Government & Politics

Ethics Quiz: The Icky Question

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Gwendolyn Herzig, a pharmacist who describes herself as a transgender female, testified in support of the gender-altering treatment of minors during an Arkansas state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week. The legislation, S.B. 199, being considered would prohibit physicians in the state from providing most types of such treatment to minors, including prescribing puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy, or from performing transition-related surgeries. (NBC uses “gender-affirming care,” which is both an oxymoron and cover-phrase devised by pro-transexual activists. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!)

At one point, Sen. Matt McKee, a Republican, asked Herzig if she has a penis. You can see the exchange above.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is..

Was McKee’s question unethical?

Whatever you may think of the question, Herzig handled it very well.

I could justify the question was going to credibility and bias. The other side of the argument is that it was needlessly embarrassing to the witness, as well as disrespectful.

I wouldn’t have asked it.

RETRACTED!: “5 Ethics Observations On The Woke Student’s Stanford Admission Essay”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I’m retracting this post, for several reasons. First, it is old, really old, and the source that led me to it for some reason posted it as recent. It does appear to be true, despite the April 1 date on the tweet. Second, some of my points are not valid if the episode was not recent.

This has happened to me a few times before, usually when I’m in a rush, like today. For the second time this week, I had to get my wife to the emergency room, this time at 4:00 am. That’s no excuse: it’s my problem, not yours, and my obligations to my readers don’t change regardless of extenuating circumstances.

My thanks go to sharp-eyed Curmie, who pointed out the error.

Oh—I checked: Ziad Ahmad is real, he’s still an extreme progressive, and he didn’t go to Stanford after all. He graduated from Yale.

The post is below for posterity’s sake.

***

“When it comes to college essays, one teen is showing that a short but powerful message may be the path to success,” gushes NBC News. “Short but powerful”? I ‘d call the stunt by Ziad Ahmed, a teenager from Princeton, New Jersey, something a bit different from that.

In response to a question on his Stanford college application asking “What matters to you, and why?” the teen wrote “#BlackLivesMatter” 100 times. Ahmed then received an acceptance letter from the prestigious California school and is bragging about his successful gambit on social media.

Observations:

1. Assuming that Ahmed would not have been admitted (even if he had solved the mysteries of cold fusion in his spare time) had he written “Make America Great Again” a hundred times in answer to the same question, this incident proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Stanford is using political preferences to cull its applications. That’s not a stunning revelation, but we now know that the school isn’t even trying for “diversity” of thought, opinion or world view. And, of course, Stanford’s bias is almost certainly the rule, not the exception.

2. “It was important to me that the admissions officers literally hear my impatience for justice and the significance of this issue,” Ahmed told NBC News. “The hashtag conveys my frustration with the failure of judicial system to protect the black community from violence, systemic inequity, and political disenfranchisement.” Oh. But the question didn’t ask him to express his impatience, however, or how “significant” he thinks the phony revelation expressed by the BLM mantra is.  The logic expressed by Ahmed’s statement to NBC shows a serious lack of critical thought, remarkable arrogance even for a teen, and his acceptance of propaganda as fact. So does his “answer” to the Stanford application query.

Yeah, I guess Stanford is right: he’s perfect for its student body. Continue reading →

It Really Is True: A Disturbing Number Of Elected Democrats Don’t Understand Or Support The First Amendment

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Do the voters who elect these opponents of democracy understand the implications of what they are doing in states like California, Massachusetts, Washington and, in this case, New York? I hope not. I sincerely hope the voters are just lazy and stupid, not genuinely in favor of curtailing individual rights.

Once again, a judge has had to step in and remind a government that “Congress shall make no law–– abridging the freedom of speech” as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. New York’s dangerously woke governor Kathy Hochul happily signed into law last December “The Hateful Conduct Law,” entitled “Social media networks; hateful conduct prohibited.” She had personally called for the law, declaring that “[o]nline platforms should be held accountable for allowing hateful and dangerous content to spread on their platforms” because the alleged “lack of oversight, transparency, and accountability of these platforms allows hateful and extremist views to proliferate online.”

It is thought control Democrats and progressives like Hochul want, and prosecuting those who “spread” ideas that their mob calls hateful and dangerous is essential to that goal. The law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(1)(a) defines  “hateful conduct” as

“[T]he use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”

Naturally, since the “beauty part” of such a law for aspiring totalitarians is that all-wise, ever-virtuous overseers like Hochul can decide any conduct or expression is “hateful” if they want to silence and punish the speaker. “Vilification, humiliation, or incitement” is undefined, but if whatever it is is directed toward an individual or group based on their “race”, “color”, “religion”, “ethnicity”, “national origin”, “disability”, “sex”, “sexual” orientation”, “gender identity” or “gender expression,” then it’s illegal. Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Nikki Haley

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

There was a time when I thought that Nikki Haley had an excellent chance of becoming the first female President. That chance is long gone, and Haley is 100% responsible. Her announcement as a candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination is just another bit of evidence of why she is unfit to be President and never will be one.

Haley has proven herself to be a hypocrite, a cynical opportunist, and devoid of integrity. It’s a shame, given her other skills, talents and experience, and it is certainly true that some have successfully reached the White House with the same nauseating concoction of qualities. Haley, however, is not in a position similar to any of those men.

Anyone who is going to wrest the nomination from Donald Trump—and somebody better—is going to have to do so without so thoroughly alienating Republican voters who still favor the previous POTUS that they would be inclined to skip the 2024 election entirely. For Haley, that metaphorical horse has left the barn and taken a  flight to Borneo. Her flip-flopping regarding Trump is so self-evidently calculated and self-serving, except that it hasn’t served her well anyway.

Haley told the The New York Times in 2016  that she would “not stop until we fight a man that chooses not to disavow the K.K.K. That is not a part of our party. That is not who we are.” Then, when Trump was the nominee, it suddenly was who she was, as Nikki accepted the invitation to serve in Trump’s cabinet in the prestige position as U.N. delegate. Ah, but she did it only out of a “sense of duty.” Haley distinguished herself in the job, and  when the 2020 election loomed, Nikki was all in for Trump, saying, “This president has a record of strength and success.” However, Trump lost, and Haley calculated that the Jan. 6 riot (which CNN still calls “the insurrection”) would end his viability as a candidate. So she condemned him, once she sensed that was the way the wind was blowing. She  told the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting, in her keynote speech, Continue reading →

The Great Stupid, SBA Variant

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Equity! Is there anything it can’t do?

The Small Business Administration, which  administered the Wuhan virus assistance Paycheck Protection Program, now says it will not pursue collection on loans that are  in default as long as the amount owed is $100,000 or less. In fact, most of the 12 million loans given out in 2020 and 2021 were under $100,000.

Hey, free money! Is this a great country or what? May we be so bold as to ask why this largess is being offered to deadbeat businesses?

The SBA claims that the decision to forego collections will ensure “equitable” treatment of  smaller sole proprietor borrowers and larger incorporated borrowers. The SBA reasons that if they pursued collections, the individuals associated with the generally larger incorporated borrowers would hide behind their corporate shield, while individual sole proprietors would be on the hook—-for the money they accepted with a promise to pay it back. Can’t have that! Right? If it’s theoretically possible for rich individuals to duck the loan obligation by having their business declare bankruptcy, it’s unfair to make smaller deadbeats pay back the money they owe. Equity!

The SBA’s Inspector General is not impressed with this logic (he must be a Trump hire), and reported in part,

Continue reading →

What Unidentified Flying Objects Tell Us About Unethical Federal Obstacles To Democracy

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Shortly before the U.S. military, flushed with success after shooting down a Chinese spy balloon after it had floated across the country’s air space, began shooting down unidentified flying objects with wild abandon, I happened upon “Into the Blue,” a 2003 documentary about the long-running UFO controversy. Unlike just about every other documentary I have seen on the subject (I wrote a book report on the UFO phenomenon when I was 10), this one, narrated by Ken Burns’ favorite voice of late, Peter Coyote, is not hysterical, nor does it destroy its credibility by going off the rails with conspiracy theories.

But despite my interest in the topic, what I took away from the film had nothing to do with UFOs at all. The evidence doesn’t prove that we have had visitors from outer space, though that conclusion seems hard to avoid. It does prove, however, that the “Deep State” is real, pernicious, persistent, and an existential threat to democracy. What is so frightening and striking about the documented efforts by individuals in the military, scientists, ordinary citizens and in at least two cases (as of 2003, the date of the film), Presidents of the United States to get an open and honest assessment of what evidence there is for the existence of extra-terrestrial vehicles visiting Earth is how thoroughly these efforts have been foiled by Federal agencies and bureaucrats with their own agendas. Not only is the Deep State powerful and sinister, it is apparently impenetrable, especially because the news media and those who benefit from having a shadow government wielding lies that advance their ends continue to deny its existence.

The serial horrible instances of cover-ups, fake investigations and calculated disinformation exposed in the film confirm that… Continue reading →

The NFL’s Offensive And Divisive “Black National Anthem” Pander [Revised and Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

Just because I wasn’t watching the showcase for the nation’s most unethical professional sports league doesn’t mean I wasn’t paying attention. The NFL truly is a blot on American culture, and its nauseating use of the so-called “black national anthem,” “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” is one more piece of evidence.

The NFL started its practice of using the song as a counterpoint to THE National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner in 2021, in craven grovelling to the George Floyd riots and Black Lives Matter, as well as sop to the NFL’s National Anthem protesters like Colin Kaepernick. It was a disgraceful suck-up to the large majority of black players in the league, and if 2021  were the only instance of it, the stunt could be forgiven. But now the song has been presented before three straight Super Bowls, and that means we are stuck with it forever, just like baseball is stuck with “God Bless America,” the redundant Irving Berlin song that stadiums started sticking into the Seventh Inning Stretch as a show of unity after the attacks of 9/11. But “Lift Every Voice and Sing” is even more beyond ending, and you know why as well as I do. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Alec And The Philharmonic [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

I did not know that Alec “Quick-Draw” Baldwin, currently criminal charges in New Mexico as a consequence of his fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins while filming the film “Rust,” is and has been the New York Philharmonic’s radio host. In writing this,  I am admitting that I haven’t listened to live broadcasts of the orchestra in a long time, probably since Leonard Bernstein was waving the baton. On the other hand, if I knew I had to listen to Baldwin to hear “Peter and the Wolf” again (Lenny’s rendition was big hit when I was 10), I wouldn’t have listened anyway. I can tolerate Baldwin in older films (like “The Hunt for the Red October”) before he became a public asshole, and in more recent movies (like “The Departed,” “Pearl Harbor” and the “Mission Impossible” films) where he is only in a small supporting role: he is, after all, a competent actor (like many assholes). In any other setting, however, if Alec is connected with it, count me out; the cognitive dissonance is too great.

The New York Post reports that despite the actor facing homicide murder charges (two counts of involuntary manslaughter) , the Philharmonic will allow Baldwin to keep his role as the famed orchestra’s  radio host and will remain a member of its board of directors. “He has been an incredibly strong person on the board, and very, very helpful and I think that will probably carry us today,” Charles F. Neimeth, a fellow board member, said in explaining the organization’s decision. “He’s been a strong contributor, both financially and otherwise.” Continue reading →

Dispatches From The Great Stupid, An Ethics Dunce Family, And West Coast Bizarro World [Link Fixed!]

/ Jack Marshall / 42 Comments

This story is so mind-meltingly stupid that it actually makes me angry.

I am not going to be kind. When woke delusions get this serious, innocent people are going to be hurt. That’s Jennifer Angel above, a small business owner and Oakland baker. She was an anarchist and extreme social justice advocate, as if anarchy doesn’t lead directly to injustice. I’m sure she was a nice person, just permanently crippled by living too long in California and hanging out with aging hippies. Jennifer didn’t deserve to die, and die horribly, but she did: when a thief broke into Angel’s car while she was in it, grabbed something and jumped into a getaway car, Angel chased the thief—after all, that’s what you have to do when there are no police, as Angel wished. Sadly, she got caught in the door of the fleeing vehicle was dragged down the street, her head smashing against the pavement repeatedly. She was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Angel’s family and friends issued a statement, and it is utopian claptrap for the ages. here is most of it, and when I can’t stand by without commenting, I will interrupt: Continue reading →

On Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s Procrustean Attempt To Make Abortion A Constitutional Right

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

That’s Procrustes portrayed above, in both of his favored acts of mayhem. I checked: I’ve used the term “Procrustean” several times here, but never was kind enough to explain the term’s origins, which is what makes it cool.

Procrustes was the nastiest of the bad guys the mythological Greek hero Theseus encountered on his way to killing the Minotaur in Crete. Procrustes would invite a weary traveler to take refuge for the night, offering him sustenance and a bed—but the bed was a deadly trap. Procrustes guaranteed every guest would fit the bed neatly, but that was because it converted into a rack, stretching anyone who was too short. If a guest was too tall, Procrustes just hacked off enough inches from the feet up to ensure that the bed would fit him, too. Theseus killed the psycho, but the word procrustean eventually entered legal lexicon to describe an argument that illogically squeezed facts or omitted them to make a theory fit the law.

I thought of old Procrustes immediately when I read that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia suggested after a hearing that the Thirteenth Amendment might have created a right to abortions. Wait, you well might ask, “How could an amendment created specifically to make slavery illegal, passed right after the Civil War, be construed to enshrine abortion as a right?” The short answer is, “It can’t and doesn’t.” The stupid, intellectually dishonest answer, however, is the one that the previously responsible female judge has decided to promote.

When the amendment states, Continue reading →