What a Surprise. A Court Seems To Think A Democratic Prosecution Of Donald Trump Might Be A Teeny Bit Biased!

There are so, so many reasons a Donald Trump victory over Kamala Harris is essential to restoring justice, ethics and a healthy democracy to this nation. It is a tragedy, or perhaps a cosmic joke, that none of those reasons have very much to do with the desirability of having Trump as President for four years. Never mind: what has been going on in the U.S. under the false justification of innate Leftist superiority is frightening, pernicious, and has to be stopped, which includes appropriate punishment.

One of those reasons the Axis must pay is its use of the legal system to harass, hobble, and if possible to jail Donald Trump. The conviction for—well, something—in the rigged Manhattan trial is certain to be overturned on so many grounds it’s like a 1L law school exam, but the case still has given Democrats the chance to describe Trump as “a convicted felon.” The dubious sexual assault case against him (which only proceeded because New York suspended the statute of limitations so Trump could be “got”) let them call the Republican Presidential nominee an “adjudicated rapist” after another politically motivated trial. Then we have the Fani Willis Follies in Georgia, where a prosecution against Trump was derailed because an incompetent and and corrupt D.A. used the case to get her lover on the Fulton County payroll. There are a couple more dominoes to fall in the disgusting “warfare” campaign against Trump, but as long as he loses in November Harry Reid will be high-fiving in Hell, because like Reid’s lie that Mitt Romney paid no taxes, the unethical strategy “worked.”

Continue reading

Our Anti-Democratic Indoctrination Camps Get Slapped Down Again

Americans don’t appreciate the critical work on their behalf being done by groups like Turning Point USA, FIRE, and Prof. Jacobson’s Equal Protection Project, all of which would be termed “threats to democracy” under Joe Biden’s rhetoric.

This time it was Turning Point that stepped up. Riley Gaines, the gutsy and articulate former college swimmer who has become the de facto leader of opposition to allowing biological males compete as women against female athletes, was scheduled to speak at the University of New Mexico. The event was sponsored by Turning Point’s student organization on campus. The University told the students that they would have to employ extra security staff because Gaines would naturally be a catalyst for potential violence since the current mutation of student progressives like violence. (That wasn’t exactly what they said, but I’m acting like a journalist this morning.) TP-UNM told the University that it expected around 100 attendees and that the Gaines event would would last around three hours. It then received an email including an invoice that charged the students $10,202.50 to let a conservative speaker give her views on campus (well, again, that wasn’t exactly what the email said. It’s just what the email meant.) The charge covered the use of 33 security officers, or one for every three anticipated attendees, in the discretion of the university.

If your First Amendment alarm doesn’t sound after reading that, it might not have been installed correctly.

After the event, which went on without incident and minimal protesting, the final invoice that UNV delivered was about half the original amount. I’m guessing a UNV lawyer told UNV, “Mmmmm, I think $10,000 is too obviously a ‘Shut up, you bigoted conservatives!’ message. You might get away with $5,000.”

It didn’t. Turning Point sued, and yesterday, in Leadership Institute v. Stokes, a court struck down the UNV policy and its inflated, speech-constricting invoice. “Plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their overbreadth claim because the security fee policy does not contain limiting language that includes “narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards[,]” and it does not include anything to prevent UNM administrators from exercising their discretion in a content-based manner….,” the court ruled.

Good.

_______________

Pointer: The Volokh Conspiracy

Huh. I Wonder Why There Are No “Trump-Vance” Signs Anywhere In My Neighborhood?

Virginia is a so-called “purple state,” and even though Northern Virginia is Woke Central (Remember my neighbor who had a giant “Black Lives Matter” display in front of her house for almost three years?), there are plenty of Republican, conservatives and Trump supporters. And yet I have driven my car and walked Spuds all over the area, and I see only Harris-Walz signs. Why is that?

I think it is because Republicans have been intimidated. Professing fealty to the Leftist totalitarians who propped up a puppet President and covered up his disability, then appointed his successor while blathering on about how they were protecting Democracy, is considered proof of virtue. Expressing a contrary view risks being Dershowitzed and cancelled. I see the same phenomenon on Facebook. The vast, vast majority of my friends write the most fatuous, absurd pro-Harris propaganda imaginable, but the conservatives I know are posting pictures of their dogs and talk about movies and TV.

Continue reading

Assorted Ethics-Related 2024 Election Notes…

I’m cramming for a legal ethics presentation for a federal agency that must remain nameless, so posts are going to be delayed a bit. I have time, almost, to post a few quick items, as well as this one that has nothing to do with the election: We’re finally having a memorial event in Arlington, Virginia for Grace, my wife of 43 years, best friend, business partner and mots reliable ally, on October 12. A good freind is organizing it for me; I’m going to have a tough time even attending. Commenting on the laborious process of letting friends, clients and distant relatives know about it, my friend said, “You can pretend to care, but you can’t pretend to come.”

Meanwhile:

Continue reading

Once Again, Trump Is Being Skewered For Telling the Truth

Donald Trump handed the Trump-Hating Axis another stick to beat him with when he commented on recent polls showing American Jews supporting the Democrats by a 60%-40% margin. “I’ve said long and loud anybody who’s Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat,” Trump said. “If you want Israel to survive you need Donald J. Trump as the 47th president of the United States, it’s very simple.”

For this typically blunt observationTrump is being called, of all things, “anti-Semitic.” No, the correct word is “undiplomatic.” Another word is “correct.”

Continue reading

You Laugh, But This Tells Us a Lot About China

When I saw the story above last night, what I foolishly call my mind raced to two other related matters. One was the failed pseudo-sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda,” “Fierce Creatures,” in which the entire cast of the earlier, far superior comedy reunited to perform a John Cleese screenplay about a corrupt zoo-owner who, among other schemes, tries to pass off a mechanical panda as the real thing. The other was this story….

…from 2011.

Continue reading

“The Sopranos” Ethics

HBO has been running a documentary about “The Sopranos”‘creator David Chase. I rewatched his series recently: I wouldn’t call it an ethics drama, for the ethical issues are pretty clear in every episode with the possible exception of the psychiatry ethics conflicts involved in treating a gangster. That, however, is very much a tangential plot line. The series, all seven seasons, is exactly as excellent as its reputation, and Chase, as the creator and show-runner, deserves all the accolades he has received. I just wish he hadn’t stooped to the cheap and typical woke-speak that “The Sopranos” is about America, capitalism, and its decaying “dream.” Ah well. He lives in Hollywood, so I shouldn’t expect anything different.

But I digress…

As Chase talks about the series, however, a stunning fact reveals itself: he doesn’t understand his own creation, particularly from an ethical and psychological perspective. Chase keeps describing his central character, Tony Soprano, as a “bad guy,” “a monster,” and “a sociopath.” Yet the entire premise of the show is that Tony isn’t a sociopath, but a man trapped by his family background, culture and socialization into a lifestyle that only a sociopath can flourish in, and Tony has a conscience. This is why he keeps having panic attacks and is clinically depressed, and why seeks the help of a therapist. It is why he gets emotionally upset about the mistreatment of dogs and horses, and in many cases, the people he is responsible for killing.

Continue reading

Ethics Dunces: Rob McElhenney, Kaitlin Olson and the Hacks Who Wrote Their Material For The Emmys

I usually ignore the Emmys unless something especially egregious happens on this perpetually unexciting and predictable awards show. Even the current topic, the rude and unfunny jibes of two C-list show-biz types at the expense of Meryl Streep during the latest installment, isn’t a big deal, just a provocative one prompting several ethics musings on the state of American culture and society.

Presenting the award for outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series ( Streep was a nominee) Rob McElhenney and wife Kaitlin Olson engaged in this scripted banter:

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Sympathy For Really Stupid Accident Victims”

Sarah B.’s COTD on the ethics quiz regarding the ethical amount of sympathy due a 15-year-old girl who probably crippled herself for life by trying “car surfing” is , as her commentary usually is, clear and in need of no introduction from me. So here it is….

***

I don’t necessarily like blaming this on social media. I think that is putting the blame in the wrong place.

When I was in high school, a kid I had been in school with since first grade made a dumb choice. He killed two women by driving recklessly. At sixteen, he was tried as an adult and went to prison for two counts of vehicular manslaughter. I’m calling him Sam.

While no one can truly understand another’s reasoning, for those of us who knew him his whole life, the reasons for doing what he did were fairly obvious. Sam was one of two fatherless boys raised by their mom and grandma. The grandma, especially, did an okay job trying to raise him, putting him in the Catholic school, and holding to the old time values of respecting your teacher, ladies, etc. However, he never really managed to fit in with the other boys. In order to gain attention and acceptance, he willingly enacted whatever crazy idea the other boys conceived. Maybe it was bullying a girl. Maybe it was doing some silly prank. I was the target of a serious prank that was traced back to him when I was in fifth grade. He was in deep trouble and only avoided expulsion because Sister knew that this would never have come only from him. So when there was a rumor running around that if you drove down X road at Y mph, you could jump the main highway 3 miles east of town, it was logical that Sam would be pushed into trying it out. And try it out he did, with some of his fellows in the car. During third period, he T-boned two old ladies at the junction of X road and the highway at over 100 miles an hour.

Continue reading

When You Are Running For President, I Suspend the Julie Principal…

Kamala Harris’s tendency to answer questions with circular, redundant nonsense, known around Ethics Alarms as “Authentic Frontier Gibberish” in honor of “Blazing Saddles'” Gabby Johnson, was mostly left alone during the last four years due to the application of the “Julie Principle.” The Julie Principle comes into play when an undesirable or annoying  characteristic or behavior pattern in a person or organization appears to be hard-wired and part of their essence.  In judging such a person or entity, it is useful to keep the lyrics of Julie’s song from “Show Boat” (“Can’t Help Lovin’ That Man O’ Mine,” lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein Jr., music by Jerome Kern) firmly in mind, when she sings…Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…I’ve gotta love that man til I dieCan’t help lovin’ that man of mine! To constantly harp on something the individual can’t change ultimately becomes pointless and cruel, and hence unethical.

When one is a major party’s nominee for President, however, Julie Principle privileges must be suspended. When one is a nominee for President who was spared the vetting, competitive nomination process, debates and primaries every other major party nominee has been required to conquer for almost 200 years, Julie Principle privileges really have to be suspended. And when your strategy is to try to avoid as many unscripted, competent and unbiased interviews as possible before election day so voters will know as little as possible about you, Julie Principle privileges really, really, really have to be suspended.

Thus we must ponder how Harris responded to a question at a National Association of Black Journalists panel discussion yesterday, before an audience strongly inclined to support her. Moderator Tanya Mosley of Philadelphia radio station WHYY asked the elevated Veep where she draws “the line between” Israel’s “aggression and defense” in the Israel-Hamas war.

Harris began by saying there was “a lot to unpack” in the question (Translation: “Huminahumina…”) then said that the Jewish state “has a right to defend itself.” Since Mosley was obviously asking how Harris squares that mantra with her demand that there be an “immediate and permanent cease fire,” she pressed Harris for a real answer. And the real answer was…

“No, no, let me finish! It’s important to put it in context, which is what I’m doing, and I’ll get to that. There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. That there be an ability to have security in the region, for all concerned, in a way that we create stability, and—let us all also recognize—in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability in the region.”

Oh.

This is called “faking it,” and not very well at that.