It’s Time To Play “You’re The Supreme Court!” Today’s Challenge… The Praying Coach!

“Hello everybody! Welcome to another exciting challenge on the game show everyone is talking about, “You’re the Supreme Court!” Today, we take on a challenge that crosses into legal, ethical and logical gray areas. What is the right way to handle a football coach who won’t stop praying on the football field? Are you ready, contestants? Here we go!”

Former Bremerton (Wash.) High School assistant football coach Joseph Kennedy began  “taking a knee” at midfield long before NFL players were Kaepenicking. Kennedy knelt in prayer at midfield after games, and was often joined by members of the team.  Bremerton public school officials fired him from his job in 2015 when he refused to stop his on-field prayers, which his superiors said violated the Constitution’s prohibition against government endorsement of religion. Bremerton sued, and all this time his case has been winding its way through the system, finally reaching the Supreme Court in oral argument this week.

The question before the  Court is whether Kennedy’s on-field prayers are protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty or violate the First Amendment by promoting his religion in a government supported setting. The justices will issue their opinion decision in June. Continue reading

Post Trauma Ethics Stress, 4/27/22: “Gaslit,” SCOTUS, And School Bullying (By The School!)

I had two and a half hours of painful dental work (bill, with insurance, 2,300 bucks) this morning, followed by blood tests from my doctor in the afternoon. This followed the Red Sox losing a game in Toronto after a two-run homer by the Jays with two outs in the bottom of the 9th. The dental work was more fun. Then I learned that my drug prescription insurance had been cancelled thanks to an administrative screw-up on their end. Life is bleak.

1. Is it me? It’s possible that “Gaslit,” the Starz move purporting to be about Martha Mitchell, strike me as more ham-handed anti-Republican/conservative propaganda because there is so much of that now from all angles of the media that my eye is permanently jaundiced. It’s also possible that it’s one more smug “Remember, conservatives are evil and stupid!” entry employing the same broad, unfunny approach that characterized Alec “Oops!” Baldwin’s Trump imitation and “Don’t Look Up!” Whatever the Watergate crowd was, they weren’t stupid, but that’s the version of history we get in “Gaslit.” Julia Roberts is getting races for a completely lazy performance that doesn’t evoke Mitchell at all, ad isn’t amusing either. (She can do better.) Then there was the portrayal of John Mitchell by some obviously too-young actor who was so smothered in padding and double-chin latex that he looked like Jiminy Glick’s father. He still didn’t look like Mitchell, sound like him, move like him or evoke Nixon’s Attorney General and bag man in any way, but he was gross and repulsive, and that’s clearly what mattered to the director and producers. Similarly unrecognizable to anyone remotely familiar with the Watergate cast is the portrayal of John Dean, who would be a fascinating character in a drama. In this amateurish satire, he’s just another idiot, something Dean was definitely not. I guess its not as ridiculous as it seems that the actor playing G. Gordon Liddy is getting raves for playing him as certifiably insane; in fact, it’s predictable, since the cheering reviewers are of the same bias as the film-makers, but it’s a lousy impression. They couldn’t even get the mustache right! Making Liddy into a buffoon removes all menace from the character, and Liddy was genuinely scary, because he was not stupid. In fact, it is clear that there are quite a few G. Gordon Liddy types behind the scenes in the Biden Administration (as there were in the Trump White House), but never mind: only Republicans threaten democracy.

The fact is the Nixon and the gang almost got away with their attack on democracy; that they didn’t was just chance. It remains to be seen if Biden’s puppeteers will do better. To me, “Gaslit” seems like one more diversionary tactic from the Hollywood wing of the Democratic Party.

But it might just be a crummy movie.

Continue reading

Signature Significance: Washington Post Editorial Board’s Fantasy

How can anyone take seriously, much less trust, a newspaper with an editorial board that would publish something like this?

The headline was clickbait, at least for me: “Biden shows once again why he is a huge upgrade from Trump.” I had to read it. “Once again”? “Huge upgrade”? I wondered what on earth the Post could be referring to. The answer took me by surprise.

The editorial was lauding Biden’s pardoning or commuting convicted criminals who committed nonviolent federal crimes. Well, I’m not going to quibble: the traditional POTUS use of the Presidential pardon power is a low, low, lower than low bar to clear. I haven’t seen the full information on those who were pardoned or had their sentences commuted, but they were overwhelmingly drug offenders, and overwhelmingly “of color,” because that’s how this Administration rolls. There is, I surmise, virtually no chance that Joe was personally involved in the choice of who to pardon, and scant chance that he had to do anything more than sign off on the selections made by Elizabeth G. Oyer, the Justice Department’s pardon chief.

Still, the Presidential pardon power is shamefully underused, and has been grossly misused in the past, notably when Bill Clinton, in the waning days of his Presidency, pardoned fugitive Marc Rich, who had been indicted on federal charges of tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and making oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. Why did Clinton do this? His ex-wife pledged millions to Clinton’s Presidential library, and suddenly Rich was pardoned.

It was a bribe, straight up. How does the Post describe what Clinton did? A “pardon of a Democratic donor looked like a quid pro quo.” Is that a fair or accurate description? No, but the deceit allows the Post editors to say “President Donald Trump was far worse.” Really? Far worse than taking millions of dollars to pardon scum like Marc Rich? That deliberate misrepresentation is also an excellent reason not to trust the Post.

Trump is condemned by the Post because he pardoned some of his loyalists like Mike Flynn, Joe Arpaio and Steve Bannon, all of whom the Post ranks as worse than Rich by virtue of being connected to Trump. I hold most of those pardons justifiable. The Democrats criminalized politics when Trump was elected: those associated with the President had targets on their backs for partisan prosecutors to aim at. Though the Post’s editors don’t mention it, Trump also pardoned a lot of non-violent offenders who were worthy of mercy.

Here is something else that they don’t mention: if all we are talking about is pardons and commutations, Biden is a “huge upgrade” over Barack Obama, and so was Trump. By Thanksgiving of 2010, a full two years into his first term, Obama had pardoned two turkeys (one the previous year) and no human beings.

But of course the Washington Post doesn’t have the integrity to mention that.

The larger point is this: It is ridiculous to cite the use of the pardon power as evidence of any President’s virtues as a leader. There are literally millions of Americans who would be spectacular at issuing pardons. That doesn’t mean that they would be effective Presidents. How often are numbers of pardons and commutations cited by historians in assessing Presidencies? I can answer that: almost never. It is a relatively minor part of the job, and being a responsible and competent wielder of that power (giving Joe a very large benefit of the doubt) doesn’t make Biden a “huge upgrade” over any of his predecessors.

Continue reading

Shackle-Tightening Update: Wikipedia Joins The Left’s Hunter Biden Cover-Up

The ongoing and frightening effort by progressives and Democrats to hide information that might let Americans know what’s going on in their government and nation (or what might be going on) killed another canary in the democracy mine last week.

Coincidentally<cough!>timed with the recent disclosure that Eric Schwerin, Hunter Biden’s business partner, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015 including meetings with then-Vice President Joe Biden, Wikipedia editors eliminated its page for Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment company connected to Hunter’s alleged multimillion dollar influence peddling schemes. The risible explanation for the removal was that the company was “not notable”—you know, like Anne Applebaum’s shrugging off Hunter’s laptop as “uninteresting.” Schwerin was president of the company, and President Biden has repeatedly claimed that he had no involvement with his son’s business dealings.

The Left’s efforts at propaganda and information air-brushing appear to be getting increasingly brazen as the mid-term elections approach, and with them the threat that the Democratic plan to transform America is facing imminent collapse. While their mouthpeices attempt to promote ideological censorship by bemoaning “misinformation” and “disinformation,” the would-be architects of a benign woke dictatorship are also trafficking in de-information, with the sleazy Hunter Biden a primary beneficiary, and, as a consequence, his father as well.

Continue reading

Evening Ethics Elegies, 4/26/2022: The Return Of Captain Compliance!

Captain Compliance brings ethics reliance!

After I wrote here that I was inclined to return to Twitter once it stopped partisan censorship and double standards, commenter Michael West asked if I would keep the same handle, “Captain Compliance.” I realized I had never featured my alter ego, the visitor from the distant Ethics Planet who ethics-bombed corporate meetings, conventions and retreats to inculcate eager managers and employees in workplace ethics. I portrayed the always masked Captain primarily under the auspices of Altria, which even sent me to try to inject ethics into the operations of its subsidiary R.J. Reynolds. (It did not go well.) I created the character as one of the “out there” options for introducing Altria’s new compliance program, and, to my amazement, they bought it. (They were especially impressed that I shaved my head for the role.)

That photo was part of a feature on the Captain in the D.C. bar’s magazine, showing CC as he burst into a local home to point out some neighborhood ethics. Now the Captain is all but forgotten…did he really exist? Has he gone to the Ethics Planet for good? Nobody knows.

But I still have his costume, should he decide to return…

1. Some progressives, it seems, have just nightmares, not dreams. Here is how the New York Times reviewer began her critique of the new revival of Thornton Wilder’s “The Skin of Our Teeth”:

[H]ave human beings really proved their worth? We have brought the world calculus, the sonnet, no-knead bread. But think of what we have inflicted: environmental devastation, species collapse, atrocities of various complexions. Humans keep surviving. We’re fit that way. But when you think about it — should we?

Once, I would have dismissed such a reflection as reviewer gamesmanship, but now I wonder. The Left’s recent tantrums and excesses have made me wonder if progressives are permanently and irredeemably unhappy, literally dissatisfied not only with their nation, its culture and and their heritage, but also with humanity and life in general. The Times reviewer praises the director for reversing the ultimately optimistic view of Wilder’s 1942 comedy. She muses, “The stage blooms with a thousand flowers, and when characters traverse that meadow, it feels like a dream. Do we really want to wake from it? When “The Skin of Our Teeth” first opened, in 1942, the world wobbled on the threshold of disaster. Now, it seems, we are wobbling again.”

Yes, she really compares 2022 to World War II. Well who can blame her? The mask mandate was overturned! Elon Musk might let Donald Trump back on Twitter! Republicans are requiring voters to prove they are who they say they are! The Supreme Court is about to rule that nascent human beings can’t be killed if they are more than 15 weeks old!!!! People seem to resist the international dictatorship that will eliminate capitalism and individual liberties to save humanity from a fiery death in ten years! Well, 20 maybe. OK, a hundred at the most…

Of less import, but significant nonetheless, the Times critic notes that

[I]n most productions, the Antrobuses are white, but here they are Black, which lends that choice particular resonance, twisting the knife of human cruelty. This strategy doesn’t warp the play so much as deepen it.

I have never seen a production of “The Skin of Our Teeth” in which the Antrobus  family, the play’s stand-in for the human race, wasn’t multi-racial. But as we have all learned after the George Floyd Freak-Out, everything is “deepened” and improved by replacing white people with black people. Jake from State Farm! Vice-Presidents! Supreme Court Justices! Continue reading

The Six Conservative Judges Had To Know That This Decision Would Guarantee Cries of “Systemic Racism!” But They Had The Integrity To Rule Correctly Anyway [Updated]

Good for them. If only more Americans had similar courage….but having a guaranteed lifetime position definitely helps.

The Supreme Court last week silently rejected an appeal by a death row inmate in Texas arguing that his conviction was unjust because a juror had admitted  to racial bias. Kristopher Love (above) is black, and his lawyer had been forced to accept  a juror whose answer to a potential juror questionnaire query, “Do you believe that some races and/or ethnic groups tend to be more violent than others?” was “Yes.” Asked about that answer, the white juror said, “Statistics show more violent crimes are committed by certain races. I believe in statistics.”

The prospective juror in question, who is white, said yes. Pressed by defense lawyers, he said he based his views on “news reports and criminology classes” rather than his “personal feelings toward one race or another,” and that he did not “think because of somebody’s race they’re more likely to commit a crime than somebody of a different race.” He insisted that he did not feel  animosity or suspicions toward Love “because he’s an African American.”

Continue reading

The Immediate Benefit Of Musk’s Twitter Takeover: The Left Is Revealing Its Fear Of Free Speech

That depressing exhortation above was released by the president of the NAACP, Derrick Johnson. It is signature significance for a man, and presumably the organization he has led and spoken for since 2017, who favors censorship, content-based control of communications media, and a manipulated political system. It also reveals a leader of an influential organization who sees no danger that his members and his organization’s supporters will react negatively to his open embrace of totalitarian principles.

“Hate speech” is free speech, and groups like the NAACP (and the Democratic Party, and too frequently the mainstream media) define as hate speech any speech that they hate, because it is critical of their positions, agendas or members. “Disinformation and misinformation” have always been welcome on Twitter as long as it advanced progressive goals. “Do not allow 45 to return to the platform”? What is that but a demand that a prominent political figure who was recently President be handicapped in his efforts to seek political office? How would the NAACP have responded to a call from white supremacy group to keep Barack Obama from a communication platform in 2008?

The organization is only about power. It has no integrity or principles.

Or self-awareness. Or comprehension of the words it uses and the concepts it claims to revere. Censoring speech and political opinions along with a recent President and current political leader protects democracy.

War is Peace

Ignorance is Strength

Slavery is Freedom

Silly me, I did not expect the NAACP to reveal itself as such a fan of Big Brother; I somehow thought that last motto would be a deal-breaker.

Well, now we know. It’s sad, and scary, but that’s what’s so great about letting people say what they think.

Among other benefits, we learn who can’t be trusted.

Capital Punishment Ethics Dunce: Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Stephen Hopkins

Bad decision, bad opinion, bad judge.

As regular readers here know, I strongly favor capital punishment, but only when there is no doubt whatsoever about the facts and the guilt of the convicted defendant, when the crime is so cruel, horrific and premeditated that normal murders seem tame in comparison, and when the procedural due process is followed to the letter.

Continue reading

Monday Ethics Un-Masking, 4/25/2022: Masks, Musk, Microsoft, Martin, Marijuana And More!

Today is the anniversary of a heart-warming ethics story that seems especially bitter today. Worse, it had a terrible ending.

1983 on April 25, Russian leader Yuri Andropov released the letter he had written to Samantha Smith, an American fifth-grader from Maine. She had sent him a letter the previous December asking if the Soviet Union was planning to start a nuclear war. Andropov’s response assured her said that Russian people wanted to “live in peace, to trade and cooperate with all our neighbors on the globe, no matter how close or far away they are, and, certainly, with such a great country as the United States of America.” He added, “Yes, Samantha, we in the Soviet Union are endeavoring and doing everything so that there will be no war between our two countries, so that there will be no war at all on earth.”

It was a propaganda and public relations stunt, of course. President Reagan had the Soviets on the defensive as the Cold War was at another peak; he had called the USSR an “evil empire,” and was increasing defense spending. Sending a kind, avuncular letter to a fearful child was a no-brainer. The adviser who came up with the idea probably got extra food rations.

Smith accepted Andropov’s invitation and flew to the Soviet Union with her parents. The episode turned her into an international celebrity and an adorable advocate for peace. Smith had natural charm and charisma, allowing her to be an appealing speaker and to begin an acting career, landing a role on TV series. She also wrote a children’s book, all of this before she was out of junior high.

In August 1985, Samantha Smith died in a plane crash at the age of 13.

1 Just bite me, Microsoft. Microsoft Word now has a “diversity” category in its document editing softwear. It just told me that I shouldn’t write “Mrs.” and that the “correct” word was “Ms.” I was writing about a domestic abuse lawsuit, and “Mrs.” was the appropriate title. Political correctness policing isn’t “proofreading.”

2. Speaking of masks...

  • Roland Martin, one of the more obnoxious of the CNN stable of race-baiters, outed himself as a full-fledged pro-mask wacko with this photo…

…and the tweet, “I don’t give a damn what some grossly unqualified Donald Trump judge said, I’m double masked and wearing goggles on this Nashville to DC flight,” Martin tweeted. “I had COVID in December. Y’all can KISS MY ASS about me not wanting it again. And any fool saying they don’t matter is a damn liar.”

And the goggles, you ass? Meanwhile, social media sleuths quickly found another photo of Martin two weeks ago in a group where neither he nor anyone else was masked. As for U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, her credentials as a legal scholar are impeccable. Martin is an unethical journalist who knows nothing about the law, but he can brink Donald Trump into any subject.

  • Physician Dr. Kavita Patel, an NBC News medical contributor,told viewers that you should bring extra face masks with you when flying and pressure the people sitting next to you on the plane wear them.
  • Now, as they so richly deserve to be, mask requirements are finally completely without integrity, consistency  or rationale, with different rules for types of transportation and different cities and contradictory policies everywhere you look. The closest thing CNN has to a moderate, occasionally objective news host, Michael Smerconish, actually said on the air that it made no sense for the Biden Administration to be appealing the end of the public transportation mask ban while preparing to end Title 42, the legal authority for contagion-related expulsions of illegal aliens and migrants. Ya think?

3. Gee, can you think of any other reason, you lying, cowardly hack? In an interview on “60 Minutes” FBI Director Christopher Wray revealed that there was a 59% increase in the murders of police officers in 2021, with 73 officers killed.  CBS News’ Scott Pelley asked what caused the surge of homicides, and Wray said, “Certainly the pandemic didn’t help. There’s a variety of ways in which that contributed to it.”

The fact that the mainstream media, the Democratic Party’s mayors and officials and BLM-bootlicking corporate lackeys spent months painting police as murderous racists had nothing to do with it, of course.

4. Aaaand  one of the states that helped get some of those police killed just saw passed a law banning the word “marijuana” from official state law and documents. Democratic Governor Jay Inslee signed the bill into law in March. Why, you ask? Listen to the bill’s sponsor: “The term ‘marijuana’ itself is pejorative and racist,” Washington state Representative Melanie Morgan (D) said during testimony regarding the piece of legislation she  sponsored. “As recreational marijuana use became more popular, it was negatively associated with Mexican immigrants,” she said. “Even though it seems simple because it’s just one word, the reality is we’re healing the wrongs that were committed against Black and Brown people around cannabis.” There is not now nor has there been in my lifetime any negative racial implications to the word “marijuana,” and I hereby pledge to never again uses any synonym for the corrupting and destructive drug. Marijuana it is, and nothing but. I request that all EA commenters observe this custom as well.

5. BREAKING! Elon Musk has taken over Twitter. Once that’s final, I will one again get on the platform, which I ditched in protest of its ham-handed, partisan double standards.

Musk is a weird guy whose ethics are suspect, but this is a positive development for free speech and social media accountability.

“Curmie” Comment Of The Day Double-Header #2: “DeSantis Strikes Back: Ethics Dunce Disney Gets The Legal And Ethical Consequences It Deserved”

No “echo chamber” we, so it is appropriate to include as a Comment of the Day Curmie’s vigorous dissent on the current conflict between Disney and Florida, particularly its ambition conservative governor Ron De Santis.

So here it is…in response to the post, DeSantis Strikes Back: Ethics Dunce Disney Gets The Legal And Ethical Consequences It Deserved…

***

Unlike you, Jack, I am neither a lawyer not an ethicist. The closest I’ve ever been to the former was being unofficially “pre-law” for about the first two and a half years of undergrad; the closest I’ve ever been to the latter is that you’ve called me ethical a couple of times. So forgive me if I have trouble discerning the line between that which is legal and that which is ethical.

Perhaps the terms of the agreement between the state and the corporation are akin to trademark laws: that Florida must aggressively defend its prerogatives or be in danger of losing them. But this doesn’t seem like something any corporate CEO would agree to. And I think we can take as given that Governor DeSantis would not be criticizing any corporation that publicly supported his position because they didn’t stay in their lane, even though the level of interference in public policy would be the same. No, it would be the progressives who’d have their collective skivvies in a twist in that case.

More to the point, Disney began their dissent, at least, while the bill was still under consideration. They were, in fact, arguing in favor of the status quo—when there was no law—a position that can hardly be regarded as interfering with the state, only with one party’s agenda. That they didn’t suddenly change their position when the bill became law doesn’t seem very problematic.

Moreover, it strikes me that educational policy is literally everyone’s business. I’m semi-retired now and not currently scheduled to teach at all in the fall, so I have no direct personal interest in what’s being taught in 3rd grade—these will never be my students—but I hope to be around long enough to be affected by their ability to vote or even to run for office… or to become doctors, lawyers, artists, or whatever. Yeah, I care what happens in that 3rd grade classroom. Continue reading