Government & Politics

Comment of the Day: “A Tragedy in the Czech Republic Reveals the Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy”

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

This excellent Comment of the Day (which I happen to agree with completely, though that is never a requirement for COTDs) was sparked by a statement by esteemed EA squid, Extradimensional Cephalopod. This seem like a propitious time to salute EC, who is very thoughtful on this classic ethics conflict issue, for alerting me to a Zoom debate on abortion held by his group, Braver Angels (“leading the nation’s largest cross-partisan, volunteer-led movement to bridge the partisan divide…”).

Here is jeffguinn’s Comment of the Day on the post, “A Tragedy in the Czech Republic Reveals the Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy,” which appeared here on April 10:

***

Extradimensional Cephalopod said: It sounds like you’re presupposing the existence of a person who is killed in that situation. I think it’s simple enough to understand that people live in human brains, and if a human body hasn’t developed a brain, that means a person cannot yet have started to live in that body. Does that make sense? 

Presuming the concept of personhood is morally relevant, then it makes sense. That presumption is the entire basis upon which the pro-choice point of view rests. 

Accept as presented the assumption that personhood is an objectively definable state before which there is no ethical alarm set off by choosing an abortion.

Even granting without dissent that most essential assumption gains nothing.

Existence preceding personhood — the interval between achieving that status and conception — still has precisely two ways of ending: natural cause, or homicide. There is no other option.

Continue reading →

The Résumé Bias Experiment

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) released this month the results of an experiment designed to measuring the degree of racial bias displayed by various large companies when choosing which job résumés justify further consideration for hiring.

Ninety-seven of the some of the largest companies in the country were sent made-up résumés by fictional job applicants, in nearly identical pairs with equivalent qualifications but bearing names that (the researchers presumed) suggested that the applicants were white or black, and male or female. Latisha and Amy was one pair; Lamar and Adam was another.

This week the NBER released the results, the researchers’ conclusions, and names of the companies. The study seemed to show that, on average, employers contacted the fake white applicants 9.5% more often than the fake black applicants, though this depended on the company. Those logos above represent the companies with the smallest racial gaps in hiring, based on the experiment’s results.

This was the largest such experiment yet, with researchers sending 80,000 résumés applying for 10,000 jobs between 2019 to 2021. The apparent racial bias seemed to spike in food stores, food products, freight and transport, and wholesale enterprises. The New York Times concludes, “The results demonstrate how entrenched employment discrimination is in parts of the U.S. labor market — and the extent to which Black workers start behind in certain industries.”

The Times also quotes Daiquiri Steele, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama School of Law who previously worked for the Department of Labor on employment discrimination as saying, “I am not in the least bit surprised. If you’re having trouble breaking in, the biggest issue is the ripple effect it has. It affects your wages and the economy of your community going forward. The results demonstrate how entrenched employment discrimination is in parts of the U.S. labor market — and the extent to which Black workers start behind in certain industries.” (Gee, what kind of name is “Daiquiri”?)

Continue reading →

When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring, You Are Too Ignorant To Work In Your Industry, or You’re a Nazi…[Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 29 Comments

Oopsie! Adidas was shocked..shocked! to discover that its soccer jersey customizing kit made the number 44 due look exactly like the symbol used by Nazi SS units during the WWII. That was, as you know but apparently no one in the chain of command at Adidas did, the brutal section of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich that carried out “The Final Solution.” A German historian, Michael König, first pointed out that the kit’s design was “very questionable.” That’s called an “understatement.”

An Adidas spokesperson insisted that the kit’s resemblance to the SS thunderbolts was unintentional. [Notice of correction: I originally left out the “un.”] “We as a company are committed to opposing xenophobia, antisemitism, violence and hatred in every form,” he said. “We will block personalization of the jerseys.”

Nobody in Germany found that design objectionable until a historian pointed it out?

Oh-oh…

______________

Pointer: Curmie

Hamas-Israel War Ethics Train Wreck Update: Biden’s Incompetent and Irresponsible Handling of the Crisis Defies Belief

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

I have long thought Joe Biden was an idiot, even before he started losing brain cells like a scalp shed dandruff, and the complete fecklessness of the 21st Century mutation of the Democratic Party has been brain-blowing for quite awhile as well. This sequence, however, is signature significance for an administration without any internal logic or ethical compass at all:

1. Hamas (a.k.a. the government of Gaza) launches a brutal sneak attack on civilians in Israel, raping women, killing babies, and taking hostages. The U.S. condemns the attack and proclaims its full support of Israel.

2. Israel, appropriately and necessarily, declares war on Hamas (and therefore Gaza), vowing that it will not permit the terrorist organization to exist literally next-door. The U.S. provides economic aid and weapons to the effort.

3. Israel’s assault kills Gazans as well as Hamas fighters, which is how Hamas intends it, because the Hamas tunnels containing war material and fighters is deliberately positioned under schools, hospitals and other structures that turn Gazans into human shields.

Continue reading →

Say Hello to Rationalization #38D, Yoda’s Annoyance or “I Was Trying My Best!”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I almost called this “Kaine’s Delusion,” because it was the junior Virginia Senator, former governor and failed Hillary Clinton running mate whose fatuous remarks made me realize that this rationalization, a frequently used one, had some how been left off the list.

Yoda’s Annoyance fits neatly among the sub-rationalizations under #38. The Miscreant’s Mulligan or “Give him/her/them/me a break!” the versatile rationalization that aims to duck the consequences of wrongful conduct by making others feel guilty about placing responsibility squarely where it belongs, by arguing that the miscreant isn’t so bad, isn’t different from anyone else, that he or she meant well, or that the critic is just being an old meanie. The closely relate #38 A.“Mercy For Miscreants, ” embodies the theory that there should be cap on criticism handed out to groups and individuals no matter how much wrongful conduct has been authored by them.

38 B: Excessive Accountability, or “He’s (She’s) Suffered Enough,” previously most often heard when a parent has negligently allowed an infant or small child to perish in a locked car, has recently been repurposed to defend parents who allow their kids to get a hold of their negligently stored firearms, killing others or themselves as a result. Finally authorities are prosecuting such parents. (Good!) Next we have #38C. Biden’s Inoculation or “I don’t deny that I do this!,” which is based on the slippery theory that bad conduct is mitigated by one’s open admission and acknowledgment that it’s a bad habit. This one is a close cousin of a two others on the list, like #19A. Donald’s Dodge, or “I never said I was perfect!” and #41 A. Popeye’s Excuse, or “I am what I am.”

38 D would have been 38 A if I had added it earlier when I should have, and not waited for Tim Kaine to make an ass of himself by saying yesterday at a “block party” at a local park in Dumfries, Virginia…

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Conservative Pundit David Burge, a.k.a. “Iowahawk” [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Burge’s tweet above was in response to the episode described by ultra-woke UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in the statement below (you can view Chemerinsky’s damning Ethics Alarms dossier here).

Gee what a surprise.

Continue reading →

Apparently the News Media Has Decided That It Was Time For Another Ferguson-Style Phony Racist Police Story

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This kind of journalism goes well beyond unethical to near evil.

Here are the bare facts about the death of 26-year-old Dexter Reed on March 21, 2024, after his car was pulled over by Chicago police. He had been arrested on July 13, 2023 and charged with felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Reed had also been arrested on April 20, 2023 and charged with retail theft. After Reed was stopped on March 21 of this year, he refused to obey officers’ commands, and then started shooting. One shot wounded a Chicago police officer. Four officers returned fire, and Reed died in the exchange.

Now here is how the Washington Post began telling the story, in reports this week with these headlines: “Videos show Chicago police fired nearly 100 shots over 41 seconds during fatal traffic stop,” and “Police fire 96 shots in 41 seconds, killing Black man during traffic stop.”

Continue reading →

That Arizona Abortion Decision…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

This story is straightforward and ethically simple. Apparently neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor abortion activists, nor the President, not the news media is capable or willing to say so. I guess that leaves it up to me.

When the constantly legislating Supreme Court of the Sixties and Seventies illegally made up a Constitutional right that didn’t exist—the right to have an abortion limited only by the Supreme Court’s arbitrary limit based on that decade’s belief regarding “viability”,””— in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, it stole away the power to make laws regulating abortion in the states. This, in turn rendered unenforceable a law in Arizona dating from its days as a territory in 1864 (Arizona didn’t become a state until 1912) that almost completely banned abortion. The law was still valid in 1973; laws passed by the territorial government were all grandfathered into the state statute book, and nobody disputed that they had to be treated like any other law until such laws were amended or repealed.

When the Supreme Court correctly if ridiculously tardily declared Roe to be the bad law, bad theory and irresponsible power grab by SCOTUS that it was in the Dobbs decision overturning it, that Arizona law was, as Dr. Frankenstein would say, “Alive! It’s alive!” And so it was. The beginning of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood et al v Kristin Mayes/Mayes Hazelrigg tells you pretty much all you need to know, though reading the whole opinion and its dissents in the 4-2 ruling is worth the time. The opinion begins,

Continue reading →

Rueful Observations on a Former O.J. Juror’s 2016 Admission

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

O.J. Simpson’s death this week brought back lots of bad memories—I can’t think of a good one—and a lot of familiar spin and dubious exclamations. One disturbing moment it brought back into the spotlight was the moment above, when in 2016, the ESPN series “O.J.: Made in America” showed Carrie Bess, one of the Simpson jurors, stating that her jury voted to acquit O.J. not because the jury didn’t think he was guilty, but because they sought “payback” for the police beating of Rodney King.

The whole exchange after the interviewer asks, “Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?”

Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90% of them.
Interviewer: 90 %! Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.
Interviewer: Do you think that’s right?

And the ex-juror shrugs.

Nice.

Observations:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The President’s Mexican Ventriloquist

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Over at Newsbusters, Jorge Bonilla argues that “the act of dubbing President Joe Biden in Spanish is tantamount to an act of election interference.”

He cites as evidence Biden’s interview this week about guns as aired on Univision and Unimás this week. Here is what the President said (so far, I haven’t found a YouTube video):

“The idea we don’t have background checks for anybody purchasing a weapon, the idea that we’re going to be in a position where he says that he famously told the NRA that don’t worry, no one’s going to touch your guns if I… From the very beginning, I used to teach the Second Amendment in law school, from the very beginning, there were limitations. You couldn’t own a cannon. You couldn’t… You could own a rifle or a gun.”

This is off the topic a bit, but did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? We require background checks for most gun purchases; the idea that “we don’t have background checks for anybody purchasing a weapon” is a false idea, and communicating it as if it isn’t is called “a lie.” Biden means that people making private purchases of firearms don’t currently have to get background checks. Then he again, as he has repeatedly for years, makes the absolutely untrue statement that “You couldn’t own a cannon.” No, Joe you could, and even lackey fact-checkers like the Post’s Glenn Kessler have called out this favorite piece of anti-Second Amendment fiction. Biden just keeps on repeating it, as interviewers nod their heads like those plastic German Shepherds in the back rear window of cars in the 80’s.

Back to Bonilla’s point: He says that listening to Biden’s weak and hesitant delivery should set off “Oh-oh…this guy is President?” alarms, but the President is protected from that legitimate realization when Spanish-language outlets dub his voice:

Those who watched the TelevisaUnivision interview of Joe Biden on Unimás (as I did, primarily) got English with subtitles. We heard the president in his own voice, speech pattern and mannerisms. We got to hear him trail off several times, and made assessments of his lucidity and cognition. Based on this feed we were able to speculate as to the efficacy of the (alleged) White House medical cocktail team…Those who watched the Spanish-dubbed interview on Univision were deprived of that perspective because of the stellar job done by the interpreter. When dubbed into Spanish, Biden sounds 40 years younger and without cognitive decline. The interpreter’s rich baritone, when transposed onto Biden, leaves viewers with the impression of a president far more vigorous than he actually is.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Is dubbing Biden voice in Spanish for Spanish-speaking voters unethical “election interference”?

Continue reading →