Rights

California Apparently Doesn’t Believe in Following the Constitution

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is unethical. I wonder how the state got that way, and if anything can be done about it?

ITEM: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out to the state that its obviously First Amendment-violating ban on firearms advertising was illegal, and now California must pay more than $1.3 million in legal fees to the plaintiffs. The law was virtue-signalling to California’s gun-phobics; I doubt any honest Constitutional law expert anywhere thought it could pass judicial scrutiny.

Assembly Bill 2571 (AB 2571) prohibited “firearms industry members” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from advertising, marketing or promoting any firearms or “firearms-related products,” in a manner that is “designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” Wow, how about that statutory drafting?

Safari Club International and the other plaintiffs filed suit arguing that the statute violated the First Amendment by restricting commercial speech. They also argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague (Ya think?), a Due Process violation, and that it discriminated against a legal industry and makers of legal products. The rulings agreeing with them are here and here.

ITEM: Voters in California, according to a poll conducted by the Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research, support a proposed “wealth tax” on billionaires with 50% of California voters in favor of the measure and only 28% objecting to it. The concept comes from the Marxist brain of Bernie Sanders, who insists that people who resent other American having more money than they do should be able to just take it.

This scheme probably violates state and federal laws as well as the Constitution. The 5th and 14th Amendments block uncompensated “takings.” California’s 0.4% cap on personal property tax would seem to be a problem. The law also looks like an illegal bill of attainder, targeting specific individuals.

The California Communists who are pushing this bill seem to believe that the state’s billionaires will just be good little proles and hand the cash over. Gavin Newsom, who has no discernible principles, thinks the proposed law will make him look bad when he runs for President, so he says he’s against it.

Maybe all the billionaires, millionaires, entrepreneurs, companies and American citizens will abandon the Golden State to the illegal immigrants, shop-lifters, assorted criminals and censors, leaving California to emulate the dystopian Manhattan of John Carpenter’s “Escape from New York.” Surely there must be a less draconian remedy, but I have no idea what it is.

Update! “A ‘Great Stupid’ Court Case SO Stupid That It Makes “The Great Stupid” Look Almost Smart…”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The story that the great radio story-teller Paul Harvey would now tell us the rest of was the subject of the post below, from August 2024. As you will see, it made my head explode, but there has finally been a resolution, and ethics and common sense prevailed. Review the horrible case. Will voters really hand power back to the party that not only responsible for such things, but that still wants to establish them as our national standards? Really?

But I digress. Here is the original post, and I’ll add the recent developments at the end…

That crude, ambiguous drawing above got a first grader—we’re talking six-years-old here—suspended. That’s almost all you have to know for your head to explode if it is properly wired.

The Ethics Villains and Dunces are so thick in this fiasco you could use it to lay bricks. I’m almost embarrassed to tell the story, which I first saw at Reason…

In March of 2021, a first grader referred to as “B.B.” ” drew a picture we are told was intended to show people of different races, representing “three classmates and herself holding hands.” (I’d save the money the family was planning on spending on art school for B.B., if that was their intent.) Above the drawing, B.B. wrote “Black Lives Mater” (Latin!) with the words “any life” stuck in-between the slogan and the jelly beans, or whatever they were. B.B. then gave the drawing to a black classmate, as what B.B. testified was intended as a friendly gesture. But the classmate either ratted out B.B. or the principal was told about it by the teacher, or something (because school administrators don’t have anything better to do than to police the political correctness of kids’ drawings).

The school’s principal, Jesus Becerra, admonished B.B., saying that the drawing was “inappropriate.” B.B. was ordered to apologize to her classmate, prohibited from drawing any more pictures in school, and prevented from going to recess for two weeks.

Continue reading →

Pages: 1 2

The UK’s Frightening Warning On Cultural Pollution From Assimilation-Adverse Immigrants

/ Jack Marshall / 45 Comments

There are some cultures and some immigrants, refugees and illegal aliens that a nation has good reason to avoid letting into its territory. Islamic culture and Muslims are a blazing example. Europe and the UK are learning this hard lesson—that cultural diversity is only a boon if a nation’s traditional culture is nurtured and protected—too late. It remains to be seen if the U.S. will.

The flashing neon sign that the Mad Left will pooh-pooh, shrug off, deny or refuse to acknowledge? This:

Nearly 70 dog breeds in the UK could be banned under proposed new legislation on the sham theory that they are “unhealthy.” A new 10-point checklist of “extreme” physical characteristics will decide which dogs will suffer from health problems due to certain physical characteristics. The excuses for banning the breeds include “mottled coloration,” “excessive” skin folds (like English bulldogs), “fat faces” (like pit bulls and mastiffs), “temperament,” bulging outward-turning eyes (pugs), drooping eyelids, being low to the ground (like Queen Elizabeth’s Corgis) and more.

Don’t kid yourself and believe that this assault on freedom and family has anything to do with canine health. This an assault on dogs by Muslims, who believe that dogs are “unclean,” as Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a recent social media post. This led Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) to reply, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” In response to that, Congressional Democrats are demanding that Fine be censured, because, after all, tearing down American culture is part of the current party’s mission.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: No Applause, No Applause, No Applause!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Hmmmm…

In Tacoma Park, one of the most woke and wonderful communities in already insufferably progressive Maryland, Mayor Talisha Searcy ordered the crowd at a recent city council meeting not to applaud the various statements made by citizens as the council sought comments on a study regarding the city’s rent stabilization laws.

“I just want to make sure I’m learning about how to facilitate civility within a community,” the mayor said as she ordered the audience to “refrain from cheering, booing, signs, all that good stuff” as well as applauding. Many in the crowd were not pleased. When a spectator shouted that prohibiting clapping is “undemocratic,” the mayor delivered the stunning theory that “clapping for some and not all is not democratic” and that “we have to allow for people to feel safe to say what they feel.”

Okay, she’s an idiot, an ethics dunce, an expired hippie, and the most obnoxious species of progressive squish. These are the kinds of people,who demand that nobody at a meeting ever condemn even the most brain-dead idea because it might hurt the feelings of the dim bulb who offered it. Searcy is the kind of person who loves the passive-aggressive “I hear you” that usually means, “but I’m going to forget you ever said anything so stupid.”

There is no defending her claim that “clapping for some and not all” is undemocratic. However, I am interested in whether it is ever ethical to ban positive reactions, politely expressed.

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s ‘Islamaphobic’ Quote”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

[Apologies to all: I was so eager to get Steve’s Comment of the Day up that I forgot to add the headline!]

The historically literate, unrestrained Ethics Alarms veteran commenter Steve-O-in NJ returns to the familiar (to him) Comment of the Day podium making the case that Rep. Fine was not being one bit unreasonable and certainly not “Islamophobic” when he responded to a New York City Muslim activists assertion that dogs should not be kept as pets in the Big Apple with the quip, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

In casual conversation about Fine’s line (not to be confused with “a fine line” ) I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn’t feel he got the better of the exchange. One lawyer friend, known for his combative courtroom style, opined that the woman’s ‘Islam is right that dogs are dirty’ remark was such a metaphorical hanging curve ball that it would have been unethical not to hit it out of the park.

Here is Steve-O-in-NJ’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s ‘Islamaphobic’ Quote”:

***

Islamic attitudes toward dogs vary. Some think of them as okay to use as working animals (herding, hunting etc.), but not pets. Judaism also for a time was anti-dog, and I think that ported over to Islam, same as the rule against pork.

I for one have never owned a dog, but I have known many, and I think they are useful in a number of ways, including as companion animals. They assist the disabled, protect and direct livestock, find people (or bodies), save those stranded on mountains, assist the emergency services, and even tow carts with Christmas trees or other evergreen decorations (the Bernese Mountain Dog is the usual breed for this). I’ll take a large gentle dog or an affectionate energetic dog (little yappy dogs are not my thing) over a hyper-religious neighbor who wants to tell me what to do any day. I’ve said a few times that Islam is not compatible with Western values, and this is just one other reason why it isn’t.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Observation on the Larry Bushart Fiasco

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Do read this New York Times story [gift link]about Larry Bushart, a progressive Facebook addict who was arrested and spent 37 days on jail after being arrested on the theory that a meme he posted (that he didn’t create) was a “true threat” and thus a felony. He was held on a two-million dollar bond. I mentioned the case last November, but had limited information then.

Believe it or not—I can barely believe it—the meme above is what got Bushart arrested! Eventually the charges were dropped, but understandably, the 61-year-old retired police officer isn’t posting memes on Facebook any more, and is hesitant to express his contrarian opinions on social media. In a real sense, his free speech has been “chilled” by state action…state action that was unethical, illegal, an abuse of discretion and power, and mind-numbingly stupid. It is also a cautionary tale.

Observations:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The I.C.E. Endorsement

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Sarai Jimenez, a special education teaching intern at in Pajaro Valley School District’s Watsonville, California-based MacQuiddy Elementary, endorsed the presence of I.C.E. officers in her town in a comment on Facebook last month.

“Yay!!! We need ICE in Watsonville!! It’s been getting out of hand,” Jimenez wrote, as you can see above. But the parents in Pajaro Valley Unified School District, where 84% of students are Hispanic and, given California’s sanctuary state aspirations, might belong to families with one or more illegal immigrants, considered Jimenez’s support for ICE….that is, enforcement of U.S. law…unconscionable. Many complained, and Jimenez was placed on leave from her job in Pajaro Valley School District. It appears that she will be fired, if she hasn’t been already.

“You can’t just tell the world how you feel and not expect repercussions from people because of how they feel about I.C.E.,” local parent Jorge Guerrero said. If I were awake completely, which I’m not, I would compose several alternate versions of this statement with provocative substitutes for “I.C.E.”

Jimenez tried to save her job by groveling a politician-style denial rather than an apology,“I’m sorry that the comment was taken out of context,” she told reporters. “But my actions speak so much louder than all those hateful bullies’ words.” The hateful bullies are the ones who bombarded her with threats and insults until she took down her Facebook page. “You are a shameful disgraceful disgusting woman,” one critic wrote.

Predictably, though apparently not by the interning teacher, the school administrators sided with the bullies if not their methods (although firing someone for supporting law enforcement is a lot more harmful than insulting her).

MacQuiddy Elementary Principal Sara Pearman said in a statement that Jimenez’s comment “does not reflect the values” of the school or district.

Hmmmm…

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is it ethical to fire Jimenez for expressing support for law enforcement officials doing their jobs?

I think this is a close call. Some points:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Deranged Librarian

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I know I still haven’t written the promised post defining standards for diagnosing Trump Derangement. In posts like these, however, I am amassing evidence.

Morgan L. Morrow, a 39 year-old librarian at Jackson County Public Library in Ravenswood, West Virginia, used her TikTok account to call for the murder of President Trump, writing, “Surely a sniper with a terminal illness can’t be a big ask out of 343 million.”

Then she really went on a roll with this mad screed:

“If you voted for him, if you didn’t vote, if you voted independent, genuinely, I hope you get shot in the face three times at point-blank range or I hope you get shot in the back while on your knees being pistol-whipped. If any part of you thinks that I wouldn’t say that if I knew who you are? I have a pretty good idea of who you are, you haven’t hidden your ignorant villainy nearly as well as you think you have. And I said what I said.

This isn’t intolerance or woke hatred, it’s reactionary. You had a hand in what is happening today and I can only hope that one day you suffer as much as the immigrants, the people of color, the LGBTQ+ people have suffered for generations and how much mothers and nurses are suffering right now because you actually condemned them to this injustice with your vote. We ‘told’ you what would happen and you ignored us. In 2016, I was ‘fear mongering’ and even when they described it to you point by point in Project 2025, you actively made the choice to be willfully idiotic. No, and I mean NO amount of apologies or excuses will ever earn my forgiveness. You are as stupid and evil as your red cap leader and I hope you rot in hell with him.”

Pages: 1 2

FIRE Fights To Maintain Neutrality, Objectivity, Fairness and Integrity

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

I’m not sure that’s possible in this situation.

FIRE is in Ethics Zugzwang.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression bravely and admirably expanded its mission when it became clear that the ACLU no longer cared about protecting the rights of all Americans, just those whose political views it supported. Now the expanded FIRE is trying its mightiest to maintain a politically neutral stance while involving itself in the current rebellion against the rule of law and immigration enforcement in the “sanctuary” states and cities.

Stipulated: This is unquestionably the right position for a civil rights watchdog to take. I also believe it is a position that cannot be effective or even coherent.

The latest statement by FIRE is an essay on its website called “The Alex Pretti shooting and the growing strain on the First Amendment.” Everything in the essay is fair and accurate. Unfortunately, FIRE’s position is likely to get people killed, as fair as it seems. Or in the immortal words of my father’s favorite epitaph,

He was right, dead right

As he sped along

But he’s just as dead

As if he were wrong.

The points FIRE makes about Pretti are arguably legitimate:

Whatever comes of the investigation, this moment demands a reaffirmation of basic First Amendment principles that the administration increasingly undermines by collapsing protected expression into criminal conduct.

First, Americans have a right to protest peacefully. That right doesn’t depend on the cause or politics involved. Whether you are protesting immigration enforcement, the president, abortion, or COVID-19 restrictions, you have a right to go outside and make your voice heard. But the administration has shown a pattern of hostility toward this nation’s long tradition of peaceful protest and dissent, including threatening demonstrators with “very heavy force” and targeting universities and foreign students over protest activity. In September, the administration released National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which links disfavored viewpoints to domestic terrorism, notably “extremism on migration,” a term left undefined. 

Second, Americans have a right to observe and record law enforcement officers performing their duties in public. Government officials sometimes abuse their power or make mistakes, and public observation and recording are essential tools for documenting misconduct and holding officials accountable. Nobody has a right to physically interfere with law enforcement. But officials have claimed — incorrectly — that it’s illegal to follow and videorecord federal agents or to share photos and videos of them online. Just last Friday in Maine, video revealed a masked ICE agent telling a woman recording him that he was taking pictures of her car because “we have a nice little database and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.” 

The administration’s invented or distorted definitions of “impeding,” “obstructing,” or “doxxing” have no basis in the law and are inconsistent with the First Amendment. 

Third, Americans don’t forfeit First Amendment rights when exercising their Second Amendment rights. That was true when demonstrators opposing pandemic restrictions openly carried guns at the Michigan statehouse. And it’s true for those protesting immigration enforcement today. In some contexts, displaying the firearm itself is part of the expressive message. Threatening others with a firearm is plainly illegal, but legal carry cannot justify suppressing protected expression or using deadly force.

All true, and also, “Yes, BUT…”

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: the Narcissist Nurse

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

The woman above, a nurse at a Georgia hospital, was told to go home and not to come back to work until she got rid of her flamboyant (I’m being nice) hair style. The woman—I don’t care what her name is—claims that the ‘do is culturally significant, whatever that’s supposed to mean. She also claims that it doesn’t interfere with her job, which I would dispute, and that the hospital is discriminating against her race by telling her that is isn’t professional to dress up like an exotic bird …

…to care for sick people.

I think the lawsuit is a loser: I’m sure the administrators will say convincingly that no one, male or female, black, white or puce, would be allowed to work with that on their head. The woman is an exhibitionist. Personally, I would be wary of trusting any hospital that allowed someone with such dubious judgment and misaligned values to be charged with patient care.

Also, as someone whose week long stay in a hospital last summer featured being awakened out of a deep sleep to have some nurse’s head four inches from my face, the sight of that hat hair could spark a cardiac episode.

But hey! I can be convinced otherwise. So that’s why…

Today’s Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz is…

Is a nurse who wears her hair like that meeting minimal professional standards?