Saturday Ethics Round-Up, 3/4/2023: A Well-Earned Divorce, A Policeman’s Lot, Cori Bush, Murdaugh, And Donna Brazile’s Hackery

I’m seriously thinking about developing a cell phone users code of ethics. If so, I’ll need some help. I have a file on the topic, but I don’t use a smartphone or cell phone myself at all if I’m not traveling, so I’m sure there are many obnoxious practices that haven’t occurred to me.

Yesterday it was raining icy drops in Alexandria, and I had to run a quick—well, it should have been quick–errand. The 7-11 parking lot was packed, and three cars came into the lot right behind me, waiting for someone to leave. A patron of the convenience store came out and got in his SUV almost immediately, his tail lights came on, and…nothing. All of us waited, and waited. He wouldn’t pull out and vacate the space. I knew what he was doing: staring at a little lighted screen. (I confirmed it later when another car finally left the lot and I could park.) Asshole.

1. Only six years too late. Hallelujah! Kellyanne Conway and her mega-jerk husband George are finally getting divorced. A spouse who not only interferes with his partner’s job as George Conway did but also uses his connection to his partner to gain publicity and influence while attacking her employer is contemptible. I still don’t understand why President Trump allowed it, and Kellyanne was irresponsible, disloyal and incompetent for not putting a stop to it.

2. A harbinger of things to come. Austin, Texas has over 300 vacancies looming in the police department, with 77 officers expected to retire before the end of March to go with 264 existing vacancies, according to the Austin Police Association. The reason should be apparent to all: the outright hostility toward police emanating from Austin’s overwhelmingly woke wesidents, sorry, residents. The Austin Police Department is so understaffed, 911 calls are being redirected to the 311 non-emergency number “If you come home and find your home burglarized, calls like that are now going to 311,” said police union president Thomas Villarreal. “You’re not getting a police response to many property crimes if it’s not a violent crime that is currently ongoing.”

Continue reading →

Let’s Play “Guess What Party!” Today’s Challenge: Maine’s Anti-Cat Bill!

“Yes, all you intrusive government-lovers out there in TV Land, it’s time for the game show sweeping America: “Guess What Party!” It’s the exciting contest where our competitors try to guess the party affiliation of the state or national legislators by the nature of the bills they have introduced.

“It’s not as easy as you might think! For example, Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur filed legislation (SB 1316) mandating that bloggers writing about the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Cabinet or Legislature to register with the state. Bloggers daring to comment on such elected officials must also report any compensation they receive or may receive. Registration would be required within five days of any blog mentioning an elected state official, and thereafter, bloggers would have to file monthly reports on what posts mention those officials.

Can you say “Chilling free speech”? How about “undue burden”? Sure you can! Sen. Brodeur must be a Democrat, right? After all, that’s the party that is now actively hostile to the First Amendment (among others) and slowly but surely moving toward a totalitarian system in which thoughts, words, and personal liberties would be tightly controlled “for the greater good” and to ensure diversity, equity and inclusion. But if you buzzed in with that answer, you’d lose the round of ‘Guess What Party!’

You would have forgotten how incredibly ignorant and stupid that bill is! The bill is unconstitutional on its face, and if we had a competent education system, any 6th grader would know it. Brodeur is a member of the Republican Party—you know, the party so bone-headed that it somehow managed to almost get wiped out in the mid-term elections even in the middle of epic inflation under an incompetent Democratic administration that makes Jimmy Carter seem like Franklin Roosevelt. Brodeur is a GOP deep thinker in the great GOP tradition of George Santos, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Herschel Walker and Michael Steele. You better not leap to conclusions on “Guess What Party!”

Now here’s today’s challenge, panel….

Continue reading →

Idaho Student Massacre Ethics…And A “Hate Speech” Issue

Issue I: The Banned Subreddit. Above you see a posted photo of some sick fan-girls’s shrine to University of Idaho student massacre suspect Bryan Kohberger. On the massive social media site Reddit, a “subreddit” titled “Brynation” emerged after Kohberger’s arrest late last year for the murders of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. The Reddit group, which included women professing to be infatuated with the accused killer as well as amateur sleuths who maintained that he was innocent, had grown to more than 500 members before it was banned from the platform for allegedly violating Reddit’s Moderator Code of Conduct. As is typical with such social media bans, Reddit didn’t specify the exact offense.

Reddit can ban whatever and whoever it chooses; the question is when it is ethical to do so. There are too many arguably sick subreddits to list, including many involving fetishes, which the common phenomenon of women being smitten by murderers certainly is. At this point, Bryan Kohberger is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. I just heard an “expert” opine that social media outlets have an “obligation” to control and minimize “hate speech” on their platforms, which he defined as speech that could provoke violence or “harm” individuals, and cited Reddit’s action as an example of responsible social media management. The Fox News interviewer just nodded like one of those plastic dogs people used to put in the rear windows of their cars.

How is chatting online about an accused murderer “hate speech”? The expert’s fatuous (but popular!) position demonstrates exactly what’s unethical about the anti-“hate speech” movement on the Left: the term literally can mean any speech the censors don’t like, disagree with, or find “icky.” The participants in the banned subreddit were not doing anything likely to result in violence: has anyone ever become a serial killer to be more attractive to women? Thinking isn’t dangerous; talking on line about one’s thoughts isn’t dangerous either, or unethical.

In a purported democracy, the culture should lean hard in the direction of free expression, with all expression given a strong presumption of legitimacy. People like Fox’s “expert” do the opposite, and are working to shift our culture toward concepts of GoodThink and BadThink, with the distinctions being dictated by powerful corporations, Big Tech, social media, the news media, educational institutions and, of course, the government.

Weird people have rights too.

Continue reading →

I Suppose The Good News Is That I Encountered The Problem Of Academic Apathy Regarding Cheating Decades Ago…And The Remedy Is Still The Same: Ethics

In “Dishonor Code: What Happens When Cheating Becomes the Norm?,” Suzy Weiss writes as if students taking advantage of loose standards and professorial sloth to cheat is a recent phenomenon. I can assure her (and her readers) that it’s not. The example she begins with brought back nasty memories for me.

When it was time for Sam Beyda, then a freshman at Columbia University, to take his Calculus I midterm, the professor told students they had 90 minutes. 

But the exam would be administered online. And even though every student was expected to take it alone, in their dorms or apartments or at the library, it wouldn’t be proctored. And they had 24 hours to turn it in.

“Anyone who hears that knows it’s a free-for-all,” Beyda told me. 

Beyda, an economics major, said students texted each other answers; looked up solutions on Chegg, a crowdsourced website with answers to exam questions; and used calculators, which were technically verboten. 

He finished the exam in under an hour, he said. Other students spent two or three hours on it. Some classmates paid older students who had already taken the course to do it for them. 

“Professors just don’t care,” he told me.

The online wrinkle is obviously an addition to the mix, but I encountered this exact scenaio at Georgetown Law Center. My Constitutional Law professor, Nathan Lewin, gave the class a take-home, open-book, self-timed mid-term exam. We were to complete the multi-question essay test in a single session of three hours precisely, which is exactly what I did, dropping my pen mid-way through the last question. After I turned the exam in, I was informed by several classmates that I was a sucker. Continue reading →

The Horror. “You Probably Won’t Get Any Student Loan Relief Thanks To A GOP-Controlled Supreme Court”

That was the predictably partisan slant of Vox regarding the highly skeptical reception Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness bribe to young voters in the run-up to the 2022 midterms got from most of the Supreme Court Justices in oral arguments in two cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. But that’s Vox for you.

Whether the $400 billion treasury heist is Constitutional or not, it is definitely unethical to the core, and not just because the U.S. is already approaching—has surpassed?—perilous National Debt levels during an administration determined to buy votes and power. Responsible taxpayers are going to be forced to gift irresponsible students who took out loans they couldn’t afford, with many hoping they wouldn’t have to. Responsible college graduates (or their parents) who paid back all of their student loans or never got them will be played for chumps. This is the measure that Vox, and to be fair, most of the mainstream media, is representing as wonderful.

The legal and Constitutional disputes are closer than the ethical one. A sloppily drafted 2003 law authorized the Secretary of Education to address emergencies, in full knowledge, one assumes, that the party favoring brute federal power believes that “no emergency should go to waste.” The language of the law is especially dangerous in an era where much of the Democratic Party is is openly totalitarian in methods and rhetoric. The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, the HEROES Act (Oooo! Such a clever acronym!), gives the Secretary of Education power to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” to protect borrowers affected by “a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

Like all laws now, most Senators and House members probably didn’t read or think about the bill carefully if at all: it was a post 9-11 reflex. President Bush didn’t have the sense to veto it either. Now, thanks to the contrived “national emergency” of the pandemic, there is at least a colorable claim that the act enables the obscene giveaway. It might be stupid, but SCOTUS is supposed to decide if it is legal.

Continue reading →

There Is Hope! Chicago Voters Threw Out Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Who Then Demonstrated (Again) Why They Were Fools To Elect Her In The First Place

There are some really, really, unethical, incompetent big city mayors running amuck right now, but it would be hard to argue that any of them are worse than Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot. She easily won the Ethics Alarms 2022 award as “Most Unethical Mayor of the Year.” From that post…

Lightfoot moved slightly ahead on the pack after it was revealed that she asked teachers to try yo dragoon Chicago students into volunteering for her campaign, then lied about it, but this was standard stuff for her. In May, she tried to incite violence against the Supreme Court. She’s classy, too: Lightfoot took the stage at a “Pride” event–she is gay, after all—and declared, “Fuck Clarence Thomas!” But her forte is clearly hypocrisy, denial, and dishonesty, while counting on Chicago blacks, the primary victims of her inept crime policies, to support her anyway. No wonder: this year she suggested that blacks caught on camera speeding or running lights should  get a break on extra fines and fees, or  pay based on an amount proportionate to their income.

Continue reading →

Morning Ethics Collection: Farewell Black History Month Edition

For some reason, Black History Month and the corporate pandering to it have really bothered me this year. The streaming services all have special race-segregated categories this month, for example. I just heard a promo on the Sirius MLB channel with an announcer from a vintage game clip (the one where Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth’s career home run record) screaming that a “black man is now baseball’s all-time home run champion!” What matters is that Henry Aaron broke the record, regardless of his skin shade. Funny, I don’t recall anyone noting, when Barry Bonds broke Aaron’s record aided by illegal drugs, that “a black man is now baseball’s first all-time home run champion to achieve the distinction by cheating!”

Meanwhile, professional organizations felt it necessary to present programs like this one, by the New York City Bar:

The national obsession with race is a sickness, and only perpetuates division and distrust. It has to stop.

1. Ugh! More unethical web list misinformation...I checked out another of those annoying on-line “slideshows,” this one purporting to list the 35 “Best Movies That Are Actually True To History.” Some of the selections were valid (notably “Gettysburg”), but there are too many better choices than most included on the list to count, and one in particular was unforgivable: “Saving Private Ryan.”

My father regarded that film as offensively unrealistic, and wrote the military advisor on the movie to complain in a 20+ page memo. Details aside, however, the entire plot conceit of the “film”Private Ryan” was absurd, and an insult to General George Marshall. There is no way Marshall would have made the welfare of a single GI a higher priority than ensuring a successful post-Normandy invasion campaign, but that is what Spielberg’s film imagines. Furthermore, the letter allegedly written by President Lincoln that inspires Marshall’s crack-brained scheme in the film has been pretty conclusively proven to have been authored by John Hay, Lincoln’s secretary. Not only that, but the object of the letter, the tragic mother who had supposedly lost five sons in Civil War battles, definitely didn’t.

Continue reading →

If It Is Unethical For CNN To Continue Putting Don Lemon On The Air, What Do You Call ABC Allowing “The View” To Rot Brains Daily?

Yes, that was fake Republican Ana Navarro spreading the word that blacks and Hispanics get sent to jail for years for stealing a pack of cigarettes. “The View” is the most-viewed news and talk program in daytime television, and is run by the ABC News division. The ABC News division is permitting outright, flagrant false information to be communicated to its dim and ignorant audience by this coven of fools. They make Don Lemon look like Edward R. Murrow.

ABC, do recall, is owned by Disney. Continue reading →

National Party Ethics: A Pledge Is A Start, GOP, But It’s Not Enough…

In a rare burst of semi-competence, Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel said today that any candidate who wants to take part in the GOP’s first primary debate in Milwaukee later must sign a pledge promising to support whoever wins the nomination.

The measure is obviously aimed at presumed Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who has already signaled that he believes the 2024 GOP nomination is his by right. Trump is a threat to run as a third party candidate if Republican voters come to their senses and support a less divisive candidate before next year’s national convention.

In fact, he’s a threat to do that with or without having signed such a pledge. If his status as a human ticking time bomb is to be minimized, the party must also:

  • Make such a pledge also a requirement to run in any of the GOP primaries, and
  • Require it for Trump to be entered into nomination at the 2024 Convention, and,
  • To make the pledge on video, stating that it is being made to the American people as well as the party.

Finally, the Republican Party must bite the metaphorical bullet and arrange to have all primaries include a run-off between the top two candidates. In any herd of aspiring candidates, Trump will end up in front easily. In a two candidate race with a less toxic adversary, he’ll lose.

We are about to see how seriously the Republican Party takes its obligation to do what is in the  best interests of the United States of America.