Today’s Unethical NYT Headline: “Democrats, No Longer Squeamish on Abortion, Lean Into Searing Personal Ads”

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

What an infuriating, despicable headline, though the story is equally bad. If abortion supporters—yes, it’s the Democratic Party exploiting the issue—weren’t “squeamish” about what they so indignantly and self-righteously support they wouldn’t have spent the past 70 years trying to figure out ways to avoid directly admitting what they are advocating. “Baby? What baby?”

The argument for abortion, that is, terminating a developing unique human life distinct from that of its mother before it can grow to be born and go on to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, has been, and still is, deliberately clouded by misleadng rhetoric about “choice” and “reproductive care,” the current dodge. Wait, how is that other human life in the equation assisted with his or her “reproduction”? Is it “care” to have that life’s own chances of reproducing taken away from it?

And what choice does the victim of an abortion have?

If Democrats weren’t “squeamish” about having to deal with those questions, they wouldn’t be trying (and, tragically, thanks to the abysmal level of attention, critical thought and ethical competence of the average American, largely succeeding) to avoid them.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: Regarding The Ohio Right To Abortion Amendment [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

In HBO’s “Six Feet Under,” a character in the midst of trying to persuade his fiance to abort their unplanned pregnancy is visited in a nightmare by his three previous aborted offspring at the age they would have been if they had been permitted to live…

I have another abortion-related post gnawing on the inside of my skull, but just as I was about to get the thing down in print, I remembered Ryan Harkin’s deft comment from two days ago, responding to Here’s Johnny’s argument that “given that we concede to government the right, in limited circumstances, to end innocent human life when a greater good is perceived (by some), why cannot we cede that right to women, in limited circumstances when a greater good is perceived?“ I had been prepared to point out that Kant (as usual, dismissing special circumstances) holds that it is never ethically acceptable to sacrifice a life “for the greater good,” and that the aborted human life would certainly have a different perspective on that conclusion. Ryan Harkins, however, had more and better to say, and did, in this Comment of the Day on “Regarding the Ohio Right to Abortion Amendment”:

[Notice of Correction: For some reason, I attributed this COTD to Null Pointer, who promptly alerted me to the mistake. My apologies to Ryan.]

***

In general, the answer to this is that government and individuals have different roles. Government exists to set the boundaries, enforce the boundaries, and exact penalties for the failure to comply with those boundaries regarding interpersonal interaction. Individuals cede that responsibility to the government so that there is an agreed upon entity to handle those interpersonal disputes, for otherwise everything becomes vigilante justice. Whoever is stronger wins.

The view of government we have is that because the strong and the powerful can impinge on the rights of weaker individuals, government intervenes to protect the rights of the weak. I know there are other forms of government out there, ones that favor the strong and crush the weak, or favor the clan at the expense of outsiders, and so on. But here we formed a government of the people, by the people, for the people, with the thought that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We profess that the government exists to ensure that the enumerated rights of the weak are protected against the strong. To turn and delegate the decision making to the individual returns the power to the strong to crush the weak as they see fit. It is anathema to what our nation stands for.

Continue reading →

Marilyn Mosby Gets Her Just Desserts: Permit Ethics Alarms A Victory Lap

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Ethics Fredo gets his second appearance this month. Ethics Alarms had unethical and incompetent Maryland State’s Attorney pegged for what she was—a virulent, ambitious, anti-law enforcement hack—waaay back in 2015 when she first became the darling of the Barack Obama-led “let’s vilify cops, especially white ones” mob, as she pandered to Baltimore’s rioters slightly more vigorously than Obama’s Justice Department had in the wake of the Ferguson uproar. After her politically motivated prosecution of four Baltimore cops in the Freddie Gray arrest failed, EA further commented, in 2016,

Continue reading →

Friday Open Forum!

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

Yesterday was the 85th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi attack on the Jewish community that launched the Holocaust. I found mention of the event rather muted compared to past years; maybe it was my imagination. However, it seems to me that the news media would have been doing its job to make a special point of reminding the public of “The Night of Broken Glass” (which would more accurately be called, “The Night of Brutalized Jews). May be then more Americans would understand why that catchy chant that begins “From the river to the sea” is just a bit more chilling to Jews than “Hey hey, ho ho, LBJ has got to go…”

But that’s just what I’m thinking about. What are YOU thinking about in the mad, mad, mad, mad world of ethics?

Ethics Dunce: North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls [Photo Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct differs little from the judicial codes of the other 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal judiciary. Among its edicts:

  • “A judge should …personally observe appropriate standards of conduct to ensure that the integrity and independence of the judiciary shall be preserved.” [Canon 1]
  • “A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” [Canon 2]
  • “A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, participate in cultural or historical activities, or otherwise engage in activities concerning the economic, educational, legal, or governmental system, or the administration of justice….if in doing so the judge does not cast substantial doubt on the judge’s capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before the judge…”[Canon 4]

Despite all of these strictures, Justice Earls gave an interview to Law360 in which she suggested that the justice system is racially biased, citing the lack of racially diverse clerks, and suggested that white judges and other court personnel discriminate against black and female lawyers. She also stated that her conservative colleagues on the North Carolina Supreme Court are more concerned with advancing the conservative legal movement than with their duty to improve the court system. She specifically singled out her own court’s Chief Judge, citing him as an example of “the general antipathy towards seeing that racial issues matter in our justice system.”

These comments to the media violated all of those ethics provisions above, and arguably some others. A lawyer violates North Carolina ethics rules by impugning the integrity of a judge (NCRPC 8.2), and for a state Supreme Court Justice to do this is infinitely more damaging to the public’s respect for and trust of the justice system. After that interview, the Court launched an official investigation to determine whether she had violated the Judicial Code and undermined the judicial system.

Good.

Continue reading →

Look! Intersex Track And Field Athlete Caster Semenya Is Back In The News With An “It Isn’t What It Is” All-Time Classic

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Let’s see: the last time I mentioned Semenya was at the end of last year, musing about what to do about another mutant in sports, Jeremiah Johnson, then a 12-year-old junior high school running back from Fort Worth, Texas who weighed 5-foot-11 and weighed 198 pounds, counting his facial hair. (I’m afraid to check on what size he is now.) The question is how schools and sports organizations should treat outliers who break all the rules naturally, and clobber the competition. Semenya, you will recall (we have discussed her a lot) is intersex, meaning that she has some of the primary and secondary characteristics of both sexes. It also gives her testosterone levels about 15 times higher than her female competitors. Though she has won many international competitions and set many women’s records (in the 400m, 800m, 1,000m and 1,500m races). A Swiss ruling in 2019 banned Semenya from international races between 400 meters, and Switzerland’s highest court backed the decision. To compete, she would be required to suppress her natural male hormones, which she refuses to do.

Writing about both Johnson and Semeya, I wrote last year,

“We can’t have special leagues and categories for however many gender categories science identifies and activists fight to have recognized, and there is no justification for creating artificial standards to eliminate outlier performers. The “solution” imposed on Caster Semenya—force her to take drugs that eliminate her natural advantage—is horrifying. How is this different from banging brilliant kids on the head until they have brain damage and no longer dominate their less gifted fellow students in school? What right do the sports czars have to declare an unprecedented, unique competitor unfit to compete because her, or his, unique qualities are advantageous? Why are so many woman condemning Caster as a cheat, when they should be defending her as a human being with as much right to compete as she is as anyone? Because she’ll win? Because it’s unfair that God, or random chance, or her own dedication rendered her better at her sport than anyone else?”

The unique physical characteristics of many, many other elite athletes can be said to have bestowed the exact same kinds of “unfair” advantages that allow Semenya to excel. The only question should be: Are these her real, natural abilities? If so, it is unethical to punish her for being born superior. Meanwhile, biological men transitioning into womanhood are allowed to dominate women’s sports competitions in the U.S. This makes no sense at all.

Continue reading →

Ethics Hero (Surprise!): Hillary Clinton

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Hillary agreed to go on “The View,” a guaranteed friendly forum but also a den of morons, and, apparently off the cuff, gave a clear, coherent explanation for why the pro-Hamas postures of many in her own party are ignorant and ethically wrong. The only aspect of her explanation that I would fault is her not making it plain that Hamas “took over” Gaza because the population wanted it to., and thus she does not counter the fatuous “innocent Gazans” talking point.

I also give her credit for explaining why Barack Obama, worshipfully cited by peak idiot Sunny Hostin as if his despicable comments on the war were profound rather than fatuous and facile, was in fact full of it while nodding her head and pretending to agree with her ex-boss. She makes it clear (except maybe to the idiots she is talking to) that he is dead wrong. “We’re all accountable to history,” is brilliant doubletalk, absolutely meaningless but diplomatic.

Yes, yes, Hillary dutifully gives lip-service to a future “two-state solution.” It’s about on par with singing “Imagine,” annoying, but forgivable. There’s nothing wrong with saying you want impossible things, as long as you know they’re impossible.

Amidst The Madness And Rot, One Promise Of Hope…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Behold:

1. In Ohio, over 2 million voters put their approval on an official guarantee of abortion rights, deceptively defined in the language of the amendment as “reproductive medical treatment” as if that is the only feature of abortions that matters. This was done, paradoxically enough, even as the pro-Hamas demonstrations and rhetoric coast to coast evoke shadows of the Holocaust, and as the approved measure endorses the approximately one million human lives that will be destroyed by “reproductive medical treatment” this year.

Not one of those voters in Ohio could prevail in a genuine debate of the ethics of abortion. Meanwhile, millions more Ohioans who would profess to finding abortion immoral and unconscionable didn’t care enough about those million aborted lives to bother to vote.

Continue reading →

Unethical Quote Of The Month: Nikki Haley

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

“You’re just scum.”

—-GOP Presidential nominee hopeful Nikki Haley, taking her feud with debate troll Vivek Ramaswamy to the next, uncivil, level in last night’s debate.

Nice. I suppose this is a victory for feminism, as the first Presidential candidate debate participant to resort to direct personal insults is a woman. Yay! I knew they could do it! Prior to this, the limits of what had been considered over-the-line personal denigration had been Barack Obama’s snotty “You’re likable enough” faint-praise shot at Hillary Clinton, and, though technically a Vice-Presidential debate, Lloyd Bentsen hitting Sen. Dan Quayle below the metaphorical belt by saying that he was “no Jack Kennedy.”

Ramaswamy and Haley have been spitting criticism at each other from the first debate, but when the tech entrepreneur accused the former South Carolina governor of hypocrisy for criticizing his having a TikTok account while her adult daughter also uses the the platform, the feud escalated quickly.

“She made fun of me for actually joining TikTok while her own daughter was actually using the app for a long time,” Ramaswamy said. “So you might want to take care of your family first before preaching to anyone else.”

“Leave my daughter out of your voice!” Haley said, doing her best imitation of Will Smith after he slapped Chris Rock at the Academy Awards. When her derivative line prompted a few claps after his remark had sparked some boos, Ramaswamy added, “You have her supporters propping her up — that’s fine.”

“You’re just scum,” Haley responded wittily.

Nice. Be proud, Republicans! It was only moral luck that we were not treated to an ensuing exchange of,

“Bitch!”

“Asshole!”

“Slut!”

“Dickweed!”

Continue reading →

Political Cartoon Ethics: The Washington Post Apologizes For Being Mean To Terrorists

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Long-time readers here know that I believe political cartooning has outlived its usefulness, and now, not all the time but most of the time, such cartoons on editorial pages of newspapers are just excuses to make misleading generalizations with which the cartoonist, who typically has the political sophistication and depth of comprehension of your average rioter, grossly exaggerates one crude point, usually using gross stereotypes, in a manner that could only be amusing to a partisan. Political cartoonists virtually always rely on reader bias as their sharpest hook.

The cartoon above, by Las Vegas Review and Journal editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez, was published in the Washington Post. I was shocked to see an editorial cartoon that a current day Republican would applaud. The Post’s grotesquely unfair, hyper-partisan (guess which party) political cartoons have been a regular feature of the paper since I was a child. For decades, Democrat ideologue Herb Block was regarded as brilliant by using such lazy cliches as portraying conservatives as cavemen and “big business” as a fat white guys puffing on cigars. Naturally, Block regularly won Pulitzer Prizes for this juvenile junk, which was usually about as objectively funny as a “Kick Me!” sign, like this witty example…

Later, a succession of Block’s successors at the Post were equally restrained; here’s how Tom Toles portrayed the President of the United States:

Continue reading →