A Note On The Latest Axis Freak-Out Over Trump Trivia

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The graphic above was based on data from the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN), White House executive orders, and U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary’s Orders to chart notable geographic renamings in the U.S. from 1963 to 2026.

While renaming two large bodies of water is certainly an unusually flamboyant example of changing names of geographical locales for political or other reasons, Trump’s contributions to the map certainly have plenty of company. The hysteria attached to the most recent “horror,” the renaming of Lake Ontario (Who. Cares.) is, in this context, wildly excessive.

It is also, as an astute conservative contrarian on my Facebook feed pointed out, hypocritical. The same people foaming at the mouth over the loss of “Ontario” to name a lake shared by the U.S. and Canada were all-in as schools, streets, plazas, parks, buildings and more had their names changed by wokesters when The Great Stupid spread its dark wings over the land. They applauded attempts to erase from cultural memory such crucial figures as Founders Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason, Presidents George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, William McKinley and John Tyler, and important historical figures like Robert E. Lee and John C. Calhoun….and I’m not even talking about all the toppled statues.

As an aside, I saw for the first time, the brilliantly gold-refinished hyper-muscular horses and riders that grace D.C.’s Memorial Bridge as I crossed crossed from from the Old Dominion to the Lincoln Memorial. They look great, in stark contrast to their tarnished, ruined appearance for, oh, as long as I’ve lived in the area. But I bet the Trump deranged still hate the upgrade, because he did it. For example, a Trump-hater posted on X a representation of how Trump’s arch would block the view of the Lee Mansion in Arlington National Cemetery. Huh. So you wanted to pull down every statue of the General across the country, but his plantation’s mansion is sacred!

Fascinating.

Asshole.

Comment of the Day: “On The Lindsay Clancy Support Movement: ‘What’s Going On Here?’”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

I’m getting this Comment of the Day by Tim LeVier up about a week late. Fortunately, I was reminded of the topic because essays and articles about the weird outpouring of support for a child-killer keep coming. Here’s the beginning of one I read today in The Free Press:

“Struggling, sleep-deprived moms are propping up their phones in their bathroom, hitting the record button and throwing ice at it while screaming for a whole minute. “Instead of having a screaming match with my toddler,” one mom wrote in a social media post, “I throw ice into my tub. It allows me to feel angry without being destructive.” Moms are also setting up ring lights to film themselves hysterically sobbing in front of their small children. Others are filming their crying babies with the caption “Me too, Lindsay,” in solidarity with Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mom who killed her three children—ages 5, 3, and 8 months—and is currently on trial for murder. This brain rot has spread like wildfire, as the algorithms made sure it would, and in the momosphere—the network of TikTok moms and mommy influencers and mom bloggers—it has been almost universally embraced as a healthy, liberating way for mothers to exhibit their rage.”

Tim’s analysis is as useful as I found it to be last week. Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “On The Lindsay Clancy Support Movement: ‘What’s Going On Here?’”….[Oh…I know it’s foolish and biased to judge people by countenance, but boy, if I were casting Medea—or Lizzie Borden—that face would be irresistible.]

***

I have to break down any comment by the groups involved:

1. L. Clancy – She’s on trial. She did the deed. By her plea, I would say that’s an admission of being the one to have done the deed, her defense is not that she didn’t do it, her defense is that there’s disagreement to the severity of the charge due to her mental health.
That is a proper question and should be settled by the courts / justice system.

2. The Parents and their Fundraisers – As I had heard it, money was being raised to support her parents through this and provide them with a place to stay because 3 years of motel rooms adds up.

It is a noble enough goal for the parents to attend the trial and confront the facts and reality of what is determined regarding your child. The people legitimately raising funds and supporting only this goal are probably showing some kind of exemplary ethics in being able to overlook the “Ick Factor” of the case and demonstrating a duty to care. How much easier would it be for the parents to not confront reality and wipe their hands of their daughter?

3. The Grifters – Ostensibly, there must be online grifters that have their own interests in play. They find hot button issues to sell some t-shirts and signs and whatever else will turn them a profit. They’ll lie about donating money and they’ll fan the flames to market and sell their wares.

These people are scum and not real people. They likely use AI generated video characters to fan these flames and profess their own special kind of virtue.

4. The Protestors / Defenders / Supporters – Providing financial and material support to someone they have no prior connection.

These people are deranged and one has to question where they came from and who has time to commit to such folly at a time when everyone and their mother is complaining about the cost of things. Why would anyone protest due process? She’s making her case in a court of law and the fair process will play out resulting in a judgment. This isn’t an area for “opinions” and to influence an outcome. Its meddlesome and the act of a narcissist that believes in one’s own “greatness” or “importance” over that of an impartial judicial institution.

An Ancient Viewpoint on Modern Ethics and Our Current Ethics Train Wreck Environment

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Guest Post by James Rogers

[Note: I am abashed that over the years Ethics Alarms has neglected formal ethics theory far more than it has focused on it. Thus I was thrilled to receive this excellent guest post, submitted by faithful Ethics Alarms reader James Rogers. JM.]

It is evident to many, perhaps even a majority, that we have been living through and are still in a substantially unethical period in US and world history. How can we objectively determine if this is true? The multiple ethics train wrecks highlighted by our blog host is certainly one. Another reasonable and slightly less subjective method would be to consider how an eons-old founder of our civilization measured ethical people and behaviors generally and in the realm of politics.

Recently, I took the opportunity to read two books on the matter by Aristotle (4th Century BC), ‘Nichomachean Ethics’ and ‘Politics’. In those readings Aristotle directly addressed both the individual and societal perspectives on ethics and ethical government. This perspective has additional appeal as it isn’t tinged by modern religious biases.

Since we are humans, tackling individual ethics seems foundational as societal ethics comprises humans behavior and interactions regarding governance and broader economic and social commerce. Starting there, Aristotle points out there are three essential reasons for human action:

  • Pleasure (personal gain or goal achievement),
  • Honor (public recognition, affirmation, or reputation), and,
  • Virtue (for the benefit of another or others though it may also benefit you) without expectation of any recompense or acknowledgement.

These are universal in our human motivations, regardless of a person’s status, wealth or education.

Finding a truly or purely virtuous person or people to interact with is more than tough to find. In fact, it is fairly certain that person or set of people do not exist. Potentially someone independently wealthy, who needs nothing, who simultaneously is pursuing virtue is possibly out there,  but it would be more than challenging to find and identify them. If this is an accurate assumption, the human race is likely facing tough choices individually, as they strive to be virtuous themselves while finding others to engage with who will behave, at least in part, virtuously. As a result, we often make our own personal ethical compromises and also in our associations.

This is not promising.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Law Student’s AI Query

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I am something of a persona non grata on the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (because I’m on to them, and they know it) listserv, but the list still has its uses. For example, one of the more ethical ethics lawyers circulated a question he received from a student in his legal ethics class regarding the use of artificial intelligence in class:

Pages: 1 2

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias” Note of the Week: CNN’s Dana Bash Peppers Tom Homan With “Poor Illegal Immigrants” Questions

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I try to avoid the Sunday talking-head shows now (once upon a time, my late wife and I would watch them all). For some reason I lighted on CNN’s “State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash” this morning and caught the hang-dog, sour-faced Bash trying to bash Trump Administration illegal immigration policing czar Tom Homan.

Bash: “Do you feel at all bad about sending Haitians back to a country where your own administration considers conditions dire?”

Ethics Verdict: Stupid, manipulative, and irresponsible. “Feelz” are not valid considerations in law enforcement, nor are they legitimate topics for inquiry by serious journalists, of which we have approximately none; certainly not Dana Bash.

What exactly does she propose, importing the whole population of Haiti because that accurately labeled “shit-hole country” hasn’t managed to get its act together for its entire, miserable, violent existence since it became independent in 1804? Holman, who has a terrible poker face on which we could see his disgust with each one of Bash’s questions that had the unstated implication that he, and President Trump, of course, are heartless racists. Homan answered this one by saying that he doesn’t feel badly and shouldn’t when he is enforcing the immigration laws as passed by Congress. He also made the obvious, though not to Bash and all the other “Good Illegal Immigrant” bleeding hearts, point that millions of people across the globe are in line to come to “the greatest country on earth” the legal and right way, and there is no justification for allowing those who came here or remain here illegally to block their paths.

Pages: 1 2

Being Secretly Paid To Pimp For A Political Candidate On Social Media May Be A “Legal Gray Area” But It Sure Isn’t an Ethical Gray Area!

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The New York Times reports that when so-called “social media influencers” declare their support for political candidates, they may may be getting paid to do it.

You know, like when Kamala Harris paid Oprah, Beyonce and Al Sharpton.

The Times says the practice falls “into a legal gray area.” Welcome to at least two substantive rationalizations on the Ethics Alarms Rationalizations List, #4. Marion Barry’s Misdirection, or “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical,” and #5. The Compliance Dodge!

But neither rationalization that tries toweasel out of the obvious should be necessary, should they? When someone online, on video or on the web says they support a candidate, a policy or a political position, they are announcing that their support is genuine and not bought and paid for. It doesn’t matter whether it’s illegal to misrepresent the reason for the endorsement or the opinion, or to let audiences think that it is based on genuine belief or analysis without disclosing that it is really based on money. It’s dishonest. It’s misleading. It’s deceptive.

It is unethical.

And any candidate, PAC, organization or political party that pays for such fake support is cheating whether there is a law against doing so or not. This isn’t hard.

Since its favorite party is the main perp in this corrupt practice, the Times pronounces it bi-partisan. Yeah, some Republican scumbags do it too, but I mentioned the magic word “cheating,” so naturally the paid “influencer” scam is especially popular with the Cheating Party, Democrats.

Kendall Boyle is a TikToker in Michigan with over 21,000 followers. She told the Times she was contacted by a social media marketing agency called Activate HQ offering her a paid opportunity to post videos about “how rising costs are affecting Michigan residents in real life.” She was told that the source of the payments would be Majority Forward, a group linked to the Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC. Activate HQ explained that “disclosure is not required and the paid partnership label will not be included in any posts.” A condition of the deal would be that Majority Forward “will not be mentioned” in her content.

Boyle declined, telling the Times that “It was one of those things where something isn’t fitting right.” Ya think? Gee, what a well-honed set of ethics alarms she has!

Pages: 1 2

When DEI Has Value: TCM’s Brock Peters Salute

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Last night, in another bout of insomnia (the 1-0 Red Sox loss to the Yankees was giving me nightmares), I went down to my living room and turned on the TV. TCM was showing, “Alligator II, the Mutation” starring Joseph Bologna and Dee Wallace Stone (the mother in “E.T.”) and a CGI alligator-like monster. I was puzzled. I knew that in August TCM was using each of the 31 days to honor a significant movie star by showing only their movies, and they have all been major stars, though some of the movies chosen by TCM to represent them are quirky selections—only 3 of the 14 films picked for John Wayne are legitimate classics, and the Duke made at least 11 by my count and arguably several more. Who was the major star being honored with this terrible movie?

It turns out that the star TCM decided to devote a whole 24 hours to is Brock Peters. I knew who he was because I know way too much about show business, but I quickly moved from puzzlement to annoyance. Clearly, I thought, this was TCM, as it has done frequently recently, being woke. This is DEI personified. Brock Peters, now deceased, was black. There just weren’t a lot of major black stars in the Golden Age of Hollywood (although I don’t understand how Sidney Poitier missed the cut), but Brock Peters was never considered a movie star by any measure. He only starred in a single major film, “Black Girl,” and it was a critical and financial flop.

But TCM’s odd focus on Peters made me curious. I knew about his memorable performance as Tom Robinson, the black man defended in a rape trial by Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) in “To Kill a Mocking Bird,” but surely “Alligator II,” a late career film for Peters in which he had a supporting role as a police detective, couldn’t be his career high point after “To Kill a Mocking Bird.” Well, it wasn’t.

Peters was versatile and talented, and had an impressive career, though movies were not his best genre, and his race probably limited his opportunities severely considering that he began performing professionally in 1949. He was a trained singer with terrific bass voice, receiving accolades in several Broadway musicals, including a Tony nomination for his role in the Kurt Weill musical in “Lost in the Stars.”

Peters had continuing roles on several hit TV show, like “Battlestar Gallactica.” Because of that voice, between 1981 and 1996 Peters played Darth Vader in the radio adaptations of the first three Star Wars films for National Public Radio. He was chairman and a co-founder of the Dance Theatre of Harlem.

In short, Brock Peters may have been a DEI choice to honor as a movie star by TCM, but because of that quirky choice, a lot of people were introduced to a unique, talented and accomplished black artist who might otherwise be completely forgotten. He shouldn’t be.

Thanks, TCM!

And thanks, DEI. You’re not completely useless after all.

Dolly Death Aftermath Ethics: If You Have To Be A Knee-Jerk, Fact-Resistant, Virtue-Signaling Progressive Shill, FINE, But Stop Lying

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

[This is CNN! I had to find an excuse to post this, but it is relevant to Paragraph 7 below.]

All over Facebook, my Trump Deranged friends have been egging me on to stuff their metaphorical heads up their metaphorical asses after they have used Dolly Parton’s demise to justify their own biases. My favorite was the one that began, “I don’t want to talk about Trump, but isn’t it interesting that the vile, bigoted asshole wrote nice things about Dolly even though she was woke and an LGBTQ supporter.”

Note: This woman doesn’t want to talk about Trump, but immediately turned an appreciation for a recently deceased, non-political country music superstar into an excuse to attack the President.

Remind me: how did I end up with so many friends like this?

Lie #1: Dolly Parton was not by any stretch of the imagination “woke.” She consistently refused to take political or culture war positions. “Live and let live,” “Trust in the Lord,” Love your Neighbor” are not woke talking points.

Lie #2: She was not an LGBTQ “supporter” other than to say she loved everyone. Claiming that Parton was a member of the Pride mob is now a viral near consensus on Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook, and even the bots on Google and “X” will confirm that non-fact. It’s the reverse of “If you’re not for us, you’re against us”; in Dolly’s case, that she didn’t support active bigotry against gays etc. and believed they should have the same rights and acceptance as everyone else, made her an LGBTQ+ activist.

Let’s examine this one a bit more. shall we? Dolly Parton never directly advocated same sex marriage. She once joked about gay marriage, “Why can’t they be as miserable as us heterosexuals in their marriages?” Bob Hope might have made that joke. (Maybe he did.) Bob was not “woke.” She gave the obligatory lawn sign pablum “I think love is love and we have no control over that” when pressed. I guess she also supported the Man-Boy Love group, then. “I think people should be allowed to marry,” was another of Dolly’s carefully worded ambiguities. Donald Trump’s comment was, “I have no problem with the gays.” Did that make him “woke”? An LGBTQ activist?

Pages: 1 2

Now THIS Is “The King’s Pass”….

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Many of you don’t get it, but baseball is a wonderful laboratory for general ethics problems, revelations and teachable moments. To wit…

Ketel Marte, 32, is one of the top second basemen in baseball, indeed one of the top players in the game at any position. However, Marte failed to show up for a game last week with his team, the Arizona Diamondbacks in the middle of a pennant race. He deserted his team mates without letting anyone connected with the Diamondbacks know the reason for his absence or his whereabouts for more than 24 hours. His manager, Torey Lovullo, said he was dealing with “personal problems,” then Marte was determined to be injured and was placed on the injured list. Cameras subsequently caught him enjoying himself at a casino. This isn’t the first time Marte has gone AWOL either: he did it last season too.

The Athletic, which serves as the New York Times captive sports service, asked Diamondbacks General Manager Mike Hazen why the Diamondbacks tolerate Marte’s behavior. The answer made me nauseous.

“He’s an extremely talented player,” Hazen said Wednesday. “At some point, there’s a balance between what you are willing to deal with to get a level of production that can win you baseball games. We’re in the business of winning baseball games.”

No, no no.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Month: New Mexico Supreme Court Justice C. Shannon Bacon

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

“Do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world? Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day.So either you have buried your head in the sand … and that’s an intentional choice to be uninformed, or you took a gamble, and neither of those are consistent with the code of conduct.”

—-New Mexico Supreme Court Justice C. Shannon Bacon excoriating lawyer Stephen Aarons for submitting a brief riddled with ChatGPT “hallucinations.”

Good for her, but still not strong enough.

Aarons’ brief included references to imaginary witnesses and fake testimony from at least one real witness. That AI bots are likely to make up case cites and even statutory language has been recognized and publicized widely, not just in legal publications but in the general news media since early 2024. Lawyers, including those with large national law firms like Morgan & Morgan and even the Justice Department continuing to file these bogus bot-authored court documents is amazing to me. And they are too stupid, ignorant and lazy to even proof-read what the bots wrote! One judge recently railed specifically at using ChatGPT for legal work, which he compared to using Mad Magazine as a legal reference.

Bacon threw the metaphorical book at Aarons, removing him as attorney from the case of a 60-year-old man convicted last year of murdering his wife, found him in contempt of court, ordered him to pay $5,000 to a client protection fund, and referred him to the bar for potential discipline. The murder appeal will be handled now by a public defender.

It isn’t just lawyers, of course, who deserve tongue-lashings like this. Teachers, professors, newspaper editors, legislators, politicians, screenwriters, and, yes, judges to name just a few of the affected groups have an obligation to keep up-to-date on the AI revolution, and a disturbing number of them are not even close, which is inexcusable.

Two veteran members of Congress, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. James Clyburn recently indicated that they were ill-informed regarding AI. That this is, frighteningly, not unusual shouldn’t give us any comfort. Lawmakers are notorious for taking an inordinate amount of time to understand new developing technology, as when the late Senator Ted Stevens, while chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, described the internet as a “series of tubes.” Like the internet but perhaps even more so, however, artificial intelligence is a civilization-altering (and perhaps -threatening) phenomenon moving at the speed of light. Those who are too dim, indolent, unimaginative and irresponsible to keep up need to get out of the way and retire to some nice, safe, quiet pursuit like beachcombing or golf.

Oh…it’s the Rules of Professional Conduct, Your Honor, not the “code.” Judges have ethics codes. Lawyers haven’t been governed by a “code” for 40 years.

Try to keep up.