Month: October 2010

Murchowski’s Unethical Zombie Endorsement

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Former Senator Ted Stevens is dead, the victim of an August plane crash. Yet there he is on TV, enthusiastically endorsing defeated Republican Senator Lisa Murchowski as she runs as a write-in candidate against Joe Miller, the man who beat her in the primary for the GOP nomination.

I don’t care that Ted Stevens taped an endorsement of Murchowski’s primary candidacy before he died, and it doesn’t matter that Stevens’ family approved the use of the zombie endorsement now. Murchowski’s use of the video is doubly unethical. It is misleading and dishonest, because it implies that Stevens endorsed the Senator for her write-in campaign…impossible, because he died before she lost the primary. Continue reading →

Hypocrisy of the Year: The Islamophobic New York Times Company, Washington Post, Et Al.

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

The New York Times, as well as the Washington Post and other major newspapers, have piously condemned those who raised objections to the proposed Islamic center in Manhattan, near the site where nearly 3,000 Americans met their death at the hands of Islamic extremists. The Times, the Post, their fellow papers and many of their columnists and bloggers proclaimed that a peaceful religion was being smeared by bigoted Americans and political leaders smitten with “Islamophobia.”

Then, on October 3, a Sunday installment of the prize-winning comic strip “Non Sequitur” was censored from the pages of the Post, the Times-owed Boston Globe (the Times itself has no cartoons) and almost 20 others. The strip, you see, jokingly suggested that an image of Muhammad the Prophet, which strict Islamic principles decree must never be shown or ridiculed under threat of a fatwah, might be hidden among the depicted happy characters in the manner of the “Where’s Waldo?” children’s books. Continue reading →

Joy and Whoopi’s Unethical Bully Tactic

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

To have seen it live, you have to watch The View, which is not good for your brain or digestion, and be willing to watch Bill O’Reilly, which requires a tolerance for arrogant certitude that is only present in certain genetically gifted individuals. But on the video clip, you can see O’Reilly explaining why about 70% of Americans think that the Muslim center being planned for construction near the site of the September 11 terrorist is “inappropriate,”  saying “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” The View’s co-host Whoopi Goldberg took violent offense at the statement, exclaiming, “No! Not, oh, my god. That is such bullshit!” [Note: It is not “bullshit.” Muslims indeed performed the attack, in the name of Muhammad no less. ] O’Reilly, understandably confused, said, “Muslims didn’t kill us on 9/11? Is that what you’re saying?” Continue reading →

Next On The Tea Party Disgrace Parade: Joe Miller

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Does anyone know what ethics is in Alaska?

Apparently nobody who runs for office up there. Fresh off of defeating GOP Senator Lisa Murchowski (who became senator in a blatant act of nepotism by her father)  in the primary for this years U.S. Senate race, thanks to the endorsement of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who abandoned her post to cash in on her media fame), Joe Miller announced to the press that he will no longer answer reporters’ questions about his background and personal life.”We’ve drawn a line in the sand,” he said. “You can ask me about background, you can ask me about personal issues, I’m not going to answer them. I’m not. This is about the issues. … This is about moving this state forward, and that’s our commitment.”

Ethics alarm! Whenever a candidate says that “personal issues” are off the table, and that the election is about “moving the state forward,” you can bet the candidate has a bloody skeleton or six in his or her closet that will tell the voters something important about whether the candidate can be trusted. Continue reading →

Unappetizing Spam Of The Day

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Ethics Alarms gets about two times as many spam comments as real ones, most of which I can discard without a second’s thought. Occasionally one brings me up short, however, like this one. If it’s not spam, the blog is being followed by some very strange people. The comment was:

“Thanks for the post. I am always looking for ways to improve my gardening and cooking skills. My family loves eating real food.’

The post it was in response to is… “Unavoidable Bias in the Embryonic Stem Cell Research Controversy.”

Yuck.

“Yes, THESE Figures Were Outrageously Mistaken, But You Should Trust Our OTHER Figures Completely!”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Question: What ethical conclusions can one reach from this story about the great, environmentally responsible state of California?

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

“California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards…The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries. Continue reading →

Unethical Website of the Month: Domainscalping.com

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

We haven’t had a good example of an unethical website for a while, but here’s a classic.

Describing itself as the doorway to a “sneaky but ethical” way to make lots of money fast, with no talent or benefit to society while going by a name—domainscalping—that accurately describes its so-called business for the slimy and unethical practice it is, this site wins multiple prizes for forthright sleaze and ethical ignorance. Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Former NFL agent Josh Luchs

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment
“That night I sat in my hotel room making a list of pros and cons in my head. Sure, it was breaking NCAA rules, but I would be helping Kanavis out. How would I feel if my mom was sick and I didn’t have money to help her? I went through this for hours and finally decided to do it. The next morning I went to the bank, pulled out some of my bar mitzvah money, $2,500 in cash, showed up at Kanavis’s door and told him, “Kanavis, I gave this a lot of thought, and I want to help you out. I know how I would feel if it was my mom.”

—Former registered NFL player agent Josh Luchs, describing to Sports Illustrated one of thirty incidents in which he gave money to college players to persuade them to sign up as clients.
………..
Yes, if it was Luchs’s mom, and he thought he could con an agent into handing over illicit cash using her as an excuse, he might have tried this too. Thus do we see how a profession that is faced with many ethical dilemmas is completely unprepared to apply even rudimentary ethics analysis to come to a correct decision. Luchs frames his dilemma to make him out to be a good guy, but what he was actually doing is exploiting a college kid’s personal problems to reel him in, breaking NCAA rules on the way and jeopardizing the player’s career. Did Luchs explain that accepting the money might lead to sanctions for both the player and his college? Apparently not. More importantly, Luchs wasn’t giving money to the athlete to help his family out; he was giving the money as the quid in an implied quid pro quo arrangement: “I help your mother, you sign with me. Deal?” Continue reading →

What’s the Matter With Direct TV?

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Okay, you Direct TV defenders…if you can stop rolling on the floor with hilarity over people being tasered by police officers and having their food adulterated by redneck waitresses for a second, explain this one to me.

In a current Direct TV commercial about the joys of paying your satellite bill online, a woman enthusiastically chirps, “No more “borrowing” stamps from the office!” Yes, not only does Direct TV assume that everyone steals stamps from their work place, but they think it’s no big deal. If it was anything to be ashamed of, the ad wouldn’t accuse its potential customers of doing it, now would they?

Stealing stamps or anything else of value from your job isn’t cute, and it isn’t right. Who are these people? How did they get this way? This time, they don’t even have the excuse that it’s just for laughs, because this commercial is all business. I think Direct TV’s ads show a company with an ethically corrupt culture, so much so that its management and staff just assumes everyone is just as dishonest and selfish as they are. If they’ll steal stamps, they’ll pad my bill.

So please explain to me, Direct TV fans, why accusing us of stamp stealing is all in good fun.  Otherwise, I think I’ll be going back to cable. It is beginning to look like there is something seriously wrong with this company.

Note to John Avlon: Having Itegrity Doesn’t Make Someone a Wingnut

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

John Avlon is a Daily Beast contributer; he also is the author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. Avlon’s definition of “wingnut” often seems to be a politician who doesn’t agree with John Avlon, but his recent list of 15 wingnuts running for office this November would be hard to quibble with, except that 15 is far from enough in this disturbing election.

One aspect of his list is both telling and unfair, however. The policy position Avlon cites most frequently to “prove” that a particular candidate is a wingnut is the candidate’s opposition to abortion “even in cases of rape or incest.” Whatever that position may be, it is not evidence of wing-nuttiness. Continue reading →