Month: June 2024

Ethics Quote of the Month: Ironically, It’s Justice Alito!

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

“An event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.”

—-Justice Joseph Alito, concurring in the case of Garland v. Cargill and re-affirming the ethical, legal, democratic and conservative principle that laws shouldn’t be ignored or changed by courts just because they no longer work the way they were designed to.

I guess this will be just one more reason for the Angry Left to try to “get” Alito. Maybe he likes to eat candy bars that a lot of the Capitol rioters ate, or something. May be they’ll hire a lip-reader to try to catch him saying something like “it was a riot!” while smiling. Conflict of interest! Recuse!

Re-affirming why the 6-3 conservative SCOTUS majority is good for democracy, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it tried to ban bump stocks by classifying them as machineguns. Machineguns are defined in an old statute, the National Firearms Act of 1934. It banned “machine guns,” encompassing today’s automatic weapons. The law “defines a machinegun as any weapon capable of firing “automatically more than one shot…by a single function of the trigger,” as Justice Clarence Thomas explained in the majority opinion. Although the definition also covers parts of a gun that are “designed and intended…for use in converting a weapon” into a machinegun, it does not cover “bump stocks.”

Bump stocks assist “bump firing,” which involves pushing a rifle forward to activate the trigger by bumping it against a steady finger, then allowing recoil energy to push the gun backwards, resetting the trigger. If the shooter maintains forward pressure and keeps the trigger finger in place, a semi-automatic rifle will fire like an automatic weapon (anti-gun fanatics don’t know the difference, and don’t care). The ATF’s “interpretive rule” published in December of 2018 banned stock replacements that facilitated this operation.

Continue reading →

From the Ethics Alarms “Conservatives Do Fake News Too” File…

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

I really hate this stuff, and I’m getting sick of having to post on it.

Today I saw misleading click-bait headlines on various conservative blogs and websites were like this one: Woke California: U-Turn Signs Are Homophobic. There were many social media posts on accounts like “End Wokeness” with the same implication: those crazy LGPTQ fanatics are out of control, and are now even offended by regular traffic signs.

That was certainly my reaction to just reading the headlines. When I investigated—-my sock drawer is furious with me for using up our quality time together—I learned that the traffic signs removed by the LGBTQ community and the town of Silver Lake, California were considered homophobic because….the signs were homophobic.

In the 90s, before gay dating apps like Grindr, gays in Silver Lake (and elsewhere) relied on printed guidebooks to find public areas and gay bars where they could meet other men like them. “No U-Turn” and “No Cruising” signs were put up in parts of Silver Lake where residents had complained about gay men gathering. The signs were a—subtle? Not so subtle?—rebuke and warning.

The gay community in Silver lake has been trying for years to get official action approved to remove what the LA Times calls “signs of its anti-gay past,” and finally succeeded. None of the conservative websites that mocked this episode as hysterical hyper sensitivity mentioned the “No Cruising” signs in their headlines, and it’s obvious why. Seeing “No U-Turn” as an anti-gay message takes a little thought. “No Cruising”? I’ve never seen such a sign in my life. That one’s more obvious…so they buried it .

Deceit is one of the primary tools of fake news journalism.

If conservative blogs, news outlets and website have valid issues and points to make, they should be able to make them honestly by straightforward reporting. It is very disappointing to see a usually fair and reliable conservative commentary site like Legal Insurrection stooping to these tactics.

“The Ethicist” Is Persuaded By Pro-Abortion Double-Talk: 10 Observations

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I find the latest query posed to The Ethicist to have such an ethically obvious answer as to be unworthy of publication, unless the objective was to demonstrate how weak and intellectually dishonest ethical the position of pro-abortion advocates is.

Here it is:

I’ve always supported a woman’s right to choose, not least because legal access to abortion once saved me from an untenable situation. I also believe that if a woman chooses to abort, her wish should supersede any opposition to it by the father. The physical, practical and emotional effects on a woman obliged to carry a child to term (and to care for it afterward) are, in my view, far more significant than they are for the father.

But what about the reverse? What about a case in which the father (in this case, my son) is adamantly opposed to having a child, but the woman (his ex-girlfriend) wants to keep the pregnancy? While it’s not relevant to the moral question, the pregnancy is shockingly unexpected given a medical issue of the father’s. And the couple’s relationship has almost no chance of success, even without a pregnancy. Given that the woman has neither a willing partner nor a job and is already responsible for a child from a previous relationship, her decision to continue with the pregnancy is viewed by most in her circle as reckless and certain to risk her already precarious mental health. Here, her right to choose to carry the child will have a profound impact on three (soon to be four) people and is likely to be very difficult for all.

Is it right to force someone to be a parent, even if in name only? Many people, me included, would say no if that person is a woman. Recent events have shown how fraught this issue is. And yet a man who does not wish to be, has never wanted to be and was told that his chances of ever being a parent were nil can find himself in a situation where his opposition carries no weight. While it’s evident that he will have financial obligations, what might his moral responsibility be?

What a god-awful, ethically-obtuse letter to be send for publication, never mind circulated by an ethicist! Let’s see:

Continue reading →

Friday Open Forum, Strange Times Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

That’s “Emily Pellegrini” above again, the famed digital model created with the assistance of an AI program. For some reason Emily was not entered in the World AI Creator Awards, a beauty pageant for imaginary women. Go figure.

So…whose victory is more justifiable in a female beauty pageant today? A morbidly obese woman? A biological male? Or a woman who doesn’t exist at all?

Never mind. Find some beauty in ethics. If you can. I’ll settle for even virtual beauty.

Only 40% of Americans “Approve” of the U.S. Supreme Court. Whose Fault is That? The Four Ethics Offenders…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Politico and other outlets are flogging a new poll from Marquette Law School released Tuesday found that 40% of adults approve of the Supreme Court’s actions, while 60% disapprove. This really isn’t news; it’s fake news in “The Sun is hot!” category by now. Gallup, which has been tracking the trust levels in American institutions for decades, wrote last September that “the 41% of U.S. adults who currently approve of how the Supreme Court is handling its job is statistically similar to the 40% to 43% ratings over the past two years. The court’s approval rating first fell to the record-low 40% in September 2021.” A single percentage point, obviously, is well within the margin for error in any poll and is not significant, and not significant means “not newsworthy.”

So the #1 villain in the ongoing destruction of the Supreme Court’s level of trust and approval among the public is…no surprise—our unethical, despicable, democracy-undermining news media. Since Roe v. Wade was finally knocked down by the Dobbs decision but even before, our “advocacy journalists,” or “journalists,” have made it their mission to erode public support for SCOTUS as part of their goal of forcing the Court to the ideological left so it can advance progressive agenda items that the Democratic Party can’t accomplish the way democracies are supposed to—you know, by passing constitutional laws.

Continue reading →

I Guess It’s Time To Remind Everyone Again That George Stephanopoulos Is A Disney/ABC Ethics Villain

/ Jack Marshall / 102 Comments

From the moment ABC made Bill Clinton’s media propaganda guy its supposedly objective host for the network’s Sunday public affairs, talking heads show, the jig was up, or should have been. George Stephanopoulos is and was a Democratic Party operative; that he was allowed to keep this job, which allowed him to, for example, interview his former de facto boss, Hillary Clinton, on more than one occasion, should have put to bed permanently the claims of the ethically blind that mainstream media news reporting was not disgracefully biased.

Now George is apparently more secure than ever that his displaying open partisanship will meet with no resistance from his management at Disney/ABC. Asked by CNN host Abby Phillip this week what the “most important question” for both candidates should be in the June 27 debate moderated by the CNN, Stephanopoulos recommended that CNN’s moderators should confront former President Trump with “Who won the last election?”

That’s a great way to try to duck the actual issues in the election. Then, I suppose, CNN’s moderators should start grilling Trump on the substance of his various prosecutions.

Continue reading →

The Pope Used A Word So Horrible That It’s Newsworthy, But Not So Newsworthy That Readers Can Be Told What The Word Is

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I know I’ve written about this before, but it drives me crazy. It also shows how incompetent and infantile our hallowed institution of journalism has become.

Pope Francis, we were told in stories across the web, “has again used a homophobic term after apologizing last month for saying gay men should not be admitted to church seminaries because ‘there’s already too much f*****ry….he used of the word ‘frociaggine’, a vulgar Italian term roughly translating as ‘f*****ness’, on May 20 during a closed-door meeting with Italian bishops.

Wait…what does the word mean again? Nobody would print it. Using the word was so newsworthy everyone was writing about it, but our public censors refused to reveal it. What is “f*****ness? Why should I have to play “Wheel of Fortune” to learn the key elements of a news story? The New York Times refused to translate “frociaggine” into English, but the Italian word means nothing to me and most Americans. It sounds like some kind of ragu. All the Times would reveal was that it was an “anti-gay slur,” a “homophobic slur,” or just a “slur.” If the Times prints all the news that’s fit to print, then why won’t it print the key element of such fit news? Personally, I couldn’t care less what the Pope says, but I do object to having to visit multiple web sites to find out what should have been revealed in every published report.

Continue reading →

When the Light Goes On and You Know That a Political Website Is Written By Progressive Hacks: A Case Study

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I use Mediaite to track down ethics stories occasionally, though not nearly as much as I did when the site tried to achieve some degree of balance. Now, as part of the site’s contribution to the Axis’s panic operation, Mediaite is almost all Trump or GOP-bashing, all the time.

Yesterday it featured this story: “Witness Tells Off Republican Senator in Hearing on Abortion: ‘Don’t Ask a Question If You Don’t Want to Know the Answer’” The Senator in question was Sen. John Kennedy (R-La), particularly reviled by progressives because of his skill at making unqualified Biden nominees, usually of the DEI variety, reveal themselves as the fools and hypocrites they are. One reading that headline is supposed to assume that a pro-abortion witness bested the Senator. Far from it.

The exchange began with Kennedy asking a witness regarding late-term abortions, “Should the mother at that juncture have the right – clearly a viable child – to abort the child?” The witness dodged the question by pronouncing the scenario “unlikely.”

Continue reading →

Should a Fictional Work That Begins By Saying Its Story Is True Be Taken at Its Word? The “Baby Reindeer” Case [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I bailed on Netflix’s Baby Reindeer series mid-way through the second episode, and wish I had quit earlier. I found the sordid tale of a dim-witted would-be stand-up comic and the sociopathic woman who stalked him too unpleasant and infuriating to stomach. I think I’d rather watch cattle be slaughtered. For some reason the thing is popular, however, and now it’s the object of a lawsuit.

Fiona Harvey, who says she is the real life inspiration for the series villain, the stalker Martha, has filed a $170 million lawsuit against Netflix alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence and violations of her right of privacy.” [ NOT “right of publicity,” which is how I managed to type it first time around.]” The sum includes totals for damages, “loss of enjoyment and loss of business” plus “all profits from ‘Baby Reindeer’.”

Continue reading →

When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring: The 24 Hour Fitness Dress Code

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

24 Hour Fitness, a relatively recent entry into the gym wars, issued this memo to its staff about appropriate attire:

You can’t possibly read that, so here is the good stuff in the May 2023 internal document:

“We’ve committed to creating a more inclusive environment at 24 Hour Fitness, recognizing that we have work to do to become stronger allies in support of those who are impacted by systemic oppression and inequality…

…Currently approved movements and/or social causes, along with approved expressions are:

  • “Black Lives Matter”/”BLM” (words)
  • “Pride” and or pride rainbow logo
  • Juneteenth logo symbol, or date – on Juneteenth (June 19th)
  • Flag or United States logo – on holidays such as Memorial Day, Flag Day, July 4th, Veteran’s Day, Patriots Day, etc.

Now various organizations are calling for the chain to be boycotted. It asked for this. The place is managed by morons.

Businesses that have nothing to do with politics should keep politics out of their business, advertising and workplace policies. This is especially true if those running the business have only rudimentary understanding of basic principles of democracy and the English language. You cannot tell employees what “movements” are “approved” and claim to be “inclusive.” Having “approved expressions” is also offensive to democratic principles and values.

Worst of all is the head-exploding policy of approving symbols promoting anointed sexual orientations and a racist, Marxist scam year’ round, but limiting attire sporting the American flag to holidays. Hey, can I whistle “God Bless America” while I’m doing curls if it isn’t the Fourth of July, or only “Lift Every Voice and Sing”?

And The Great Stupid rolls on…..