Category Archives: Ethics

Culture, Ethics, History, Politics

Did Rep Justin Amash say,”Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct?”

Leave a comment

Rep. Justin Amash has become the very first Republican that is congressional to for the president’s impeachment based on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

The special counsel did not establish that the Trump campaign or anybody associated with it plotted or synchronized with Russia. He additionally provided no conclusion on the matter of feasible obstruction of justice, choosing instead to go out of that decision for Congress.

Amash stated that the 448-page report “identifies multiple examples” of the president’s conduct pleasing all of the aspects of blockage of justice.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stopped short of calling for impeachment but left the doorway open to the chance, though Democratic leaders are reluctant to introduce a divisive effort that would likely end with all the president’s acquittal within the GOP-led Senate.

Culture, Ethics, Politics

Trump administration wants to cut $7.1 billion to Education Department

Leave a comment

The Trump administration is wanting to diminish the Education Department’s funding by $7.1 billion in comparison to what it had been given last year, as an element of next year’s proposed budget.

The budget proposal recommends eliminating 29 programs, including after-school and summer time programs for students in high-poverty areas, among other activities.

The budget proposal is unlikely to pass through through Congress – especially with Democrats in charge of your house, however, it really is a glimpse to the Trump administration’s priorities going in to the next fiscal 12 months.

In a statement , Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said the proposed cuts reveal “commitment to investing taxpayer dollars sensibly and efficiently by consolidating or eliminating duplicative and inadequate federal programs.”

Culture, equal rights, Ethics, human rights, Politics

Fight Draconian Anti-Abortion Laws

Leave a comment

Anti-abortion activists and legislators appear to be against Roe v. Wade, and they are getting close to eliminating this case. All-male legislators in Alabama Senate voted to highlight this draconian abortion ban, without exceptions for rape or incest. The governor of this state is republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey.

Ivey signs the bill. This bill will become the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The next states to pass such a bill are Georgia and Ohio which bans abortions after six weeks.

Last year 15 states adopted 27 new constraints on abortion and family planning. The definitive objective of many of the designers of these regulations, and the abortion prohibitions passed in Ohio, Georgia and Alabama, is to manipulate state legislation to get Roe v. Wade overturned by the Supreme Court, which is now slanted in conservatives’ support.

To be clear, this is not an aim that left-wingers have understood, but one that legislators have come right out and identified on the record.

Outlawing abortion is about controlling women’s liberty, independence, mobility, sexuality and self-determination. Regulations like the ones passed in Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama ― laws that totally disregard things that essentially diminish abortions, like all-inclusive sex education, available birth control, and better social services for parents and children ― are, quite factually, violence on females’ lives.

Culture, equal rights, Ethics, human rights, Politics, Social Justice

America has been fighting for equal right since it became a country, do you believe that the old Equal Rights Amendment is not viable today?

Leave a comment

Equal Rights Amendment resolutions are introduced in every Congress meeting since 1923. This period of Congress is virtually no different. There seemed to be a hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment in the House currently. Many will attempt to inform an individual that ratification is just around the corner. On the other hand, the Equal Rights Amendment they may be speaking about has vanished. That has not necessarily halted the Alice Paul Institute, for example, from conversing up a unique three state technique concerning ratifying the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment.

The motion was put before the states and approved by 35 for ratification. Close to four decades Social Justice Activists persuaded Nevada And Illinois to ratify the Amendment which left the Amendment one state of being added to the Constitution, the activist would like us to believe. That is not the case.

Five reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment sent to the states in 1972 is no longer viable.

First, it left Congress with a due date of seven years concerning state ratification. The time clock happened to run out on the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment along with 35 states on board. Active supporters and workers would like people to disregard that reality. Second, Congress later approved, and President Carter authorized in 1978 an expansion to 1982. The active supporters and workers would like people to overlook that due date also. The Congressional Research Service records that this expansion indicates that a neverending ratification interval is probably not allowable.In other thoughts, the expansion that Equal Rights Amendment supporters wanted in 1978 undercuts their particular situation currently that each ratification deadlines happen to be unacceptable. Furthermore, no added states ratified the Equal Rights Amendment concerning 1979 and the end of the prolonged ratification due date in 1982.

Third, five states that in the beginning ratified the Equal Rights Amendment ended up rescinding their authorization before the initial due date involving seven years. Active supporters and workers declare the rescissions are unacceptable and really should be overlooked; however, it is certainly not easy. Article V of the Constitution provides that amendments could be recommended by way of a convention referred to us by our elected representatives “around the application of the legislatures to two-thirds of the number of states.” It has been debatable whether a particular state could make or rescind the current application.

Many groups endorse the Equal Rights Amendment signed a letter which meant they were trying to rescind Article V convention. There of these stated tried later on to rescind their applications for an Article V convention. It is a difficult decision for a state to change its minds about a convention, but not on a proposed amendment.

Fourth, Equal Rights Amendment activists prefer to explain that this 27th Amendment, the newest conjunction with the Constitution, has been suggested in 1789 but not ultimately ratified till May 1992. What are the 47 years given that Congress delivered the Equal Rights Amendment to the states, these people inquire, as compared to the 203 years involving proposal and ratification of the 27th Amendment? On this concern, on the other hand, there exists a variation with a massive difference in that the 27th Amendment had zero ratification due date.

Fifth, several courtroom judgments weaken the idea the fact that Equal Rights Amendment delivered to the states in 1972 continues to be in existence. The Supreme Court made the decision Dillon versus Gloss in 1921, two years before the very first Equal Rights Amendment was recommended. As the Congressional Research Service had summarized it, the justices presented that this ratification of the Constitutional Amendment needs to happen within a reasonable period following the Amendment is recommended. That case included the 18th Amendment which, like the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, had a ratification due date regarding seven years.

In the 1939 decision in Coleman versus Miller, the Supreme Court presented that several components assist in identifying a realistic periodto ratify an amendment for the Constitution. Most of all, though, the justices declared that Congress, not the courts, ought to decide. Congress did exactly that in 1972 and 1978, figuring out that a maximum of Ten years was initially sufficient to determine that three fourths from the states wanted the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. The truth is that they failed to.

In the 1982 decision in Idaho versus Freeman, a district court presented that the authentic Equal Rights Amendment ratification due date seemed to be constitutional. The due date expansion itself was not constitutional, and the ratifications rescissions happen to be legitimate. The Supreme Court left this judgment once the 1982 ratification due date passed and made the case moot. However, the justices failed to tackle the value of the findings from the lower court.

Most likely the active supporters and workers may have far better fortune with the quantity of Equal Rights Amendment settlements launched this season. However, it is merely fictional the Equal Rights Amendment proposed throughout the 92nd Congress is still on the affirmation trail currently. This has been inactive at least THIRTY-SEVEN years.

Behavioral Science, Culture, Ethics, History, Politics, Social Justice

Do you believe that tolerance and civility, not love, will heal our society?

2 Comments

In “Love Your Enemies,” author and American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks offers a formula for healing a country divided: “Go find someone with whom you disagree; listen reflectively, and take care of him or her with respect and love. The rest will flow naturally from there.”

We build a good society; Brooks states, the way we build a great marriage: through love.

Brooks is right that how we speak to one another concerns. The language of contempt dissolves the trust. Contempt drives out any impulse we might have toward empathy and understanding, and it replaces reasoned argument with litmus tests for ideological purity.

Moving toward greater empathy, understanding, and intellectual openness will improve the quality of our public discourse and make us healthier, happier plus better human beings.

However, the shift that Brooks is championing will not be inspired by the exalted virtue of really like. It will be the fruit of the less-exalted tempered virtues of civility and tolerance.

A defender of Brooks’ thesis might say that I am splitting hairs – that it does not matter if we use the vocabulary of love or the language of civility and tolerance. However, words make a difference.

If we uncritically accept as the appropriate standard for the good society and toss aside civility and tolerance as “garbage standards,” we set ourselves up for failure.

To begin, as an expectation for the broader society, love is too tall an order. We learned this long ago from moral philosophers like David Hume and Adam Smith, who observed that there are cognitive limits to how far we can extend our sympathy.

Genuine love requires close-in local knowledge that we cannot cultivate beyond a relatively small circle of family and friends.

The good news, though, is that love is not needed to achieve the good society. On this point, Nobel Laureate F.The. Hayek offered a significant distinction between the social norms that are essential to the small intimate purchase of known friends and family and the norms essential to the extended order of the broader community.

The right standard for the small band may very well be love. It is in this sphere that we have enough local knowledge to attend to particular needs in nuanced ways. However, as Hayek argued, if we apply this regular to society as a whole, we will destroy it.

Brooks tells us that expectations of civility and tolerance are too low of a bar; that if we want “true unity” in America, we must find our “shared whys.” However, unity is the wrong goal.

A country of self-governing citizens is not one of the shared ends; it is among shared rules: individual liberty, equality before the law, property rights and impersonal rules of contract, for example.

The cultural norms that correspond to such rules are those like civility and tolerance, norms that can be applied generally, without a great deal of close-in, local knowledge.

Expectations of civility and tolerance are usually admittedly cold and impersonal. That is why they are not sufficient standards for, say, a happy family life. However, it is their impersonal quality that makes them appropriate requirements for the broader modern society.

As cultural norms, civility and tolerance allow us to pursue our different ends without checking in with one another, without any expectation that people are aligning our beliefs and actions with some shared purpose.

Once we commit to unity – even as a direction and aspiration – the individual who diverges from the pack will always be seen as impeding progress toward the ideal. Moreover, therein is situated a formula for cruelty.

Though it may seem counterintuitive, it is the requirement of civility and tolerance that sets the foundation for the civil society, one characterized by pluralism and human thriving.

By not expecting more than we can offer, by not insisting on enjoying and unity of purpose, we leave the social space contestable, open to countless conversations, out of which we have the best chance of forging bonds of mutual respect and trust.

Brooks is correct that if we are going to overcome the culture of contempt, we need better conversational ethics, such as a commitment to humility, regard and knowledge-seeking curiosity in the face of disagreement. However, we do not need love to cultivate these practices. We need the tempered virtues of civility and tolerance.

Culture, Ethics, Politics

The American people are tired of these words, hoax, fake news, and witch hunt

Leave a comment

President Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to excoriate Democrats and the media over the suggestion that the U.S. is facing a constitutional crisis, contacting the assertion “a pathetically untrue soundbite.”

Trump went on to state that the real constitutional crisis is “a giant SCAM perpetrated upon our nation, a Witch Hunt, the Treasonous Hoax.” The president has often used those terms to describe the FBI and specific counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations into Russia’s election disturbance. He afterwards said the Democrats were acting like “crazed lunatics” in the wake of the Mueller probe’s end and that the only constitutional crisis is “the Democrats neglecting to work.

President Trump upon Sunday took to Twitter to excoriate Democrats and the media on the recommendation that the U.S. is dealing with a constitutional catastrophe, calling the assertion a pathetically false soundbite.

“The Democrats brand new and pathetically untrue audio bite is that people come in a ‘Constitutional Crisis,'” Trump wrote in several tweets. “They and their partner, the Fake PRESS, are all informed to say it as loud so when often as possible. They’re a unfortunate JOKE! We might have the strongest Economic climate inside our history, best work numbers ever, lower taxes & regulations, a rebuilt army and V.A., many fun new judges, & a lot more.”

Trump continued to claim that the true constitutional crisis is “a huge SCAM perpetrated on our nation, a Witch Hunt, the Treasonous Hoax.” The president offers often used those conditions to spell it out the FBI and exclusive counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations into Russia’s election interference. He later said the Democrats had been performing like “crazed lunatics” in the wake of the Mueller probe’s finish and that the only real constitutional crisis will be “the Democrats refusing to function.”

His tweets arrive after prominent Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), the other day produced the assertion that the united states is going through a constitutional crisis.

Nadler made his feedback after his panel voted to carry Attorney Common William Barr within contempt for failing woefully to start an unredacted edition of Mueller’s final statement.

It’s unclear how congressional Democrats will progress in reaction to the fallout from Mueller’s report. Pelosi hasn’t said if the entire House will vote on the contempt quality against Barr.

Numerous progressive Democrats, meanwhile, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), have needed the House to start a study into whether Trump ought to be impeached.

However, Pelosi provides steadfastly resisted to move forward with impeachment, arguing that it is a distraction rather than the simplest way to win because the U.S. heads into an election year.

Culture, Ethics, Finances, History, Politics

Should we take Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seriously, and not literally?

Leave a comment

Trump and Ocasio-Cortez are rash, unapologetic, and enigmatic New Yorkers with ardent cult followings. They will have equally tenuous associations with reality. While President Trump and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., stand starkly against one another, they are pretty similar in their refusal to accept the seriousness of the workplaces they hold.

To her credit, Ocasio-Cortez became the youngest person in the home of Representatives while operating as a waitress. That is a distinctly American accomplishment, one which deserves our admiration.

In order to his credit, Trump was a billionaire who paid attention to the lamentations of ordinary Americans and defeats out probably the most talented industry of presidential primary applicants inside our recent history to be the president of America.

The DNC and RNC establishments took neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Trump seriously, and today they are uniquely positioned to determine the terms of these policies and strategies so that they should start acting honestly like it.

Ocasio-Cortez’s gripes with fact-checking rough mirror billionaire business owner and Trump ally Peter Thiel’s distillation of the president’s relationship along with his critics.

“I think a significant factor that needs to be distinguished here is that the mass media is always getting Trump literally. It is no way takes him seriously, but it usually takes him actually,” Thiel told the Nationwide Press Club through the 2016 election, channeling columnist Salena Zito. “I believe lots of voters who vote for Trump get Trump seriously, however, not literally, when they hear things such as the Muslim comment or the walls comment, their question isn’t, ‘Are you likely to build a walls like the Great Walls of China?’ or, you understand, ‘How exactly will you enforce these assessments?’ What they hear will be we are going to possess a saner, a lot more sensible immigration policy.”

Thiel’s evaluation is correct. Nonetheless, it highlights a single flaw with both Trump and AOC’s methods in public messaging.

Both stoke fears when advocating their respective policies. Trump depends on fearmongering with the imagery of “rapists and murderers” crossing our southern border to outlandishly advocate for pretty commonsense border protection. AOC forebodes that “like, the planet is gonna finish in 12 many years,” if we don’t deal with climate change, accurately diagnosing our political sphere’s apathy towards climate modify, but ineptly advocating for an Eco-friendly New Deal that may do nothing to lessen greenhouse gasoline emissions and everything to nationalize vast swaths of the United States economy.

We do not doubt that Trump, a Queen’s outsider who built his brand name to enter the billionaires’ golf club, and Ocasio-Cortez, a millennial self-starter who has observed – first-hand – a couple of failures of the best economic system in history, genuinely wish to prove their authority within their positions.

However, they ought to begin rising to the event. They are not courtroom jesters, eliciting few times of reality, bookended by jokes and nonsense. They are users and cultural leaders of the governing bodies of the free world, and the general public and the media, on both sides of the aisles, must keep them compared to that standard.

Culture, Ethics, History, Jewish Community, Judaism, Social Justice

Why was that Holocaust Remembrance Day interrupted by White Supremacists in Arkansas City?

Leave a comment

A Holocaust Remembrance Day event in Arkansas city, Arkansas was interrupted by a group of white supremacists, a local news station reported.

About 8-12 men strolled by the Holocaust Remembrance event holding swastika flags, a white cross and posters with anti-Semitic slogans.

The appearance of the white supremacist group comes as Arkansas Technical University, located in Russellville, is being criticized for creating a scholarship in honor of a deceased professor who many have taught Holocaust-denying books in his class.

But in a letter sent to the school last week, the ADL alleges that Link consistently gave students books that questioned the “myth” of the Holocaust, and participated in online forums where he denied the historical reality of the Holocaust. The university has said that it has no evidence that Link was a Holocaust denier, but appears to have elided evidence that others had raised concerns about Link’s beliefs about the Holocaust more than ten years ago.

People present at the event this week posted pictures of the white supremacists, many of whom wore camouflage-print clothing and masks and hats that obscured their faces.

Russellville is something of a hot spot for white supremacists. In February, authorities arrested 54 members of a white supremacist gang in and around Russellville. The group, called the New Aryan Empire, has been fingered for murders, violent assaults, kidnappings and meth distribution in the area.

Behavioral Science, Culture, Ethics, Social Justice

Police using racial slur captured on body camera video, instagram live, does not give police a pass

Leave a comment

A police officer in Montgomery County was initially captured utilizing a racial slur towards several African-American males, and video from the event is definitely circulating on social networking websites.

The encounter had been captured on instagram live in addition officer’s body digital camera, which both have already been shown on Youtube.

In the video clip, a white, female police officer used the slur in the course of an exchange while police officers halted three black males in a Silver Spring McDonalds Thursday early morning. You are able to listen to the men using the ’n-word’ in the exchange, with the police officer at some point parroting the term back.

The Montgomery County Police stated they are looking into the occurrence through the department’s Internal Affairs Division.

Culture, Ethics, Politics

Do you believe Trump ‘is almost self-impeaching because he is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice’?

Leave a comment

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a news conference Thursday that she believes President Donald Trump “is almost self-impeaching” and argued that “he appears to be every time demonstrating more obstruction of justice and disrespect for Congress’ legitimate role in subpoenaing.”

The Speaker’s comments come amid an escalation of hostilities between congressional Democrats and the President one time after the home Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress.

Pelosi has argued in present weeks that the President is effectively developing a case on his own for impeachment by obstructing the work of Congress and has now started initially to make use of the term “self-impeach” to describe that.

In a Washington Post Live interview earlier into the week, Pelosi stated the President is “becoming self-impeachable in terms of some of the things that he’s doing.”

The House Speaker said on Thursday that she agrees with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler’s assessment that the united states have become in a “constitutional crisis.”

Pelosi and other Democratic congressional leaders have thereforetaken a cautious approach toward the potential for impeachment and possess downplayed the probabilities she and other Democrats describe as the administration’s stonewalling that it will happen, but Pelosi also appears to be increasingly frustrated with what.

The President and his allies argue that Democrats are targeting Trump for partisan reasons and not for legitimate oversight purposes and Trump has vowed to fight “all the subpoenas.”

Pelosi did not specify on Thursday when the full House will vote on whether to hold the attorney general in contempt, but she suggested that there may be “other contempt of Congress issues” that the House may want to cope with during the same time.

“In terms of timing, whenever we’re prepared, we’ll arrive at the floor, and we are going to see because there may be other contempt of Congress conditions that we want to deal with at the same time. In which he wishes to get it done right as possible and so do we,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi reiterated that impeachment would be a very divisive process for the country and argued that it’s not a binary choice to impeach or otherwise not to impeach.

“Sometimes individuals act as though it’s impeaching or nothing. It’s not that,” she said. “It’s a path that appears to be producing results and gathering information and some of that information is that this administration wants to have a constitutional crisis because they do not respect the oath of office that they take to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States … We won’t go any faster than the facts take us or any slower than the facts take us.”