist.

        Same answer as #2. These things are wrong to express, objectively. Note that I am as guilty as anyone for such crude humor in the past. Human nature, which I strive to overcome. Having the feelings is no crime. Acting on them is unethical, at the very least.

        4) Her ‘apology’, as with most such apologies, had a function: to salvage her reputation. Those ridiculous public apologies should never be trusted to be sincere apologies. I would suggest that the rehearsal of asking / demanding that people make these ‘apologies’ be examined. It is turned into a ritual performance. It is absurd.

        We are violently agreed on this one! I would use the term ‘asinine’ as well as ‘absurd.’ The correct reply to such requests is ‘Bite Me.’ Objectively, these apologies never work, indeed, they actually make matters worse.

        5) It is not at all impossible that her intense anger — justified in my view — could have become modified. She joked in very bad form about giving a Jew the wrong meds. It was in a ‘future’ and indefinite form, and this future tense and the indefinite form is often used in off-color jokes. You have likely used such a verbal form as has most on this blog at one time or another. (But I hope not in public media!) Her mistake was to make a private joke public.

        Agreed. My answer to #1 and #2 apply here.

        However, I am not a doctor, judge, or LEO. (Though I DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night…)

        6) I am not so stupid and gullible as to assume that she would ever take action on her indefinite joke. And no one else should be. She was fired, and there is no way around doing this. But the question is if her life will be destroyed. I don’t think it should. But those who pursue her will not give up.

        I interpreted this to read “I am not so stupid and gullible as to assume that she would NEVER take action…” This is my take as well. Progressives tend to tell you what they would do with power, before they get it: they accuse their opponents, projecting what they would do or have done in the situation. In the past decade, we have see that they were serious about such threats.

        Therefore I tend to believe a progressive who wants ‘all white men to die,’ for instance. Past experience indicates that progressives (socialists) are far more likely than most to carry out excesses (see: USSR genocide, China Cultural Revolution, Venezuela, or any number of socialist utopias.)

        If you meant what you wrote, I understand the viewpoint. My objection is that her intended profession precluded such a public comment, as described in #1 and #2.

        Those who pursue her should not, as described in #4. She should be free to pursue a fulfilling career as an accountant, lawyer, or any number of professions where she can be trusted.

        7) She explained how her anger came to be, and the conditions that produced that anger. And hundreds and thousands of Israelis also feel similarly, and understand her. And you ask her that she ‘recant’ and then ‘praise’ Israelis?

        See #1: Her anger, and who shares it, are irrelevant.

        You misrepresent what I said: I do not ask that she recant or praise anyone. I was looking for some evidence of growth, or remorse, or accountability through which we could understand Emily’s assumption that her apology was sincere. This woman, at one point, felt strongly enough about her anger to publically make this statement, despite good judgement or a sense of civility. I was asking Emily if there was an offsetting or mitigating action (though I am not sure what such would be, or if it would be valid) to justify giving her the benefit of the doubt.

        8) What you seem to ask of people is absurd. I don’t even know how to express it. You do not and will not allow her to have the opinion, the sentiment, the feeling, the belief or the understanding that she has. What will you do? Put her into some neurological machine that will delete the feelings and the ideas that you don’t like? What about some prolonged chemical therapy? Or a lobotomy?

        Nice strawman argument. She is welcome to her feelings, her beliefs, and her opinions. She is NOT welcome to her own facts, truth, or reality. Progressives do not allow others to have opinions. I never said she should not have the right to her feelings. You made this up out of whole cloth.

        9) “Our experience with that particular brand of hatred”? I hate to mention this but this sound a little SJW-ish! That is a loaded phrase, and trust me I have studied antisemitism in considerable depth (and have dealt with it directly). Trachtenberg, Hay, Prager and Telushkin and numerous others. The way that that descriptive term functions (antisemitism) it is absolute and allows no shading. It is entirely possible to be Judaic-critical (critical of Jewish religion as in anti-Talmudic); Jewish-critical (critical of the activities of a unique people, most often post-emancipation); Israel-critical, and even to hate and despise Israel as a nation, insofar as you might have lost your land, your culture, your groves, to that aggressive state. If the American Indians 150 years ago ‘hated’ colonists, would you make it illegal to have such sentiments?

        You mistake an objective observation for an emotionally loaded denigration.
        Where have I wanted to make it a crime to have sentiments? See #8.

        Objectively, progressive narrative generally, and antisemitism specifically, are well known for making unfounded accusations without accountability. If there are valid objections to a nation, fine: but the track record of the various entities (you know: like the UN, PLO, Hamas, Hez, most of Europe…) employ hyperbole, emotionalism, and outright lies on a routine basis when they smear Israel. The headlines read “Israel kills children” when the ‘children’ in question were the aggressors, attacking Israelis with lethal force.

        Why is that, do you think? Why not just state facts instead of propaganda? (Hint: because their cause is shite, and they know it)

        Israel is not innocent: any nation as pure as the driven snow would shortly no longer be a nation. This is the world we live in: all countries are unethical, all countries work for their benefit, even against allies. Holding one country to a different standard is wrong.

        As far as the rest of your strawman here, none if it is relevant to the topic at hand: should we trust a medical professional who makes such statements?

        10) “… if someone can view anyone else as subhuman, they are a short rationalization from viewing YOU that way.”

        You are demonstrating how this is amplified into something it was not. She just made a bad future-tensed ‘imaginary’ joke about giving a Jew the wrong meds. That’s it. People when they are very very angry, and also hurt, say such things all the time. There is no indication that she intended to act on her bad joke, and there is no reason why a balanced person would conclude that she would.

        I did not advocate she be punished beyond the firing, which you agreed was necessary. You made that rest of that position up in your head and assigned me the bad guy role. Would you, Alizia, go to a white doctor who publicly states they hated Latinos, and wishes them all dead? (I would not even though I am not Latino!) What ‘balanced person’ would take such a chance? I simply observed that once a person has determined in their mind to devalue human life, it is MUCH easier to do so again.

        The rest is already covered in responses above.

        11) She is being punished now, and it is likely her punishment will only continue, as the social media mob piles on. It will go on for years — decades. The retribution will be taken to the absolute limits and will exceed her crime a thousand-fold. Ah, but that is the point!

        As I said before, the social consequences are too severe for her mistake. She should be left alone to work in some non medical (or judicial, or law enforcement) profession.

        However, I would like to make an observation. Progressives like this woman, who get called out when they step over a line, are usually ‘rehabilitated’ after some time in the wilderness. I do not expect that the consequences will be as bad as you seem to expect. If she were thought to be conservative, then I would agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. This was prevalent in socialist countries, where someone could be scapegoated one day, and embraced after the situation cooled and the propaganda need changed.

        12) And what about the day when such a thing happens to you, for something you have said, which someone took and blew out of all proportion?

        Ad Hominem, and a strawman to boot. I don’t use social media, and generally only post here. I am not in one of the professions where public trust is implicit in the ability to perform service. What gain would there be, to seek me out for fake outrage, except for my story to be an example to common Americans that ANYONE can be treated so? Facebook can ban me to their heart’s content: what I post here is between me and the NSA (who knows all things Internet- hi guys!) I do not make enough to be denied jobs, especially in Texas, where such treatment by SJWs might get me a promotion, should an employer learn of my plight. 🙂

        But of paramount importance: I am not the progressive harpy you painted me to be.

        That makes the difference between this woman and I.

  4. Yeah, that’s a low-grade apology. Kissing up to friends’ bigotry does not go with the duties of a doctor in Cleveland. The gotcha started to allow mercy for stupid teen lip in sports and entertainment. But this woman was NOT a teen, and lives could have been in the balance. Part of some careers, especially medicine, require a higher ethical standard. If a ballplayer doesn’t like gays, it really doesn’t hurt them, but threatening to give the wrong medicine to Jews is a serious breach of judgment. Her license should be called into question, and preventing that seems the motivation for the poor apology.

    Bet she got an earful from relatives and resents more than understands what she did and is still doing wrong. (bet they regret sending her on trips if the trips encouraged her to blow her future in a safer land of opportunity)

  5. For a doctor to have said, in a public forum, even as a joke (which it was and which sense it could only be taken in) is grounds for firing her. It would be comparable, perhaps, to a lawyer jokingly saying in a public forum that she would deliberately undermine her client’s defense if he were Jewish.

    There is not really a way to salvage this one.

    This does not change the fact that Jewish/Israeli organizations, in a manner similar to the SPLC, have weaponized their activism, and hunt people down for shame-operations. If they really would have desired to be just and fair — to accord with a sense of Jewish justice and fairness I should add — they would have approached her privately first.

    Instead, they opted to make an effort to ‘destroy her life’. This is what things have come to. And those that now have social and political power can doxx people for their opinions and ideas, rally the social media hordes to attack, wound & destroy, and in myriad ways give vent to social hysteria. They should be very careful because someday the roles might reverse.

    It is impossible within the American system, and to lesser degrees in other areas, to have frank and open conversation about Israel and its policies. There is an entire *structure* that has been established, which people have voluntarily internalized, that makes rational discourse on these topics impossible. Thus, they manage to shut down discourse. And that is of course what they want. That is its purpose!

    I am fascinated by the *invisible force-field* that gets established around certain *hot* topics and which makes it impossible to discuss them, even to think about them! Some of these are:

    Israel, its founding and the occupation. The American educational system infiltrated by a potent form of American Cultural Marxism (for want of a better term). Race in America. Propaganda and Public Relations. The JQ. Moral sexual issues. The American ‘Deep State’ and its machinations. The enormous and unavoidable lies and deceptions that surround 9/11 and the tens of thousands of serious people — professional architects, doctors, pilots, psychologists and scientists — who are of the opinion that there is a tremendous cover-up.

    There is a looooonnnnggggg list of suppressed material. The more that it is necessary to create forbidden zones, the more the general repression will keep manifesting itself. Once this moves to the point where *serious people* (professional people and not just marginals) are targeted and harmed, then there will begin a counter-movement against *it*.

    • Michael R.

      Look what happens if you try to oppose the party line on global warming, the government press arm will come after you. So be warned biologists, they are coming for you next. The geographers are going to determine how you describe photosynthesis (note the high ranking climate change ‘scientist’ is a geographer). The geographer’s comments about CO2 and photosynthesis are actually false. One of the first big problems with climate change prediction was that they couldn’t explain why the CO2 level wasn’t much higher. One of the bigger CO2 sinks is the forests. We are reforesting the planet and the elevated CO2 is helping in that effort (we have had a net increase in trees, year over year for decades).

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/climate-change-red-deer-students-1.4949957
      https://globalnews.ca/news/4595603/reality-check-maxime-bernier-co2-pollution/

      Back as an undergraduate, this dogma about carbon dioxide really made me question if biologists counted as scientists. A professor in the biology department did an experiment varying the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere where plants were growing. His group found that plants grew faster, the higher the CO2 concentration was. This was considered revolutionary, because it went against everything biologists had assumed about carbon dioxide. My classmates and I looked at each other puzzled because why would you assume (as the biologists did) that if you gave plants more food, it would kill them? We learned it was global warming dogma. Since carbon dioxide needs to be controlled, too much must be bad. If something is bad, it must always be bad. That made me wary of biologists as actual scientists for a long time.

  6. JutGory

    This sort of thing is a major reason I post under a pseudonym. I oppose illegal immigration. However, I work in a law firm that does substantial immigration work and whose clientele is probably 75%+ immigrants (legal and illegal).

    So, while I do not practice immigration law, and while I don’t have many problems with strong enforcement of our immigration laws, I fully support the notion that immigrants, legal and illegal, have due process rights that must be protected. And, to the extent that my representation of them in a criminal setting will have an impact on their immigration status, I make every effort to get the result that does the least harm to those rights.

    But, to express my personal views on the matter may confuse clients and potential clients about my ability to represent them fairly. To avoid this confusion, I observe those wise words: “keep your big fat mouth shut.”

    (Similarly, I often joke that I don’t practice family law because the Catholic Church does not approve of divorce. But, the truth of the matter is: I just don’t like it.)

    -Jut

  7. Glenn Logan

    All I can say is I have never been more thankful not to have had Twitter or its ilk available as a young person. I might be unemployable today, remembering how hard it was for me to control my emotions as a youth.

    Another thing — have we ever seen a situation where horrible tweets as an adolescent were undone, or even substantially mitigated by an apology, even a Level 1 effort? It seems to me, in today’s environment, that’s like trying to unring a bell.

  8. There is a big difference beteen Hader/Hart and this doctor. Hader and Hart made general comments about the LGBTQ community. There is no evidence that either would one would specifically target a member of that community for abuse.

    This doctor, however, even though a pre-med student, made specific comments about what she would do to a patients of a particular group. It does not matter that the group is Jewish, black, gay, or white. She joked about poisoning her patients. That is signature significance of failed ethics and human decency. A patient must trust that the doctor, nurse, health care provider is providing proper care according to the acceptable medical standards. Likewise, an employer (whether a private practice/group or hospital) has the right to know that it is not hiring a homicidal, genocidal maniac to treat its patients. Just imagine what would happen if she did, erroneously, prescribe the wrong medications to a Jewish patient who died as a result. The liability would be frickin’ staggering.

    Remember, Cleveland, OH, has a large Jewish population as well as a survivor population, many of whom are ardent supporters of Israel. These comments directly bear on the competence of the doctor and her proposed care in that community. These comments bear directly on that population.

    Returning to Hart, though, I still disagree with Jack’s position that the Oscars audience is primarily LGBTQ and has to trust the event’s host. While it is true that there are lots of gays in Hollywood, the Oscars is not an LGBTQ event. It is broadcast to the entire country. The question is whether Hart’s comments would prevent the greater community from watching the show. Will advertisers not buy ad space? Will viewers not watch the show? Will the show lose money? I wouldn’t know. I haven’t watched it in years and have absolutely no interest in watching it this year. So, for me, his comments are irrelevant, and frankly, I don’t really care.

    There is absolutely no evidence that Hart is against the LGBTQ community. What did he stay that caused him to cower before the Furies? He said that he would not his sons to be gay. Is that offensive? Is it hateful? From the father of 14 year old, I don’t think so. Adolescence is hard for young boys and girls trying to figure out their worlds and who they are. Add sexual orientation issues to the mix would only make it harder and more confusing.

    Don Lemon, that CNN intellectual giant, has called on Hart to become a standard bearer for the LGBTQ community. Hart declined. He simply said he has apologized and move on; if some don’t accept his apology, well that if fine with him.

    Here are some links to Lemon’s invitation to Hart:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don-lemon-kevin-hart_us_5c343aa2e4b05d4e96bb851a

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2019/01/05/dons-take-kevin-hart-oscars-host-lemon-vpx.cnn

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2019/01/08/kevin-hart-response-don-lemon-lgbt-plea-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn

    jvb

    • There is a big difference, many differences, in fact. However, in a team setting, players must not believe that other team members have virulent biases against them on the basis of race, religion, or sexual preference. The level of trust required by a patient is indeed more crucial, but still, it comes down to trust, not hurt feelings. The difference is that a patient really has to be able to trust a doctor. That’s part of the doctor’s job.An athlete’s job is to play the game well, and team relations, while important, are secondary.

      The Oscars are an LGBT event, it’s just that the majority of LGBT performers are deep in the closet

      • Agreed, as to the team members. I just don’t know that Hart hosting the Oscars is that big of a deal. Maybe it is my apathy to the Oscars that is driving my impressions. Possible. I know bias makes you stupid; does apathy make you stupid or simply apathetic? I dunno and I dunno if I care.*

        jvb

        *Ed. Note: Awful attempts at humor will not be tolerated. The commenter has been sacked.

        • Especially funny as I watched MP’s Quest for the Holy Grail last night.

          When will those responsible for the sacking of those who make awful attempts at humor be sacked for their inevitable failure? Will a European Swallow or an African Swallow deliver the coconut…er, the pink slip?

          (Are the slips actually pink? One would think the slips would be a sadder color- maybe blue- unless worn by Pelosi, in which case I would need mental bleach… what was I talking about? Oh yes: if the slips are pink in America, does that hold true in the UK? Are the pink slips red in China, or do they just shoot you on lunch break?)

  9. Other Bill

    Her license should be suspended or revoked entirely. Let her go to Palestine and help her people.

  10. Isaac

    [Squints] Not sure if taqiyya or if she’s just a natural liar. She not only isn’t sorry, but she excuses her anti-Semitism by telling more lies about Jews.

    I don’t think this even makes it onto the apology scale. It’s practically doubling down.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.