Comment of The Day (Public Service Message Division): “Wanetta Gibson Is Even Worse Than We Thought”

Wait a second...I'm getting my rifle...

Wait a second…I’m getting my rifle…

We haven’t had one of these in a while, and I’m feeling like having a good fish-shoot in the ol’ barrel, so here we go….

Apparently there has been another development in the Wanetta Gibson saga—I know this because the last post about this horrible woman is suddenly getting traffic again—and this has moved one Terrance Skerrette—I sure hope there’s just one— to enter one of those periodic comments I receive here that serves as a public service announcement for the ethically-challenged. You know the kind—Saturday Night Live parodies of such spots used to be a staple:

“Hello. I’m Jack Marshall, and this is Terrance. Terrance was raised in an environment that left him with an inability to understand ethics. That’s right–he will go through life justifying horrendous conduct by using rationalizations, hideous logic, and warped values. Will you help Terrance? No, he can’t be helped by treatment, but perhaps, if you give generously, we can provide him with a comfortable shack in the forest and plenty of food, so he can live comfortably without infecting anyone else with his hopeless ethical ignorance and dangerous excuses for terrible conduct. Please send your generous contributions to “Help Terrance,” care of Ethics Alarms. Thank you. Terrance would thank you too, but he probably thinks you are evil.”

Normally, I would try to explain, nicely and patiently, to a new commenter why his or her comment goes off the ethics rails, but I know when that is a waste of time, and this is such an instance. Wanetta, you will recall, sent innocent high school football star Brian Banks to prison for five years for a rape he didn’t commit, collected $750,000 by continuing her lie in a lawsuit against the high school where she and Banks were both students, sought forgiveness from him in prison while still refusing to exonerate him to prosecutors because she didn’t want to give back the money, then, after she was finally forced to admit that she lied when she accused Banks of raping her (her confession to banks was secretly recorded), recanted so she might avoid  being prosecuted, and because she was afraid that admitting the truth would cause her children, whom she can’t support, to think less of her, which is to say, the ugly truth. Her claim then: Banks paid her to say her original accusation was false. It didn’t work. Recently she was ordered to pay 2.6 million dollars in connection with the case, which means nothing, since she has a better chance of winning an ice sculpture competition in Hell than ever having the money to pay up.

Now here is Terrance’s comment. Trigger Alert!

“It is so hypocritical for some to speak out on this tragedy…..while they live off the same means she got her money from…..lie, steal, and cheat. Its easier when you’re not face to face with a victim to claim a moral high ground. Then turn around and want her children to suffer for her mistakes. If anyone needs to be chastised, its the leaders of this country who continually allow the rich to live off of the pain of poor people….those are your bigger monsters.”

Such a tasty smorgasbord of unethical idiocy to choose from! Let’s see..

1. It isn’t hypocritical to speak out against Gibson unless you are  in the middle of a fake rape scam yourself. Even a previous engineer of a false rape accusation that ruined a man’s life can properly speak out against Gibson. It only demonstrates moral and ethical growth and recognition of a past wrong.

2. This is outrageous false equivalence at best. One can make a living off of lying, cheating and stealing and still look saintly in comparison to Gibson, whose stealing came from a financially stressed school district, and whose lying robbed her victim of his youth, education, reputation, career, and quite nearly decades of his freedom.

3. Is this guy seriously calling Gibson a victim? A victim of who or what? She is a victim like Jeffrey Daumer, Bernie Maddof or Osama Bin Laden are victims, which is to say she is not a victim at all, but a predator, with no respect for humanity or the harm she does to others as long as her own agenda is satisfied.

4. It’s not “easier” to claim a moral high ground involving a sociopathic slug like Wanetta Gibson, because almost everyone is looking straight down on a person who abuses the justice system by lying to put an innocent human being in prison so she can collect some ill-gotten cash. Oh, some can look her in the eye, like the Connecticut hone invaders, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Stephen Hayes, but then, they raped and beat a mother and her two young daughters and then burned them alive. It takes a lot of effort to get to Wanetta’s Stygian depths of character.

5. Nobody wants Gibson’s children to suffer because of their mother’s crimes–not mistakes, Terrance, you fool: Wanetta made no mistake; what she did was a crime, indeed several crimes,and they were fully calculated. The unethical logic that argues that we should not punish parents for their horrible deeds because it’s hard on the children results in a virtual free pass for anti-social and criminal parents. Gibson victimized her children, no one else.

6. Terrance finishes with a grand flourish of working class hero nonsense, made more nonsensical by its context. Brian Banks wasn’t rich. The school wasn’t rich. Wanetta Gibson isn’t Robin Hood…she’s a venal, selfish, vicious danger to all around her. “The rich” have done nothing to harm Gibson, but have paid taxes that helped take care of he children and helped her pay the bills, after she and her mother spent the money they stole.

7. Sure, there are bigger monsters than Gibson. Godzilla, for example. The fact that there may be other bad people out there—never mind that Terrance couldn’t distinguish between a good person, a bad person, and LEGO model of the Andrea Dorea if you gave him month of Sundays—doesn’t make Wanetta Gibson any better than she is, which is  so disgusting that I will have to take a shower after posting this.

Sadly and horrifyingly, a lot of people reason like Terrance. Some of them are even in positions of power. They and their confused sense of accountability, responsibility, fairness and justice help create and sustain the Wanettas of the world, and do a lot of other damage besides. We need to make sure that our culture produces as few of them as possible, and that those it does produce have the influence on our society they deserve: none.

 

11 thoughts on “Comment of The Day (Public Service Message Division): “Wanetta Gibson Is Even Worse Than We Thought”

  1. “ITS EASIER WHEN YOU’RE NOT FACE TO FACE WITH A VICTIM TO CLAIM A MORAL HIGH GROUND. ”

    Wait, what? If I were face-to-face with an imprisoned Brian Banks (the victim!) I would want to do anything in my power to right the wrong that had been done to him, and that’s not so much ‘taking the high moral ground’ as simply doing what’s right.

    There’s a world of difference between ‘cheating’ such as welfare fraud, check kiting, or cooking the books (although these things are all wrong) and sending someone to prison on a false charge to rake in money. Can you really not see the difference, Terrance? Speaking of SNL, his logic reminds me of Nathan Thurm.

      • How much do kidneys go for these days? That might put a dent in the $2.6M, even if not a sizable one.

        As for there being unethical powerful people who have done more harm, yes there have been, and are. I don’t consider that makes them worse, they just have the opportunity to unjustly imprison thousands rather than only one. In an objective sense more dangerous, but only because of their power.

        Had Ms Gibson had the same political influence and a couple of billion behind her, she may even have been worse.

        • He didn’t say there were some worse powerful people, which hardly bears saying. Terrance says all rich people and all our leaders are worse, using only generalities. I don’t think your last sentence needs a qualifier. Dumb, vicious and without a conscience is no way to go through life, son…

          • Dumb, vicious and without a conscience is no way to go through life, son

            It seems to work for many CEOs. Just as rather more CEOs are nothing like that.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/

            the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large.

            Encouraging figures. 96% are not like her, according to this study. In my experience, I’d put the figure lower, but still in the 90s.

            • That 4 percent value is the journalist’s estimate and has not been empirically tested. Let me repeat – the JOURNALIST’s study. Has this study been vetted by peer reviewers? I don’t think so. What exactly was his sample size? What was the control group?

              People that have been chosen to lead companies to profitability have a fiduciary duty to the entire employee base, the customer and the shareholder. Some decisions will entail pain to some so others can benefit. It is the nature of the job – Just as it was for the generals that commanded operation Overlord who sent thousands of men to be mercilessly cut down on the beaches of Normandy. Simply because you don’t understand why decisions that hurt some people are made does not mean that the decision maker enjoys hurting people. Nor does it mean that they are without empathy. Many CEO’s lose considerable sleep over issues that affect the workforce they employ.

              I’d like to point out that even a senior union member will cast aside a union brother if the only choices are reduce the workforce by one or a minor pay cut for all. I have witnessed this in action.

              I also find the use of the term CEO to be inappropriately used. The head of every firm can use the term CEO but to equate all CEO’s as those that run the Fortune 1000 enterprises does a giant disservice, perhaps even an unethical one to the hundreds of thousands of CEO’s that know every employee by name, may know the employee’s family well, contributes to the community and follows high ethical standards.

              Jack, Chainsaw Dunlap is the featured ogre along with Dominick Strauss Kahn in that article. Both are over the top narcissists. Personally, I think it is unethical to label someone a psychopath by using a simple checklist without any education or credential in the field of psychiatry.

              • It is obviously unethical, although expressing the opinion isn’t unethical. These are all just labels that gather up behavior patterns. I am comfortable with the idea that many effective leaders of complex organizations tend to be sociopaths, narcissists or psychopaths to varying degrees. They are smart enough to know when looking like you feel bad or have a conscience is important. But a survey isn’t a very reliable way to root them out.

                • Agreed. My concern was that the Forbes article cited was used to validate the bias that is often ginned up against business owners. People follow good leaders that make hard decisions that are felt to be fair, just and lead to a desired outcome. I’ll take a leader who is up to the challenge of making such decisions, even if that decision might get me killed, over a pseudo-leader that vacillates based on public opinion, or cannot make a decision because he/she is a real “Sweetheart”. I borrowed the term sweetheart from the post on being a jerk. Al Dunlap and some others are outliers and do not reflect the behavior patterns of nearly all CEO’s.

                  Imagine how many more people would have died on the Titanic if the Captain wanted to hold a roundtable discussion on who gets in the lifeboats first.

              • “I’d like to point out that even a senior union member will cast aside a union brother if the only choices are reduce the workforce by one or a minor pay cut for all. I have witnessed this in action.”

                not always

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.