MORE From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: White Mother, Black Baby

Several times in the past I have cited the famous case of the severed toe in the plug of tobacco. It stands for the proposition that certain occurrences are so clearly a result of unforgivable human error that no further evidence is needed. This is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, “The thing speaks for itself.” The Mississippi Supreme Court stated that try as it might, it could “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.” I’m confident that those judges would have come to the same conclusion in the case of the botched IVF procedure that ended up with a mother giving birth to another couple’s baby.

Someone was very careless….

Continue reading

Ethics Musings at a Memorial Service

I have been to more memorial events in the past year than in the previous ten. Today, on the day before the 365 day anniversary of my wife’s sudden death, I began with another, a “celebration of life” in a Baptist church for a woman I never met. But she was the mother of a friend, not a close friend, I guess— can someone you have only talked to twice in 30 years be called a close friend?—but a wonderful, kind, caring man whom I am proud to have as a friend at all.

I knew only three people at the service besides my friend, which surprised me. I spoke with two of them, and waved to another. Sitting alone in a long pew, my mind wandered all over the place on many topics—this is my curse. Is it unethical to be thinking about a different deceased person at a memorial for another one? No, thinking isn’t ethical unethical, but anyway, I couldn’t help replaying the events of the past year beginning with February 29, 2024 in my mind.

The service, though mercifully short, reminded me of Grace’s disillusionment with organized religion after growing up as Methodist minister’s daughter. The sermon was delivered by a friend of the family; itwas so generic as to be impersonal and meaningless, even though it was presented as particularly applicable to the deceased. The pastor basically repeated that “love is the way” over and over again for fifteen minutes.

Meanwhile, he soloist at the service seemed to think of herself as channeling Aretha Franklin, but had neither the voice nor, crucially, the pitch to approach that standard. She also was belting high, screachy notes into a harsh and overly-loud sound system that really and truly hurt my ears, but I felt it would have been bad form to cover them with my hands.

Furthermore:

Continue reading

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files…

Today is supposedly Great Stupid Day, or Throw a Tantrum Day, or something. One of my previously functioning lawyer friends on Facebook posted the nonsense below, saying that “we all” should follow its wisdom “if we can”:

Friday Open Forum!

There should be a lot to write about today that I have missed so far.

Meanwhile, the Hackman demise mystery is more confused now than when I posted on it yesterday. The theories are getting really wild now: last night I heard an “expert” speculate that Hackman and his wife had simultaneous heart attacks.

I think we can officially conclude that the Hackmans did not kill their dog as part of a grand, planned exit, because two of the couple’s dogs are alive and well. Well, good. The post was primarily about the unethical practice of euthanizing healthy dogs “out of love.” (No one has yet suggested that the dogs conspired to rub out their masters, but the way the speculation is going, that theory may surface yet.

I always feel terrible when any well-loved and respected public figure has a final act that is embarrassing, lurid, pathetic or ugly. Often this means that the mess is remembered for than what went before, which was what mattered.

Do write something memorable for me today.

From James Carville, a Rationalization #22 Classic, and Ethics Dunce Infamy

For some reason, the Axis media and social media pundits have been resorting to interviewing retired, apparently unemployed, old Clinton political consultant James Carville as he slowly transforms into Gollum and says “fuck” a lot. Virtually all political consultants are soulless, ethics-free Machiavellians who would sell out their own mothers out for a rich contract; the successful ones aren’t stupid (unlike the consultants Kamala Harris apparently paid millions to), but they usually have nothing to teach us about ethics except from the “Don’t be like them!” perspective. Remember how Dick Morris, another Clinton consultant, suggested that Bill commission a poll on whether he should tell the truth about Monica Lewinsky?

[Digression: In a recent interview on the same “Call Her Daddy” podcast that Kamala chose to submit to instead of Joe Rogan’s, poor (not being sarcastic: I feel sorry for her and always have) Monica Lewinsky said that the “right way” for President Clinton to have handled the revelation of their liaisons would have been either “to resign” or find a way not to make her a national pariah. “I think that the right way to handle a situation like that would have been to probably say it was nobody’s business and to resign,” Lewinsky said, “or to find a way of staying in office that was not lying and not throwing a young person who was just starting out in the world under the bus.”

Comment for Monica: “Welcome to the party, pal!” Yet you sat back and let Hillary Clinton campaign as a feminist Presidential candidate while the Democrats cynically cheered themselves as “the party of women.” My sympathy for you stretches only so far…]

Seldom, however, do these unethical mutations of humanity who call themselves consultants come right out and express exactly how warped they are, as Carville does in this video on Rumble. He says, speaking about the issue of biological women participating in women’s sports,

“If you feel like that you have to protect these girls from, I’m not sure what — I don’t really fucking understand it or give a shit, but it’s a big goddamn issue to you, so, you got to be sure that you’re out there and ready to go. And, you know, whenever this topic comes up, I say, ‘Look, I’m sorry. I just don’t think a lot about track meets. I think a lot about people having affordable health care. I think a lot about how we can grow America. I think a lot about that they’re not going to be able to pass a debt limit, not even close, much less reconciliation, anything else.”

Nice. Women and girls losing to biological men in their athletic competitions, risking injuries, losing championships, scholarships and the experience of fairly run sports just isn’t as significant in the vast scheme of human events as the other concerns Carville mentions, so its not worth talking about or fixing.

That’s the essence of evil Rationalization #22, the worst on the list, which allows any conduct, no matter how harmful or wrong, to be brushed aside and rationalized away because “there are worse things.” From the description of #22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse thingsat the list,

“If ‘Everybody does it’ is the Golden Rationalization, this is the bottom of the barrel. Yet amazingly, the excuse is popular in high places. During the Iraq deabale in the Bush II administration, we heard the “Abu Ghraib was bad, but our soldiers would never cut off Nick Berg’s head!” argument. It is true that for most unethical misconduct, there are indeed “worse things.” Lying to your boss in order to goof off at the golf course isn’t as bad as stealing a ham, and stealing a ham is nothing compared selling military secrets to North Korea.”

You can try to excuse anything this way, and Carville’s favorite party is wearing out #22 of late. A particularly ridiculous extension of the rationalization was a recent Providence Journal story headlined,  “Numbers show RI undocumented immigrants a small slice of those getting benefits. What we know.

Reporter Katherine Gregg determined that Medicaid payments to those without Social Security numbers totaled $55.4 million last year, including the $16,106,050 paid to illegal immigrants. Then she shrugged off the wasted funds as just a tiny percentage of the Medicaid budget. This is apparently the Axis-ordered rebuttal for all of the Trump Administration spending cut efforts: why should we care about a few million or even a few billion here and there, while so much more is being wasted elsewhere?

Jeez, where’s Ben Franklin when you need him?

Carville’s #22 is even uglier because he frames it in human terms. Even though the invasion of trans men into women’s sports does measurable harm to identifiable children and adult athletes, puts girls and women at risk of injury, and savages a group that Carville’s party once pretended to care deeply about, it’s just not worth paying attention to because….health care is too expensive. His attitude can’t be justified as utilitarianism, because the integrity of women’s and girls’ sports isn’t part of a trade-off or a necessary sacrifice to achieve a greater good. It’s just not important enough, says Carville, to care about.

Yecchh.

Regarding the Washington Post’s New Opinion Page Policy…

Do you understand what this means? I don’t.

Since a lot of writers work for Jeff, I would have suggested that he have one of them draft that statement with his oversight. Presumably he means that the Post will no longer publish op-eds like this…

…but he could have just as easily written that the Post will no longer give a platform to Trump Deranged nutballs like Jennifer Rubin, who had already quit anyway. My best analysis is that Bezos has just officially said that the Washington Post is leaving the Axis, and will no longer be a reliable ally and propaganda organ of the Far Left and the Democratic Party, which now consistently advocates that the U.S. become a European-style nanny state and that personal liberties be pared back, especially those enshrined in the First and Second Amendments. If that’s the idea, it is an admirable goal, though I think it is far too late for the Post to change course, and that the 95% Democrat city of D.C. is the worst possible place to try.

It is fun to see and hear the Angry Left freak out over the announcement. Here is one of the Post’s most unethical propagandists, the eloquent Phillip Bump:

Continue reading

But Why Did They Have To Kill the Dog? [Updated]

[Skip to the end for more details released after the post first went up.]

I woke up this morning to the disheartening news that one of my all-time favorite screen actors, Gene Hackman, had died. He was 95 and had been retired for twenty years, so the news was not exactly shocking. However, the details of what police found in Hackman’s Santa Fe, N.M., home indicate a larger tragedy: along with the actor, police found he wife, Betsy Arakawa and a German Shepherd.

Since the police have stated that there were no signs of “foul play,” meaning that the group did not appear to have been murdered, and that there was no immediate evidence of a murder-suicide scenario, as when actor Gig Young was found dead after murdering his young wife, the scene still strongly hints of a suicide pact. Elderly couples do this here and there; some even think that it is romantic. (James Stewart’s last movie, made-for-TV, was co-starring with Bette Davis as an elderly couple who decide to kill themselves in the interests of avoiding pain, misery and expense.) Mrs. Hackman, Betsy Arakawa, was only 64, but who knows? Maybe she had just been diagnosed with dementia or some other dread disease. Maybe the duel suicides were her idea.

But why kill the dog?

Continue reading

Guest Post: An Open Letter To My Progressive Friends…

by Arthur in Maine

To my progressive friends (and I am proud to have many) who have been posting memes about boycotting on 2/28, I have a suggestion: Stop.

I mean it. Just stop. You’re revealing nothing other than your own ignorance of how money and commerce work. At best, you’re preaching to your own choir and changing no minds. You’re advocating tactics fifty years past their sell-by dates. I know this, because fifty years ago, I was a left-wing activist. We used the same tactics. They made us feel good. They didn’t work then, and they won’t work now.

More to the point, this boycott gag has been tried numerous times since and nothing ever happened. The companies you’re “boycotting” know they’ll get your money anyway, as soon as you need a tank of gas or a basket of cheap groceries. They don’t care when you buy. February 28, March 3, hey – it all fits neatly in the quarterly projections. First quarter, y’all. At minimum, time these things to the last week of a reporting quarter – that might make a minimal dent. Timing it this way is sheer ignorance.

You don’t like Trump? Fine, I get it. I don’t like him either. But consider that a plurality of the country thought that the agenda the Democrats advanced in the last four years is nuts, and voted accordingly. Consider that a plurality of the country rejected the previous administration and its patch job when it was clear that said admin was led by a puppet, and offered up a another puppet to replace him. From my perspective, a plurality of the country said “we may not like Trump, but he’s still better than what we’ve been offered.”

Continue reading

A Brief Trump Derangement Ethics Note That I Would Write More About If I Had Time, But I Don’t…

Once again, I want to call on the commentariate and others to consider submitting guest columns to EA.

Today, as an example, I could have spent every hour writing posts on important ethics issues, but I can’t (I devoted too much time as it is) because I have difficult, time-consuming and perilous personal and business tasks swinging over me sword of Damocles-like, I have no staff or assistance now, and I’m feeling unusually pressured and anxious.

The Trump Derangement theme of the day which I would ideally be examining in more detail is the freakout over Elon Musk attending a Cabinet meeting today as if this is another assault on democracy by Donald J. Hitler. Established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, the President’s Cabinet consists of advisors who oversee particular areas within the executive branch with the President’s consent and Congressional approval.

There is not a word in our founding document about how they should meet, if they should meet (pseudo-President Biden had almost no Cabinet meetings) or who else can attend if and when they met. The Cabinet could meet around a poker table. It could meet as a costume party. The President could tell one Cabinet member that he or she isn’t invited if he’s sick of looking at his or her face. Children have attended Cabinet meetings. Dogs have been invited.

As I noted at the time, Jill Biden attended a Cabinet meeting, and the same news outlets screaming about Musk being “unelected” and a “co-President” never uttered a peep of complaint.

These Trump Deranged obsessions are obnoxious, misleading, cheap, ignorant and apparently getting dumber by the day.

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Verdict: Justified, Necessary, and Ethical”

This refreshing Comment of the Day by EA Ace AM Golden concludes with a trenchant point: Why does someone need to be reading Ethics Alarms or doing their own research to be properly informed of the context of a news event rather than misled by selective reporting?

I should have included the historical precedents for the recent Trump White House decision to exercise its own discretion over what news organizations and other news sources should be included in briefings, but my point was that it didn’t matter what the “precedent” was because today’s news media and the unethical way they have covered this particular President have no valid precedents. However, AM’s perfectly illustrated point is equally important: as usual, the news media is framing anything Trump does as a “threat to democracy” rather than giving the public the information it needs to make up their own minds.

Once I read AM’s COTD, I was even more disgusted with the New York Times than I usually am. Pure deceit: the piece says that it’s a “decades long” precedent to not pick and choose among news organizations, see, so if AM’s precedents are waved in the Times editors’ smug faces, they can say, “Well, those examples were still many decades ago, so what we wrote is correct!”

But even if the Times reporters and lazy editors had been aware of the precedents AM reveals (I’d bet anything that they didn’t bother to check), they still wouldn’t have mentioned them because Trump is following the examples of two revered figures, one of them on Mt. Rushmore and the other unanimously regarded as our greatest President in the last hundred years.

And just to preempt the usual excuse that self-banned Times defender “A Friend” would typically post until I sent the comment to Spam Hell, those Times readers who are the reliable epitome of erudition, fairness and oversight saving the biased Times from itself, I checked all the nearly 2000 comments to the news story. Most agreed that Trump is an aspiring dictator, but not a single one mentioned the Roosevelts.

Here is AM Golden’s illuminating Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Verdict: Justified, Necessary, and Ethical”

***

Continue reading