Month: February 2022

At Columbia, Free Speech Chilling Takes A Great Leap Forward

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

The assault on free expression as well as the speech-chilling practice of seeking to publicly crush those who do not observe the social justice dictates of progressives in power advanced ominously yesterday. Unsurprisingly, the episode at issue occurred at an Ivy League University, as our educational sectors have been among the trailblazers in speech and idea suppression. Unsurprising to me at least was that it involved Twitter. Just like in the Illya Shapiro controversy at Georgetown Law Center, a scholar didn’t use quite the words he should have (to be safe, and safety is everything these days) according to the Democrats’ Little Red Book. This time, however, the hammer fell harder. Continue reading →

Good Start, Binghamton U….Now Fire Her.

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Binghamton University (NY) Professor Ana Maria Candela’s Introduction to Sociology syllabus originally stated that white students had to wait for “non-white folks” to talk before speaking up or asking questions, according to the syllabus.

In another charming section, Candela’s syllabus also included a quote from Chinese dictator Mao Zedong: “No investigation, no right to speak,” which she interprets benignly to mean, “Don’t speak until you know something.” I question the wisdom of quoting a Communist despot extolling “investigation,” but OK. Candela’s rules on class participation, however, embraced “progressive stacking,” which conditions “students’ participation and speaking based on their race and gender.” Continue reading →

Addendum To “Since The Editor Of The New York Times Just Proved That He Doesn’t Comprehend Journalism Ethics…”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

A relentless Times apologist–you know which one—chides me for leaving out this from his  interview in the New Yorker, which is the context for the “version of the truth” gaffe, when Baquet said the quiet part out loud (if the Times-enabler hadn’t begun his complaint with “Um,” I might have let it go):

The system of “objectivity” (and I know that’s going to be a bad word) was designed to create a system—Wesley Lowery is right when he describes that—in which the organization’s job was to make sure that whatever your perspective was it didn’t get in the way of reporting the truth. I believe in that very strongly. That’s not the job of every institution. But the job of the New York Times should, in the end, be to come out with the best version of the truth, with your own political opinion held in check by editors and editing. Not everybody believes that, but I believe that. And I think that if you come to work for the New York Times—if you really want to work for the New York Times—you have to embrace that, because that’s what the New York Times is.

In fact, I intended to include that outrageous and insulting lie, but felt it would have just muddled the more important point of the post. (That, and the New Yorker site blocked my access unless I subscribed…) Continue reading →

Since The Editor Of The New York Times Just Proved That He Doesn’t Comprehend Journalism Ethics, I Guess It’s Time To Explain It….

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Past time, in fact. Some Ethics Alarms readers don’t comprehend it either, but they aren’t editing the so-called “Newspaper of Record.”

Dean Baquet, who is soon retiring as the Times editor-in-chief, and not a moment too soon, dropped this verbal smoking gun during an interview in the New Yorker:

“The job of the New York Times should in the end be to come out with the best version of the truth.”

No, he can’t be forgiven a “speako” on the fly: major media interviews aren’t like that. Baquet had an opportunity to fix that quote, but he didn’t. He didn’t because his ethics alarms, such as they are, didn’t twitch. That’s really what the Times editor, and his paper, and the vast majority of its reporters and pundits really think. The “best version of the truth” is, naturally, the version that serves the interests of the Times and its allies, because they know best.

Continue reading →

Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 2/23/2022: Dubious Communications!

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Well, I started it in the morning…

1. Do you sense a theme here? Voters in San Francisco last week dumped three members of the city school board who led the way to prioritize taking the names of American Presidents off of schools over getting children into them. One of the properly exiled was board President Gabriela López, who opened her Democratic Emergency Excuse Kit For Any Crisis and found, of course, the Race Card. López blamed the recall results on “white supremacy.” López tweeted,

“So if you fight for racial justice, this is the consequence. Don’t be mistaken, white supremacists are enjoying this. And the support of the recall is aligned with this.”

López also retweeted a post alleging the recall “was funded by republican billionaires, led by […] “reopen the schools” moms that used id politics and anti-blackness to turn out votes within the conservative asian immigrant community.”

If people like Lopez aren’t rebuked and shunned hard, American minorities risk growing to adulthood incapable of accepting personal responsibility for anything they do, and spending life as perpetual victims in their own minds.

2. Everyone is circulating this, but it deserves to be circulated. One more reason to sat off Twitter, especially if you’re not too bright:

3. Boy, they’re strict! The Florida Supreme Court imposed a public reprimand of an attorney after it found that she  made “unprofessional” and “sarcastic” remarks in multiple matters. For example he sent emails to multiple different people involved in  litigation in which she referred to opposing counsel as “out of control,” and “overly hostile.”  In other  emails with opposing counsel, she stated that the depositions of two of the witnesses in the case were “going to be epic” and great “entertainment.” What do you think, Marlon?

Nobody can recall any other lawyer being disciplined for such mild rhetoric. If we had a functioning ACLU, which we do not, it would be a good free speech case. Continue reading →

Unqualified House Candidate Of The Year: Abby Broyles (D-OK)

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

I don’t know if it’s possible for a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives to prove herself less trustworthy and responsible than Oklahoma “Congressional hopeful” Abby Broyles.

Let’s see…while dropping in to visit a friend holding a sleep-over for eight girls aged 12 or 13, Broyles…

  • drank wine and got smashed
  • swore at one girl
  • made fun of another’s acne
  • made a derogatory remark about one girls’ Hispanic heritage along with other abusive remarks
  • vomited in one girl’s shoe, and
  • vomited in a hamper.

Was that wrong? Continue reading →

Is There Any Way Pres. Biden’s Appointment of Minyon Moore As An Advisor For His Supreme Court Pick Could Be Called Ethical?

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

I don’t understand this at all. Lately, I’ve been wondering if Biden is deliberately trying to lose any lingering, mouth-breathing, drooling supporters he might have who aren’t total ideologues impervious to reason, like…well, Minyon Moore.

Three weeks ago, CNN reported that Biden had selected “three key outside advisers” to guide his still unnamed nominee—though we do know what color and gender she is— through the nomination process. “Minyon Moore, a veteran Democratic strategist and political director for former President Bill Clinton, will lead the efforts to activate outside advocacy groups in support of the nominee,” we were told. We were not told, however, that Moore was sitting on the board of directors of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation when she was appointed, and was so sitting as recently as four days ago.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote Of The Week: Naomi Wolf

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

“It is alarming that our own President has not spoken out against Justin Trudeau’s militaristic power grab, or against his violence against peaceful protesters using their lawfully protected freedoms of speech and assembly. It is even more alarming that the Biden administration is seeking to extend our own state of emergency.”

Naomi Wolf, on her substack newletter, in a post called “The Fall of Canada, The Danger in the US.”

You should read it all. Wolf is troubled by the continuation of the “state of emergency” in the U.S. regarding the pandemic, which she weaves into her protest about the dangers of martial law and the risks when democratic nations start justifying dictatorial powers.

I ran across her piece as I was preparing to write a post titled, “Stop Making Me Defend Justin Trudeau.” The trucker protest may involve free speech, the right to protest and the right to assemble; I guess it is peaceful, or was until Trudeau called in the cops. However, no protest is lawful if it involves breaking laws, and using huge trucks to block highways and commuter access to where they need to go is not legal anywhere. Geraldo Rivera and Sean Hannity got into an angry tiff last week, which Hannity telling Geraldo that his criticism of the trucker protest was an affront to liberty and human rights, and Rivera responding that innocent people and businesses were being harmed by the protest, and it needed to end. For one of the first times in my life, I’m with Geraldo. Continue reading →

Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 2/22/2022: Happy Birthday, George Washington, And Thanks To The Lesser Men Who Succeeded Him

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Today is our first President’s real birthday, and if anyone deserves two celebrations, it’s George Washington. One way to celebrate this unique and essential man is by refreshing oneself on the principles that guided his moral and ethical development from childhood to adulthood, George Washington’s 110 Rules, one of many ethics resources in the right hand column that nobody reads. The best is #110: “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.“

Unfortunately I did not see this fatuous and obnoxious article on Politico before I had posted regarding President’s Day. Writes John Harris, a veteran political journalist who simply does not know what he is talking about:

A democracy really shouldn’t be mythologizing presidents at all. From the left it seems obvious that we don’t need a holiday honoring 46 presidents, all of them men. From the right it seems obvious that we don’t need to be honoring the aggrandizement of Washington-based politicians.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “On ‘Decertification,’ Everybody’s Wrong (Or Lying)…”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Ethics Alarms is about ethics, not politics, but politics, especially in recent years, has increasingly been about the defining and flagging of unethical conduct. Typically elections have been an area in which both parties revel in accusing each other of dishonest and unethical conduct that they also engage in when it suits their needs; we recently saw, for example, the report on Democrats using “dark money” in the 2020 election cycle after condemning Republicans for their lack of transparency regarding campaign contributions, and either party climbing up on a metaphorical high horse over gerrymandering is laughable.

The accusations over the 2020 Presidential election are materially different, in part because 95% of the news media has taken a side the constitutes aggressive partisan activism: the claim that suspicions about the fairness and legitimacy of the vote count—in the absence of many safeguards that previous elections had made standard practice—were “disproven” and “groundless.” The use of ballot drop boxes, for example, raise the immediate specter of voter fraud, and one that is difficult to dispel. Did the actual voter drop off the ballot? Did that voter mark the ballot with his or her name on it? How secure is the box against tampering? The existence of such dubious devices in any close election guarantees public distrust, and should. Yet the news media is pushing the left’s false narrative that laws that ban drop-off boxes are “voter suppression.”

Here is Null Pointer on the matter, in the Comment of the Day on the post, “On ‘Decertification,’ Everybody’s Wrong (Or Lying)…”

One tip before you read: what is being described regarding elections is the condition Ethics Alarms dubs “Bizarro World Ethics.”

***

Let’s just look a some truths about the 2020 election and see if we cannot deduce what might be going on.

Truth #1: The Democrats got up to shenanigans in the 2020 election, and if the exact nature of those shenanigans were laid out to the people, the people would probably nearly unanimously agree the shenanigans amounted to cheating. The people would not unanimously ADMIT it was cheating, but they would know. The Democrats do not want the people on the left to know that they engaged in behavior that essentially amounts to cheating.

Truth #2: The election is not going to be undone. It was never going to be undone. Everyone who isn’t a complete moron knows it cannot be undone. Everyone who knows it cannot be undone is not going to admit that they know it cannot be undone, however, because a lot of people hate the Democrats and like to piss the Democrats off. Polling is useless.

Truth #3: The Democrats cheat. The Democrats have always cheated, at least at the regional level. Everyone on the right knows the Democrats cheat. Everyone on the left thinks a majority of people agree with them about everything, rendering cheating unnecessary. The people on the left would be shocked to find out that a huge percentage of the population does not agree with them.

Truth #4: The Republicans let the Democrats cheat. The Republicans have always let the Democrats cheat because political calculations produced an equation that said it was more politically expedient to let the Democrats cheat than to call them on it. The Democrats have escalated their cheating over time because they can. The Democrats accuse everyone else of cheating to keep the political calculations in their favor by confusing their base. Continue reading →