Weaponizing Climate Change Hysteria For Political Gain, Part 2

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Ethics Alarms usually avoids the familiar fake news clickbait approach of discussing what might happen, what a President is allegedly considering doing, or worst case scenarios. In this instance, however, I will make an exception.

The reason is evident above. The Biden Administration increasingly is accessing totalitarian strategies and rhetoric. One of its favored abuses of power is weaponizing the climate change hysteria being spread by that cult. There has been rampant speculation that President Biden will use climate change to declare a “national emergency” under the 1976 National Emergencies Act. I view such a move as, first, inevitable with the current Democratic Party, and second, an existential threat to democracy that requires an effective and decisive counter-response, ranging from legal challenges to organized public protests. It’s time—past time, really—to start planning.

John Kerry, the special presidential climate envoy who flies around the world in a jet to tell conferences about the perils of carbon pollution, told the New York Times last week that the debate within the administration isn’t about whether a “climate change emergency” should be declared, but when. Biden, meanwhile, Biden told reporters on July 20, “As president, I have a responsibility to act with urgency and resolve when our nation faces clear and present danger. And that’s what climate change is about. It is literally, not figuratively, a clear and present danger.”

I would view Biden’s invoking of the National Emergency Act as the equivalent of illicitly declaring martial law as a means to dictatorial power. As the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice explains, the purpose of the law is “to temporarily enhance executive power during unexpected crises that are moving too fast for Congress to respond.” By that definition, it is ridiculous to call “climate change” an emergency, and Biden rhetoric, as usual, suggests that he is either misleading the public, doesn’t understand what he’s talking about, or both.

By declaring a climate emergency, Biden, meaning the climate change-deranged Democratic Party, could halt crude oil exports, suspend offshore oil and gas drilling, restrict international trade in fossil fuels, order the construction of renewable energy systems in “climate-vulnerable communities,” and use Defense Production Act (DPA) funds to advance the use of “clean energy” technology, like electric cars, which don’t really help the situation at all. Biden could also halt hundreds of billions of dollars in international fossil-fuel financing.

Continue reading →

Nice Try, Columbia! (Well, Not Really…)

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Universities and colleges have made it pretty clear so far that they fully intend to continue to engage in “good racial discrimination” in admissions despite the Supreme Court finally declaring affirmative action what it is and has always been: unfair, illegal and unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion in the Harvard and University of North Carolina cases, inadvertently (or not) gave the green light for this: he noted that a black applicant could still get an edge by signalling his or her diverse “experiences” and exemplary character in the face of adversity by writing an essay about dealing with the traumas of racism. Now administrators know they can favor black applicants over white and Asians (who can be seen above at Harvard demonstrating for discrimination against themselves) on the basis of race if they’re clever enough about it.

This wasn’t clever enough: Columbia Law School’s admissions page on its website this week announced that “all applicants” had to submit a 90 second video answering a “question chosen at random.” You know, like “What race am I?” The requirement was supposedly intended to “allow applicants to provide the Admissions Committee with additional insight into their personal strengths and academic or other achievements.”

All it took was a wave of critical social media posts flagging Columbia’s lame trick to persuade the law school that it needs to come up with something else. The video requirement didn’t even last the day.

A spokesperson told reporters that the video statement requirement was “posted in error.”

Sure.

Another Unlikely Ethics Problem From “The Affair”

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

This one isn’t an ethics quiz; I know the answer. Maybe you’ll disagree.

In the final, 5th season of Showtime’s Chaos Theory and ethics series “The Affair,” the ethics carnage radiating from the now over-and-done-marriage-destroying tryst between Alison and Noah is still powerful. Alison is dead (murdered); Noah is out for prison, and teaching at a charter school in LA. His first wife and kids are also in LA, having followed her new, reliable, loving partner Vik, a surgeon, to a new post at a prestigious hospital.

But Vik is diagnosed with Stage 4 pancreatic cancer. He knows it’s incurable, and stubbornly refuses treatment. Asked by Helen, Noah’s wife before “The Affair,” what she can do, he answers, “Have my baby.” (That’s a selfish request, but it’s a different issue). Overwhelmed by self-pity, the prospect of impending death, and a “why me?” mood, plus being drunk and depressed after learning that Helen can’t have any more children at 50, Vik falls into bed with Sierra (above), a New Age, moon-ring, crystal-loving, 20-year-old woman-child hippie idiot next door. SHE gets pregnant as a result, and decides to keep the baby.

Helen learns about this as her crypto-husband (they never formally wed) is on his death bed. Later, after promising Vik, Helen tells Sierra that she will do what she can to help her with her now deceased sort-of husband’s offspring, because he so wanted to have a piece of himself live on, or something.

Now it’s nine months later. Sierra, an aspiring actress with IQ of a sponge, has invited about 20 New Age friends into her home to witness the birth of her child, “naturally,” in her living room. They romp around chanting, toking and dancing with funny things on their heads. Meanwhile, Sierra has been in labor for 24 hours, and a woman who may or may not be a trained midwife is telling her that her “negative energy” is keeping the baby from feeling welcome and other nonsense.

Sierra is exhausted and in pain. Helen shows up and Sierra shouts out that she can’t stand the pain and wants to go to the hospital. The acting midwife says that this is typical of first-time mothers under the influence of “negative energy,” and that Sierra doesn’t mean it. Helen is worried about the baby and Sierra.

What should she do?

Continue reading →

Weaponizing Climate Change Hysteria For Political Gain, Part I

/ Jack Marshall / 38 Comments

Apparently, the political left has no ethics alarms whatsoever when it sees an opportunity to gain crushing power. That’s the unavoidable message conveyed by two ominous developments—both so far only portending possible real world consequences while expressing Democratic Party aspirations of overwhelming dominance—regarding climate change fearmongering.

First, we learned that four Democratic Senators, the Marxist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat (and you know what that means) Jeff Merkley from Oregon, which is as at least as wokified as Mass., and Native American Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to sue the fossil fuel industry. “Big oil has known for decades that they are fueling the climate crisis and lied to hide it,” Markey tweeted. “Now, we’re seeing record-breaking temperatures and unprecedented damage. We must hold them accountable for their misleading, unforgivable campaigning.”

Typical: Markey issues misleading public statements while saying that the oil industry is guilty of misleading the public. 1) There are no “record-breaking temperatures” because there’s no way to tell what the records are. This Big Lie all by itself marks Markey as science dunce and a climate change propaganda hack. NASA has repeatedly said that it is impossible to determine global temperatures with sufficient accuracy to declare “records” before methods of measurement existed. 2) “Unprecedented damage” is meaningless gibberish. 3) Oil companies have every right to protect their business and serving the public interest by countering purely speculative and politically motivated doomsday lobbying by irresponsible activists.

Continue reading →

In Which I Check On My Old Home Sweet Home And Discover That Massachusetts Has Finally Gone Nuts….

/ Jack Marshall / 37 Comments

The toxic wokism that oozes out of Harvard and the other educational institutions in the Bay State have finally infected Massachusetts to the point where the it is too deranged even for the long-time Democratic Party’s mouthpiece, the Boston Globe. The propaganda rag that hasn’t endorsed a Republican President since… hmmmm, never, actually, though it has occasionally endorsed Republicans for governor if they sounded and acted like Democrats…issued an editorial this week headlined, “Massachusetts can’t handle the influx of migrants on its own.” Good ol’ Globe: it can’t stop spinning for the Left even when its criticizing it. The issue is illegal immigrants, not “migrants.” And it’s not an influx: it’s a completely predictable occupation in response to persistent invitations.

Two days ago, the Legislature passed a bill granting in-state tuition at public colleges for all illegal immigrants who graduate from Massachusetts high schools, where they shouldn’t be allowed to attend in the first place. State Rep. Paul Frost, a Republican, rose to make the obvious critical observation about the measure, saying, “This is another incentive to encourage more illegal immigration to the Commonwealth, that the taxpayers and the residents of Massachusetts will have to subsidize.”

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “I’m Sick Of Hearing These Arguments That College Admissions Favor The Wealthy And Privileged…”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Humble Talent has provided a nicely provocative snapshot of the frustrating and weird state of the quest for fair college admissions. Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “I’m Sick Of Hearing These Arguments That College Admissions Favor The Wealthy And Privileged Because The Problem Is Easy To Fix. So Fix It.” (It also touches on the “disparate impact” scam, discussed here in another context.)

***

What I have trouble dealing with is how incoherent some of the positions some of the people are taking are.

Legacy admissions are a great example. We all know why they’re happening: Legacy admissions are a great way of enticing future philanthropy out of donor parents. While I’m sure there are some racists in admissions, that’s financially driven, not racially driven. But we pretend it’s a racial issue because of disparate impact.

In fact, we’re supposed to pretend that legacy admissions are a resource of white supremacy, despite the fact that legacy admissions are almost perfectly proportionate, at least for white applicants (hovering very close to 70%). I don’t know about you, but if I were designing a system that was supposed to privilege my race over others, I might devise a system where my race isn’t almost perfectly proportionately treated.

Continue reading →

Now THESE Are Unethical (California) Lawyers…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Famed California trial attorney Tom Girardi was accused of stealing more than $18 million from clients; I was late to the metaphorical party, not covering the long-running ethics scandal until a month ago. (Sorry.)The State Bar of California had opened 205 disciplinary investigations in 40 years against Girardi, but he ducked accountability until the very end, in part because of pay-offs to bar staff.

One of several new regulations designed to prevent future Girardis is the Client Trust Account Protection Program. That requires the state’s lawyers to report whether they are responsible for client trust accounts, to provide basic account information, to complete an annual self-assessment, and to certify that they comply with ethics rules related to safeguarding client funds. The point, of course, is to stop lawyers from stealing from their clients. There are a lot of unethical practices lawyers get away with, but not taking proper care of client funds is supposed to be the third rail of lawyer misconduct.

The deadline for compliance with Client Trust Account Protection Program was April 3, 2023. Lawyers who failed to comply were fined $75 and had until June 30 to meet the regulations. Suspensions began in July. The results: 1,641 California lawyers have had their licenses suspended.

This is not a good sign.

And Speaking Of Mainstream Media Bias, Spinning For Democrats And Misleading The Public, This NYT Report Is A Classic

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

When I read this astoundingly mendacious story in the Times, the first thing that I was reminded of was the memorable moment in “Plain Trains and Automobiles” when John Candy confidently tells a dubious state trooper that his burned out, roofless wreck of a car is “safe to drive.” (This goes right into the Ethics Alarms Clip archive.)

President Biden has repeatedly insisted that he has no knowledge of his son Hunter’s various sleazy business schemes, and that Joe never discussed Hunter’s money-making activities with him. Yet yesterday, in his nearly five hours of closed-door testimony to the House Oversight Committee, a former business partner of Hunter’s, Devon Archer, revealed that President Biden met with and spoke to his son Hunter’s international business associates on about 20 occasions as Hunter sought consulting deals (translation: lucrative influence and access peddling arrangements).

Hilariously, Archer claimed that the Joe Biden was not party to any of his son’s business deals. You see, Hunter Biden was just trying to sell the idea that he could provide access to his powerful father—by providing access to his powerful father. He was claiming that he could influence his father by showing that he could persuade him to pick up the phone, drop by and shake hands. Yet, reports the Times, Democrats on the panel insisted that it wasn’t what it was, by definition.

Continue reading →

Nate Silver Tells The Truth About Media Bias: Ethics Hero

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

The only surprising aspect of Nate Silver’s latest substack essay is that he actually wrote it and had the courage to put it on the web. He is honest about mainstream media bias, and until he got kicked off his own creation, the 538 blog, Silver was a willing accomplice in this rot in the foundation of our democracy, making a lot of money in the process. Now—finally—he’s using his substantial critical thinking and research skills to expose the bad guys (his former pals before they rejected him : yes, I suspect there’s a measure of vengeance in this)who continue to successfully warp public knowledge and the process of an informed democracy by convincing sufficient number of ovine citizens that the concept of progressive media bias is a right-wing conspiracy theory. The focus of his traitorous analysis is how Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter has helped address the effects of the media’s partisan bias.

In “Twitter, Elon and the Indigo Blob,” Silver becomes one of the very few progressives of note to admit what has been going on under their cultural assault. Some others include Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Bari Weiss, but Silver is more scientific and detached than any of them, and as a result, his analysis is more persuasive and, I hope, more disruptive to the blue wall of silence the progressive Borg has erected around a throbbing, obvious, disgusting truth.

Continue reading →

On The Ethically Depressing GOP Presidential Field

/ Jack Marshall / 113 Comments

The New York Times gave us the chart above, in an article about how the “he could shoot someone at high noon in central park and we wouldn’t care” Trump “base” will make a Republican effort to nominate a responsible, respectable, competent candidate for President difficult if not impossible. Look at that array! And my sister, a Democrat, complains that her party’s options are terrible, which they are.

How can a nation this large and diverse have no leaders who seem capable of doing the top job ethically and well? This is a societal, cultural, systemic failure.

That a character like Donald Trump, former POTUS or not, can have that kind of overwhelming support in the midst of indictments, the long, long trail of ridiculous and offensive statements, and his disqualifying conduct of refusing to accept his electoral defeat yet tells us that something is deeply rotten in the state of America. And whatever that state of rotteness is, returning either Joe Biden or Trump to the White House would be an invitation to too many disasters to contemplate.

But let’s start from the bottom of the list, where hope blooms. Nobody wants Chris Christie to run. Good. He was an ethics villain in 2016, knocking off Trump’s adversaries in the debates when he had the rhetorical tools and ammunition to take out Trump the way he reduced poor Marco Rubio to a laughing stock. Then Christie endorsed Trump, whom he knew was unfit, in a corrupt quid pro quo deal, probably to be Vice-President, which Trump reneged on. Then Christie was out to get Trump again, but it was too late. The one-time rising GOP star’s star was already permanently tarnished by his George Washington Bridge fiasco anyway. He’s running to get headlines and speaking fees, I guess. That he has almost no support speaks almost as well for the Republican voters as their support for Trump is damning.

Vivek Ramaswamy is the GOP equivalent of tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang in the last cycle for the Democrats. He’s not a serious candidate, and anyone who thinks he is doesn’t understand the American Presidency. Like Christie, he’s just static in the race, and a distraction. In a very important election like the one approaching, causing static and distractions is unethical.

Continue reading →