Please stick to ethics, be nice, and don’t feed the trolls….otherwise, anything goes.
Month: May 2023
Wait! Is THIS Peak Stupid In The Age Of The Great Stupid?
It’s a now-familiar tactic when minority groups seek attention and enhanced self-esteem: find a universally admired historical figure of note and claim that he or she was a member of that group. Abraham Lincoln was gay! Cleopatra was black! (That worked out well…) Jesus was gay AND black! Still, I didn’t see this coming, but the Great Stupid knows no bounds, apparently:
Worshipers at a Trinity College at Cambridge were treated to a sermon by Joshua Heath, currently seeking a PhD in theology. He argued that Christ takes on a transgender body in historical artwork, appearing both masculine and feminine in different paintings. As proof, he displayed Jean Malouel’s painting called “The Pieta,” in which the body of Christ is shown with blood running down his side. Heath noted that the blood coming down from the side wound of Christ to the groin in the painting “takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance.” “[I]f the body of Christ as these works suggest the body of all bodies, then his body is also the trans body,” Heath concluded.
Oh. So if someone paints a portrait of me a few centuries from now showing me with the head of an aardvark, that would be solid evidence that I had the head of an an aardvark? Good thinking there, Ace. Paintings of Jesus prove absolutely nothing, as the “Jesus was black” advocates correctly pointed out. The evidence indicates he was probably dark-skinned and swarthy, and less than five feet tall. But trans is “in,” so we now have to debate whether Christ “identified” as a woman.
The residents of Woke World are apparently incapable of saying, “That’s ridiculous” when an “in” group is the topic, so Michael Banner, the Dean and Director of Studies in Theology and Religious Studies at Trinity College felt it necessary to endorse Heath’s fantasy. He wrote in response to a complaint about the sermon that Heath’s “speculation was legitimate, whether or not you or I or anyone else disagrees with the interpretation.”
Can The Great Stupid get more stupid than this?
_______________
Source: Campus Reform
Ethics Dunce: The American Bar Association
What do you call an esteemed legal organization that willfully encourages its members to violate its own ethics rules? There are two acceptable answers: 1) An Ethics Dunce, and 2) The American Bar Association.
That is a screenshot above of an email that arrived yesterday.
“Congratulations on Your 2023 nomination,” it began. “This year marks our 9 year anniversary of “Recognizing Excellence in the Practice of Law™”. Our Selection Committee is hereby extending to you an invitation to join this elite group¹. Accept your invitation and join by May 23rd, and your name will be included in our roster announcements published in “The National Law Journal” and the Sunday “The New York Times” print edition on May 28th. Please note that only 56 spots remain available. Less than 1% of lawyers in the United States are recognized as Lawyers of Distinction.”
I am many things, but a “lawyer of distinction” I am not. I haven’t practiced law for more than a decade; legal ethics is not the practice of law. Lawyers of Distinction is, to cut to the chase, a scam, and one that is used by lawyers to deceive clients. For the National Law Journal to provide cover for the unethical advertising scheme is bad, but a while back the ABA included an advertisement for “Lawyers of Distinction” in the ABA Journal. The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, followed by most jurisdictions, specifically forbids misleading and deceptive advertising, which a lawyer announcing that he or she was “chosen” as a “lawyer of distinction” definitely is. The association attracted a lot of criticism for running the ad, and may not have sunk so low again: I don’t know, because I no longer receive the ABA Journal, but once was enough for me.
Unexpectedly, The Biden Administration Policy Of Using Diversity/Equity/Inclusion And Hyper-Partisanship As Criteria For Law Enforcement Appointments Results In An Unethical US Attorney
Who couldn’t see this coming? The bipartisan effort to politicize the justice system, recently brought into focus by Durham Report, resulted in a spectacularly unethical and corrupt U.S. Attorney, Rachael S. Rollins, the Biden selection for the job in Massachusetts. A 161-page report issued by Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, found that Rollins has been a whirlwind of unethical conduct, misusing her office to help a political ally, defying ethics rules to get free tickets to Boston Celtics games, her acceptance of flights and a resort stay paid for by a sports and entertainment company, and lying under oath to investigators, among other misdeed. The New York Times calls the IG’s work “one of the most extraordinary public denunciations of a sitting federal prosecutor in recent memory.” The U.S. Office of Special Counsel released its own findings on Rollins’ sleaziness, concluding that she had violated the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal officials.
Once Again, Rep. Adam Schiff Proves Just How Unfit To Serve In Congress He Is
Has the U.S. Congress ever had so many unethical, disgusting members? I guess that’s an inquiry for another day when my gorge is feeling more stable. It is difficult, however, to imagine a House member being more vile than Adam Schiff. Behold: here is how he responded to the Durham Report when asked by The Epoch Times
“If you read Mr. Durham’s report, what he said is that there wasn’t evidence of collusion before they began the investigation. That’s obviously a very important distinction.”
Ethics Dunce: College Baseball Coach Rodney Velardi
I don’t know about you, but nothing quite clears my ethics palate after a day of pondering the FBI’s corruption and people posing for happy selfies at Auschwitz like a nice baseball cheating scandal.
Rowan College Gloucester County was playing Atlantic Cape Community College (New Jersey) in a baseball game when the Rowan first baseman noticed little voices coming out of an Atlantic Cape baserunner’s helmet. He notified the umpire, who checked the helmet: sure enough, there was an electronic listening device inside. After a search, a device was found on a second player too. The assumption is that someone was stealing catcher’s signs from the stands, and using an electronic device to alert Atlantic Cape batters what pitches were coming.
When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring: Fun At Auschwitz!
That’s an ice cream stand just outside Poland’s shrine to the victims of the Holocaust, the Auschwitz death camp. Isn’t it nice that tourists there will be able to grab a delicious ice cream cone for refreshment? Now here…
…a woman posed glamorously on the tracks that brought the railroad cars stuffed with captive Jews to be gassed. If I had to wager, I’d say the couple is American. In my various adventures abroad, I wanted to hide my head under a bag many times as I saw American tourists behaving abominably at such locales as Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London. But it isn’t just Americans: my wife’s sister reported that at Pearl Harbor she witnessed smiling Japanese tourists posing by the memorials to the Arizona, the Oklahoma and the Utah.
Where does this attitude come from? Over at Victory Girls, Kim Hirsch writes, “Money and fame have replaced honor and memory of the history which changed the world.” I’d put it a little differently: as our culture increasingly sends the message that history is just another tool of politics, the public is either ignorant of the facts of the past, unable to understand why those facts are still important, or believe that history is irrelevant to their lives.
Assorted Ethics Observations On The Durham Report, Part II: The Substance
[The first installment, regarding the news media’s ongoing effort to bury this story, is here. Humble Talent’s invaluable summary of the Durham Report is here.]
1. The nice thing about waiting a day or so is that some other qualified commentators were likely to write virtually what I would write, saving me time. That was especially true in this case. Here’s Andrew McCarthy:
Perusing the report, I find it impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the FBI, and the Obama administration more broadly, did not ignore the intelligence about Clinton’s strategy but rather that the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus of the United States government knowingly abetted Clinton’s implementation of the strategy….
Clearly, there was a Clinton campaign strategy to frame Trump. Yet the most sensible interpretation of the evidence Durham has amassed is not that the FBI, in evaluating its collusion evidence, failed to weigh intercepted Russian intelligence about that strategy. It is that the FBI was well aware of Clinton’s strategy, fully expected Clinton to be the next president, and helped implement the strategy, regardless of what Russian spies may or may not have thought about it…
The FBI knowingly treated Clinton with kid gloves. FBI lawyer Lisa Page warned the bureau’s senior intelligence investigator, Peter Strzok, to tread lightly in interviewing Clinton about the email scandal — fearful that, upon winning the election, Clinton would otherwise be vengeful against the FBI…
Durham documents that President Obama, Vice President Biden, top intelligence officials, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI director Comey were fully briefed by CIA director John Brennan on Russia’s assessment of Clinton’s plan to frame Trump.
2. At the last moment, I decided in 2016 that I could not vote for either Trump or Hillary after spending the previous months saying that Trump was so unethical that I was forced to vote for his opposition, who I found reprehensible. Then I found out that Clinton and the Democrats were cheating, and as a party the clearly did not respect or revere democracy, the Democratic Party was even a greater existential risk than Trump; I just didn’t know how much they were cheating.
3. Barack Obama and Joe Biden actively participated in the scheme, as McCarthy’s last paragraph above reminds us. This was genuinely impeachable conduct, far, far worse than the contrived grounds for Trump’s two impeachments.
Assorted Ethics Observations On The Durham Report, Part II: Prelude
Ace commenter Humble Talent has performed a service to Ethics Alarms and its readers by reading the entire Durham report and explicating it. This was a comment on the previous post on Durham’s investigation, and I encountered it after I had started to write Part II, covering ethics take-aways from the report’s substance. Since Humble’s analysis will be useful background for Assorted Ethics Observations On The Durham Report, Part II, and because no similarly thorough annotation of the report has yet appeared, I’m giving it a stand-alone post.
Thanks, Humble.
***
Churning through it now…. Some of it is unsurprising, but it’s nice to see put in language as clear as he used:
Page 11 (On the Steele Dossier)
“Our investigation determined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting. Nor was Steele able to produce corroboration for any of the reported allegations, even after being offered $1 million or more by the FBI for such corroboration. Further, when interviewed by the FBI in January 2017, Danchenko also was unable to corroborate any of the substantive allegations in the Reports. Rather, Danchenko characterized the information he provided to Steele as rumor and speculation and the product of casual conversation.”
Page 60 (On opening Crossfire Hurricane)
“As it relates to predication for opening Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation, after Strzok and Supervisory Special Agent-1 had traveled to London and interviewed the Australian diplomats on August2, 2016, the following Lync exchange between UKALAT-1 and Supervisory Special Agent – 1 on August 11, 2016 is instructive:
UKALAT- : Dude, are we telling them [British Intelligence Service] everything we know, or is there more to this?
Supervisory Special Agent – 1: that’s all we have
Supervisory Special Agent – 1: not holding anything back
UKALAT- 1 : Damn that’s thin
Supervisory Special Agent- 1: I know
Supervisory Special Agent-1: it sucks
UK ALAT – 1 went on to tell the Inspection Division that in discussing the matter with a senior British Intelligence Service – 1 official, the official was openly skeptical , said the FBI’s plan for an operation made no sense, and asked UK ALAT- 1 why the FBI did not just go to Papadopoulos and ask him what they wanted to know, a sentiment UK ALAT- 1 told investigators that he shared.
Later in the Fall of 2016 , UKALAT- 1 was at FBI Headquarters with some of his British Intelligence Service- counterparts . While there , members of the Crossfire Hurricane team played the audio /visual recordings of CHS- 1’s August 20, 2016 meeting with Carter Page . UKALAT – 1 said the effect on the British Intelligence Service – personnel was not positive because of the lack of any evidence coming out of the conversation:
UKALAT – 1 told the OIG that after watching the video one of his British colleagues said, “For [expletive ] sake , man. You went through a lot of trouble to get him to say nothing.” At a later point in time, after the Mueller Special Counsel team was in place, UKALAT – 1 said that the Brits finally had enough, and in response to a request for some assistance [a British Intelligence Serviceperson] basically said there was “no [expletive] way in hell they were going to do it.”
Comment Of The Day: “Let’s Play “What’s Wrong With This Guy?”!”
There I was, thinking dark thoughts and moping about the horrible traffic here over the weekend, and along comes A.M. Golden to remind me that this blog has always sought to inspire quality rather than quantity, with this superb Comment of the Day on the post about the enterprising Mr. Clifford, who feels that IBM isn’t him paying him enough not to work for 30 years, Let’s Play “What’s Wrong With This Guy?”! Here it is; it even has a “Facts of Life” reference!
* * *
Stipulated: The plaintiff’s disability could be a legitimate one. We don’t know. That doesn’t really change my answer.
How did we get here?
The Deep Pockets Rationalization aka The Jo Polniaczek Excuse: Named for Nancy McKeon’s character on the ’80s show “The Facts of Life.” In one episode, Jo borrows a watch belonging to her frenemy, wealthy Blair Warner, without asking so she can time herself while taking an exam. On her way back, the watch is damaged when she jumps into a quick basketball game. She blows it off because Blair is wealthy and has a lot of watches.
The Deep Pockets Rationalization states that the person with the most money should pay even if not at fault. A guy driving a Hyundai hits a guy driving a BMW. The Hyundai driver tries to argue that the BMW driver should pay for everything because he has more money. A person trips in a store and tries to compel the business to pay even though she tripped because she wasn’t paying attention to what she was doing. Or a restaurant is pressured to pay for a disfigured child’s surgery after the family failed to extort money with false allegations against employees (Remember the KFC incident from a few years’ back?).
Ethics Alarms 