Government & Politics

Oh Look: The ABA Wants To Circumvent The Second Amendment (Again)…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

As a lawyer who has scrupulously avoided joining the American Bar Association (except when a discounted membership allowed me to feel more comfortable when the ABA invited me to speak about ethics at a convention), I found the recent resolution calling for the repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, (“PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903, consistent with what I now expect of the nation’s largest legal trade association. Over the last several decades years, the ABA has moved steadily leftward on the ideological spectrum, and signs that bias had made it stupid began turning up as early as 1987, when four members of the association’s special committee evaluating Supreme Court nominees found the extremely well-qualified Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, unqualified purely because of his conservative judicial philosophy. This gave Senate Democrats the ammunition they need to reject Bork, thus beginning the destruction of a crucial “democratic norm” that Presidents should be able to choose SCOTUS justices as long as they were sufficiently qualified and experienced.

You can read Resolution 604 here. Ten states (New York, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington…do you see a pattern?) have enacted “Firearm Industry Responsibility Acts,” and the ABA, being properly woke, is calling for a national version. The resolution purports to be concerned about a “small percentage” of “irresponsible” gun manufacturers who violate consumer protection or engage in deceptive trade practices, and wants the gun industry’s unique immunity from product liability lawsuits to be narrowed and reformed.

Because the latest resolution begins its arguments with the usual scaremongering statistics compiled by anti-Second Amendment activists—“Approximately 46,000 Americans are killed by a gun every year—approximately 125 people every day,” I find the resolution to be disingenuous, a “camel’s nose in the tent” tactic to make gun manufacturers so vulnerable to lawsuits that the business becomes untenable, and guns become so expensive that the right to bear arms is illusory.

Pages: 1 2

I Just Thought Of A Possible Ethical Justification For Another Silly “No Kings” Protest Today…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I have made it clear with several posts, including this one, in June, and this one, in October, that I yield to no one in my contempt for the “screaming at the sky” “No Kings” demonstrations. From the June post:

We don’t have a king, and Donald Trump doesn’t act like one. If he did (or could), all the obstructionist, partisan judges we have seen over-reaching to block his legitimate policies would be in prison, without heads, or on the lam. The anti-democratic citizens (and illegals) demonstrating yesterday are not the supporters of our elected President and our system that elected him, but those who still refuse to accept that election (or his first one, for that matter).

Nevertheless, a lot of my good friends, formerly thoughtful, rational people, are either participating in the latest iteration of this…well, let me hand over the floor to Otter for a moment…

A futile and stupid gesture! But three of them (or is it four)? I have measured these protests against the Ethics Alarms Protest Ethics Checklist and found the “No Kings” tantrums to be 0 for 12:

1. Is this protest just and necessary?

2. Is the primary motive for the protest unclear, personal, selfish, too broad, or narrow?

3. Is the means of protest appropriate to the objective?

4. Is there a significant chance that it will achieve an ethical objective or contribute to doing so?

5. What will this protest cost, and who will have to pay the bill?

6. Will the individuals or organizations that are the targets of the protest also be the ones who will most powerfully feel its effects?

7. Will innocent people be adversely affected by this action? (If so, how many?)

8. Is there a significant possibility that anyone will be hurt or harmed? (if so, how seriously? How many people?)

9. Are the protesters prepared to take full responsibility for the consequences of the protest?

10. Would an objective person feel that the protest is fair, reasonable, and proportional to its goal?

11. What is the likelihood that the protest will be remembered as important, coherent, useful, effective and influential?

12. Could the same resources, energy and time be more productively used toward achieving the same goals, or better ones?

However, I am considering whether the checklist is missing a possible redeeming feature of not only these protests but other protests as well. There is the possible #13:

Pages: 1 2

“MAGA, Stupid, And Believing An AI Avatar Is An ‘Influencer’ Is No Way To Go Through Life, Son…”

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Ugh.

I put this story in the category of “signature significance.”

Jessica Foster joined Instagram in late December of last year and in just a few month she has managed to become a conservative ‘influencer,” with a following on the social network surpassing 1 million. She is blonde, beautiful, serves in the US Army, and is a Donald Trump supporter who doesn’t go overboard in her posts. Here is Jessica in a stroll with President Trump…

What a pity she doesn’t exist. Jessica is an AI-created fake model designed to lure horny young men with IQs below freezing to Only Fans, the pay-for-porn website. “Public servant by day, troublemaker by night 🤍 i’m new to this, don’t be rude please 😭👉🏼👈🏼 btw i respond to every message, but be patient since I’m not a robot haha,” Jessica’s Only Fans bio reads, lying through her imaginary teeth.

Maybe she was designed to prove just how dumb a certain demographic of Trump supporters are. If that was the mission, I’m sold. Anyone who pays attention to any “influencers,” even real ones, needs to get a brain transplant, but following a bot-influencer because she has a pretty fake face and a nicely engineered rack takes a special kind of idiocy.

Well, that democracy thingy was a nice idea while it lasted.

The ethics of such creatures is so basic I’m embarrassed typing it. Putting a fake human being on the web without revealing that it (okay, “she”) is fake is more unethical than circulating web hoaxes, and almost as unethical as presenting a shambling, senile old man to the public as a functioning President who is “sharp as a tack.”

This scam is particularly diabolical because the Right can’t counter with an AI model of its own to attract gullible progressives. What would that avatar look like? Don’t get my over-active imagination started or I will have nightmares for a week.

Morning Ethics Nausea: Four Offenses

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

1. The Great Stupid won’t go down with out a fight! Especially in California. The University of Southern California canceled a debate among candidates for governor less than 24 hours before it was supposed to take place this week. The reason was that there weren’t any non-white candidates. I kept seeing that in headlines and couldn’t believe it. I just assumed it was right-wing spin, and really dumb spin at that.

Nope. Eight Democrats and two Republicans are currently leading a typically huge field running in the Golden State June 2 primary. The debate was scheduled to include the six candidates who were leading in the polls, plus an extra Democrat, the Mayor of San Jose, who has been raising a lot of money for his campaign lately. If he had been black or Latino, that may have saved the debate, but he’s just another white guy. Students objected, and the school, being run by cowards and woke weenies like most universities today, chickened out.

The controversies over who got a place on the stage “have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters,” the university said. And so rather than hold a debate that would help voters distinguish between the candidates who currently have a chance to win and maybe teach students something, the fact that none of the candidates are “of color” means that there won’t be a debate at all.

Pages: 1 2

Dear Fox News: Stop Running Interference For the President.

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

The accusations from the Axis media that Fox News deliberately avoided informing its audience about President Trump’s bitter and triumphant Truth Social post, “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!” are not quite accurate, but close enough for what passes as journalism on those platforms now.

The Fox News website and that of local affiliates published articles that explicitly included President Trump’s widely criticized outburst that was generally considered in the “too soon!” category, but the initial reports on the air ignored it. Fox News mentioned the death of the leader of the contrived “Russiagate” scandal at least six times on TV without ever quoting Trump’s remarks and the resulting backlash. The televised segments on Fox & Friends and elsewhere featured more traditional post-mortem tributes from figures like former President George W. Bush. I happened to see periodic commentator Brit Hume criticize Trump’s whack at Mueller as pointless ugliness that “doesn’t help,” but that was more than a day after the episode occurred.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Mark Twain Prize Mess

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Although the exact sequence of events is in question, the basic fact seems clear: Bill Maher was given the impression that he had been selected for the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, but the offer, or the award, or the honor, was rescinded by President Trump, who has installed himself as the overseer of the Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which decides which wits and comics are honored and that hosts the annual ceremony.

Maher is…annoyed. I don’t blame him. I don’t blame the President for not wanting to approve Maher getting the award either.

Bill Maher has been one of the cheap-shot artists who has compared the President to Hitler. He has made the indefensible claim that Trump is a hypocrite because he has married immigrants but opposes “immigration.” I have made it clear that I rank Maher as smug, unethical and lacking integrity, kind of like a stand-up version of Tucker Carlson. He is not half as smart as he evidently thinks he is, but is not without talent, not without career accomplishments, and on his merits, not unqualified for the Mark Twain Prize. Nor would he be the least justified recipient; that distinction would be a tie among Tina Fey, Julia Louis Dryefus and—yuck—Adam Sandler. Will Farrell was a weak choice as well.

The award is also permanently discredited by the many superior comics and wits it has snubbed since the awards began in 1998, such as Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Dave Barry, Larry Gelbart, Phyllis Diller, Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld, P.J. O’Roark, Joan Rivers, Robin Williams, Gene Wilder, Eugene Levy, Catherine O’Hara, John Hughes and others.

The Mark Twain Prize didn’t take a hard partisan turn until it honored Letterman in 2017, Tina Fey (who was chosen then primarily because she mocked Sarah Palin) in 2018, then Jon Stewart in 2022. Maher can be counted on to stand up in the Kennedy Center and insult his putative host, if not call call Pam Bondi a “cunt,” as he is wont to do. I see good reasons why the President of the United States might choose not to allow that.

Politics ruins everything now, and it may be that partisan venom has made the Mark Twain Prize impossible to continue. I would say that would be too bad, if the award weren’t already corrupted and arbitrary.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is...

Was it unethical for Trump to block Bill Maher’s Mark Twain Prize?

Addendum To and Ethics Quote of the Week on “The EA ‘Imagine’ Award Goes To Pope Leo, Who Should Put A Bag Over His Head…”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

The quote is from Steve-O-in NJ’s most appropriate comment on Pope Leo’s call to “ban” aerial bombing in his response to last night’s post, “The EA “Imagine” Award Goes To Pope Leo, Who Should Put A Bag Over His Head…”.

Steve’s comment begins with “This is an embarrassment”—it is—and ends with a declaration for the ages:

“…[T]he leader of the world’s largest Christian sect needs to do better than be absurd.”

Exactly. Pope Leo is in a particularly important role not to misuse by shooting off his mouth irresponsibly, because millions of people around the world assume that he has moral authority, more wisdom than they, inherent virtues, and a pipeline to God. When I hear someone say something that stupid, I assume that they are stupid, or posturing, which is a type of lying. That is not a good look on the Pope.

Steve’s bon mot also follows neatly on what I wrote in the post, which was, “The more revered and powerful the advocate for virtue-signaling nonsense, the more unethical such demagoguery is.” There is far too much of this flagrant abuse of position and authority going around.

Pages: 1 2

From the EA Trump Derangement Files: [UPDATED!]

/ Jack Marshall / 53 Comments

The above ahistorical, moronic and infuriating cartoon was posted by a long-time friend and—believe it or not!—a tenured history professor at Georgetown. I am reaching the end of my patience with once smart people deliberately making less-educated people stupid, and for the second time this week (the first was prompted by this Facebook meme) I couldn’t wrestle my fingers to the floor fast enough and responded to my Trump Deranged freind, “Now, you KNOW this is untrue. I know it’s untrue, and I know you know it’s untrue.”

And this is Trump Derangement! People who actually have the education, wit and critical thinking skills to reject false framing and imaginary facts, yet who nonetheless betray their own principles and integrity in order to attack the President. I’m hoping Steve-O-in NJ will gift us with one of his excellent historical retrospectives about how the United States was, at great risk to FDR, aiding Europe in fighting the Germans well before Pearl Harbor, and what the U.S. sacrificed in lives and treasure to indeed rescue Europe as well as that civilization thingy. We also rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan and have been bolstering European military defenses ever since.

It’s bad enough for a UK cartoonist to issue that crap, but for a U.S. historian to endorse it? Truly despicable. OK, for me, long friendship plus Trump Derangement and aging brain cells equals forgiveness.

Barely.

UPDATE: There is hope! My old friend the professor reacted to my mild rebuke with a “thumbs up.”

The EA “Imagine” Award Goes To Pope Leo, Who Should Put A Bag Over His Head…

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

How I wish he had sung it! That would have been funny and maybe entertaining. Otherwise this kind of pronouncement is 100% useless and insulting, while making too many people dumber.

Speaking to executives and staff from Italy’s ITA Airways, the first U.S. Pope proved he could be as fatuous as other Popes by saying, “No one should have to fear that threats of death and destruction might come from the sky. After the tragic experiences of the 20th century, aerial bombings should have been banned forever. Yet they still exist … this is not progress; it is regression!”

Well, if we could have the marshmallow world John Lennon imagined, “nothing to live of die for” and no countries or religion, that might be slightly less ludicrous, but only slightly. Now that I’ve roused those banished brain cells where I store “Imagine,” let me take a few minutes to run “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” in my mind to cleanse it.

There! Much better!

Pages: 1 2

MSNOW Revives Axis “Presidential Removal Plan E” In the Dumbest Way Possible, Raising the Need For a Similar “Incompetent Journalist Removal Plan”

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

It should be clear by now that MSNOW, previously MSNBC, exists only to misinform the public and make Americans more ignorant and divided than they already are. When I learn that a friend gets his or her news from this entirely propaganda-obsessed network, I conclude, reluctantly that this friend is now an idiot, and I will have to confine our conversations to, oh, movie trivia or something.

As I peruse three news cable channels during the day, hoping to learn something either about the world or the ongoing deterioration of U.S. journalism ethics, there are certain faces that repel me like opposite pole of a magnet. Brian Stelter on CNN. Hannity on Fox News. Literally everyone on MSNOW, of course, but Jonathan Capehart is particularly prone to saying really stupid things as if they were worth listening to.

On “The Weekend” this week, Capehart set a new low even for him. He was so horrified by the President making the quip about surprise and Pearl Harbor in front of the Japanese Prime Minister—standard fare for Trump, who enjoys doing and saying quiet parts out loud and doesn’t care who is offended—that he railed,

“I sometimes wonder, why are we not having a 25th Amendment conversation about this president?Because a comment like that, if it had come out of the mouth of President Biden, we would have been in rolling coverage about how Republicans on the Hill think that he should be removed from office for talking to an ally like that, and making that comment in response to a question from a Japanese journalist.”

I know I could spend all my time on Ethics Alarms pointing out the astoundingly flagrant bias and Trump Derangement displayed by members of the Axis media, but Capehart’s idiocy in this instance is epic. Let’s see…

Pages: 1 2