On this date, September 1, in 1971, the Pittsburgh Pirates manager Danny Murtaugh wrote down the first all-black lineup in Major League Baseball history. It wasn’t noticed at the time, even by most of the players. The landmark was only quickly mentioned during the team’s radio broadcast of the game, which the Bucs won before a tiny crowd of 11,278 in Pittsburgh’s Three Rivers Stadium. The line-up was a completely natural occurrance, according to Murtaugh, who was not one to decide on personnel based on “diversity, equity and inclusion,” which had not yet begun its path of destruction across the culture and society. “When it comes to making out the lineup, I’m colorblind, and the athletes know it,” he said. “The best men in our organization are the ones who are here. And the ones who are here all play, depending on when the circumstances present themselves.”
Deciding on employment, opportunities and benefits based on merit! What a concept! Meanwhile, this month’s Harvard Alumni magazine featuring the university’s new President, who just coincidentally has spent her entire career career from college onward promoting “diversity” and writing about systemic racism in America, discusses the Supreme Court’s affirmative action knock-down by quoting her response to it, promising that the institution will continue to “believe—deeply—that a thriving, diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence and critical to shaping the next generation of leaders.” That is clearly code for “policies that make race and ethnicity a primary factor in admission when tangible and substantive measures of ability and achievement will not reach the desired result” are essential to academic excellence and critical to shaping the next generation of leaders. The obvious response to that is “Prove it!” There is no persuasive data demonstrating the benefits of “diversity” in a student body or in an education, certainly not to the extent that it justifies, as Justice Roberts wrote in the SCOTUS opinion, making race a negative factor in determining who gets admitted to an elite college. At Harvard, “diversity” is usually an illusion: there as everywhere else, student form their own peer groups and associations based on mutual interests and affinities. Justifying racial discrimination by extolling a factor’s benefits that literally no research confirms is the ultimate progressive conceit. Would that all-black Pirates team have been better with a couple of white players on the field—or better still, a proportion of white players matching the national demographics? Somehow I don’t think so.
Incidentally, the Pirates won the World Series in 1971.
1. And now for something completely different...was this unethical?
2. Huh. Tough question…Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell froze for an extended period for the second time in less than two months. Possibly McConnell is experiencing one of the common effects of a concussion, which he suffered after a fall in March; that’s the current line of the Republican PR machine Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein seems to be little more than a puppet being propped up by aides, and Pennsylvania default Senator John Fetterman is stumbling along with a brain damaged by a stroke. “What can be done to address the issue of a Senator who is unable to do the job?” asks legal commentator Michael Dorf.
Me! Call on me! What can be done is for parties to have the integrity to stop running candidates who are too old (if you will hit 80 during the term you are running for, you’re too old) and for politicians to have the respect for the public and their office not to offer themselves as candidates when the know, or should know (somebody tell them!) that their faculties and health are failing. Why is that so hard to establish as a “democratic norm”?
3. “Hate crime” bloat. 25-year-old Patrick Murphy was charged with criminal mischief and a ‘hate crime’ because he knocked down some LGBTQ pride flags placed on a fence in New York City’s West Village. The full extent of the damage was a dozen small flags thrown on a floor and several flag sticks broken. But because it is assumed that Murphy “hates” those who put up the flags (and presumably what the flags stand for), he faces vastly enhanced punishment. Maybe he did what he did to convey the message that pro-LGTBQ saturation in society and the media has crossed a line into oppressive indoctrination, and “hate” had nothing to do with it? Hate crime laws are thought-control and “Wrongthink ” laws: I’m amazed that no one has mounted a successful Constitutional challenge against them yet.
4. Speaking of the Supreme Court...The federal law prohibiting handgun sales to adults under 21 years old obviously violates the Second Amendment, and Senior Judge Robert Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, after ruling the ban unconstitutional in May, issued a nationwide injunction against the law this week. “[T]he Court’s ruling does, and must, apply to protect the Second Amendment rights of all citizens between the ages of 18 to 21 who are otherwise eligible to buy a handgun,” Judge Payne wrote in Fraser v. ATF. Well, yes…why wouldn’t it? The Biden Democrats, showing their typical contempt for the Constitution and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, fatuously argued that though the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to own a gun, it didn’t protect an adult citizen’s right to buy one. I wonder what anti-gun zealot came up with that one? “[T]he Government’s argument is predicated on a limited, and erroneous reading, of the fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment,” Judge Payne wrote in May. “[T]he Second Amendment protects the right to purchase, not just to possess, a firearm.” Coming to that conclusion will now be represented in the news media as the view of an extreme right wing Republican judge legislating from the bench.
5. How exactly did we get to this point? Parents with students at Vicksburg, Michigan schools have filed a lawsuit against the district for allowing biological boys use the girls bathrooms and to change their clothes in the girls locker rooms. This comes from the schools’ interpretation of the edict of a 2021 federal policy says anyone can use bathrooms or locker rooms based on their gender identity regardless of their sex at birth. Thus the district argues that it’s following federal guidance and Michigan state law, and school administrators have told parents and female students that they need to just “deal with it.” The lawsuit claims children were instructed not to embarrass the biologically male students, and to “tolerate it, look away and not bully them.”
6. And how did THIS happen?? Well, the quick answer is “Morons.” On March 20, 2020 as the Wuhan virus its tour of terror, Waylon Bailey issued a satirical tweet: “SHARE SHARE SHARE ! ! ! !”JUST IN: RAPIDES PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE HAVE ISSUED THE ORDER, IF DEPUTIES COME INTO CONTACT WITH ‘THE INFECTED’ SHOOT ON SIGHT….Lord have mercy on us all. #Covid9teen #weneedyoubradpitt.”
The Brad Pitt reference is the tell: this points to his (excellent) zombie movie “World War Z.” Nonetheless, a SWAT team members from the Rapides Parish Sheriff’s Office surrounded his Alexandria, La., home and arrested Bailey without a warrant because, they said, his post was a terroristic threat. The district attorney decided not to prosecute him because the arrest was idiotic and an abuse of law, the Constitution, due process and power, In September 2020, Bailey filed a lawsuit alleging Detective Randell Iles and Sheriff Mark Wood violated his First and Fourth amendment rights. This week, an appeals court agreed that Bailey’s Facebook post was not a threat, did not incite violence, and could not be read as “intentionally directed to incitement.””terrorism.” Bailey’s First Amendment right was breached, there was no probable cause to arrest him, and the officials responsible are not entitled to qualified immunity.
If law enforcement is handled by “professionals” ignorant of the Constitution and lacking the common sense of a mollusk, how hard is it for unscrupulous elected officials to weaponsize law enforcement for political ends?
Ethics Alarms 
Regarding number 2, the Republicans in the Senate must immediately begin the process of selecting a new minority leader. Failing that, they can no longer comment on the President’s infirmities. Thanks Mitch for all you’ve done, most notably keeping Garland off the Supreme Court, but it’s time to retire from the leadership, if not from the Senate. Where is Elaine Chou, and what is her position on this? Maybe the same as Jill Biden’s.
The Supreme Court already weighed in.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/476/
That opinion is 30 years old and involved an assault on a person. This did not. There could be a case made that the hate enhancement in this case would result in excessive punishment that could rise to the level of cruel and unusual.
Heck, if SCOTUS can decide Roe is bad law, it can get rid of hate crimes. I hated the decision that ME cites, and the fact that it was unanimous is disturbing. Bottom line, the law allows the same exact crim to be punished differently because of motives, with motives being graded by various societal priorities. These were laws passed because of the revulsion over one crime, as if there was anything that could make dragging a man behind a truck til his head ripped of worse than it already was.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/elaine-hsieh-chou-channels-unspoken-rage-debut-novel-disorientation-rcna24096
I have always been disgusted by the hate crime laws. They seem to require either reading the mind of the defendant or automatically assuming any crime against someone of a different background is a hate crime. How is murdering someone of a different race any worse than murdering someone who just happened to piss you off that day? Both acts are despicable and should be punished to the maximum legal extent, yet one of these gets you in more trouble than the other. It also pre-empts the authority of the states to administer their own laws. Murder is prosecuted by the states, yet if you are found not guilty you can be tried again by the feds for a hate crime. I’m sure there is some sort of legal rationalization how this is definitely not a violation of double jeopardy.
It says a lot about the state of this country that you can burn an American flag and get cheered on but tear down some pride flags and you go to prison. Of course the criminal mischief charge was warranted by the destruction of other peoples’ property. But try to burn your own pride flag and my money is on the police showing up and handcuffing you.
Actually the concept of “dual sovereignty,” meaning the Federal government and the state governments are considered separate entities for the purpose of double jeopardy, has been around since 1847, and remains well established. It was used to some effect during the civil rights era to prevent situations where Billy Bob killed Willy for looking the wrong way at Thelma Lou and then a jury of Goober, Gomer, and Bo would acquit him if Judge Claghorn didn’t dismiss the case outright. If that happened then the Feds stepped in and Billy Bob still went to prison for violation of Willy’s civil rights. It also presented the cops who beat the tar out of Rodney King from getting away with it, although they MIGHT have been ok if they hadn’t continued to hit King after he had stopped resisting, since King resisted and acted in a Hulk-like manner for an extended period of time.
The whole concept seems ridiculous to me. To use your example, Willy being killed is the violation of his rights. This is tried in the state where it occurs, as that is the proper jurisdiction. Willy being killed (presumably because he is black) is not a violation of his rights separate from the murder. It is the same crime. Trying Billy Bob for this in federal court after he has been acquitted at the state level is clearly double jeopardy to me. I guess that’s why I’m not a lawyer.
All true. It’s still double jeopardy, in my view, and unethical.
A couple of thoughts:
First of all, there is a very well-developed body of law that deals with the kind of deviousness that is obviously being contemplated by Harvard and other universities. Reaching all the way back to “Griggs v. Duke Power”, a Supreme Court case from the early 70s, courts have carefully examined admissions and employment programs that claim to be race-neutral but are in fact a cover for race or other types of discrimination. The irony of applying disparate impact standards against universities, Fortune 500 companies, and other progressive bastions should not be lost on anyone.
Second, I had the great pleasure of being interviewed by Judge Payne, then a leading partner of a major East Coast law firm, for my first civilian attorney job. It would be hard to imagine a more gracious individual and my dinner with Bob and his wife remains a highlight of my legal career. He is also one hell of an attorney, and his selection to the federal bench was a no-brainer. It’s no surprise he’s at the forefront of intelligent constitutional analysis.
2: I would like to know if these incidents happen when he’s sitting down or only when he’s standing. If the latter, I’d bet on a blood pressure problem rather than a brain one.
“I’m amazed that no one has mounted a successful Constitutional challenge against them yet.”
Wouldn’t it essential require an “ethics hero” criminal to admit “yes I hurt those people, but it had nothing to do with any intrinsic quality of their own. I did it because I wanted to hurt someone”.
But no criminal is going to do that…they’re going to say “No, I didn’t hurt those people, I’m innocent”. Thus perpetually, in a reverse way, endorsing the laws being pursued.
I actually went to school with a guy who did just that. He killed multiple people, all Indian, at the town drunk tank. He shot up the drunk tank and killed or injured most everyone in there and then laid his empty gun on the ground and waited politely to be arrested. When he was accused of hate against the Indians, Roy said, nope, I don’t hate Indians. I was tired of all the drunks messing up the city parks (he was a parks and recreation employee). I decided that after the last mess, these drunks wouldn’t mess up the parks anymore. I’m guilty of murder, not a hate crime, unless it’s a hate crime to hate drunks.
He was ignored and treated as someone who hates Indians. We went to school with a bunch of Indians and while we weren’t in the same social circles at all, he didn’t hate Indians back then as far as I could tell from who he hung out with and the few interactions we had in our classes and one shared class project. I believe him that all he hates are drunks making his job harder.
Thanks!
“How exactly did we get to this point?”
By conservatives being passive “play by the rules established by the progressives” wimps…who should’ve been playing in far more aggressive ways, that as of late, we’re advised not to, because it may bring back orange man – even though it will still require conservatives to passively acquiesce to the progressive destruction of the World’s Last Best Hope.
#5: I’m waiting for the school kids who get the bright idea of “let’s ALL identify as the other gender”. Checkmate move at that point, what are they going to do?
Transporting livestock that way appears to be unsafe, and thus unethical. I don’t know much about livestock management or that breed of cattle, but bulls aren’t generally known for their easygoing temperament. I couldn’t see from the video whether the interior of the car had a solid partition that would protect the driver if the bull became agitated. The way the bull was oriented posed the risk of gravel or insects striking his eyes, which could easily have injured and upset him. To borrow a bit from Tom Lehrer, it would be extremely difficult to continue operating a vehicle safely while sitting next to three-quarters of a ton of angry pot roast.
“bulls aren’t generally known for their easygoing temperament.”
Masterfully understated…
Although much of the time, the aggressive tendencies come from bulls who are isolated from the rest of the herd to manage birth rates. Cows are extremely social, and isolation drives them nearly mad. A well- socialized bull needs little more caution than any of the other, larger members of the herd. Which, admittedly should still be a fair amount of caution. Cows are big!
“Cows are big!”
I’m from WESconsin, which is known for its…um…Dairy Air
Why don’t we just forget the gender semantics and simply designate things as available to XX or XY chromosomal people. To hell with evaluating testosterone levels just do a chromosome test. In that rare case of hermaphroditism we can let them choose which arena the person wants to identify; one or the other but not either.
“The Biden Democrats, showing their typical contempt for the Constitution and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, fatuously argued that though the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to own a gun, it didn’t protect an adult citizen’s right to buy one. “
Haven’t legal scholars generally considered that the Heller ruling (noted in Bruen) established that cutesy end-runs that make it impossible for citizens to use (or obtain) arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense were unconstitutional? That’s why nobody takes it seriously when yet another fool, thinking it’s his novel idea, pops up with “Let’s just ban bullets then.”
Sure. But this crowd will try to get around the Constitution and ask for applause for the effort.
There is an effort in the California legislature to have the state Attorney General establish the fee for an “ammunition eligibility check,” with no restraint, oversight, or check on how high the fee can become.
For the moment, the ammunition eligibility check fee increases are restrained by the California Consumer Price Index.
I expect a run on ammo forthwith.
ust like segregagtionistas in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Re No. 1: Yes, unethical but really funny
jvb
Re: Item 1. Unethical. That vehicle isn’t designed to carry livestock. Considering the state of the right rear fender, there’s a trail of brown marking everywhere that car traveled. I would hate to be the city employee that cleans that brown trail.