State Rep. Anita Somani, (D-Dublin)—that’s her on the left above— has authored a bill, so-sponsored by state Rep. Tristan Rader, (D-Lakewood), nicknamed the “Conception Begins at Erection Act.” It would make it a crime for men to ejaculate without intending to have a baby, with special exemptions for anal and oral sex, gay sex generally, masturbation and donating sperm. “You don’t get pregnant on your own,” the smug OBGYN told reporters. “If you’re going to penalize someone for an unwanted pregnancy, why not penalize the person who is also responsible for the pregnancy?” she said.
Brilliant. Don’t they teach analogies and critical thinking in med school? Apparently there are complete idiots practicing medicine. (We already know there are complete idiots elected to state and national legislatures.)
This woman really thinks her stunt—it’s a fake bill, which is an abuse of the legislative process—is some kind of “gotcha!” Even this fool has to know the bill is unconstitutional as well as unenforceable, but she does not seem to recognize how offensive it is. But, see, she’s making a point! Somani thinks she’s being clever when she is really proving that the entire pro-abortion position relies on deliberately ignoring what abortion is. The bill and her comments also reveal that she is blindingly dumb and apparently proud of it, as well as having the ethical literacy of a sea sponge.
Every day now, we are drowning in Conspiracies. And we always have theories about what really transpired.
From whether there was election fraud in 2020 to thinking you saw the fast food guy dropped your sandwich on the floor, they’re a daily part of life.
But if you ask the kid behind the fast food counter, and he said “Nah bro!” with a smirk, few of us would say “welp, he is the one in the paper hat!”
Yet that is exactly what many do when people wear shiny suits and have makeup and studio lighting, or wear glasses and have “doctor” or an Ivy League school affixed to their name. Those are uniforms – the fast food chain’s paper hat of the modern Oracle we come to for our answers.
Now, we have a POTUS who not just promised but signed Executive Orders demanding the release of some of our favorite Conspiracy Theory subjects: the murders of JFK, RFK, and MLK. This same President went on Joe Rogan’s podcast for his last big media appearance before the 2024 Election – a podcast widely known for discussing UFOs, alternate realities, and Bigfoot. So it seems a good time to bring up my position that it is not only in our personal interest, but our ethical duty to be a Conspiracy Theorist.
Let’s review some things we were not only told to accept, but many of us have been threatened with the loss of our jobs if we publicly questioned them:
Epstein Island is a sick right wing fantasy
COVID originated in Bat Soup
That 99 cent masks filter viruses
6 feet safe!
100% safe and effective
That 7-year-olds understand the implications and can consent to having a doctor cut up and rearrange their genitals
Joe Biden was of sound mind
Hunter’s laptop was a fraud
I could go on but I imagine there’s a word limit on this thing (J6, George Floyd, RussiaGate/Steele Dossier, Diddy, Twitter files, and Jussie Smollett – okay I’ll leave it that and let your memories hum… there’s gotta be a “We Didn’t Start the Fire” parody in there).
The phrase “conspiracy theorist” has been tossed around like hand sanitizer in 2020 – and speaking of COVID, the other popular term flung around is “pseudoscience”.
Mathematician and hyper-rationalist Eric Weinstein refers to this rather brilliantly as “Weaponization of Stigma”. My favorite example of the WoS is Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. In 1847, he proposed that the postpartum infection in new mothers could be drastically reduced by —gasp!— the doctors washing their hands, especially after handling dead bodies.
In his experiments he reduced mortality rates from 18% to 2%, a phenomenal decrease. His reward? Being run out of his profession by other doctors and getting referred to an insane asylum, where he died of septic shock.
His pre-germ theory idea that there were “cadaverous particles” transferring to vulnerable mothers was declared pseudoscience. Never mind his studies, that’s crazy talk! Trust the Science!
This exact concept was also brilliantly dramatized in Ibsen’s “Enemy of the People,” (I highly recommend Arthur Miller’s wonderful distilled adaptation).. The added element was the local politician being bullied into condemning the scientist because of money, similar to keeping the beaches open in Jaws, but I’m getting away from my point here.
We watched the one of the largest transferals of wealth occur as people living paycheck-to-paycheck and running small businesses got shut down, while pharmaceutical companies and the “approved” big companies made billions.
We watched thousands of medical professionals lose their voices if not their jobs. We watched the science be “settled,” one censored account after another. All the while telling us we were crazy for questioning things… this is the definition of gaslighting.
Now since the Truth is never sharper than when it’s embedded in good comedy, I’d like to share this brilliant bit by Ron Funches:
The key section:
“How do you not believe in conspiracy theories? I understand not all of them, not most of them, but you don’t believe in ANY conspiracy theories? You just think the government is batting 1.000 and telling us the whole truth? That’s a strong stance to take.”
A social media jokester used AI to create the “painting” on the left, and implied on “X” that it was an eerie premonition of the Trump administration, writing “This 1721 painting by Deitz Nuützen predicted the Trump-Elon-RFK McDonalds dinner.”
How dumb and gullible would someone have to be not to instantly realize that this was a gag? If the whole thing weren’t enough, there’s the name of the artist, “Deitz Nuützen,” as in “Deez Nutz,” web slang for testicles. Never mind, though. The Axis media is so wary of anything that might enhance the image of Trump and his team that even an obvious silly joke had to be factchecked.
Wait, this is the nation we are terrified it snatching U.S. influence abroad?
Once again, a Chinese zoo,the Zibo City amusement park in Shandong province this time, has been exposed as trying to deceive visitors by disguising a common animal as a more exotic one. China’s state-run Global Times confirmed that the zoo had painted donkeys with black and white stripes to make them appear to be zebras…and the disguise was not very well executed either, as the photo above suggests. After initially denying what was laughably obvious, the zoo’s representatives said that the paint job was a “marketing strategy,” and that the park’s “owner did it just for fun.”
This is a habit of Chinese zoos; it isn’t just this one. Two week ago, the Qinhu Bay Forest Animal Kingdom had to admit that what they were exhibiting as a tiger cub was really a painted Chow Chow.
Democrats are apparently seeking the youth vote by talking like vulgar teenagers. Hey, it might work!
I noted that Anderson Cooper, without any serious objection from his employers, CNN, called guest Chris Sununu a “dick” on live TV. Now Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Ca.) has escalated by calling Elon Musk a “dick” during a House hearing on DOGE, aka. the Department of Government Efficiency. Then he went on CNN to smugly defend his uncivil conduct with a string of rationalizations. (Incidentally: talk about “punchable faces!”)
During the hearing, Garcia noted that the subcommittee’s chair, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) had displayed Hunter Biden’s “dick pics” at a July 2023 House Oversight Committee hearing: “I find it ironic, of course, that our chairwoman, Congresswoman Greene, is in charge of running this committee. Now, in the last Congress, Chairwoman Greene literally showed a dick pic in our oversight congressional hearing, so I thought I’d bring one as well.”
Garcia showed a photo of Musk in a tuxedo. Musk is a dick, get it? Then he launched into the current ad hominem talking points the Axis is using to denigrate Trump’s waste, fraud and abuse delegate.
This Comment of the Day from the stellar Harkins household—this is from Ryan Harkins–was just posted three days ago and it seems like eons. It responds to another one of my arguments that sufficient demonstrations of stupidity by lawyers even outside the practice of law should be grounds for disbarment—a suspension isn’t enough, because such a lawyer will not become smarter after a professional “time out.” I think the first time I suggested this reform to legal discipline was when “The View’s” token lawyer, racist Sunny Hostin, suggested that eclipses and earthquakes were caused by climate change. It upsets me just think about the fact that this idiot has a law degree.
A basic and important rule of gun safety, perhaps the preeminent rule, is that you should never point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. Playing around with a gun in the fashion that Medina did shows a disturbing lack of gun safety in particular, but of the principal normalization of deviance in particular.
To delve into a little bit of brain science, in following the cognitive-emotive-behavioral model, we start with a desire. Perhaps in Medina’s case, it was simply to have fun. But how would he possibly conclude pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun is fun?
There are a large variety of ways we can try to satisfy our desires. In the case of hunger, we could seek satiation from a myriad of venues. In the case seeking stress relief, we could seek out a movie, a game, exercise, or any of a host of other options. But there are options we can choose from that are unhealthy, dangerous, or even illegal. When presented with all these options, our brains experience a byplay between thought and feeling. Does this option satisfy? The emotions clamor for a particular avenue, and cognition weighs the risks and benefits. If I eat a salad, I might not feel satiated, but if I eat a Hardee’s Monster Burger, I’ll be consuming far too many calories. But the salad may not be very tasty, and the Monster Burger is delicious. Whichever way I choose, my brain will record the success or failure of the endeavor, and the next time I am hungry, I will have a precedent to fall back on. They byplay between cognition and emotion in subsequent encounters proceeds much more quickly. The Monster Burger was indeed delicious, filled me up, and I didn’t seem to suffer any negative consequences. So the next time, my brain is patterned to lean toward the Monster Burger because of the positive experience.
Two controversies raise issues of ethical line-drawing in state and local laws.
1. Sign or Art? Leavitt’s Country Bakery in Conway, a community of more than 10,000 people in New Hampshire, erected a colorful mural over the store in 2022. It was the creation of local high school art students showing sunbeams shining down on a mountain range made of sprinkle-covered chocolate and strawberry doughnuts, a blueberry muffin, a cinnamon roll and other pastries. The muralwas popular with everyone but the local zoning board, which ruled that the painting was not art but advertising. This meant it was a sign, and at about 90 square feet, four times bigger than the local sign ordinance allows. Lawyers for Conway insist that “restricting the size of signs serves the significant government interest of preserving the town’s aesthetics, promoting safety, and ensuring equal enforcement.” The store’s owner sued the town in federal court in 2023, saying his freedom of speech rights were being violated. He’s seeking a symbolic single dollar in damages.
Thing I: The most obvious ethics issue going on is, still, the post 2024 election Axis freakout. I’ve never seen anything remotely like it. When Ronald Reagan, whom the Democratic establishment in Washington regarded as a Neanderthal, washed-up actor whose most memorable film had him co-starring with a chimp (“Bedtime for Bonzo”), the reaction of liberals and Democrats wasn’t nearly this hysterical…or demeaning to them. The news media has been equally bonkers. The faces of network news anchors and hosts when a Trump administration supporter is talking are uniformly mask of pure hatred: I started noticing this yesterday. It reminded me of Katie Couric when she interviewed Ross Perot in the “Today Show” with an expression she reserved for people like David Duke…or Satan. Facial expressions and body language that tell an audience that an interviewer detests her interview subject is unprofessional, but it has now become the norm.
The same faces, restrained (and sometimes unrestrained fury) have been on display as the Democratic Senators question virtually all of Trump’s nominees. It says something that Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, who was derided by the Right for running for the Senate after suffering actual brain damage from a stroke,has emerged as the sole voice of reason in his party. “There isn’t a constitutional crisis, and all of these things ― it’s just a lot of noise,” Fetterman said this week. “That’s why I’m only gonna swing on the strikes. I’m still wishing him the best. I’m effectively rooting for [Elon Musk] and all the nominees because they’re working for America.” This should be the position of all Democrats and progressives, especially since, unlike 2017, the majority of American feel the same way, and it is the way Americans have usually regarded newly elected POTUSes and their emerging administrations.
The fury being directed at Elon Musk, a brilliant man who is giving his time to his nation as it tries to solve the problems of government bloat, waste, corruption and abuse that everyone at least claims they want to solve is an embarrassment for the Democrats and their Axis allies. Infamous dim-bulb Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson (he’s the one who worried that Guam would flip over because too much U.S. military material was on the island) raged yesterday, “What does that mean when an unelected billionaire can waltz into our agencies and slash and burn the whole thing to the ground like a Taliban terrorist, This level of corruption is shocking. President Trump and the Republicans in Congress, all of whom have abrogated their legislative power to the King, have handed the keys to the nation’s treasury to unelected co-president Elon Musk. Their actions are taking what we know as corruption to a whole new level. This is Banana Republic style corruption at its ugliest.” I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that this idiot doesn’t know how the Executive Branch works, but the frightening thing is that so many lawyers are behaving similarly based on their social media rants. Is it possible that they are really this stupid.
Thing 2:The guest post submissions I solicited a week ago are finally coming in: another will go up today. I thank you all: what I have seen so far is of excellent quality. This effort to try to keep up with an unprecedented wave of ethics stories while freeing me from a permanent government and politics beat is important; I also want to emphasize that it does not eliminate the Comment of the Day feature here. (I think I have at least one of those languishing).
I’m sorry: that was a longer intro than I anticipated.
Rationalization #64 A, The Cheater’s Defense or “It Didn’t Mean Anything” is a rather narrowly applicable addition to the list: it arises when a half of a supposedly committed couple has sexual relations with a third party. I have entered it as a sub-rationalization to the infamous Yoo’s Rationalization (“It isn’t what it is”) because betraying a spouse, partner or lover does mean something, probably many things.
The Ethicist received a question from, as always, “Name Withheld,” whose partner had cheated on her and used that phrase, “It didn’t mean anything.” She asks, years after the event, “I still don’t understand why cheaters use the phrase ‘‘(She/he) didn’t mean anything to me.’ How does one even respond to a statement like that?”
Kwame Anthony Appiah, in his usual measured fashion, says that the line “is how cheaters try to reassure their partners that their infidelity wasn’t going to lead to a serious relationship and needn’t spell the end of their existing one; that a fling was ‘just sex.’’’ But that still doesn’t translate to “It didn’t mean anything.” Having sex out of one’s committed relationship probably means, among other things,
The cheater isn’t as committed as he or she had led the betrayed partner to believe.
The cheater cannot be trusted.
The cheater has a drinking or substance abuse problem.
The cheater has some apparent needs that the supposed love of his or her life isn’t supplying
The cheater lacks some degree of impulse control.
The cheater is an easy mark for an aggressive come-on from an attractive member of the opposite sex (in other words, the cheater is a typical heterosexual male.)
Of course it meant something. The statement, like many rationalizations, is a lie. “The Ethicist” concentrates on what the use of the rationalization means: that the cheater, in addition to cheating, is manipulative jerk. “Cheaters demean the people they cheated with by dismissing them as meaningless, demean their partner by implying their pain is unjustified and demean their relationship by saying that they betrayed their beloved’s trust for a liaison they insist was insignificant,” he concludes.
Some of our elected leaders would like people to believe that the 2+ million workers are doing yeoman’s work keeping our nation secure and running like a well-oiled machine. They will suggest to you that only federal workers have access to sensitive data like your personal information. That is misrepresenting who can get access to your data.
The government uses numerous private contractors to perform all types of specialized services. Essential IT work such as systems engineering, data security, software development and other user support functions are handled by an array of prime contractors and their sub-contractors. To do this work, the contractor must be able to access private data. While some aspects do not require being able to sort through individual records others do. Software engineers must have the ability to parse records to create templates and test and debug systems.
Below are a few of these contractors whose employees are not federal employees. The point I am making is not that these organizations should not be in a position to access private records. The point is that this access happens every day in agencies managed by the Executive branch, whichoversees the agencies that issue contracts to carry out mission-critical services.
To hear Congress bemoan the fact that the DOGE team is somehow unlawful or illegitimate because they are not federal employees is laughable, and it is also misinformation. The person responsible for ensuring that the agencies are carrying out the policies laid out by the President through his Cabinet Secretaries is ultimately the President. As Harry Truman said, “The Buck Stops Here,” “here” being The White House.
Ethics Alarms 