End of A Horrible Week Ethics Warm-Up, 12/6/2019…

Ho Ho Ho Crap!

1. “Radical? What radical?” Stanford law professor Pam Karlan, who stood out as a neon beacon highlighting 2019 Democratic Party extremism when she turned her House testimony on impeachment into an unhinged, Trump-hate rant including a cheeap shot at Barron Trump’s name, was apparently too radical for Barack Obama, says Legal Insurrection. He appointed far more moderate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, despite Democrats then being in control of both Houses.

“Fast forward to 2019, and this radical Obama SCOTUS reject is a star witness for the Democrat impeachment circus,” the blog notes. “It’s surreal how completely the Democrats have removed themselves from any semblance of rational thought when it comes to their impeachment obsession.”

If we regard the public as the jury and the House Democrats as prosecutors, how can one explain putting such an angry, ugly, biased and partisan fanatic on the metaphorical stand as an “expert witness”? Isn’t that gross incompetence? What’s going on here? In fact, let’s poll it. Who knows, maybe it will draw almost as much interest as the Peloton commercial poll, the second most active in Ethics Alarms history (so far). (But then there were more Google searches on “Peleton” than “impeachment” last week, so we know what American priorities are…)

2. Polls suggest that public opposition to abortion is rising again. Gee, I wonder why?

“Can you believe this?” wrote one on Facebook. “Knights of Columbus Belleville  (all men) organized this absolutely shameful act ….and also posted it on their facebook page.” Erecting a the memorial is shameful. Got it.

Well, they were just warts and parasites, so she has a point.

The National Post reported that the coordinator of a protest over the memorial stone, Elissa Robertson, accused the Catholic charity of “attacking a women’s right to choose,” saying,

“It was designed to shame people. I think it was absolutely uncalled for and that money they put into this anti-abortion monument could have done a lot of good somewhere else. It ties into patriarchal values and this idea that women’s bodies are meant to be controlled by men. It’s a broader issue that ties into violence against women, it ties into health care, it ties into safety.”

It ties into climate change! It ties into racism! It ties into tooth decay!

If one has no regrets or shame about snuffing out nascent human lives, then how does the monument shame you? The abortion argument is very difficult to win on a factual or ethical basis, but advocates have learned that “How dare you!” and “Shut up!” are very effective.

Actress Jameela Jamil certainly isn’t ashamed. She’s refreshingly honest…and scary. In a November Harper’s Bazaar interview with Gloria Steinem, she said,

“I’m very outspoken about the fact that I, similarly to you, feel very passionately about a woman’s right to choose I’m someone who’s had an abortion, and I feel like I need to make sure that we prove it’s not always just emergencies. People have abortions, sometimes a woman just wants her liberty, and we have to normalize that it’s okay just to make that choice for yourself, because your life is as important as a newborn life that doesn’t even exist yet.”

Wait, if it’s not living, then why do you have to kill it? Is it really a fair  to compare your avoiding an inconvenient responsibility or life disruption with another human being losing its life? Challenged on this, the actress responded on social media, “I SAID WHAT I FUCKING SAID and you’re clueless if you think I’m going to take it back. My life is more important to me than an unborn fetus’s one. Suck on THAT!”

Wait: I thought you said no life was involved.

This is the approximate level of thought, sensitivity and ethical analysis we hear from almost all pro-abortion activists. Basic competence and responsibility rules: if you can’t discuss a topic more articulately and thoughtfully than this, leave the issue to others. Here’s another one of Jamil’s clever arguments:

Or better yet, why not just kill them too?

3.  Hey, no big deal. It’s just pro football. The National Football League announced last week that Arizona Cardinals cornerback Josh Shaw has been suspended indefinitely for betting on NFL games. “Indefinitely” means at least through next season.Not only had Shaw bet on NFL games, but he actually bet on his own team’s games, as well.

In baseball gambling on games guarantees a life-time ban, which is as it should be.

“Forget it, Jack: it’s NFLtown.” Boy, this is an unethical sport!

4.  And Russia is an unethical countryFrom the New York Times:

Russia’s flouting of antidoping rules is so severe that the country should be barred from global sporting events, including the Olympics, for four years, according to a recommendation sent to the world’s top antidoping regulator. The proposed punishment, made public on Monday, comes after Russia received serious penalties, and widespread scorn, for flagrantly circumventing rules designed to ensure fairness in sports. If the recommendation, which was sent to the regulator, the World Anti-Doping Agency, by one of its key committees, is approved by the organization’s board next month, Russian athletes and teams would be barred from next year’s Tokyo Olympics and from major events like soccer’s World Cup and the world championships for archery, wrestling and other sports.

There is no reason to believe that even the most severe punishment will change anything. If past is any indication (and it usually is), Russia will react by working hard to find new and better ways to cheat. This is a culture that has been inculcated in cheating corruption, and a disregard for ethics for centuries, and Communism (as well as socialism) breeds contempt for ethics, especially honesty and fairness, along with a strong “the ends justify the means” attitude. The ethical pollution that Communism wrought has poisoned many cultures and nation, with Russia and China, not surprisingly, the most deeply infected. Sports merely reflects those cultures.

They are very hard, if not impossible, to change.

15 thoughts on “End of A Horrible Week Ethics Warm-Up, 12/6/2019…

  1. Jack
    I believe any of your poll reasons could apply. There is one that actually should be explored and that deals with campaign finance violations.

    So far the Democrats have spent over 35 million dollars investigating Trump on relatively scant evidence. To me it appears as if we are now using government (public) resources to conduct opposition research and use it as a means to earned media.

    Last night Tapper allowed Pelosi to ramble on about the existential danger Trump imposes on us all. She actually said if he is reelected it threatens civilization. The media lapdogs provide not one bit of pushback on such hyperbole. When she claimed Trump’s witholding of military aid to Ukraine amounted to giving aid and comfort to our enemy Russia. Tapper never asked why that same theory did not apply to Obama when his administration failed to give lethal aid and did nothing when Russia took Crimea. Was Obama a Russian asset?

    The point is is this type of media is not journalism it is advertising which according to the FEC is a thing of value.

  2. 1. The poll should have an option for “all of the above”. It was hard to make the best choice.
    2. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around Jameela Jamil’s statements…I think my brain just quit working.

    • Her argument that people who oppose abortion don’t care about living children who are homeless, abused or living in poor families is a common one, though.

      • It is also a false one. The whole ‘we have to kill a child because it might have adversity in life’ is a short step from ‘kill because they ARE facing adversity in life.’ Like seniors, or cripples, or Down’s syndrome, or simply inconvenient… like Jews were to the Germans.

        • See Europe. In Belgium, they are euthanizing people as young as 9. They are forcing the Catholic Church to allow patients in their mental hospitals to be euthanized for mental illness. They are pushing euthanasia as a medical solution for any condition (including old age) as long as terminating that person will save the state money. Healthcare is expensive, euthanasia is cheap, and we are on a budget here.

  3. What about that clown who essentially said that even if an action isn’t a crime it can still be covered under “High CRIMES and misdemeanors”?

    • A staggering position, given how Democrats of twenty years ago repeated ad nauseum that President Clinton’s ACTUAL crimes weren’t “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

      I hope Republicans in the Senate have mops in hand as they wait for the House to vomit this onto their floor.

      • A staggering position, given how Democrats of twenty years ago repeated ad nauseum that President Clinton’s ACTUAL crimes weren’t “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

        I want to make the Democrats live by the precedent that they created.

        By the way,. the Ethics Scoreboard was created in response to the impeachment campaign against Bill Clinton.

  4. This is the approximate level of thought, sensitivity and ethical analysis we hear from almost all pro-abortion activists. Basic competence and responsibility rules: if you can’t discuss a topic more articulately and thoughtfully than this, leave the issue to others. Here’s another one of Jamil’s clever arguments:

    this begs the question of why the loudest voices defending a woman’s right to choose are the least coherent and most unethical.

    Or better yet, why not just kill them too?

    Two can play at that game.

    These people are pro-abortion, not pro-choice. What if a woman wants to choose to possess an assault weapon?

    Or a high-capacity magazine?

    Or drink through a plastic straw?

    Or buy an incandescent light bulb?

    Or a high flush toilet?

    Unless these people support these choices, they truly do not defend a woman’s right to choose.

    • They aren’t pro-woman, they are pro-abortion. The investigative reporting on abortion clinics have revealed that these are not safe for women. If you look at the South Bend, IN clinic, the doctor there had a frequent habit of leaving parts of the fetus in the women, leading to infections. The clinic failed state health inspections. In Missouri, many of the clinics failed their state health inspections for cleanliness, not sterilizing instruments, having unqualified staff, etc. What was the solution to these REAL threats to women in their care? The courts ruled that the states are not allowed to regulate abortion clinics. The courts, correctly, concluded that the power to regulate is the power to destroy, so governments can’t regulate abortion clinics at all. The South Bend, IN clinic is operating without a license. In some of these clinics, radiologists, psychiatrists, etc perform abortions. In the California trial, Planned Parenthood kept referring to non-physician abortionists, but they never defined that. This is interesting because the same courts allow the 1st and 2nd amendment rights to be regulated. So, our current hierarchy of laws in this country is Abortion first, then the Constitution, then federal laws. Abortion trumps the Constitution.

      So, this obviously isn’t about the safety of women. It is about the act of abortion itself, the women don’t matter. Abortion seems to be the new sacrament of the Democratic religion. Much like sacrificing your child to fire of Molech, this generation seeks to kill children to prove their dedication to the cause.

      • This is interesting because the same courts allow the 1st and 2nd amendment rights to be regulated. So, our current hierarchy of laws in this country is Abortion first, then the Constitution, then federal laws. Abortion trumps the Constitution.

        I too notice the judicial disparity regarding the unenumerated right to an abortion in contrast to the enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

        I wonder if this is due to racism.

        They uphold gun control laws because they are afraid of being mugged by a black man, or getting caught in a drive-buy shooting by black gangbangers.

        They support abortion rights because they want their teen daughters to have access to an abortion in case they get impregnated by black men.

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.