Lemonade Stand Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Yeah, I’m a sucker for kids with lemonade stands, but especially children being disappointed when they had been excited about a new experinece. Few things tug on my metaphorical heart strings like seeing eager kids on a sweltering day, sitting behind a fold-up table with a pitcher of lemonade, a hand-lettered sign, and no hint of a customer. It’s a retrospective Golden Rule thing. I’ve been there.

Two adorable little girls, maybe 12 and 9, had one such struggling business set up on a nearby corner mid-morning this week. No shade, no hats, no chair….and there weren’t even any cars driving by. When I walked past them with Spuds, I asked if their stand had any business yet. No, they said. I promised to get my wallet and come back.

When I finally drove back to the stand, maybe an hour later, the girls had packed up and were walking down the street. I pulled along side them by the cyrb them and said, “Won’t you sell me some lemonade? I was looking forward to it.” They both smiled broadly. One of the girls brought me a Dixie cup of warm lemonade. “How much?’ I asked? “Oh, I don’t know, a dollar?”

I stopped the car, got out, and handed the older girl a five dollar bill and an old straw hat Grace had given me for a birthday years ago: I brought it along to give to the girls. “You need to wear a hat; it’s hot…share this,” I said.

“And don’t give up! Business is hard. Most important is finding the right location, and think about how you should advertise. Also, decide on a price! I ran a few lemonade stands myself. Keep trying!”

As I drove off, they were setting up their table again. Some workmen from the school expansion nearby were walking over to them. Maybe I had given them a good experience to remember instead of a disappointment. There would be enough of those in the years to come.

It was worth a shot…five dollars, and an old hat.

One of the Unethical Quotes Of The Week (There Have Been So Many…): Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

“In light of the focus on this troubling case [Jason Arday scandal] and the widespread commentary around it, I want to be very clear that we do not need the outcomes of an investigation to clearly and loudly affirm that our staff of colour are highly valued, for their scholarship, their achievements, and the contributions they make to the institution and the wider academic community. This particular case is an aberration and should not be used to cast aspersions on their work or the legitimacy of their roles at Cambridge.”

—-Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice, sounding stupid and making it clear that the investigation Cambridge announced it will be undertaking will be butt-covering exercise and that nothing it uncovers will dissuade the university from its education integrity destruction due to ideological commitment to DEI above all else.

You can read her whole letter here.

She just couldn’t do it! She just couldn’t say that the Jason Arday appointment was a profound embarrassment for Cambridge and obviously represents a breakdown in the University’s standards, values, evaluation and recruitment procedures as well as administration and oversight of faculty, and that serious reforms need to be instituted and will be instituted once an investigation uncovers all the elements of the humiliation for the school the Arday episode represents.

Yeah, we know your “staff of colour” are highly valued, because they are badges of virtue to the DEI cult the educational community has become, symbolizing Cambridge’s conformity, loyalty and commitment. That’s how a sociopathic fraud like Jason Arday got his position in the first place.

The Arday mess is not an “aberration.” It is signature significance. No competent and respectable institution of higher learning hires a faculty member like Jason Arday even once. Eric Rasmussen collected the names and published the bios of the eleven distinguished scholars, professors and administrators who thought hiring Arday would be a boon to Cambridge. They couldn’t have checked his credentials. They didn’t think carefully about his claims which were absurd on their face. They allowed him to be hired because he was “of colour,” and that was what mattered. They should all be fired, but Prentice’s letter proves that 1) that won’t happen and 2) Cambridge’s cultural and ethics rot goes far deeper than just those directly involved.

X-user “Smirkly” posted the most extensive list of the flaming, pulsating red flags in Arday’s claims and performance, and it is impressive:

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “Abortion On Demand Up To Birth”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

John Paul submitted a thorough and perceptive comment on the recent post about Massachusetts adopting a law permitting abortion right up until birth.

I was reminded that my Nobel Prize-winning biology professor when I was a Freshman in college, George Wald (perhaps the best teacher I have ever had, and I’ve had some great ones), said, “To me, the question of when an unborn person acquires the status of a human being appropriately protected by law, morality and ethics comes down to two choices: at birth, or at conception. Any other dividing line is arbitrary. Given those choices, I have to conclude that it must be birth.”

Here is John Paul’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Abortion On Demand Up To Birth”:

***

“How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?”

Going to play (a little bit) devil’s advocate here, because I was genuinely curious. I too am horrified that such a law could be passed. I wanted to know what reason could even come close to anyone think this is a good idea. How could anyone look at this, say, “that seems good,” and sleep at night without having the fires of hell consume their dreams?

Desperate, I searched the internet, and this is what I came up with.

1. The language of the law does not permit women to abort babies after 24 weeks. It allows physicians and doctors to rely on professional judgment without fear of prosecution.

2. Abortion is so broadly defined that it includes miscarriages and stillbirths.

3. A patient’s mental heath might change after the 24th week.

4. Late term discovery of fatal fetal abnormalities discovered.

5. Late term severe (but non-fatal) abnormalities discovered.

6. Mothers having to travel out of state for abortion services.

7. Keeping the decision between doctor and mother.

8. The belief that viability is not a adequate legal dividing line.

9. The belief that the government should have no say in abortion at all, and this is the only way to guarantee it.

10. Political/ideological commitment to abortion.

11. Life of the mother.

There might be more. Most of what I have seen falls into one of these categories. If anyone has any to share, feel free to add to the list. However, just because it is a reason doesn’t mean it’s even a good reason or a well-thought-out reason.

Pages: 1 2

AAAAAAH!!! Scary…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

By pure luck, I stumbled across the photo above of Demi Moore from earlier in the year right after watching a disturbing PBS documentary about the late Karen Carpenter, who died in her early thirties as a result of a long battle with anorexia. The frightening figure to the right is pop singer and actress Ariana Grande. Both performers chose to highlight their appearance; several publications that used the photo of Moore referred positively to her “toned arms.”

In a related development, women (and some men) as young as 18 are getting botox injections because the flat, unexpressive forehead look is unavoidable if one watches much TV. Icons such as Jane Fonda and Goldie Hawn send the message that natural aging is shameful—Jane’s appearance in her 80s is so disturbing I refuse to look at her. In the meantime, Nicole Kidman has found some elixir or spell that has kept her appearance at 59 creepily similar to how she looked at 30, with none of the tell-tale signs of touch-ups that make other actresses her age grotesque.

My late wife suffered from anorexia in college and was so traumatized by natural aging that by the time she died Grace had become a virtual recluse. The damaging behavior of youth-obsessed celebrities is hardly a recent development; still, after being reminded of how one of the most gifted female vocalists was taken from us by the body dysmorphia their narcissistic habits inspire, I felt it necessary to flag the issue—again—today.

Public figures become role models whether they like it or not, and they influence the behavior and attitudes of others, especially the insecure, the emotionally vulnerable, and those without healthy and responsible role models in their own lives. It is impossible to measure the damage they do, the Demis to the aging, the Arianas to the young.

But it is a lot.

Ethics Observations on the Francesca Hong Primary Loss In Wisconsin

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

The big story on CNN and MSNOW this morning is that Democratic-Socialist Francesca Hong lost the Democratic primary for Governor in Wisconsin. CNN is relieved, MSNOW is kind of sad. Meanwhile, Fox News wants to focus on the WNBA, because everything about it makes progressives, women, blacks, lesbians, and supporters of trans-males look terrible.

You can see the results above: Hong conceded a bit before 95% of the votes had been counted. Ann Althouse finds that susp…interesting. The Wisconsin bloggress observes,

“Why did Hong concede so quickly, with such a narrow margin? Why not wait at least until all the votes are in? Why not ask for a recount? She’s entitled to a recount if the margin is 1% or less, but it’s only paid for by the state if it’s less than 0.25%. To drag out the process after the primary would help Tiffany. That’s good reason not to indulge in a recount, but why not wait until all 100% of the votes are counted? She conceded when it was less than 95%.”

There is certainly a lot to trigger conspiracy theorists about this result. The winner, David Crowley, the black Milwaukee County executive, barely eked out a victory after his candidacy was resurrected late in the campaign. Democrats decided that Hong couldn’t win the general election, so Gov. Tony Evers (D), who had pledged to stay out of the race to replace him, became active in the effort to beat Hong. In July, Crowley had dropped out of the race, saying that it was “clear that I will not be the Democratic nominee for governor.” Then Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, who was the leading “establishment” candidate left, dropped out of the race.

Crowley was being pressured to re-run, and said he was praying for guidance. His wife asked for a “sign”that her husband should rejoin the race: if she saw a red bird, her husband should jump back in to the primary. I’m not kidding, unfortunately. She said she did see a red bird, and so 10 days after quitting, he spouse was in the race again. This is how seriously American take democracy in 2021. Who would vote for a candidate for governor who makes decisions like that? Not me. I’d rather vote for the bird.

More ethics-related notes:

Pages: 1 2

Abortion On Demand Up To Birth

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

I have two simple questions for pro-abortion (or perhaps “pro mothers and doctors being able to kill viable infants at will” is a more accurate label…a bit long, I admit) advocates.

How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?

Abortion will now be allowed at any time before birth in Massachusetts after Governor Maura Healey (D, or course: what other party would do this?) eliminated the state’s abortion limits yesterday. Previously, the Bay State had allowed abortion only up until 24 weeks. Now a fully developed unborn infant can be killed any time during the 40-week gestation cycle, even second before birth. That means that the child could be delivered via C-section and instantly be protected by law as a living human being, but an unborn infant at the exact same state of development and fully viable can be murdered in the womb after the mother’s water has broken and contractions have begun.

To be fair, now, the home of my birth and happy childhood isn’t the only barbaric state with such an immoral law. Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia of course, also believe that being able to kill living and viable infants in the womb is a human “right.” Peter Singer, the Princeton ethics professor, once caused an uproar when he said that as long as we were allowing abortions up to birth, why not let the mother see her baby first after it is born and then have the option to kill it? He was right: morally and ethically, either homicide is exactly the same. The distinction between born and unborn at that point is arbitrary and a legal fiction, created to let mothers feel better about a monstrous act.

Pages: 1 2

Flagrant Media Bias And Disinformation of the Year: NPR

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Here is how National Public Radio reported those statistics on D.C. crime on the one-year anniversary of President Trump ordering the National Guard to patrol the National Capital.

“Multiple studies have since found that the National Guard presence in D.C. has had no effect on violent crime, although there has been a decrease in opportunistic crimes like petty theft and vehicle break-ins.”

That summary arrives after NPR spends nine full paragraphs burying the lede, only to lie about what the lede is anyway.

When I read that [Aside: NPR had the gall to send me a solicitation for a contribution via email, signed by the NPR host who blackballed me as its ethics commentator for telling the truth about late-hit sexual harassment complaints, because I “seemed to be defending Donald Trump.] this morning I was genuinely puzzled. When I surfed past Fox News last night, Laura Ingraham was declaring that the statistics proved that Trump’s use of the National Guard was prudent and has been a great success. Two completely divergent news reports. This is why our journalism has become untrustworthy and dangerous. This is why civil discourse is nearly impossible, with citizens operating under competing distortions of reality.

And this is why President Trump was and is right to call our news media “enemies of the people.”

However, NPR’s distortion and deceit qualifies the network as a media Ethics Villain and an Ethics Corrupter. Note the chart above from the D.C. police site. A 32% decrease in murder is not “no effect” on violent crime. That isn’t just spin or bias, that’s a lie. NPR also plays language games, because that’s the Left’s specialty. “Opportunistic crimes like petty theft and vehicle break-ins” is the euphemism this nauseating excuse for a news organization uses to describe the following crimes that have decreased significantly in the past year in the District:

  • Robbery
  • Arson
  • Motor vehicle theft
  • Theft
  • Property crime
Pages: 1 2

“The King Is Dead! Long Live…Oh. Never Mind. Well, Bye!”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

What is the ethical way to handle a serious mistake for which you are completely responsible?

Hint: it isn’t what the radio station’s employee did in this fiasco.

Yesterday, the British Office of Communications (Ofcom) issued its report on an incident in May that was not covered very thoroughly in the former Colonies across the pond. The U.K. radio station Radio Caroline had aired three pre-recorded statements during “The Barry Marsh Show” announcing that King Charles had died. He hadn’t died. Nevertheless, the third statement said “news media” had confirmed that the King was dead. “God Save the King” was then played, the announcement was repeated, and there were 16 minutes of dead air. When regular programming resumed, Barry, whoever he is, apologized to listeners.

“I’ve just been informed that we’ve played in error some information a little earlier, I didn’t hear this myself, but it is incorrect, it’s a technical issue, and of course we apologize,” the host said. To the station’s audience, King Charles had been “dead” for about a half an hour.

How did this happen, you well may ask. Here’s how: Radio Caroline, which plays music from the 1960s to today, was streaming from a remote location. A staffer was performing maintenance on a studio computer and found the three files prepared for King Charles’ death. 

Although the files “are accompanied with a set of strict instructions to presenters and managers to follow before being aired,” the staffer played the files “out of curiosity.” This stopped the stream from the presenter’s remote location, and broadcast the pre-recorded announcement on the air. Barry was on a call and didn’t immediately notice that his show was telling people that the King had died.

And the staffer responsible for this mess? He or she (the sources say “they,” which is stupid and useless…but woke!) panicked…and ran away, leaving the office.

Brilliant.

Radio Caroline says it “took the matter very seriously, and much activity was taking place during those 30 minutes leading up to the apology.” Yet the station says that the staffer responsible was “reprimanded” and has “apologized.” That is not taking the matter seriously.

A staffer who has otherwise performed well in a job can legitimately and ethically be given a second chance after a major error like this, but the staffer’s reaction is not pardonable. The individual lacks the character, composure, judgment and sense of responsibility to justify a second chance. “They” cannot be trusted.

It is workplace management like Radio Caroline’s that is creating an epidemic of incompetence across the United States, including in national, state and local governments, and apparently worldwide. Falsely telling the British public that the King is dead is a minor inconvenience compared to all the expense, inefficiency, frustration and damage this kinder, gentler approach to management causes.

____________________

Pointer: Young Bill

A Jacques Brel Award for Film Reviewer Marya E. Gates

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Gates is one of the contract film reviewers on Roger Ebert.com, a website I find slightly unethical for the same reason I regarded the Sirius-XM Sixties Channel running old tapes of the Wolfman Jack radio show unethical. The Wolfman was long dead ( the show did not make that clear), and Roger Ebert died in 2013, but the website he once issued reviews from has continued to use his name to make readers think what appears there is, like Ebert was, perceptive and competent. As Gates’s bitter review proves, that is a misrepresentation.

As every other review and the trailer seem to indicate,“One Night Only” is a standard issue romantic comedy with a contrived set-up. Never mind: Gates decided to use her film review as a platform to spew pure partisan bile. Political bias tainting reviews is a long held target for me: the 20-year run of my professional theater company was a constant victim of it because the Washington Post reviews dismissed almost all of our productions of classic American works as insufficiently supportive of 21st century progressive values. I particularly recall our revival of Gore Vidal’s political satire “The Best Man” being panned because the concept that a Presidential candidate’s “private sexual conduct” was relevant to his fitness to be POTUS was absurdly “dated.”

Guess who was President at the time?

Pauline Kael of the New Yorker soaked her otherwise astute reviews with her leftist bias. For example, she panned every John Wayne movie because he was too conservative for her. To be fair, she was one of my earliest introductions to New York City liberal media group-think. Kael wrote that she was shocked when George McGovern lost to Nixon in 1972 because she knew literally no one who wasn’t voting for the Democrat. (George lost in a landslide.)

As the silly reviews for “The Odyssey” recently demonstrated, reviewers reading politics into films that have nothing to do with politics is obnoxious and unprofessional, but Marya Gates is under the misapprehension that she has the standing and intellect to use her reviews to rant about politics like a smug, Trump Deranged college sophomore majoring in Critical Race Theory.

Here are some excerpts:

Pages: 1 2

The Duane Davis Self-Incriminating Memoir…Or Novel…Conundrum

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I love it when, completely by accident, a day’s posts sync up. Today began with two posts about my assertion that until very recently the dominant template for the American Presidency was the “blue-eyed white guy with an American-sounding name,” which had the unintended consequences of making it nearly impossible for anti-Americans like Mayor Mamdani, Rep. Omar, and and Michigan Senatorial hopeful Abdul El-Sayed to gain power. Stating that fact got me accused of racism right here on my own blog.

Next came the tale of how an autobiography about to be published and authored by a disgraced Cambridge professor has already been pretty thoroughly shown to be fantasy, with the Left and the lying, now ex-prof, claiming that he is the victim of racism like every other person “of color” on the planet. This latest post is about a black criminal on “the fringes of hip-hop” standing trial for murder because he self-published a book that said he was involved in one. His defense: he made it all up.

You know, like Jason Arday‘s memoir.

I’m sure he’ll claim racism too at some point.

Thus comes the fascinating legal conundrum raised by the prosecution of Duane Davis, who wrote in 2019 that he was part of the plot to murder the rapper Tupac Shakur. The 215 page book, published with a co-author (actually a ghostwriter who authored all of it), was largely ignored until a detective with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department started working on the cold case, discovered “Compton Street Legend,” and used it as his primary evidence to persuade a grand jury to indict Davis on one count of murder in the famous rapper’s killing. Davis, now 63, has pleaded not guilty and denies guilt.

Pages: 1 2