The Supreme Court made three unremarkable, straight-forward rulings yesterday, and the Axis predictably acted as if the Court has banned kissing and ice cream:
A. Hawaii passed a law that a lawful gun owner would have to ask permission to carry a gun on privately owned property that is open to the public. The ruling was condemned by the Brady anti-gun groups, whose president wrote, “I will not mince words: This deeply dangerous majority opinion privileges guns over everything and all people in society.” That’s an interesting way to describe a civil right. The majority simply confirmed that the presumption on private property is that citizens have all their rights until the owner declares otherwise. An owner who doesn’t want guns on his property can prohibit them. Gavin Newsom’s tweet demonstrates his dishonesty: “Gun laws keep people safe. This ruling by Trump’s Supreme Court will only endanger people. If Justice Alito really thinks people need guns to go to the grocery store “for self-defense,” this country is truly broken.” All gun laws are good, so there! And once again, the government doesn’t get to decide when a citizen “needs” a gun.
B. The Court ruled that Temporary Protection Status is temporary. Seems reasonable to me! 350,000 Haitians have come here and stayed based on an earthquake that took place in 2010. The idea of TPR is to allow endangered foreign nationals to come here until a particular peril has passed, and then return home. If Congress wants a different system, it can change it. The Left’s whole case against Trump deciding not to permit TRP squatters to stay forever is to claim that the policy is based on racism. No, it’s based on the principle that a nation should control who it allows to come here, and letting the gate swing open for large numbers of people from cultures antithetical to ours is suicidal.
C. The third case held that non-US. citizens coming in from Mexico need to apply for asylum or start the legal immigration process before showing up at the border or crossing into the U.S. The way the system was administered by the Biden Administration let everyone in who claimed to be a refugee, whereupon they were able to scatter before any determination had been made. “Today Trump’s loyalists in the Supreme Court have joined forces with him to deny immigrants internationally recognized human rights and advance an authoritarian white supremacist agenda,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said. The United States of America is not bound by the “internationally recognized” right to ignore borders.
As always, those condemning the SCOTUS rulings won’t read the opinions, and the Axis media won’t explain them without spinning for the Left. Gee: the right to bear arms is a right, temporary doesn’t mean forever, and you have to get permission to get into the country before you get into the country. Stunning. Tyrannical.
But here you do have a recognized right to write about whatever you want…as long as it involves ethics.
Ethics Alarms 
A little over a year ago, I submitted the following column as a Guest Entry.
Fan Ethics: The Diane and Joe Saga [Corrected] | Ethics Alarms
In a nutshell, a fan I call “Diane” has developed a fixation that has now reached year six on an actor I call “Joe Darling”. After pestering him with emails and gifts to his home for three years, as well as comments on social media that pushed boundaries, she met him at a convention where he politely, but firmly, told her that her behavior bordered on stalking and he would take further action if she didn’t stop.
She stopped the gifts to his home, but sent a couple of more emails before stopping those, too. She resumed commenting on his social media after a couple of months, seemingly believing that it was only the gifts and the number of emails that were the problem. The next year, on Joe’s return to her city for a convention, she was informed by the event showrunner that she was permitted to attend the show only on the condition that she stay away from Joe Darling. It is not uncommon for celebrities attending public events to send lists of problem fans ahead of time to alert the show of who they do not wish to see. In this case, the showrunner almost certainly was following Joe’s instructions.
Upon her arrival, she tried to negotiate the guidelines with the showrunner only to leave with the impression that he was restricting her because of a personal grudge against her.
In the meantime, she continues to post on Mr. Darling’s social media every two to three months in a vain effort to get a reaction.
This past year alone, she has posted a birthday wish for Joe on his social media page, another message asking him to post more on said page and a Mother’s Day message to his wife and daughters-in-law, referencing them by name. All of these posts have been deleted within a day or two. She may be deleting them herself because she does have a history of deleting posts on her own page if she doesn’t get the reaction she wants. It’s also possible that Joe’s site administrator is deleting them. Joe Darling himself does not appear to spend much time on social media these days so he may not even be seeing them.
He is returning to a convention in her town soon. She has purchased tickets to the convention from another fan who cannot attend. This concerns me. Since her ticket purchase this year has not been made directly from the show itself, there will be no record of her name as a ticketholder when Joe inevitably sends them his list of problem fans.
I do not believe Diane is dangerous; however, she is both a resourceful and persistent pest. She will almost certainly attempt to attend Joe’s Q&A panel where she may or may not try to ask a question. She may also try to get into his autograph line in an effort to speak to him about clarifying the restrictions placed on her. She may also approach other guests, gauge their friendliness and drop hints about speaking to him on her behalf, something she has done in the past.
My question to the commentariat again concerns what my obligations are here. Should I inform the convention that she is planning to attend? If I do, the convention may restrict her access to Mr. Darling again or may even ban her from the show completely. These are not necessarily bad things; however, Mr. Golden believes that, should she be prevented access in any way, she will only rationalize again that the showrunner has it in for her. If that happens, she will continue to post on Joe’s social media and try to see him again the next time he makes an appearance in her hometown. For this reason, Mr. Golden argues that informing the convention will only delay the inevitable consequences that she seems determined to provoke.
What do you think I should do? Should I inform the convention? Should I leave it alone in the hope that, if she makes it to Joe’s autograph table, he will be more firm and less polite this time? Is there another alternative I’m overlooking? Is there such a thing as a duty to allow someone to face the consequences of their actions? If so, does that supersede the duty to confront or intervene? I have truly tried to encourage healthier fan behavior but I’ve only been successful at convincing her to edit one post and delete one other. At what point do I decide if my duty to intervene is over and allow the risk she is taking to come back and bite her?
Mission Accomplished!
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/lavender-magazine-closes-lgbtq/
Kind of surprising for someone (especially advocates) to say, “our work here is done.” I think it is admirable in this case.
Though, I suppose it is also possible that: a) they don’t want to get dragged into the possibly never-ending “trans” debate; b) their “success” has resulted in lower revenues, forcing it out of business.
-Jut
Pronouns in e-mail signatures (especially in government jobs) are a violation of religious freedom. They also create a hostile work environment by sifting people who aren’t on the crazy train. No pronouns in bio means you don’t advance.