Friday Open Forum!

/ Jack Marshall / 74 Comments

Open Sesame!

Or as Popeye said, “Open sez me!”

The Supreme Court leak and the Roe v. Wade freakout ate the blog this week, but it couldn’t be helped. Maybe the Forum can generate some new distractions.

It’s fascinating that no commenters have surfaced here willing to defend abortion in general and Roe in particular. One of the most useful and enlightening comments ever made on Ethics Alarms about abortion came from a progressive commenter and abortion supporter, the now AWOL Still Spartan. She declared abortion to be a “necessary evil.” Necessary evils are by definition unethical; the only other phenomenon I would put in the category is war. However, except for situations where the life of the mother is in peril, I’m not sure about “necessary.”

Ethics Dunce Flashback, Abortion Division: Pete Buttigieg

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

This is the second time I’ve used that photo in a post this week. It’s a third-trimester fetus, and it’s up because it is important to remember what we’re talking about, or, in this case, what current Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was talking about in his usual intellectually lazy, ethically-inert manner in a 2019 exchange with Chris Wallace.

Most of my Facebook friends block me from seeing their political blatherings because I have a tendency to call them on badly-reasoned pandering to the woke, and they can’t handle it. They just want “likes” on their regurgitated talking points and usually aren’t equipped to defend them. I was just scrolling down to see if anyone had left a substantive post on my feed, and to my horror, an old friend whom I regard as generally sharp and perceptive had tracked down the interview (from a Fox News town hall) and pronounced it “the only acceptable answer” regarding late term abortions. Here is what he called “acceptable”:

Whereupon my head exploded.

As he has proven repeatedly, Buttigieg is a facile, intellectually lazy, platitude-mouthing pandering phony, and this is vintage Pete. In matters of law and lives, the government draws the line: that’s called “civilization.” The “fundamental question” in late term abortion is how society balances the competing interests of two parties. “I trust women to draw the line when it’s their own health” is a deceitful and offensive statement, ducking the issue and muddying vital considerations. No one, and no law, denies a woman the right to place her own survival over that of her unborn child. The question of balancing interests only comes into play when the mother’s “health” involves lesser factors that might reasonably be considered subordinate to another human life. “I trust women” is just flag-waving: I don’t trust anyone to make a decision involving their personal interests and the competing interests of someone else. Such decision-makers have a conflict of interest; that why we have laws.

Tellingly, Buttigieg tries to escape dealing with substance by dismissing late-term abortions as “hypotheticals.” They aren’t hypothetical, they are real, and they are important because ending a pregnancy when the fetus is viable compels consideration of what abortions involve Extreme pro-abortion activists really hate that. It is hard to pretend the baby isn’t there in late-term abortions, and pretending there is no life being ended is crucial to the “choice” deception. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The George Washington Hating George Washington Student’s Washington Post Op-Ed

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

A black college senior named Caleb Francois who is currently attending George Washington University in Washington, D.C. persuaded the Washington Post to publish his op-ed of surpassing ignorance and stupidity. His thesis (or theses)?

The racist visions of James Madison, Winston Churchill and others are glorified through building names, programs, statues and libraries that honor their memory.

The controversial Winston Churchill Library must go. The university’s contentious colonial moniker must go. Even the university’s name, mascot and motto — “Hail Thee George Washington”— must be replaced. The hypocrisy of GW in not addressing these issues is an example of how Black voices and Black grievances go ignored and highlights the importance of strong Black leadership.

The Post is being roasted in various conservative forums for publishing the 800-word essay.  One pundit (at Breitbart) writes,

The arrogance of the Post knows no bounds. Publishing this editorial is just another troll from the Post, a way for the Post to stick its finger in the eye of its critics by relishing the hypocritical double standards the former newspaper now lives by.

I hate to defend the Post, but I don’t think for a second that the paper finds the student’s argument persuasive. It’s just provocative, and like other off-the-wall opinion pieces published by both the Post and The New York Times (remember the op-ed recommending that children and babies get to vote?), publication doesn’t imply endorsement. Yet the author in this case isn’t a historian or a crackpot professor; it’s a maleducated, indoctrinated young black man imbued with the 20-something’s unique certitude that he has everything figured out. If Caleb learns anything after graduation, I think it is very likely that he will want change his name and keep a bag over his head. Should a national newspaper help a young man to make a fool of himself?

Predictably, even the Post’s progressive readership entered an overwhelmingly negative verdict on the piece (which the author will surely dismiss as more racism and white supremacy.) Here is the “most liked” and the most representative of the over 1200 comments:

History professor here. If GW was only known for being a Confederate General or a slave owner, cancel away and rename away. But he was not. He is known for so much more… one of the biggest things is the idea that a president is not a king. And the office is not for life. Without him, our country would not be free. He kept order at a time when fractions would have torn us asunder. For God’s sake, do not rename George Washington University… I’m a liberal, and I believe in equality for all. But this is just stupid.

Continue reading →

I Don’t Understand: Why Is This News, Newsworthy, Or Even Twitter-Worthy?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Huh? Why wouldn’t they remain not just “mostly silent,” but entirely and forever silent? What does abortion have to do with gaming? What possible justification would there be for the video game industry to take a position on the legal and Constitutional issues relating to Roe? What can they add to a productive discussion besides noise and ignorance? Why should the U.S. Supreme Court pay any attention at all to uninformed opinions by those who are brick-ignorant about the law?

This isn’t just an example of “If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” This is “If all you care about is a nail, everything looks like a hammer.”

Oh…and it’s not “repeal” you ignoramuses. Laws are repealed. Roe v Wade isn’t a law. SCOTUS rulings are overturned.

Broadway Ethics: Unethical Audiences, Unethical Actress

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

1. From Actor’s Equity:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the creation and distribution of photographs and videos of our members during a nude scene. As actors, we regularly agree to be vulnerable onstage in order to tell difficult and challenging stories. This does not mean that we agree to have those vulnerable moments widely shared by anyone who feels like sneaking a recording device into the theater. Whoever did this knew not only that they were filming actors without their consent, but also that they were explicitly violating the theater’s prohibition on recording and distribution.

“At every performance, there is a mutual understanding between the audience and the performers that we are sharing an experience limited to this time and place; that trust makes it possible for us to be exposed both emotionally and physically.  Trampling on this agreement by capturing and distributing these photographs and videos is both sexual harassment and an appalling breach of consent. It is a violation that impedes our collective ability to tell stories with boldness and bravery.”

This completely accurate statement was prompted by an audience member taking forbidden photos of former “Grey’s Anatomy” star Jesse Williams during in a nude scene in the Broadway revival of “Take Me Out” and putting them online. The theater, Second Stage, also made a public statement condemning the conduct.

2. “The theater is a temple of virtue signaling! Bow, peasant!” Patti Lupone, long-time Broadway diva and the original “Evita” (in the musical, that is) confronted an audience member from the stage as she performed in the Broadway revival of “Company.” The audience member was wearing her mask below her nose.

Of course LuPone wasn’t wearing a mask at all, but never mind. Those are the rules on Broadway. “Put your mask over your nose, that’s why you’re in the theater!” she lectured, obviously breaking character. “That is the rule. If you don’t want to follow the rule, get the fuck out! Who do you think you are that you do not respect the people that are sitting around you!”

Then the audience cheered, because they are mostly Good Germans who put up with the garbage edicts of the reliably progressive virtue-signalling theaters and pay absurd amounts of money to sit in discomfort wearing useless cloth masks. I suspect that the audience member had the mask down below the nose because glasses fog up otherwise, and it’s really stupid to pay over a hundred bucks to sit in a dark theater blind. In Patti’s defense, masks are the rule, the House makes the rules, and she was technically correct that the target of her abuse was breaking them. On the other side of the ledger, it’s not her job to enforce the rules, and though audiences love seeing anything out of the ordinary like av actress berating a patron, LuPone sacrificed the performance to indulge her grandstanding. She has no respect, clearly, for the audience or her fellow cast members.

If I were the mask-felon, I would have left, and sorely tempted to shout out, “You’re the one who should be masked with that mug!”

But that would have been unethical…

Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 5/12/2022: The Ethics Are Blowing In The Wind…Along With A Pilotless Cessna! [Corrected!]

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

A forgotten incident on this date should remind us that corporate censorship of political speech has been around a long time. In 1963, Bob Dylan’s appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” before he had become a nationally known artist was clotheslined after CBS censors rejected the song he planned on performing, “Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues,” a satirical number mocking the ultra-conservative, conspiracy theory-minded, Joe McCarthy-esque John Birch Society. Ed had no problem with Bob’s political satire but a Big Eye executive from the Standards and Practices department announced that the network would not allow him to sing the song. Even though the appearance would have meant a huge career boost for Dylan, he politely declined to perform anything else, and the Ed Sullivan Show went on that Sunday without Bob Dylan.

1. GOOD! In 2021, as he was excoriating NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his sexual harassment hobby, Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican from western New York, was accused of rubbing a female lobbyist’s back and unhooking her brae without her consent, at an event in Minneapolis in 2017. The lobbyist, Nicolette Davis, told The Washington Post that Reed appeared to be drunk as he pawed her back and leg when the two were seated next to each other during a networking trip. There was quite a bit of evidence corroborating her story, though Reed said it was “inaccurate.” Eventually he admitted that she was telling the truth, and he apologized, saying that the incident occurred when he was “struggling” and “powerless over alcohol.” That, however, didn’t excuse his hypocrisy regarding Cuomo or his initial attempt to lie his way out of trouble. He had already announced that he would not run for re-election, but yesterday he resigned. Good riddance.

2. Today’s desperate Roe v. Wade defense…Now try to stay with me here. Sheila Briggs, an associate professor of religion and gender studies at the University of Southern California, wrote in an op-ed that striking down Roe v. Wade would jeopardize religious liberty. Got that?

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations On The Failed “Women’s Health And Protection Act”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I just didn’t think the Democratic Party’s ethics rot had progressed this far. I’m still stunned. Yesterday the Senate Democrats attempted to pass a pro-abortion bill that would have legalized a vague medical standard permiting late-term abortions right up until birth, prohibited states from restricting abortions until after 23 weeks gestation, and eliminated parental notification laws for minors, among other restrictions. Every Democratic Senator voted for the provision except West Virginia’s pariah of the Left, Joe Manchin. Every Republican Senator voted against the unethical monstrosity, so the bill was blocked from coming to the Senate floor for debate, 51-49.

However, the ethics story is how the Democratic Party has allowed the pro-abortion fanatics in its ranks and among its “base” to thoroughly corrupt it to the point at it would openly endorse allowing unborn human beings to be killed at a point in their progress toward full citizenship when they are physiologically indistinguishable from newborns. (That’s a third-trimester fetus above). Not only that, the Party appears to think the majority of Americans are similarly inert ethically (or too apathetic and ignorant to deserve a democracy), and will support a position that is hostile to the concept of human rights and the foundational national principle of the right to life.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day (2): “Today’s Dobbs Leak Freakout Developments And Observations”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

This Comment of the Day, by Chris Marschner, is on a different topic entirely, the much discussed assertion by Justice Alito in his draft opinion that abortion cannot legitimately be called a Constitutional right because unlike the other rights, it was generally disapproved in American society and condemned or regarded as shameful over centuries of Western culture.

Chris’ comment was posted in rebuttal of another by esteemed commenter zoebrain, who wrote,

Women Health. Summer 1979;4(2):159-67.
Abortion in early America : Z Acevedo

“This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a “now issue” that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.”

” Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. ”

Alito is factually incorrect in his statements.

This is as good a place as any to remind readers that comments chosen as a Comment of the Day does not necessarily represent my position or that of Ethics Alarms.

Here is Chris Maschner’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Today’s Dobbs Leak Freakout Developments And Observations”…

***

Zoe: Your citation was published in 1979, six years after Roe was decided. There would be no reason to publish this unless the practice was in need of a defense. That in itself suggests that significant attitudinal differences existed in American society even after Roe was decided. Those differences are still prevalent today and may even be more entrenched throughout the nation. Alito’s opinion made the point that Roe and Casey could not be settled simply by decree.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day (1): “Today’s Dobbs Leak Freakout Developments And Observations”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Keeping up with the Supreme Court draft Alito opinion Freakout and the other ethics offal flying around has put me seriously behind in posting deserving Comments of the Day. There are two related to the May 5 Freakout post alone; this is the first of them, a neat summary of the state of affairs in Woke World.

Here is sooner 8728’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Today’s Dobbs Leak Freakout Developments And Observations”…

***

If you notice, the far left’s policies are always about removing responsibility for bad decisions. You had reckless sex? Get rid of the baby. You didn’t pay your rent because you smoked pot and lost your job? Unemployment benefits. You don’t want to go back to work because you have an irrational fear of COVID-19? Let’s keep paying your rent. You committed a crime (and you are a minority), no jail time or possibly even a fine.

The test is too hard? Lower the standards. You can’t speak proper English? Attack proper English as elitist. Your culture teaches that it’s okay to beat your wife? Don’t judge other cultures who are different than you? There’s a dumbing down going on in this country. [Host’s Note: This process is what Ethics Alarms refers to as “The Great Stupid.”] Continue reading →

Writer Jumi Bello Just Doesn’t Quite Get That “Plagiarism” Thingy, Or “What An Idiot!”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

This hilarious story of an epic Ethics Dunce immediately reminded me of the classic Charles Addams cartoon above.

Jumi Bello, 30, was making the finishing touches on her debut novel “The Leaving,” scheduled to be released this summer, but after she disclosed to her publisher that she had expropriated material from other sources, the book was pulled. Bello then wrote a personal essay on the website Literary Hub explaining how her plagiarism came about.  The novel was about a young black woman’s unplanned pregnancy. Bello wrote that she had never been pregnant and searched for descriptions of the experience on the web.

“I tell myself I’m just borrowing and changing the language,”  Bello wrote in the essay, which was supposed to be a cautionary tale for other writers who might rationalize plagiarism.  “I tell myself I will rewrite these parts later during the editorial phase. I will make this story mine again.”

After the essay was published,  writers and publications such as Gawker, pointed out that Bello’s essay about plagiarism also had unethically used the writings of others without attribution. Yes, her essay about plagiarism was plagiarized.

Literary Hub removed the essay and said in a statement, “Because of inconsistencies in the story and, crucially, a further incident of plagiarism in the published piece, we decided to pull the essay.” But wait! There’s more! She plagiarized from a website about plagiarism! Jonathan Bailey, who writes the website Plagiarism Today, wrote that Bello’s essay “included poor paraphrasing without attribution of an article that I wrote over a decade ago.”

What an idiot.

And she can quote me.

____________________

Pointer and Facts: New York Times.