Year: 2011

An Ethical Holiday

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I’m going to concentrate on trying to make the beginning of the holiday water-slide (which always starts on November 23, my wedding anniversary—this is our 31st, as I was married when I was 13) as memorable as possible, so unless something earth-shattering occurs, Ethics Alarms will be at status quo until sometime tomorrow. In the meantime, I want to wish all of you a very happy Thanksgiving.

Like many holidays, Thanksgiving is firmly rooted in ethics. One doesn’t have to be religious to acknowledge the fact that we have much to be grateful for, even in difficult times personally, nationally, and culturally. Gratitude is closely linked to modesty, humility and proportion in the hierarchy of values. American tradition urges us never to be satisfied with things as they are, but we should always be humbled by the fact that there are so many ways things could be far worse. There is no better time to begin a personal tradition of kindness and generosity toward others to last the year, or a lifetime.

In Southwest Washington, D.C., a section of town plagued with poverty, crime and violence, convenience store owner Ephrame Kassayegave out 375 turkeys as gifts to the community, in thanks and recognition of their loyalty. He said he was grateful for his patrons, and wanted to show it. That’s what Thanksgiving should mean, and that’s why it isn’t just a way-station between Halloween and Christmas. If nothing else, we all have each other in our families, communities, nation and world to make our lives richer, and if one day on the calendar helps remind us of that when we are feeling angry, anxious, envious and sad, it’s a day well spent. Life’s worth the trouble. Pass it on.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, everybody.

A Pre-Thanksgiving Day Ethics Quiz: Young vs. Brinkley

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

The  following heated exchange occurred yesterday between Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) and historian Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Rice University during a Congressional hearing.

Your Pre-Thanksgiving Ethics Quiz:

Who was more uncivil and disrespectful, the professor or the Congressman?

Possible Answers:

A. Rep. Young

B. Prof. Brinkley

C. Both

D. Neither was out of line.

I think it’s a surprisingly close contest. Brinkley is obviously a pompous jerk, as he was outraged at being called by the wrong name and couldn’t wait until the Congressman had finished speaking before he interrupted him with a definite “you’re an idiot” snark to his correction. Young’s barked retort, ordering Brinkley to be silent as if Young were some kind of Medieval Duke talking to an impudent  peasant was an obnoxious over-reaction, and Brinkley’s response to that was appropriate indeed: the Congressman needs to remember who he works for.

With reservations, I’ll choose A. I expect history professors to be full of themselves; that’s part of their charm. Brinkley was out of line and rude to interrupt Young, but Young’s disrespectful attitude toward a member of the public is more offensive than Brinkley’s disrespect for a member of Congress.

They both acted like jerks.

Ethical Quote of the Month: Newt Gingrich

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The Good Newt (newtus virtuous), once believe to be extinct, was sighted in D.C.

“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them. I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers… I don’t see how  the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.”

—-GOP Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, telling CNN debate moderator Wolf “Blitz” Blitzer his approach to illegal immigration, and spitting into the wind of Tea Party and and conservative Republican ideology on the subject.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Jimmy Fallon and The Roots

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Why is this Be Unfair To Michele Bachmann Month? Because everybody knows when you don't agree with someone, its OK to be unfair to them..

Late night NBC talk show host Jimmy Fallon’s band, The Roots, has developed a habit of choosing “walk-on music” for Fallon’s guests that contain editorial comment on the guests themselves. The practice is not original, but the degree to which The Roots choose titles that are direct insults is, and it’s an unethical practice. Guests are guests, and playing the music of a song with lyrics that intentionally insult a guest is still atrocious manners, not made any less rude because only those who know the song get the message.

When Rep. Michele Bachmann came on Fallon’s show this week, the band played Fishbone’s “Lyin’ Ass Bitch.” Foul. In ethical terms, this is the equivalent of the band standing up and shouting insults at Bachmann on camera, except that it’s more cowardly. Bachmann didn’t know that she was being insulted, and it was a sure bet that she wouldn’t: I doubt anyone expects Fishbone to be on Michele’s playlist.

Kimmel’s band was proud of itself; Roots drummer Questlove alerted his followers  on Twitter before the ambush, tweeting:

   “Aight late night walkon song devotees: you love it when we snark: this next one takes the cake. ask around cause i aint tweeting title.”

Fallon owes Bachmann an apology, and The Roots need to have basic professionalism explained to them.

UPDATE: Fallon and Questlove both apologized over Twitter.

Margaret Ann Haring Would Have Sent Elliot To Guantanamo Bay

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Quick...call 911!

Luckily, when Elliot had that weird mind-link thing with E.T. while the little alien was watching “The Quiet Man” on TV, and not only let all the frogs loose in his biology class but planted a major league lipper on a pre-teen classmate played by Erika Eleniak (later to prove Elliot’s exquisite taste by becoming a “Baywatch” pin-up) when the Duke smooched Maureen O’Hara, it was before the days of “no-tolerance” policies, and Ms. Haring wasn’t his teacher.

Not so lucky was the female student in a real life elementary school, who impulsively kissed a boy during a physical education class at Orange River Elementary School in Fort Myers, Florida. Haring saw her student’s vicious sexual assault, and called child welfare officials, who, rather than telling her she was out of her frickin’ mind, directed her to contact the sheriff. The school then reported the pre-teen moment of passion as a possible sex crime, according to the Lee County Sheriff’s Office. Continue reading →

Now THIS Really IS a Frivolous Lawsuit…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I have written here before that the legal ethics breach of filing a frivolous lawsuit (prohibited by Rule 3.1 in most state Rules of Professional Conduct) is almost impossible to accomplish, because it requires a lawyer to lack a good faith belief that the suit can prevail. Since bizarre and attenuated theories sometime do prevail, a law suit really has show no merit at all to prompt sanctions. Like this one, for instance. I quote from the Illinois Institute of Continuing Education’s summary:

“The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, acting sua sponte, found that the appeal filed by three attorneys in Gallop v. Cheney…, claiming that White House and military officials conspired to cover up government involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks was frivolous in that it was “brought without the slightest chance of success>’…The court found that the appeal contained a “comprehensive compilation of every rumor, report, statement, and anecdote that may reveal an inconsistency or omission” in official reports….The court stated that the misconduct was compounded by the filing of a motion to recuse the entire panel that was “peppered with disdainful and unsubstantiated conclusions about the panel members’ emotional stability and competence to serve objectively.” The motion accused the judges of having “severe bias, based in active personal emotions arising from the 9/11 attack . . . leading to a categorical prejudgment totally rejecting [Gallop’s] Complaint, out of hand and with palpable animus.”

“The court found the three attorneys jointly and severally liable for $15,000 in fines and ordered them to pay double the government’s costs for both the frivolous appeal and the recusal motion. The court also ruled that whenever one of the attorneys appears before any tribunal in the Second Circuit within the next year, he must alert the court to the sanctions.

“The court declined to sanction the appellant herself because she relied heavily on her lawyers and did not labor under the same legal and ethical obligations to the court as her attorneys.” 

Yup!!!!

 

The case is Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 370 (2d Cir. 2011)

 

The Pepper Spray Chronicles: So What’s the Ethical Way to Remove Protesters?

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

The flagging Occupy movement is gleefully—yes, gleefully—exploiting the University of California pepper spray incident for all it’s worth, which is fine. This is the game demonstrators play, and when their objective is, say, to overthrow a brutal dictatorship, the time-tested tactic of provoking authorities into apparent abuse is a wonderful way to attract support to a worthy cause. When the objective is to, uh, like say things aren’t as good as they might be and argue that the people working hard to make a living on Wall Street have too much and need to give more to the ones who spend all day drumming in parks, there lingers a legitimate question of whether the end justifies the means.

But I digress.

The police who pepper sprayed the passive squatters at UC Davis have been placed on leave, and you can bet that they will be defended to the hilt by the police union, which will try to show that they were following the book. “Heh! Heh! Gotcha!” chuckle the Occupiers. It’s a good gotcha, to be sure.
The police over-reacted, regardless of what you are hearing from some experts. No doubt: it is a delicate situation, and no doubt (in my mind, at least), the protesters almost certainly were going to make the police do something that would look bad on TV, even when it was justified. But this wasn’t. Continue reading →

Can’t Someone Be Appreciated for Being NICE Anymore? Even Michele Bachmann?

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Yes, a video of the last Republican presidential candidates debate (in Iowa) shows Rep. Michele Bachmann voluntarily filling the water glasses of her fellow contenders before the event, since apparently the organizers expected them to pour their own. The Horror.

The Huffington Post is sure this is a significant and unseemly display of subservience to men by Bachmann, whose fundamentalist Christian beliefs suggest that she accepts the concept of women submitting to their husbands in the marital relationship. Over at The Frisky, Jessica Wakeman accuses Bachmann of staging the whole thing for the cameras, so she will be perceived as nicer than she really is…and she thinks it gives women a black eye: Continue reading →

November 22, 1963—The Dawn of American Distrust

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

In November of 1963, the American public’s trust in its government stood at over 75%. The previous President had been a revered general who guided the Allied forces to victory over Japan and Germany. We were united against a sinister, common enemy, world Communism, led by a shoe-banging dictator who promised to bury us. The new President was a young, glamorous and inspiring man of wit and vision, whose signature policy initiatives embraced American exceptionalism and virtue—the Peace Corps, space exploration. Even in a city with more JFK foes than fans, the President and his wife drove through the streets of Dallas in an open limousine. And on a bright and beautiful fall day, two rifle shots blew John F. Kennedy’s brains out.

Today, 48 years later, public trust in the government is below 15%, an all-time low. Protesters are in dozens of American cities, challenging the foundations of American progress and success. Large numbers of the public believe that the U.S. Supreme Court assisted in a successful plot to steal a presidential election, and that a U.S. President planned the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001; that the CIA invented AIDS to kill African-Americans; that Barack Obama’s presidency is illegal; and, of course, that there was a massive government cover-up of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, a conspiracy that might well have involved his successor, Lyndon Johnson.

It is the lack of trust, more than any single factor, that feeds the ruinous hate and partisanship that has made American government impotent at the worst possible time, with crises intentional, domestic and spiritual surrounding us. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: “Ethics Dunce: An Unknown Diner”…. Just Desserts?

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

What would Jesus do if he got a crappy card like this instead of a fair tip?

The tale of the diner who left a pre-printed proselytizing card, disguised to look like a $10 bill, in lieu of a tip has attracted a surprising amount of interest on other sites. (The card began, “Some things are better than money…like your eternal salvation,” and went on to extol the benefits of religion.) Some of the comments raise ethical issues of their own. On Reddit, this interesting exchange occurred:

First Commenter: “I had a table of four leave me one of these and sixteen cents on their $40+ bill. The next time that they came in, which was the next Sunday after their church service they were completely ignored by all staff including managers. Forty minutes for their drinks, an hour and a half for their food, and a swift walk-by to throw the bill on their table was their service from then on.”

Second Commenter: What you SHOULD have done is this: Made their order, brought it to them, then, just as they were about to start eating, you should’ve taken the food away and replaced it with a piece of paper that said SOME THINGS ARE BETTER THAN FOOD…

Third Commenter: And did that make you feel good? Why not just refuse them service?

 First Commenter: Couldn’t actually refuse service for corporate bullshit reasons. This was a chain restaurant. Trust me we all wanted to tell them to GTFO and take their proselytizing bullshit with them. And yes it made every employee feel good to treat them like shit. Servers work for less than half of minimum wage, and a religious pamphlet does not help pay the bills.

Your Ethics Quiz to begin Thanksgiving week is a multiple choice: Which of the responses to the card is the ethical one?

Possible Answers:

1. Giving the group lousy and rude service.

2. Leaving the ironic message after taking awy their food.

3. Refusing them service.

4. None of them. Continue reading →