On Free Speech, The Supreme Court, and “Conversion Therapy”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

One of many Woke World freak-outs going on now is one over the strong signals the Supreme Court gave off during oral argument that it was going to overturn Colorado’s law banning so-called “conversion therapy” as unconstitutional. Naturally the progressive bloc on the court thinks the law is hunky-dory. Why would anyone not want to be gay?

One of the issue that came up in oral argument was whether there is any evidence that trying to talk someone out of being gay is harmful. There isn’t, but Court Dunce Sonia Sotamayor opined that “I don’t think the state has to provide a study to show that the advice is not sound,” comparing conversion therapy to a dietitian or counselor telling a client to do something that would harm their body. In other words, the banned therapy is just bad, and every right-thinking person knows it. This is consistent with Patton Oswalt’s certainty that whatever progressives favor must represent progress, hence opposing it is per se a problem. Progressives believe that being gay is just wonderful. That’s good enough for Sonia: treating someone for it is automatically harmful.

What an ongoing embarrassment she is.

Intelligent arguments came from, among others…

Continue reading →

Unethical Axis Headline of the Week: The Washington Post

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

This, of course, comes with the “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” label.

The Post headline truly is despicable. Despite the entire world clamoring for an end, however temporary, to the Gaza war and the abject failure of the U.N. or anyone else to achieve the release of the Israeli hostages, the Post spins the looming success of President Trump’s diplomatic efforts as merely another example of his narcissistic quest for personal acclaim. This is Big Lie of the Resistance #8: Big Lie #8: “Trump Only Cares About Himself, Not the Country.“

It is one of the most persistent of the Big Lies that emerged during his first term: two friends repeated it just yesterday. The smear is a great default excuse to refuse ever giving this President credit for anything, even achievements that are impressive, important and remarkable. It is an especially ethically obtuse smear: motives don’t make an action ethical, the conduct does, and the right thing done for the wrong reasons is still the right thing. In this case, the motive used to minimize Trump’s diplomatic triumph is a weak one, for I can’t imagine why Trump would want a Nobel Peace Prize, so thoroughly has that honor been debased by the flagrant politicizing of the award process.

[Aside: Of the 10 Big Lies I compiled through 2023, only #1 (“Trump is just a reality TV star”) and #9 (“Trump’s Mishandling Of The Pandemic Killed People”) have largely been retired from the Axis of Unethical Conduct and the Trump Deranged mob list of justifications for reviling the President of the United States.]

Continue reading →

Update on the Jay Jones Fiasco

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

As related here, Jay Jones is the (black, so he can do no wrong and accusing him of such is racism) Democratic candidate for Virginia Attorney General who through texts made it clear to a colleague that he believed that his adversaries deserved to be killed, and worse, that their children (“little fascists”) deserved to be killed as well.

To those who, like his desperate defenders, claim this was “just a mistake”—you know, like Joe Biden’s debate meltdown was “just a bad night”—I reply that Jones’ rants were signature significance. He wasn’t joking (compared to Jones’ “jokes,” Jimmy Kimmel’s Charley Kirk comments were comedy gold) and a normal, decent, trustworthy human being never even thinks about wanting his adversaries’ family members dead, much less communicates them to others. No, not even once.

Continue reading →

Late Wednesday Ethics Notes

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

1. Ethics Dunce: The New York Daily News, which joined my Rogues Gallery of websites that use unethical tactics to force readers to tolerate ads or pay to subscribe. This was a new one, though: I disabled my ad-blocker, and was returned to the Daily News home page. But now the link I had opened was no longer available. I searched for it: the piece, an editorial, was gone, at least for me. Assholes. If they think I’m going back to that site again or ever link to it here, they can bite me.

2. Damn ethics alarm: I was in a tight time frame this afternoon and had to deposit a check and mail a letter (returning a jury questionnaire saying I was willing to do my civic duty even though getting stuck in a trial is the last thing I need) then get back to the office and handle a problem. I mailed the letter and was rushing to my car when I saw a young black man painfully crossing the parking lot using a walker, with both hands holding plastic grocery bags. So I had to ask him if I could help—I had been stuck using a walker not that long ago—and he demurred…but also wanted to talk. He was so grateful that I, anyone, had cared enough to ask. He wanted to share the horrible sequence of events that had but him in his current state of limited mobility, his bad medical advice, his work interruption, the burden on his family. So I listened. I wasn’t going to walk away saying, “I’m sorry, but I have things to do.” This was a pure Golden Rule situation, Ethics 101, non-ethical considerations vs. the ethical values of kindness, compassion, empathy and respect. Once upon a time, before Ethics Alarms, before I began teaching ethics, I would have ignored that ethics alarm, if it rang at all. The man’s name was Kevin, incidentally.

Continue reading →

The New Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

You can find the poll, released last week, here. The charts are easier to read there.

I know: polls. This one, however, has special significance since it comes through Harvard, currently fighting Trump’s efforts to hold it accountable for its toxic influence on education, politics, its students, the culture, and more.

Is the poll tainted with bias? Of course it is. For example, I found it fascinating that in the chart above revealing how popular various Trump policies are with the general public, the pollsters neglected to ask whether the public approved of elite institutions like Harvard being pressured to stop discriminating against conservatives, whites, and men. A related omission: eliminating DEI. How could they ignore that one?

Nonetheless, the chart above, relatively buried at page 23 so it could be preceded by data showing how unpopular Trump is and how the majority of the public thinks the U.S. is off course, is the most important revelation in the poll. It shows that almost all of the Trump Administration’s policies are favored by the public, in most cases by a large majority. Only so-called Medicaid “cuts” are substantially disfavored, one of many areas where the biased news media has (and continues to) mislead the public.

Continue reading →

Ethics Test For Progressives and Democrats

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I had four ethics stories all lined up last night, and then this ugly episode forced its way to the front of the line. I hate that. Still, attention must be paid.

Zohran Mamdani, the presumed next New York City mayor based on polls and the fact that his only viable competition for the job had to resign as New York governor in disgrace, posted a statement on the anniversary of Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel. You can see it above.

To his credit, the “Democratic-Socialist” (that is, communist) was crystal clear about who and what he is, and honest observers from both sides of the partisan divide have not been reluctant to react with appropriate disgust. (The statement should not come as any surprise to anyone who has paid attention to Mamdani, the latest example of a charismatic politician emulating Andy Griffith in “A Face in the Crowd” (1957).

Continue reading →

Baseball, Ted Williams and Ethics Zugzwang

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Baseball has an potential ethics problem involving baseball legend (and Red Sox icon)Ted Williams that I don’t think can be resolved.

Williams, or “Teddy Ballgame” as he liked to call himself (He also called himself “Ted Fucking Williams the Greatest Fucking Hitter Who Ever Lived”) is renowned as the Last of the Four-Hundred Hitters, Batting .406 in 1941. (He also lost the MVP vote that year to Joe DiMaggio because Joltin’ Joe hit in 56 straight games, a statistical anomaly.) That .406 average looks especially impressive in 2025, when only one player in the National League, Trea Turner, even managed to hit .300.

But just for fun, let’s imagine that Turner hit exactly .400. Ted Williams would no longer be the last of the .400 hitters, right? But there is a problem. When Ted hit .406, baseball counted sacrifice flies—when a batter makes an out with a fly ball that is deep enough that a runner on third base can tag up after the catch and score—like any other out. They counted against a player’s average. In 1953, though, baseball changed the rule so a “sac fly” didn’t count as an out. If Williams’ sac flies had been hit under the new (and current) rules, his average (he had 8 that year), would have been .413. If Turner were playing under the 1941 rules—-he hit 2 sac flies this season—those two outs would drop him below the .400 mark.

Continue reading →

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: The President’s Quick Quip

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Two permanent fixtures of the Trump Derangement narrative are:

  • President trump has no sense of humor.
  • President Trump is slipping into dementia (like Joe Biden), and should therefore be removed via the 25th Amendment.

Both of these are demonstrably false, even absurdly false. Demented people don’t have the quick wit to pick up on a straight line like that. And Trump even had the sense to “go out on the big laugh,” as the old vaudevillians used to say. When you get a big laugh, it’s time to end your appearance.

That incident today doesn’t prove that this President is wise, right, responsible or even well-intentioned. But the fact that the Axis of Unethical Conduct that has been working without pause to destroy Donald Trump since 2016 may be explained by another fact: that their hate and bias makes it impossible for them to avoid underestimating their foe.

As Sun Tsu said (but in Chinese), “There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent….Never underestimate your opponent or your enemy. Looks can be deceiving. You really don’t know what your opponent knows or what kind of skills he or she may have.” In the same vein, Machiavelli’s writings also repeatedly warned against underestimating an opponent, and to assume that your adversary is “always capable and cunning.”

The ethics values at issue here are competence, prudence, objectivity, professionalism, respect, fairness, and perspective.

Morons…

Patton Oswalt Perfectly Expresses the Unethical Arrogance of the Political Left

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Actor-comic Patton Osawalt is multi-talented, intelligent, and gives hope to all the homunculi in the world by being happily married to former teen heart-throb Meredith Salenger (above). But he is a smart-ass and an arrogant progressive. In his stand-up comedy Oswalt is like Janine Garafalo, David Cross or Bill Maher, half-clown and half political and social propagandist, relying on the demographics and biases of his audiences to get away with all sorts of dubious assertions.

In a a riff I just heard on one of Sirius-XM’s comedy channels. Oswalt argued that being “woke” is a short-lived virtue. Inevitably, he said, you are not sufficiently woke because “progress” always makes what was once virtuous and ideal no longer good enough. In other words, today’s progressives are doomed to become tomorrow’s stick-in-the-mud conservatives, because “progress” always pulls to the Left.

What Oswalt was saying is what today’s militant, doctrinaire, Orwellian progressives believe: all of their radical left agenda is “progress,” as in a boon to society and the human race. It is the duty of today’s woke to get with the program and support the next “advance,” whatever it is, because if the Left advocates it, it must be right. Critical thought is not required.

What arrogance! hose of us who are not brain-washed, knee-jerk followers or ideologues know better. Often what the Left sees as “progress” (“We’re on the right side of history!”) is really a terrible idea that their mob has been steam-rolled into supporting on faith. Coming up with a list, an incomplete one, is pretty easy:

  • De-incarceration
  • Open borders
  • Banning firearms
  • “Good” discrimination (DEI)
  • Critical race theory
  • Encouraging gender “transitioning” before puberty
  • Procreation without marriage
  • De-emphasizing discipline and attendance in the schools
  • Recreational drug legalization
  • Advocacy journalism
  • Unregulated abortion.

That took me 38 seconds, and would have taken less if I could type.

There are many more proven bad ideas belonging on the list, including the failures of such “progress” as Communism, once flirted with (or more) by American intellectuals (Jack London, Dalton Trumbo, Roscoe Pound) and artists, and today by an increasing number of “Democratic-Socialists.” A group that is incapable of honest self-evaluation and unable to recognize its own mistakes and flaws is untrustworthy. In Patton Oswalt’s arrogant version of “woke,” the Left’s agenda is always right, always progress, by definition.

How can a democracy function with so many people who think that way?

Fact: The Axis Media Is Straight-Up Lying About The Justifications For Trump’s National Guard Use

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

They are doing it, in great part, because their favorite party is lying about it too.

Professor Turley was making the rounds this morning on news stations trying to explain that the Insurrection Act is ambiguous enough to support a President’s judgment that an “insurrection” is occurring in a state when the governor or a state legislature refuses to request such support, and send in the Guard on his own authority. The professor also pointed out that even if Trump were blocked from doing so in a state, he clearly has the power to use other states’ National Guard units in the state that is resisting, if the other states agree. The description of the sanctuary cities and states as engaging in neo-Confederate nullification is quite accurate.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, leading its fellow travelers in Orwellian spin, is doing its damnedest to back the incipient Stars and Bars. Here (gift link), a biased lawyer writes that “No, Trump Can’t Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants.” How is that for a false framing? But the Times published it anyway. Unethical quote: “Can presidents unleash the armed forces on their own people based on facts that they contrive?” Yeah, that scene above, where the Chicago police deliberately stood down, was “contrived.”

Then we have this consequentialist argument: “In 2020, Trump Intervened in Portland’s Protests. They Got Even Worse.” First, how do “protests” get “worse”? They were riots. Second, the mess in Portland didn’t involve attacks on Federal law enforcement and defiance of Federal law. Third, the Mongo Principle (No, don’t use force, it will only make him mad) is not a valid approach to law enforcement.