“Some arguments aren’t worth engaging with, and quite frankly are dangerous for even existing. ..The burden is not on us to talk our mouths dry and educate others, and frankly it is past the point of being an intellectual challenge. It’s an insult to our personhood, experience and rights to have to hold some of these “debates.” …Abort the conversation.”

—Yale Daily News columnist Bianca Nan, in her essay rejecting the concept of civil discourse and debate among students on issues she has made up her mind regarding what the “right” answer is.

20 years old, after nearly three years of education at one of the nation’s elite institutions of higher learning, and this is what Bianca Nan has learned. Not only is she and her ideological clones right about a wide range of political and social issues, but it is a waste of time to even listen to differing views and debate their validity, because such points of view are inherently dangerous and not worthy of debate.

What issues does she consider so settled and self-evident to right-thinking people that her virtuous and superior viewpoint cannot and should not be challenged? Not just abortion, though that is certainly one: she writes,

Continue reading →

April 15 is one of the more momentous dates in history, and not just history, but ethics history:

• Abraham Lincoln died in the early morning hours of April 15, 1865, after being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth.
• ” The Titanic” sank in 1912, killing more than 1500 passengers and crew, with almost too many ethics-related episodes to count, from the head of the White Star lines grabbing a seat in a lifeboat while many of America’s rich and famous stayed on board to allow “women and children first,” to the negligence and hubris that led the ship’s owners and captain to allow an inadequate number of life boats, to the so-called “mystery ship” that ignored the “Titanic’s” calls for help while the captain of the “Carpathia” risked his own vessel to race to pick up survivors, and much more, the disaster is one of the richest subjects for ethics discussions of all.
• The Boston Marathon bombing occurred in 2013, as two Muslim brothers planted pipe bombs that killed three of the assembled spectators while injuring 260, many of whom lost limbs. The young men acted, it is now believed, entirely on their own, motivated by “extreme Islamic beliefs.”

The greatest ethical impact of all on this date, however, may have come from Jackie Robinson breaking baseball’s apartheid in 1947 by stepping onto Ebbetts Field in Brooklyn and ending 50 years of discrimination in the sport, while establishing an advance in civil rights generally that propelled the crucial movement forward. You know all about Jackie, don’t you? You should; so should your kids, grandchildren, sisters, cousins and aunts. He’s enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame, and also in the Ethics Alarms Hall of Heroes as an Ethics Hero Emeritus.

Today was Jackie Robinson Day around the MLB ballparks, with every player wearing Robinson’s retired uniform number, 42.

1. What the heck is going on at Newton North High School? Last month, as discussed here, the once-celebrated Boston area high school, got caught racially segregating auditions for the school play, telling white students that their talents were not needed. This month, the same school hosted “Missy Steak,” a drag queen, as she spoke to and sang to students in a 30-minute assembly celebrating of “Transgender Bisexual Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day.” The Boston news media seems to think it is decisive that more supporters of promoting non-conventional sexual behavior in school showed up than protesters. After all, ethics is based on “majority rules,” right?

I see no competent or responsible argument for any sexual behavior to be promoted as part of public education, other than essential law and ethics.

2. What? Justice Alito didn’t automatically side with the radical, loose cannon judge trying to ban abortion pills approved by the FDA? The New York Times reports:

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. issued an order on Friday temporarily ensuring that a common abortion pill would remain widely available while the Supreme Court considered whether to grant the Biden administration’s emergency request to preserve the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug.

The order was meant to maintain the status quo while the justices studied the briefs and lower court rulings, and it did not forecast how the court would ultimately rule in the most important case about access to abortion since its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade last June.

Justice Alito set a brisk schedule for the court’s consideration of the case. His order, an administrative stay, instructed the groups challenging the F.D.A.’s approval of the abortion drug, mifepristone, to file their brief by Tuesday at noon.

The stay itself is set to expire on Wednesday at midnight, meaning the court is very likely to act before then and could in the coming days further curtail access to abortion, even in states where it is legal.

Justice Alito did this because, though he is probably the most conservative member of the Supreme Court who shouldn’t have resigned by now, he still is a competent jurist who knows garbage judging when he sees it. There is no way that Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk‘s unethical ruling will stand; nevertheless, Times SCOTUS reporter Adam Liptak couldn’t resist implying that a judicial restriction on abortion is in the wind. This is pure fear-mongering and partisan manipulation of public opinion.

3. Speaking of the Honorable Judge Kacsmaryk, the Washington Post revealed that as his Senate confirmation hearings for Federal judge approached, he had his name scrubbed from a law review article he had submitted. As part of the confirmation process, Kacsmaryk was required to list all of his published work on a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, including “books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited.” The article, titled “The Jurisprudence of the Body,” was published in September 2017 by the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a conservative legal journal that Kacsmaryk had edited as a law student at the University of Texas. But he did not l list the article for the Senate, obviously feeling his views in it might endanger his confirmation.

He should resign too.

Two recent streaming experiences further heightened my sensitivity to the ominous unethical forces around us.

1 Showtime’s “UFO” (2021)

I give up on almost all UFO documentaries because they have a tendency to get progressively hysterical and unhinged as they go on. Not “UFO.” It’s a shame J.J. Abrams produced it: having the director of “Fringe” and the Star Trek reboot heading up this project is not the optimum way to have it taken seriously. “UFO,” however, is superb. I know quite a bit about this topic, but the four episode documentary put the issue in perspective with disturbing clarity. The linchpin of the whole tale is the New York Times’ 2017 report, “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program,”but the documentation, interviews and film footage is remarkable.

The most important takeaway from the show, I believe, has nothing to do with UFOs. The unavoidable conclusion one is compelled to reach, if one has the integrity and courage to reach it, is that the government engaged in a decades-long cover-up involving intimidation, lies, the destruction of evidence, secret and illegal black ops operations, official lies, “Deep State” abuse of power and pay-offs to hide information from the U.S. public because it felt it was in the public’s best interest to do so, and, most of all, the government’s best interest to do so.

Nothing encapsulates the fury I experienced watching “UFO” more than my nausea at watching the despicable Ethics Villain Harry Reid, interviewed in retirement, smugly taking credit for setting up the secret agency charged with investigating UFOs while thousands of American citizens continued to be ridiculed for reporting what the U.S. military and government officials continued to insist didn’t exist. “The project had to be secret,” Harry says at one point, smirking,”because Senators knew there would be a lot of public criticism if its purpose was known.” Oh! Well, then, if the project would be criticized, by all means make sure the public doesn’t find out about it! Asshole.

If the government, the Pentagon, Senators, governors, and administrative bureaucrats would devote decades to manipulating public opinion and using the power of the U.S. government to hide events, facts and official activities from the people they are supposed to serve in this area, why should it be trusted regarding its activities, motives and methods regarding anything else?

Continue reading →