Comment of the Day

Comment of the Day: “Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Month: Zohran Mamdani”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Extradimiensional Cephalopod gets a Comment of the Day for making a good faith effort to justify Mamdani’s absurd quote that is also the essence of totalitarian reasoning. Here it is, in reaction to “Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Month: Zohran Mamdani...”:

***

“We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.”

This statement is stupid enough that I consider it signature significance.

Arguably, it almost makes sense that there’s no problem too large for government to solve, but it would be more precise to assert that there’s no problem too large for people to solve (which I happen to agree with, but even I think it’s beyond the purview of a politician to officially assert something so absolutely optimistic). Government is just the process of establishing and enforcing rules if the solutions that people come up with need those rules in order to work, or to protect the solution from interference.

Continue reading →

Ethics Alarms Threads of the Year: Reparations and Guaranteed Minimum Income

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Well, I’m defeated! Two rich and lively threads this week have produced more Comment of the Day-worthy commentary and more essays worthy of guest columns than I can possibly do justice to without them swallowing the blog.

I’m sorry. For the first time ever, I am reduced to linking to the post that sprung these exchanges, and sending interested readers to them rather than my reposting them all.

The first: Friday Open Forum, Halloween Edition. Last week’s open forum was especially lively with many topics covered, but the epic thread, started by Extradimenensional Cephalopod, began with “Premise: The United States institutes a universal basic income of $1000 per person per month, except for people who opt to remain in existing welfare programs.” Many engaged, including Sarah B, AM Golden, Old Bill, CEES VAN BARNEVELDT and Michael Ejercito.

The second: Unethical Quote of the Month: Un-Named California Lawyer. The most prolix combatants in the discussion of slavery reparations are jdkazoo123 and Chris Marschner, but there is enlightening commentary by many others as well.

Ethics Alarms thanks and salutes everyone involved in both of these discussions. They are exactly what I hoped to inspire when I started Ethics Alarms.

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Observations on Another Progressive Academic Meltdown”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I have combined two related comments by prodigal son commenter jdkazoo123 to make one, big, bang-up Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Observations on Another Progressive Academic Meltdown.”

The “great column” jd references at the beginning was not mine (humph!) but his fellow D.C. area prof Jonathan Turley’s blog post which I referenced in mine. The result is an example of the very best EA commenters are capable of producing when they are civil, analytical, generous with their time and thoughts, and have direct experience with the subject matter, which fortunately is often.

And here it is…

***

It’s a great column. I agree that there is to my knowledge no comparable violence on the right on college campuses by faculty. I disagree that there is a systemic effort to exclude conservative voices from higher education. I coauthored a book in 2008, Closed Minds? about ideology and politics in higher education. We conducted a nationwide random sample survey of professors. We confirmed that profs are even more liberal than they were 20 years ago, and they’ve been on the left as an occupation since the first scientific polls of faculty in the 1930s. BUT–the causes of the initial and the intensifying tilt are not a conspiracy, or at least, Occam’s Razor would suggest several other better ones.

First, folks who are on the right are often believers in markets. Folks who believe in markets are often motivated by them. Academia has a very low ceiling for money. The big money on campus is in administration and in sports. Some superstar profs (usually in hard sciences, but sometimes business or econ or every now and then something else) gets north of 180K, but it’s rare. And there’s many tens of thousands scrapping by as adjuncts, who would risk that? It’s far more likely you end up teaching 8 adjunct courses a year for less than 50K with no benefits than that you get tenure at a high paid place and clear 170K at the end of your career. My friends who went into business, law, medicine…all make significantly more than me.

Second–most profs are at public universities. In 1950, both Ds and Rs were for spending on higher ed. Today…in most states…if an R wins the governorship, profs get no raises for a while. We are not shocked when oil and gas executives vote GOP because that makes them richer. Professors are not saints. We like money, too. Finally, and perhaps most importantly–campuses are places where the gay rights debate was over by about 1988. The rest of the nation was still having huge arguments about this in 2010. Similar thing happened in the 1950s with race–profs got their first on racial equality, on average. The GOP doubled down on anti-gay in elections like 2004, and also allowed figures who believe stuff like young earth creationism and the divine right of men to lead, to speak at their conventions. This was smart politically, because there are many more believers in creationism than there are college professors, but when you take those positions….you lose support on campuses.

Continue reading →

Let’s Begin With The Comment of the Day, Shall We? In Response to “On The Axis Hypocrisy Re Letitia James, Tit-For-Tat, and Trump’s ‘Revenge'”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Either the Comment of the Day by CEES VAN BARNEVELDT on yesterday’s post on “tit for tat” needs to introduction, or I’m not awake enough to write one. I was just made nauseous by catching Letitia James’ shrill, shouted address declaring her self a victim of a politicized Justice Department. How does anyone that hard to listen to get any votes at all? I would rather listen to Kamala Harris until they hauled me off to padded room before I’d endure a whole James speech even once.

Ah! This reminds me of how most women in politics desperately need to seek vocal and public speaking training if they are going to successfully compete with (competent) men in elections without depending solely on pro-female voter bias. Don’t giggle, ladies, and don’t shout in a strident high-pitched tone! That’s the short version: give me two hours of coaching, and I might make one of you President.

But I digress. Here is CEES’s Comment of the Day on the post, Let’s Begin With The Comment of the Day, Shall We? In Response to “On The Axis Hypocrisy Re Letitia James, Tit-For-Tat, and Trump’s ‘Revenge'”(that’s clip #24 from the Ethics Alarms Hollywood Clip Archive above.)

***

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Unethical Quote of the Month: Georgia Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism”

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Tim Levier, by his own admission in a Devil’s Advocate mood, gifted Ethics Alarms readers with the a bold defense of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, the anti-merit fad that has kept affirmative action on life support quite a bit after its expiration date. If EA had such a designation as “The Silk Purse” award, this would win it. I applaud the effort, so here it is, the Comment of the Day on the post about an absurd word salad extolling DEI in Georgia. I may be back after Tim has his say…I haven’t decided yet.

***

“Diversity involves recognizing, including, celebrating, rewarding and utilizing differences of gender, race, ethnicity, age and thought – sweetening and often strengthening the pot.”

I don’t know what mood I’m in but I’m up for a little “Devil’s Advocate” today. Let’s give it a go.

I have many thoughts regarding the DEI space – but one point I’d like to make clear is that the concensus often focuses on how to measure and demonstrate improvement on a quantitative scale when DEI often, in my opinion, is more important from a qualitative standpoint.

In the rush to “prove” and “show results”, the drivers of the movement are seeking and promoting changes in outcomes rather than the root causes related to opportunity. In so doing, they may “move the goalposts” to arrive at a certain outcome. Reasonable people know instinctively that this is bad, as articulated in Charlie Kirk’s hypotheticals about adding white Americans to the NBA or whether black commercial airline pilots demonstrated the same skill, knowledge, and experience as their peers or were they a beneficiary of reduced expectations. The “rigging” of the outcomes complicates perceptions of DEI and creates negative emotions among the opponents of the measures.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Month: SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

“If it’s totally stupid, you don’t go along with it…”

—Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in comments at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., as he explained why he thinks the traditional reverence for Supreme Court precedent (stare decisis) makes neither legal nor logical sense

In discussions with some of my more fair and rational progressive lawyer friends about the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, several of them admitted that Roe was a terrible opinion, badly reasoned and sloppily written. This has been the consensus of most honest legal analysts since the 1970s, but never mind, Roe declared the right to kill unborn children for any reason whatsoever a right, so for abortion-loving feminists and their allies (including men addicted to promiscuous sex without responsibility), Roe was a “good” decision. But my colleagues who knew it was not just a poor decision but a terrible one condemned anyway, because, they said, it violated stare decisis, the hoary principle that the Supreme Court should eschew over-turning previous SCOTUS decisions even if they were outdated or clearly wrong, in the interests of legal stability, preserving the integrity of the Court and insulating the institution from the shifting winds of political power.

Like many principles, that one sounds better in the abstract than it works in reality, and Roe is as good an example as one could find short of Dred Scott. Roe warped the culture and turned living human beings into mere inconveniences whose lives could be erased at whim. How many millions of human beings don’t exist today because of the ideological boot-strapping logic of that decision, which bizarrely equated the right to contraception to the right to kill the unborn?

Reverence of bad decisions as beyond reversal is also a handy political weapon: as several wags have noted, stare decisus is mandatory when the precedent at issue is progressive cant (like Roe), but when the Left passionately believes a SCOTUS decision was wrongly decided, it’s time for an “exception” to stare decisus. In his recent appearance at D.C.’s Catholic University, where he taught at the law school until protesters against Dobbs in his classes forced him to stop, Justice Thomas pointed to Brown v. Bd. of Education, the landmark decision that overturned a well-established Court precedent holding that “separate but equal” was a principle that allowed segregation in the public schools as he neatly eviscerated the intellectually dishonest position that SCOTUS precedent must be sacred.

Continue reading →

Why Fake Ron Howard Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About, Part 2

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

This is the second of the Ethics Alarms commentariate’s critique of the smug and facile defense of Progressive World offered by “Ron Howard,” placed in his metaphorical mouth by someone who thinks that the popularity of the messenger is more important than the quality of the message. Sadly, the fallacy is too often borne out.

#2 is the work of DaveL, and it is notable for its succinctness. Part I is here. “Ron’s” screed is included in my original post. Now here’s Dave:

***

The piece as a whole tends to suffer from 4 main flaws in its thinking, all of which are related to one another:

  1. External locus of control: The piece refers in many places to the idea of the strong helping the weak, the wealthy helping the poor, etc. But it doesn’t ask where rich and poor people, or strong and weak people, come from. They’re assumed to just be. Some mysterious force beyond mortal ken makes them that way. Sometimes that’s the case – often it’s not. Which leads to:
  2. Ignoring effects of the second order and beyond: You want regulations to make things “safe”, but what does that do to make housing affordable? What does it mean for a job to be well-paid when so much of your earnings are diverted for the use of others? What happens when you make it more comfortable to be dependent, or more of a strain to be a contributor?
  3. Refusing to see tradeoffs: These things they want are often interrelated in a way that makes them actually oppose one another. You don’t get to have everything you want, only to choose where to strike a balance. Which leads into…
  4. Black-and-white thinking: You want housing to be “affordable” but also you want regulations to make them “safe”. How “safe” is “safe?” How “affordable” is “affordable?” One reason they can’t see tradeoffs is because they collapse these ideas from continuums to dichotomies.

Why Fake Ron Howard Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About, Part 1

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I posted about the “why I am a liberal” social media post that has been surfacing on Facebook and challenged the Ethics Alarms commentariate to dissect its rampant generalities, facile assumptions, and logical fallacies. As I wrote in the post, some previously intelligent people of my acquaintance have been reposting and praising the thing, attributing its authorship to Hollywood nice guy director Ron Howard. He didn’t write it, so this is a textbook “appeal to authority,” especially since the arguments “Ron” makes are flawed at best. They are, however, typical progressive talking points. There is no reason to believe the real Ron Howard has any political science or philosophical acumen or expertise, as he has spent literally his whole life in front of cameras or behind them.

Four EA comment stars took up my challenge, and they all shined. As promised, I am posting all four, each of which would make an excellent civics class topic, if there were high school civics classes that didn’t focus exclusively on leftist cant. (Are there any any?)

You can review Fake Ron’s manifesto here. Rebuttal #1 is by Gamereg; his numbered points correspond to “Ron’s”:

***

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “An Ethics Alarms Hat Trick!Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga) Earns Ethics Dunce, Unethical Quote of the Month, and Incompetent Elected Official of the Month!”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

This Comment of the Day on the recent EA post about the unethical, irredeemable embarrassment Rep. Greene is—there have been several of them—by CEES VAN BARNEVELDT is sufficiently long and self explanatory that I won’t delay your appreciation of it. Here you go…

***

Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a great student of history either. President Lincoln did not agree to a national divorce; he secured the unity of the United States at the great cost of 650,000 human lives.

Personally I am quite uncomfortable about the unity talk I am hearing from politicians. Unity is not an abstraction. Unity does not exist on its own; it has a focus, center, and purpose. Proper unity can only be based on a foundation of truth.

During the Civil War slavery was abolished, and after the Civil War the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment secured rights for the former slaves. The unity that Lincoln restored could only be based on the foundational truth that slavery is evil and has no place in the USA, and that the rights mentioned in founding documents of the USA also apply to the former slaves.

That means that if we need to preserve the unity of the United States we cannot skip the issue of truth, and after the funeral of Charlie Kirk simply go over to the order of the day. The assassination may have a similar political importance as the caning of Senator Charles Sumner by Representative Preston Brooks in 1856. The subtitle of the book “The Caning” by Stephen Pulio” is “The Assault That Drove America To Civil War”.

I do not intend to be apocalyptic with all the Civil War references, because I do not believe that we are there yet. And to stay within the marriage metaphor used by MTG in her unintelligent ramblings, I do not believe that the GOP is required to act like the battered wife who meekly returns to her abusive husband. So no kumbaya solution that leaves everything unresolved.

Here is the take from John Daniel Davidson from the Federalist today:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Dunce And Unethical Quote of the Week: Emmy Winner Hannah Einbinder, Plus Another ‘Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias’ Moment by the Times…”

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I used to follow up every Oscar telecast by chiding the Academy of Motion Picture Sciences for their omissions in the annual “In Memoriam” segment, which were often egregious. (How do you snub the likes of Harry Morgan and Stella Stevens?) I never did the same with the Emmys because I never watch the Emmys, but it has occurred to me that increasingly that awards show is more indicative of the state of American culture than the Oscars. Movies are going the way of live theater (Gee, thanks Wuhan virus!), and given the incompetence and political arrogance of Hollywood, it’s not the tragedy I once would have thought it was.

I found a special treat in the comment by AM Golden about this weekend’s Emmy Awards broadcast, as I saw an Emmys version of my annual Oscar posts! Here’s that Comment of the Day on the post “Comment of the Day: Ethics Dunce And Unethical Quote of the Week: Emmy Winner Hannah Einbinder, Plus Another ‘Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias’ Moment by the Times…”. I’ll have a few comments at the end…

***

Does anyone care about these awards anymore? Does anyone know any of the actors nominated?

As is my tradition, I skipped the ceremony and watched the In Memoriam this morning. I do this to grumpily catalog how many deaths were overlooked.

Continue reading →