Sunday Ethics Horrors Starring Charlie the Raccoon

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Taking their cue from Democrats, who seem hell-bent on proving that American voters are too stupid, inattentive and trivial to be entrusted with a Republic, here is an AI TV campaign attack video in the Alabama Lt. Governor race. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen approved the head-exploding ad against John Wahl, the former Chair of the Alabama Republican Party to gain an advantage in the party’s runoff for the position. Trump endorsed Wahl, who finished in first place in the primary earlier this month but short of the 50% of votes necessary to win outright. Apparently he has a pet raccoon that sleeps on or in his bed with him. Now me, I would automatically vote against any candidate who would insult my intelligence with such an ad.

Meanwhile…

1. And now, the rest of the story.…Last August, EA told the story of Shannon Joslin, a Yosemite park ranger fired for mounting a Pride banner on El Capitan. Poor Shannon! “I’m devastated, said Joslin, “We don’t take our positions in the park service to make money or to have any kind of huge career gains. We take it because we love the places that we work. I have a Ph.D. in bioinformatics, and I could be making a lot more money in Silicon Valley, which is only a few hours away, but I made career choices to position myself in Yosemite National Park, because this is the place that I love the most.’” I asked, “Then why did you use your position to make an unauthorized political statement while marring the natural beauty that tourists expect to see in National Parks?”

Well, Shannon sued the Park Service (the lawyer who came up with the theory should be sanctioned), claiming that his/her First Amendment rights were breached—you know, because any other employee gets to put up political signs in the middle of their workplace without approval or permission, right? No? The dismissal was “vindictive” and “retaliatory” and meant to “communicate disapproval of a particular point of view”? Really? Uh, no. The stupid suit was dismissed last week.

In a side Great Stupid issue of continuing annoyance, the New York Times begins its report announcing that Shannon is non-binery and uses “they and them” pronouns, so it feels required to confuse readers by using plural pronouns to describe a single idiot throughout the story. Typical section: “To me this ruling isn’t a ‘win’ for the federal government,” they added in a text message. “This just slows down the process of allowing justice to be served for the American people and slows down allowing National Park Service employees to be effective stewards of public lands.” And the way to be stewards of public lands is to allow rangers to mar them with Pride flags. Brilliant! “Right now, it is unclear whether Dr. Joslin will ever have their day in court,” “their” lawyer said. Awww. What a shame that would be!

Sorry, back to the pronouns; the sheer stupidity of this whole episode got me off track. The duty of a news source is to make the facts clear to readers, not to accommodate all the political correctness hoops the subject of the story insists everyone jump through. Don’t know whether you’re male or female? Too bad. Pick one. Or be prepared for the singular pronoun “it.”

Pages: 1 2

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Traditionally, the tale of the plug of tobacco has been law students’ favorite anecdote explaining the term “res ipsa loquitur,” or “the thing speaks for itself.” I have reprinted the story or a link many times, but not yet in 2026, so here you are…

“It seems that appellant [Mr. Pillars] consumed one plug of his purchase, which measured up to representations, that it was tobacco unmixed with human flesh, but when appellant tackled the second plug it made him sick, but, not suspecting the tobacco, he tried another chew, and still another, until he bit into some foreign substance, which crumbled like dry bread, and caused him to foam at the mouth, while he was getting “sicker and sicker.” Finally, his teeth struck something hard; he could not bite through it. After an examination he discovered a human toe, with flesh and nail intact. We refrain from detailing the further harrowing and nauseating details. The appellant consulted a physician, who testified that appellant exhibited all of the characteristic symptoms of ptomaine poison. The physician examined the toe and identified it as a human toe in a state of putrefaction, and said, in effect, that his condition was caused by the poison generated by the rotten toe.[emphasis added]…Generally speaking, the rule is that the manufacturer is not liable to the ultimate consumer for damages resulting from the defects and impurities of the manufactured article…[but the Court can] “imagine no reason why, with ordinary care human toes could not be left out of chewing tobacco, and if toes are found in chewing tobacco, it seems to us that somebody has been very careless.” Agreed. The case is Pillars v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., 78 So. 365 (Ms. 1918).

Similarly, 21-year-old woman Maria Eduarda Rodrigues de Freitas is dead because the idiot staff at a bungee-jumping event threw her from a bridge but forgot to attach the cord, leading to the poor woman plunging about 130 feet into a ravine. Maria was pronounced dead at the scene. The incident occurred on the “Skeleton Bridge” in Limeira, in the state of São Paulo.

Six people have been taken into custody. Good.

You know, hiring the equivalents of Moe, Larry and Curly to supervise bungee jumping is even more irresponsible than letting the Three Stooges be plumbers, carpenters or surgeons, which were among the set-ups for many of their slapstick film misadventures. Neither their employers nor the negligent homicide perps themselves can fall back on any rationalizations on the list and get away with it. #19. The Perfection Diversion, or “Nobody’s Perfect!” and “Everybody makes mistakes!” or #20. The “Just one mistake!” Fantasy are probably their best shots, but the problem is that literally nobody does this, ever, unless they are menaces to society who need to be locked away for the greater good. Tossing a trusting thrill-seeker off a cliff and neglecting to fasten the cord expected to safe her life is signature significance for a reckless moron. I guess #20A, “Everyone Deserves a Second Chance,” is also worth a try, but I would require such a bungee jumping establishment to prominently display a sign that says:

“Warning! Occasionally our staff neglects to attach the cord, which will result in a jumper having their brains splattered all over the ravine floor.”

I hate blaming victims, but I feel compelled to add that those of us who deliberately engage in activities that have no societal utility whatsoever and that innately involve the risk of death or serious bodily injury are limited in the amount of sympathy they can expect from me when their metaphorical tossing of the dice comes up snake-eyes. There are several posts on EA about the topic, as with people who pay absurd amount of money to climb Mount Everest or who go over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Those who feel something as pointless as bungee jumping will enrich their lives and signify a purpose to an otherwise empty existence have their priorities seriously out of order. They don’t deserve to die, but they do deserve to have St. Peter say, when they knock on the Pearly Gate, “You died how? What were you thinking?”

Madison Square Garden/New York Knicks Ethics [ Updated ]

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The New York Knicks finally won an NBA Championship after over half a century, bringing to a happy end one of the longest current fan base frustrations in professional sports, but also a series of ethics messes arising out of Madison Square Garden.

There were some post-victory ethics botches outside of the Garden last night. I don’t understand why winning a sports contest is provocation for a riot. I get the drunken fool effect, but even so: there were no riots in Boston when the Red Sox broke their 86 year-long World Series blight, “The Curse of the Bambino.” Gee, I wonder how many of those Knicks fans will be sent to jail for long periods on the theory that they threatened an “insurrection.” After all, President Trump made it clear that he was rooting for the Knicks. Wait, that’s it! The rioting was Trump’s fault!

Here’s an incomplete list…

Pages: 1 2

The Kiss-Off

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

One reason I moved from a writing a website that had formal essays on ethics issues to a blog format is that I wanted my commentary to be more visceral and personal, even venturing into my personal relationships when it seemed appropriate, as when a situation I encounter is one that I believe is an enlightening part of the human experience.

I just had one of those. A woman I consider a close friend, one I have known for nearly 40 years, had a major change in her domestic arrangement and moved out to a more distant section of the Greater Washington area. I have always maintained periodic contact with her—lunch, dinner or drinks—but hadn’t seen her for over a year. I sent her an email inviting her to catch up.

I believe I am fair in saying I have played a substantial role in my friend’s life, beginning when I cast her in a major theatrical production I was directing at a time when she was lost, depressed and seeking a new course in her life. She had no experience but I saw talent: from a chorus part with no lines I encouraged her to take greater risks in theater and to expand her experience and abilities. Eventually she became a successful professional actress in regional theater.

Off the stage, she was one of my favorite people: funny, strong, gutsy. I do not believe we ever had a serious argument. When she needed my advice and intervention, I helped her cope with with a health crisis in her family; when she went through her divorce, I was supportive. (She had met her husband in that first show of mine that she auditioned for.)

Given this background, I was stunned when the answer to my friendly email arrived. It stated that her former life seemed far away now, and apparently I had been filed among “many of all the people” who were involved in theater with her in Northern Virginia. “I just don’t want to look back,” she said. “I wish all good things for you, Jack, I really do. And who knows? Perhaps our paths will cross again someday.”

Not if I see you first, bitch.

I must admit, I was hurt by this abrupt end to a long friendship. I have had the pleasure of making a positive difference in many people’s lives; I don’t expect flowers, demonstrations of ostentatious gratitude or testimonial dinners, but I don’t expect metaphorical kicks in the teeth either. The email was patronizing, and I have a low tolerance for that. It was cold, and I didn’t deserve that either. My response could easily have been “Bite me!” but instead I just expressed my amazement and disappointment. “I don’t reach out to people I’ve cared about out of nostalgia or to relive old times,” I wrote, ‘I reach out to people who I believe are special and who I would prefer to have in my life than not. I’m not sure what I did or didn’t do to warrant exile , but OK, I respect your choices and always have.”

To encapsulate the painful episode, someone I thought was a good friend and someone I know I had always been a good friend to summarily announced that she didn’t want to be friends any more. I find that gratuitously cruel, and cruelty is unethical. I have never done that to anyone, and I never would.

Has this ever happened to you? If so, how did you handle it?

Ethics Observations on the L.A. Mayoral Election

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

A recent participant in the comment wars asked if EA was going to have any further comments on the Los Angeles mayoral election, which is an ethics lemon in about every way imaginable. Thinking about it, I suppose I have…

1. In the end, it may be that the predictable result of Democrats rigging the primary and election process to ensure that two unqualified extreme leftist women-of-color oppose each other will not be what is remembered, but the emergence of Spencer Pratt as a rising force in American politics. He was in the cast of the brain-dead reality show The Hills, and his main qualification to be mayor was that he was wiped out by the L.A. wildfires that current mayor Karen Bass allowed to rage in her incompetence and then lied about it. That’s like claiming that being mugged qualifies one to be chief of police. Pratt and his reality show actress wife own Pratt Daddy, “an exclusive crystal company,” whatever that means. In L.A., though, not being a woke idiot may be a qualification all by itself.

Like Ronald Reagan half a century ago, Pratt can speak persuasively in complete sentences, and has sufficient acting chops to project intelligence and gravitas. He mopped the stage with both of his Democratic adversaries, Bass and councilwoman Nithya Raman in their debate. He also had deft, humorous, and effective online ads that may be the beacon of what campaign ads will become.

Pratt has refused to concede despite being ejected from the final race by the Democratic machine in a, shall we say, dubious but not surprising manner. As you can see in his most recent ad, he intends to expose the corruption and incompetence in L.A. politics, although I might ask what more needs to be exposed.

Pages: 1 2

Addendum to “Ethics Dunce: Anyone Who Criticizes Elon Musk For Being The First Trillionaire”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I wrote last night’s post about the socialist hacks attacking one of the U.S.’s most productive and innovative people for being too successful at what he does—as contrasted with his envious critics—based on old information, as in “what I had accumulated in my notes during the day while trying to do my far easier and less productive job. (In fact, it’s ridiculous how little being an ethicist accomplishes, if it accomplishes anything at all.) Here are some related items I would have included if I had taken a bit more time on that post….

1. In addition to being assholes, the Musk-haters don’t know what they are talking about.

A frequent and erudite “X”-pundit whose handle is “Cynical Publius” wrote:

“Elon Musk is a trillionaire.”

“As a securities law attorney, please allow me to explain how anyone who says this is basically lying to you:

  1. The Securities and Exchange Commission has a myriad of laws that prevent founders and other large stockholders of publicly traded companies from dumping their shares. There are substantial holding period requirements, volume of sales limitations and public reporting obligations for stock sales. Basically, Elon holds largely illiquid shares, he is a “trillionaire” on paper only, and the best analogy is when people peg your net worth based on your home’s market price. That’s not money in your pocket, that’s the house you live in.
  2. All that money raised in the IPO? That’s not going into Elon’s pocket like the lying socialist idiots want you to believe. It’s a capital influx that will be used to make more rockets and get more payloads into orbit. It’s a CAPITAL investment—that money is like a business loan, it’s not your money to keep, it’s your money to grow the business.
  3. If it WERE legal for Elon to dump his shares, the share price would crash basically instantly and the company could very well fail.
  4. If you bought SpaceX shares in the IPO, congrats. You just bought a lottery ticket, just like Elon. May the odds ever be in your favor.
  5. So the next time someone screeches about how unfair it is that Elon Musk creates wealth that benefits all of humanity, throw the truth back in their faces.”
Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunce: Anyone Who Criticizes Elon Musk For Being The First Trillionaire

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Today Elon Musk, already the world’s richest person, became its first trillionaire as the result of a record-setting initial public offering from SpaceX, his rocket and artificial intelligence company. As the company ended the day valued at more than $2 trillion, Musk’s wealth jumped to $1.2 trillion.

Good for him. Bravo!

The abuse being hurled his way for earning money commensurate with his contributions to civilization and the United States particularly is unusually foolish and unethical even for the political and ideological Left, from whence it is coming. Musk is a trillionaire now because he is an innovator, he is gutsy, he spends his money wisely, he takes big risks less wealthy people will not, and he has provided jobs aplenty in new industries. He is almost certain to accomplish much more going forward; it’s exciting to speculate. What’s not to like?

Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City wrote on X (because he’s a Communist and has never built a business in his life), “Reason #1,000,000,000,000 why we should tax the rich.” Would somebody please tell the Mayor that we do tax the rich? It is estimated that Musk has paid about 11 billion dollars in state and federals taxes over the years, and even more internationally. Senator Elizabeth Warren posted on social media that the average U.S. household would have to work more than 11 million years to attain Musk’s level of wealth. That is the epitome of “missing the point.” I read even dumber complaints about Musk on my Facebook feed.

Maybe something is wrong with me: never in my life did what someone else made, possessed or have in the bank make me envious of him or her, resentful, or feel anything at all, frankly. Maybe it is because I figured out early in life that someone making more money than me doesn’t cause me to make less unless we are both line items in a limited budget.

Musk deserves more than a trillion dollars: he deserves a heroic statue next to Miss Liberty, because his purchase of Twitter, something only he could do because he had money to burn, rescued free speech in the U.S. and open political discourse from censorship by the totalitarian Left.

Those who attack Musk because he has made a great fortune doing great things don’t comprehend liberty, capitalism, genius, risk-taking, innovation, problem-solving, oh, lots of wonderful things. And they vote for barely employed oyster-seekers who have Nazi symbols on their chests and abuse women.

Friday Open Forum, Over-Heated Ethics Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

It it was great sadness that Ethics Alarms must confirm the death of former Pope Hat blogger and lawyer Ken White’s brain. As with the brains of Bill Kristol and so many friends and colleagues I once respected, including Ethics Alarms’ AWOL columnist Curmie, Ken’s neural headquarters expired of acute Trump Derangement.

The malady was first diagnosed in his case when he joined the Axis stalwart magazine “The Atlantic,” though I personally had hoped for a recovery based on my satisfying personal contacts with Ken over the years and the fact that compared to what the Democrats have become, Donald Trump seems as reasonable and rational as James Monroe.

Meanwhile, the anti-white racism and low-IQ bluster coming from certain presumed Democratic Part base segments is, if not surprising, provocative. I would rather slice off my lips than vote with such self-evident fools. It is amusing, I must admit, to see how easy it is to own them on social media. As in…

Nothing helps, however.

Over at Althouse, Ann Althouse devotes a post to taking issue with President Trump calling Graham Platner a pig. It is certainly a less creative ad hominem than most of Trump’s insults, but there are some things even I find too trivial to criticize. She does have a good quote about the news that someone cut “8647” into the National Mall, getting there by discussing the newly refurbished Reflecting Pool that my Trump Deranged Facebook friends find so offensive:

“The more grim, puritanical, humorless, imperious, and repressive you are, the funnier it is to make fun of you.” There’s a similar concept at play here: The more you show how much you care about pristine beauty, the more exciting it becomes to besmirch it. We can’t have nice things. Oh, but those who endorse the idea “86 47” might respond, these “nice things” are not nice. They are Trump things and therefore the ugliest things of all. To desecrate them is to move in the direction of true beauty. “

My thoughts about the latest “8647” are a bit different. Comey’s juvenile pleasure at seeing that shell formation would have vanished into internet obscurity if the Trump Justice Dept. wasn’t so foolish as to indict him for it. The Streisand Effect is real, and rather obvious by now, wouldn’t you think? Apparently not, at least among MAGA zombies.

“Now go do that voodoo that you do so weeeeeeeell!“

Ethics Quiz: “Ick!”or Ethics [Hello Fresh’s Anal Sex Ad]

/ Jack Marshall / 56 Comments

Nice.

I guess I had to post about that, though I wish I didn’t have to. I feel, and I always have felt, that being “proud” of how you have sex is like being proud of how often you have to visit the bathroom. It’s desperate and stupid, as well as gross.

That ad, and so much else our grovelling to the LGBTQ community has burdened society with, demonstrates how pernicious slippery slopes are. Because ancient taboos held that gay people should hide themselves in shame, some genius decided our society should declare that what one chooses to do with their naughty bits should swing to the other end of the spectrum and be a source of “pride.” No, it shouldn’t. In my experience, only mega-jerks boast about how and where they choose to have sex. I don’t care. It’s none of my business. If I’m interested, I’ll ask, and since I’m not and never will be, I won’t, so shut the hell up.

Hello Fresh has now exposed its marketing department as tasteless and pandering, like all those cowardly, pusillanimous companies that slobbered all over Black Lives Matter. I remember a late night D.C. horror movie TV host got himself fired for suddenly talking about smegma between reels of “The Brain From Planet Arous.” I thought his outburst was hilarious, but it didn’t belong on TV, and that was the end of “Gore DeVol.” This ad should be the end of Hello Fresh if there’s any justice in the world, and we know there isn’t.

I’m going to ask anyway, though I know my answer…

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Is the Hello Fresh “Pride” ad alluding to anal sex just in terrible taste and icky, or is it unethical, as in wrong?

________________

Pointer: Willem Reese

Comment of the Day: “Why Are Conservatives Trying To Get Blacks To Riot Over Karmelo Anthony?”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Cees Van Barneveldt challenges me from the start of her Comment of the Day to lay odds on how likely it is that Democrats will try to turn Karmelo Anthony into the latest “systemic racism” martyr. One can never go broke relying on the stupidity of either political party, but I just can’t believe the Axis is foolish enough to let this happen.

Rightly or wrongly, the U.S political Left has convinced itself that the mid-terms ar in the bag because all voters care about is the price of eggs, beef and gas. (In other words, voters are even dumber than the two parties.) There has been substantial backlash against Black Lives Matter, and Karmelo is not a particularly sympathetic “victim.” It is hard to justify stabbing an unarmed teen to death.

This is Cees Van Barneveldt‘s Comment of the Day on the post, “Why Are Conservatives Trying To Get Blacks To Riot Over Karmelo Anthony?”

* * *

“Democrats can’t be dumb enough to try to make a martyr out of Karmelo Anthony. They just can’t. Right?“

I am just curious what our host is willing to bet on this; the last word of the post indicates some doubt. I am afraid that Red State may have a point here, and I hope they are wrong.

I do not like the scenes outside the courthouse. A group of black people who believe the entire case is about race, and are cheering on Karmelo Anthony. One of the protesters is on video shouting “The only good cracker is a dead cracker”. Not that I am surprised by this, given that the GiveSendGo campaign for Karmelo’s defense was motivated by the desire to fight white supremacy. For Karmelo and his family, and for the donors to this fund the issue has always about race since the arrest, and not about justice (murder or self-defense).

I also do not like the counter protesters, with their “White Lives Matters” banners, American flag T-shirts, and some of them waving confederate flags. This is like waving a red cape in front of a bull, needlessly provocative. Why would anybody not just simply follow the court proceedings on television from home, and hope and trust that the jury reaches a just verdict?

About not having an African American on the jury, this is not evidence of jury rigging in disfavor of Karmelo by the prosecution. The county in which the trial took place has a 12% black population. The likelihood of a jury without any African American by random selection is 20%; this means that there was no significant bias against African Americans during jury selection. Statistics often uses a likelihood of below five percent as significant. One of the black juror prospects demonstrated bias during jury selection by stating that he “would have a hard time convicting a brother”, and had to be stricken for reason. The jury was not all white as there were four minority members on the jury, just not black. I do not blame the prosecution for trying to prevent racially biased jurors reaching an OJ Simpson style verdict based on racial considerations.

The trial proceedings did not show racial bias. Many of the witnesses against Karmelo Anthony were black. Austin Metcalf’s coach is black.

If the defense attorney is worth his salt and salary (which he has not proven during this trial) the best thing he can do is appeal the verdict based on the jury selection process. We will see how much merit it has. The speed and clarity of the verdict will be a big hurdle for the defense to get an appeal.

Sadly enough this society has enough low IQ people who will milk their grievance till the bitter end and will be willing to burn this society like in 2020. To them I would say “bring it on and make my day” and see how this works out in the mid-terms. They will find that accusations of racism have lost the power to shame and manipulate people, and now only contribute to the phenomenon of “black fatigue”.