Month: June 2026

The Pope’s Views On When Wars Should Be Fought Are Irrelevant To Reality And Not Just Useless, But Harmful

/ Jack Marshall / 49 Comments

Once again, the position at EA is that the Pope—it doesn’t matter which Pope—is unethically abusing his authority and serving as gum in the works while fostering confusion when he presumes dictate national policy based on idealism and utopianism

A guy I never heard of who was an executive editor of The National Catholic Reporter and who, we are told, “directed coverage of the conclave that elected Pope Leo XIV,” was awarded an op-ed in the New York Times (Gift link, though it’s not much of a gift) to explain why he thinks the Pope thinks that “the age of artificial intelligence undermines the moral criteria for just war.” Ramalama ding-dong! Why is anyone listening to guys who have the luxury of dealing with the abstract and never having the responsibility of keeping a nation and a population safe and secure as they pontificate about the right way to do it? Why is anyone reading the analysis of an obscure functionary who has also never had to face the harsh human, military, geopolitical and practical realities of war as he rationalizes the basis for a Pope’s irresponsible interference with serious international matters?

The New York Times has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fully committed to undermining President Trump, his policies and his popular support. The “just war” blather, another phase of arguing how many angels can gather on a pinhead, suddenly became useful to the Axis of Unethical conduct when it wanted to root for a murderous, anti-Christian Islamic regime while it was fighting the United States of America. Popes never support wars, and it isn’t news when the Vatican condemns one. Infamously, the Vatican refused to take sides in World War II, or take any substantive steps to try to end the extermination of Jews in Europe. Now the Pope doesn’t think a war that has among its goals making as certain as possible that Iran doesn’t have the ability to do what it has been promising to do for decades—destroy Israel— is a “just war,” or to be more precise, that we should redefine “just war” to eliminate Israel’s and the U.S.’s justification for neutralizing Iran.

There’s a damning consistency there, no?

Pages: 1 2

What?? “The Ethicist” Doesn’t Endorse “The Golden Rule”!

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Interesting. I’m not sure he can call himself an ethicist, and certainly not THE Ethicist, with that attitude. Based on Prof Appiah’s latest ethics advice column, he doesn’t follow the Ten Commandments, specifically #5, either.

An adult child of an apparently bad mother asks “The Ethicist,”

“Our parents divorced when we were young, and both were neglectful and emotionally abusive. My mother once kicked me out at 17 because her boyfriend told her to choose between him and me. …I see my mother about once every two years and speak to her roughly once a month.Now in her 80s, my mother is showing signs of Alzheimer’s. Her husband recently told me that if he dies first, I will be responsible for her care. I don’t think I can do it. The thought of having her live with me makes me physically sick. My siblings are unlikely to help. Since that conversation, almost a year ago, I have thought about this every day. What, if anything, do I owe my mother?”

I find the NYU philosophy professor’s answer astounding:

“We may owe something to those who raised us, but we have no duty to abandon our own lives to look after them, especially when they failed in their parental duties. Tell her husband that you’re not going to take on her care and that he needs to make the necessary preparations. He should consult with an elder-care lawyer, identify the local Area Agency on Aging and arrange advance directives and other long-term plans while your mother still has the capacity to participate in those decisions. A trustee to manage her affairs once he’s gone should be appointed. These are things you can suggest to him, anyway. They are not things you need to do.”

To be brief:

1. In such a situations it is the shared responsibility of all members of the family to sacrifice as necessary and do their best to care for the mother compassionately. The husband cannot ethically pass the job off on the woman’s adult children, nor can they ethically refuse to participate in her care.

2. One’s ethical obligations to one’s parents are not based on how well they parented. It isn’t a matter of quid pro quo, tit for tat, or just desserts. All children owe a responsibility to their parents unless they left their kids in a ditch to die.

3. “Honor your father and mother” is a cornerstone of a stable and civilized society, even when Mom and Dad are not particularly honorable.

4. The Golden Rule could not be clearer on this issue. Treat your aging and infirm parents as you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.

5. “You were a bad mother to me, so I’m going to be a bad child now, when you need me. So there.” That is not an ethical statement.

Gee, Thanks Airlines, For Finally Warning Us!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I’m adding that memorable line from “Death Becomes Her” to the Ethics Alarms Hollywood Clip Archive. I don’t think I’ll have much use for it—at least I hope I won’t—but it sure fits here.

In that scene, the awful aging star played by Meryl Streep has just paid a fortune to get dosed with a magic formula that restores youth and guarantees immortality. After she downs the glowing blue elixer, the mysterious woman who provided it adds, “And now a warning…”

American Airlines, Delta, and Southwest have issued a warning to flyers to avoid short skirts and shorts when flying. If a flight emergency forces a plane to land and passengers have to use a slide to “deboard,” the friction from the device can rip a passenger’s skin off.

Oh. Funny, I don’t remember people screaming in all of those airplane movies.

The slides have substances in their composition to maximize sliding speed, as the objective is to save lives, not ensure comfort. I am assuming we never heard of this peril before because those slides aren’t used very often. However, airlines have been in many controversies over dress code enforcement: why wouldn’t they use the “if you want to have your skin ripped off, go ahead, fly like that!” response?

Remember this post, about the fitness model who presented herself at the gate dressed thusly….

…?

Heck, if that stuff about the slides is true, after an emergency landing she would have ended up looking like one of the victims in “The Towering Inferno”!

“Better late than never” is often a rationalization (#35. The Tortoise’s Pass), but in this case, it’s nice to finally know the risk of short shorts and short skirts. I’m still wondering what took so long, however.

Now THIS Really Couldn’t Happen Here (With Rueful Ethics Observations…) [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is the EU Commission in Brussels. “It’s like feudalism,” a Commission official working on a lower level of the Berlaymont told POLITICO, making a justifiable analogy since the upper floors, where housing commissioners worked, kept their air conditioning running while the proles in the lower floors sweltered

Americans wouldn’t stand for this.

Not yet, anyway.

1. Could there be a more throbbing example of the unethical “Let them eat cake!” attitude, though it is more like “Let them jump into rivers and drown!”?

2. Why would anyone trust the EU if its leadership could even consider something like this? Yet this is the same orientation that Communism inflicted on its populations. I saw the end results as well as the brainwashing of the public it required when I had (and I do mean had) to be in Moscow in the Nineties for two weeks.

3. Bernie Sanders honeymooned in Moscow. What does this tell you? And he’s being credited with remaking the Democratic Party, along with fellow useful idiot AOC.

4. Yet young voters in droves rushed to the polls in New York to elect exactly the kinds of candidates who hold the “government knows best” and “Know your place, serfs!” world view that is antithetical to American traditions, values and thought.

5. The Democratic Party, now being increasingly dominated by socialists and Communists, is counting on Trump Derangement to let it triumph in November, while its policies, and the even worse policies supported by the Democratic Socialists, are ostentatiously irresponsible and anti-American. Good plan!

Unethical Website of the Month: League of Women Voters Northern Lower Michigan FaceBook Page

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I am constantly annoyed by organizations and groups that call themselves “non-partisan” that are obviously partisan, as they quack like veritable ducks. One that I used to flag frequently here is CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which ultimately made it so clear it was an Axis ally that they didn’t even bother to deny it. In contrast, The F.I.R.E. really is non-partisan, and recently complained that it lost supporters when it dared to criticize conservative breaches of free speech. The organization that once followed F.I.R.E.’s mission, the ACLU, gradually became woke, progressive, biased, partisan and useless.

It seems that the venerable League of Women Voters is following the same unethical path. Too bad. My mother was a member, and it really was non-partisan then. It is decidedly leftist, progressive and wokified now, not that there’s anything wrong with that, except that the group lies about it, still claiming to be non-partisan. I used League of Women Voters of Northern Lower Michigan as the example, because I don’t have time to check out all the other chapters: if someone can show me one that isn’t lying about being non-partisan, please do.

Here is the evidence, however:

  1. This one is a group-wide project:

“Taking democracy back” is not only a Democratic Party talking point, it’s an implied lie. The Axis of Unethical Conduct has been trying to undo the results of American democracy ever since its planned line of succession after Barack Obama was so cruelly foiled by the Electoral College. Those who wield the talking point remained silent while a fake Russian collusion investigation crippled the democratically elected President’s efforts to do his job, or when the voting process was corrupted for the 2020 election, or when their allied media censored news that might have changed the election results, or when it became obvious that unelected leftist hacks were pulling the strings of a disabled President, or that their party picked its Presidential candidate in 2024 without any democratic processes in evidence, or that their party tried every trick in the book to try to prevent voters from having the opportunity to vote for a former U.S. President. We have learned what “civic engagement” means to these organizations and their members. Riots and violence

2. This one is a tell if there ever was one…

Only progressive, Democrats, illegal immigrants and liars say “immigrants” when they know the issue is illegal immigrants.

Pages: 1 2

The Denver International Airport Scandal [Page Break Fixed!]

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Democrats cheat.

Have I mentioned that here? I think I have; I think about 500 times since October, 2026. For example, there is this recent scandal out of Denver, where the Rocky Mountain High makes people woke and unethical, apparently.

The Denver City Council voted overwhelmingly against a lease for Key Lime Air last December after learning the charter airline had contracted with federal immigration authorities to transport illegal immigrant detainees. Of course Key Lime had to be punished for working with ICE to, you know, enforce that law thingy. How dare they?

That vote created a problem, however: it violated the law. Federal Aviation Administration rules bar cities from treating airlines unequally based on political grounds or any other reason. The council’s pro-illegal immigration action put $90 million in federal grant funding for the airport in jeopardy. According to multiple sources, City Attorney Miko Brown attended a meeting last January 6 with airport and Mayor’s Office officials including airport Chief Executive Phil Washington, airport attorney Everett Martinez, the mayor’s interim chief of staff Emily Garnett, and other senior airport and mayoral staff. They agreed on a cover-up plan that involved concocting an investigation into the airline’s safety record, so that could be cited as the reason for denying the lease, thus preserving the $90 million grant.

Imagine: not a single official in the room had the integrity to say, “Hey, we can’t do this. It’s wrong!” Huh. I wonder why…

It is a rhetorical question.

Ah, but when Martinez was later placed on administrative leave, he filed a federal lawsuit against the city and spilled the metaphorical beans. The suit alleges that Brown suggested at the January meeting that Denver International Airport investigate Key Lime Air’s safety record. (Martinez could justify revealing in his suit what would otherwise be a breach of lawyer-client confidentiality by citing the crime-fraud exception, although in my view it doesn’t excuse his participation in the meeting.)

Pages: 1 2

Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Brandon Gill (R-Tex)

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Congressman Gill doesn’t know what a conflict of interest is. A company gives money to a groups that advocates a government program that benefits the company. An advocacy organization accepts contributions from a company to help fund its advocacy. What’s the conflict?

“Most people” who think Gill has described a conflict of interest don’t know what a conflict of interest is…just like Gill.

It’s Friday Open Forum Time!

/ Jack Marshall / 81 Comments

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.

Bravo! Ethics Hero Sen. Fetterman Civilly Points Out That Trump Deranged Ethics Dunce Larry David Is An Asshole…

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Perfect!

Larry David, who has managed to make millions with the meta stunt of portraying himself as a toxic asshole on HBO when he in fact is a toxic asshole, dug deep into his warped character and told “Variety” the White House Flag Day UFC event was a “travesty.” “What else can you say about it?” the “Seinfeld” co-creator added. “It was embarrassing. I was embarrassed to be an American.”

TMZ ’s Jacob Wasserman tracked down Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa) on Capitol Hill yesterday and asked his reaction to David’s outburst.

“I’d say ‘Lighten up, Francis,’” Fetterman replied. That’s a 1980s film reference to the cult Bill Murray comedy “Stripes,” making Fetterman a man after my own heart. In a famous scene the ridiculous recruit named Francis (played by Conrad Dunn) tells his fellow soldiers he wants to be called “Psycho” and that he’ll kill anyone who calls him by his right name. He then tries to demonstrate his psycho creds by running off what he would consider justifications for murder.

Sgt. Hulka (played by Warren Oates) deflates the rant by saying, “Lighten up, Francis.”

Wasserman proved himself culturally ignorant by not getting Fetterman’s allusion, so Fetterman had to spell out his meaning. “Hey, I’m proud to be an American, and if you are embarrassed or whatever because of a UFC thing, get over yourself, dude!” the Senator said.

Such a light, civil way to tell David “You’re an asshole”!

“It Can’t Happen Here”? Brazil Gives Us A Glimpse Of What The Woke Passionately Wish For America

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

In April, Brazilian father and mother, Audato and Ieda Denardi were found guilty of the crime of “intellectual neglect” and were sentenced to 50 days in prison for homeschooling their two daughters without sufficient instruction on“gender and sex education” or “tolerance and diversity.”

The court also found that the girls, aged 15 and 11, not enjoying popular Brazilian musical genres such as “trap” or “sertanejo” was evidence of a criminal deficiency in their cultural education.

Even though the prosecutors in the São Paulo trial requested an acquittal after concluding that the minors were not suffering from any neglect and were demonstrating appropriate academic and social development, the conviction was handed down. It is currently under appeal before the Seventh Criminal Court Chamber of the São Paulo State Court of Justice. The Christian legal organization ADF International is representing the family, and it denounced the case as “a grotesque abuse of criminal law.”

Ya think?

Despite the fact that both girls are pianists with advanced training and are fluent in several languages, the judge accused the parents of “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the state’s involvement.” Julio Pohl, legal counsel for Latin America at ADF International, neatly pointed out the obvious: to be concise, the verdict is crackers.

“An independent educational psychologist found no sign of neglect. The girls themselves described rigorous daily education,” Pohl said. “The judge convicted anyway because a fifteen-year-old said she finds some music lyrics morally questionable, and because the curriculum didn’t include state-approved content on gender. A parent has been sentenced to prison not for failing to educate her children, but for educating them according to her own values. This is a grotesque abuse of the criminal law, and we will not let it stand.”

Let’s go through the occupants of Congress, the Senate, state houses and mayors’ offices and speculate which of them secretly (or not so secretly) would like to see similar “justice” in the United States. Do we even have to speculate on the how the leadership of the teachers unions would regard the Denardi case?