It seems like a good time for one of these. I was working throughout the weekend and couldn’t take the time to ponder several interesting and important ethics developments. I’m also thinking a lot about the future of EA. Both my accountant and my gratis office consultant excoriated me last month for spending the two to three hours I devote every day to researching and writing posts as well as replying to comments (19, 722 posts since late 2009 and 69, 698 personal responses) and demanded that I figure out a way to monetize my work, especially since I have rather serious financial problems that have only become worse since my wife dropped dead in early 2024 (ProEthics is at least a two professional job, and my cloning experiments have failed). Neither understands that Ethics Alarms exists to fulfill the mission of both my business and me personally, which is to inspire, educate, and engage willing people regarding the important role societal ethics must have in the United States, and to do so in a style that isn’t pedantic, academic, or flaccid.
If I could find a way to monetize the website without significantly reducing its readership (“Surely nobody’s going to quit if you had a $50 a year subscription!,” my accountant said. Really? I only have five commenters now when the blog is free…**) My office consultant quit over the matter (and some other things), and hasn’t spoken to me since the discussion about EA.
Well, I’m not going to solve that conundrum today: I have promises to keep, and before I sleep I’m going to see “The Odyssey” tonight, primarily to assess the validity of the political complaints, and I had to wrestle my fingers to the floor to stop a post about people who condemn the film based on hearsay (you know, like I did).
OK, enough about me. Here are my briefer thoughts about…
1. Trans activist insanity. “Jeopardy!” nerd-turned-host Ken Jennings is being attacked on BlueSky for being “transphobic.” Why? Apparently the New York Times is unpopular with the radical pro-trans mob because the paper hasn’t been as aggressive in its pro-woke propaganda efforts on their behalf as with other issues. Jennings had written on the censorious, intolerant, left-wing alternative to Twitter/”X” that he plays the online Times game “Wordle” with his wife every day. This was typical of the BlueSky outrage: “I wish people who care about trans people could understand that playing NYT games is still an insult to trans people.”
To his credit, Jennings has so far refused to dignify the insanity with a serious response. “This may be true of others but I actually got express permission from the trans community to keep NYT games and recipes,” he replied to the lunatic. “I also have a news subscription, which is arguably worse, so I had to specifically send in a written request. Took 30 days but I got it approved. They were like ‘trans people are not a monolith’ and ‘like-minded allies may disagree on specific media boycotts’ and stuff like that. It was a huge load off my mind!” Naturally, this just triggered the crazies more, and Jennings is now under daily attack, with calls for boycotts of the iconic quiz show he hosts and for him to be fired.
As of today, Jennings has refused to grovel an apology (or to stop playing Wordle). But why would he have an account on BlueSky if he weren’t hostage to The Great Stupid’s bubble?
2. Speaking of fearless truth-tellers who refuse to be intimidated…J.K. Rowling, the “Harry Potter” author who has been vilified world-wide for simply expressing common sense and logic regarding trans insanity, posted a masterpiece on “X” along with a frighting video of a rant by a self-declared woman who not only looks and sounds male, “she” looks and sounds like a male maniac. This is not going to get Rowling off the LGBTQ+ hate list:
If you don’t think he’s a woman, you’re transphobic. When he claimed to be a woman, he became a woman. He now belongs in women’s changing rooms, bathrooms, hospital wards, prison cells and rape support centres.
If you try and differentiate between him and a trans woman who looks more convincing as a woman, you are promoting patriarchal beauty norms. If you admit to seeing an aggressive and possibly unbalanced man in this video, you’re saying all trans people are mentally ill predators. If you refuse to let him into female-only spaces, you’re removing his right to exist. If you suggest he could comfortably use male facilities, you secretly want him assaulted. If you refuse to call him ‘she’, you are guilty of unpardonable cruelty. If you’re a woman who wouldn’t want to share a locker room with him, or a man who wouldn’t want your daughter, sister or mother to get undressed in close proximity to him, you belong to the far-right. If you point out that there is no objective difference between his claim to be a woman and that of any other biological male claiming a trans identity, you are too stupid to understand the circular arguments explaining why he’s not really trans whereas other men who say they’re women are really trans.
If you’re righteous, you must argue that this man’s self-declared identity overrides any consideration of the safety and rights of females. To be godly, you must agree he’s as ‘valid’ as every other trans woman, because people are who they say they are. No matter what your eyes, ears and common sense are telling you, if you don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history, you must pretend to believe that this angry, intimidating man is actually a vulnerable, oppressed woman.
Ethics Alarms 
You could always just put a donation button on the page. That is what Althouse does. Or have something like a patron that allows exclusive access. Not sure either of them will generate lots of money, but at least it’s something.
4. It was…very cringeworthy to watch. Bash should be embarrassed. But people will defend it anyway.
Fixed. Thanks, and also thanks for cuing my Ken Jennings rant.
I have a weird tendency to forget or mangle the names of celebrities and public figures who annoy me, and Jennings is a classic of the breed. He’s crummy game show host; he has the screen presence of a scrub brush, and is a blight on the legacies of Art Fleming and Alex Trebek. He’s barely passable, but being a trivia champion doesn’t make you a qualified TV host. “Blossom,” Mayim Bialik, in contrast, was a very competent co-host. She was dumped permanently for being too Jewish (she supports Israel’s right to exist). The show had a colorable cover story, but it was pretty clear at the time why she was being let go. If Jennings had any scruples, he would have supported her. Nah. All he cares about is trivia, so I consider getting his name right as trivia.
They botched that whole new host selection. The year-long program of endless guest hosts culminating in the producer assuming the mantle before being canceled really shook things up after the loss of Trebek.
I thought Aaron Rodgers did a decent job. Levar Burton might have gotten better in time, but he was so clearly nervous during his gig. They should have brought someone in alongside Trebek while he was ill and prepped that person for replacing him so the transition was more smooth.
About monetizing the blog…
I honestly don’t think “monetizing” is necessary; however, you could offer readers and commenters the opportunity to make a “free will donation” via PayPay or something similar. I created the following as an example of what it could look like…
You can see it on the right side of my blog just below the Archives drop-down box, I’ll leave it there for a week or so so you can check it out. No, I’m not really looking for donations to my blog, but that is a method of allowing others to donate any increment of $1 that they choose. You could choose to make that any increment of $10, or something else if you like, $1 seemed intuitive.
As far as I know, this free will donation idea really isn’t “monetizing” the blog.
And that’s why my critics rejected it. I charge $750 an hour. That’s $821,250 of unbillable time in a year. Substacks charge a real fee, and the writers don’t provide a 10th of the content I do. That was the argument I was facing.
This out of the box thinking might be way out in left field; but…
You already have a long history as a live performer, director, ethics performer, ethics teacher, ethics writer, etc, etc… Why not lump all those things together into one thing that can essentially mirror what you’re already writing on Ethics Alarms? Create a daily Ethics Alarms podcast (vlog) that is monetized right out of the gate and talk about the same things that you write about on Ethics Alarms but you could go into a little more depth. Your Ethics Alarms posts could basically be an outline, of sorts, to help guide you talking on a podcast.
There are lots and lots of people out there that listen to podcasts, both audio-only and video productions, and they pay to listen. Ethics Alarms blog and Ethics Alarms vlog. It could be an untapped market to monetize for you.
There’s my strenuous out of the box thinking for the day, now I’m completely drained and need a long nap. 😉
Good idea, Steve. And, a little gentle humor here, a podcast would be less likely to have typos. 😉
A M Golden wrote, “…a little gentle humor here, a podcast would be less likely to have typos.”
LOL!!!
However, unedited staring off in the distance brain farts will be in-your-face. 😉
If Jack does a podcast, I’ll volunteer to be a co-host. I’m in the same local area as Jack, I have a voice (and face) for radio, and I’m 83% sure that I’m one of the five commenters here.
–Dwayne
There are two elements of absolute cognitive dissonance the left has to apply to their hatred of men. Leftist women will go on and on talking about how dangerous men are. Not all men, of course, but enough me. So much so that they’d rather pick a bear to meet in the woods than a man. They’re scary and dangerous and make women uncomfortable by their mere presence. They can’t be trusted because men are lying predators.
Except if that man says he’s a woman. No lying predator man would pretend to be trans for easier access to women and / or children. Some men are lying, evil predators who would try anything to victimize women. Except THAT. That one claim is magical, transmogrifying person born a man into a safe woman. Saying otherwise is TRANSPHOBIC.
Except if that man is entering a western country without legal authorization from said country’s government. Being a man raised where ill treatment of women is normalized is fine, as long as he’s not white. Any white man is an embodiment of the patriarchy. But non-white men raised where women and even young girls are just property to be used and abused for the whims of men? Eh, they also transmogrified the process, becoming safe for women. Saying otherwise is RACIST.
me ==> men
Bonus points for the “Calvin & Hobbes” reference! Very subtle, indeed.
I had a conversation with a young lady on a plane the other day. She was convinced that “trans” people are exactly what they say they are, that gender is fluid and non-binary. So, I asked her if the same rules apply to racial or ethnic identities. She seemed to think they did. I, then, said that “I identify as a 6 foot 8 inch African American male, with athletic skills including averaging 30.1 points per game, a 49.7 field goal percentage, 83% free throw average, and 1072 total games played. Given that rubric, I identify as Michael Jordan. Does that make me Michael Jordan?” She had no answer.
So I asked if the same rules applied to species. I said, “If so, I identify as a stocky, greyish furred mammal found in the South Sahara Desert in savannah and semiarid regions, weighing about 145 pounds, measuring 7.2 feet long (snout to tail), with an elongated snout, reduced eyes and long ears, hooved feet, and a diet consisting mostly of ants and termites. Does that make me, in fact, an aardvark?” She laughed at my silliness and turned her attention to phone screen.
jvb
Bravo, Matthew. This is exactly what they are claiming. There are heterosexual men out there who catfish women in order to scam them for money, claim to be 14-year old boys in order to groom teenage girls, put a flashing light on their vehicle and produce a fake badge when they pull someone over. They pretend to be devoted coaches, teachers, clergymen and counselors to get access to victims. Ted Bundy put on a sling and pretended to be injured to get victims.
The idea that it is impossible for a heterosexual male to pretend to be a woman in order to gain access to female spaces is ludicrous, especially if he isn’t even required to dress the part.
There are also men who catfish other men to scam them. I bought time share property a few years ago. The owners are regular targets of romance / blackmail scams. They usually older, wealthy men that own them, making them natural targets. The scammers hire middle age women to be their bait. They actually hire them to go from resort to resort and take a few pictures. The scammers then post on social media for each resort and start targeting men.
They’ll ask married men to sext and send incriminating photos, which the scammers then use to blackmail. For the widowers or divorced, they use the romance scam. The fools think it is some attractive woman, while the person they’re actually communicating with is actually some sweaty, harry dude in Pakistan.
#2
Holy crap!!! I wouldn’t use a restroom or locker room if that man were anywhere near. Folks who are actually afflicted with gender dysphoria are not well served by such representation.
Kennedy exposed Bash’s incompetence / malfeasance, but as usual he overstates. There is strong evidence against MMR, thimerosal-containing vaccines, or the routine infant/child vaccine schedule collectively causing a substantial fraction of autism. There is not equally strong direct evidence for every individual infant vaccine–autism pairing, and very small effects or effects confined to rare susceptible subgroups cannot be ruled out epidemiologically. An association between on vaccine might show something. But here are three reasons for NOT expending a great number of resources on that latter issue:
Large studies of the entire schedule or cumulative antigen exposure have found little or no association with autism.
Now, after many large studies have failed to find moderate or large effects for the overall vaccine schedule, including MMR, the prior probability that one remaining routinely used vaccine has a clinically important effect is considerably lower.
Resources are finite.
Incidentally, Andrew Wakefield once borrowed my desk and computer when I worked in Europe. Shady guy. RFK Jr. seems shady, but in a more Idée fixe way. Still shady. But Bash is a self-serving idiot.
Regarding the subscription fee, I’d keep the blog free, but I’d charge some of these commenters $1.00 per word. West and Gordon, $2.00 per word. Alizia Tyler, $5.00 per word. Me… $10 per word. Witherspoon and Grandma, no charge.
1. Thanks for the laugh; I needed that. paying by teh word would caese me a conflict of interest: I’d be tempted not to tell Alizia to stuff the anti-Zionist propaganda and paeans to fellow Nazis.
2. I think RFK is more than a little cracked regarding autism and vaccines, but that’s really not what was excellent about his confrontation with Bash. This is:
KENNEDY: Of course you want to move…
BASH: Yes, I do.
KENNEDY: … because you were part of the problem.
BASH: No, I wasn’t part of the problem.
KENNEDY: There was absolute press malpractice. You weren’t allowing — your job…(CROSSTALK)
BASH: Mr. Secretary, your job…
KENNEDY: Your job is a fierce skepticism toward authority.
BASH: OK. Yes, I am. I am.
KENNEDY: And you weren’t doing that. You were beating up on people who were dissenting.
kawaii65c843be72 wrote, “Witherspoon… no charge.”
My words have no value, I’m devastated. 😉
Youtube shorts and a smattering of longer form ethics monologue videos with a captivating delivery might build attention or a following for automatic monitization there. Who knows, maybe you become big enough and renowned for your typos that Ben Shapiro offers you a deal over at the Daily Wire. Ethics can be entertaining, right?
RFK spouted so many falsehoods it’s hard to keep up but the US didn’t have the highest death rate (not even top 5), and his Lyme disease origin comment is also false. He’s an embarrassment.
True, the U.S. doesn’t even rank in the top 10 for COVID mortality, and Ötzi the Iceman had Lyme disease. He kept harping on about “reading the science” which is ironic. RFK Jr. arguing with Dana Bash is like watching two pre-programmed made-in-China robots throwing wild punches at each other and hitting themselves instead.
Irrelevant to the post. He correctly told an Axis media mouthpiece that she and her cronies were complicit in Fauci’s deceptions and disastrous advice. And she immediately slipped into advocacy mode.
Couldn’t disagree more. You can’t trust someone who can’t get basic facts about reality right, especially when it comes to their job.
The news media’s #1 job is to convey facts. The Sec.of Health’s job is to improve the nation’s health as he or she sees it.I agree with those who find RFK’s anti-Vax obsession as disqualifying for someone in his position, that wasn’t the topic of the interview or the post. She tried to deflect to the vaccination issue to avoid accountability: he is 100% correct that the news media deliberately or negligently det out to panic the public and get them to accept vaccines that had not been properly tested and that were inappropriately forced on children. Ironically, RFK’s anti-vax bias is supported by the Wuhan botch.
You just wrote that the RFK’s job is health “as he or she sees it.” That exempts him from accuracy by definition. If the media’s job is conveying facts…then the official whose statements determine whether parents vaccinate owes accuracy at least as much, if not more. He has more power over the outcome and no editor above him.
I’m not defending Bash or Fauci. My point was smaller…RFK said the US had the world’s highest COVID death rate and that Lyme disease came from a lab. Both false, both about his own expertise. That’s not off topic when the post’s premise is that he was the one being truthful
Reread the post, Ben. I could not have narrowed my reason for praise more or made it clearer that what I was praising was public figures, like Vance and RFK, making it clear to the public that the news media is biased and dishonest.
No I got It, and my argument is pushing back on your argument that praise should be given at all. In fact, RFK should be heavily criticized since he showed the public that the Secretary of health can’t even get basic facts straight regarding his job. Which I would also argue is at least as important as it is for the media to be unbiased and honest.
He’s a politician. His job is to care for the health of the nation, not be Mr. Wizard. It’s the same distortion they use on Trump. The news media’s only job is to report facts truthfully and without spin. If they stoop to propaganda, they endanger democracy. RFK’s job is very different, and can be measured objectively. If every interviewee attacked media bias, they would have to reform. Simple as that.
RFK’s job IS different, and he fails at it. That’s my point. He can’t get basic facts right about his own department.
He can’t possibly help the nation get healthier if he can’t get his facts straight about diseases, vaccines, and COVID death stats. It’s like a bridge inspector who can’t tell rust from paint. He doesn’t have to be a structural engineer, but if he can’t read what’s in front of him, every call he makes after that is worthless.
You said the job can be measured objectively. That’s what I’m doing.
He’s a leader and manager. Stop making me defend him: I think he was a terrible appointment, obviously a quid pro quo for dropping out of the race and endorsing Trump. RFK is still 100% correct to condemn CNN and the news media, regarding their fearmongering during the pandemic and other issues.
Then we agree on RFK. That’s my whole point… and why he shouldn’t be your example. You can condemn the media’s pandemic coverage without honoring a man you just called a terrible, corrupt appointment. The award is what I’m objecting to, not the criticism of CNN. You should now do a post on how bad it is for the health secretary to get basic facts wrong about diseases and vaccines coming out of this interview too. That’s the way more important angle.
You write it, submit it, and if it’s good enough, I’ll post it. I decide what I think is the most important ethics issue. The collapse of trustworthy journalism is far, far more important than a single extremist Health Secretary.
CNN has competitors and a shrinking audience. There is one HHS. But you’re entitled to weigh them differently. I just can’t disagree more with that assessment. RFK decides what the federal government recommends about vaccines, where research money goes, and how outbreaks get handled. Nobody can opt out of that. You can turn off CNN, and millions have. That’s the difference…bad journalism is something people can reject and have been in droves, bad policy from the one person running national health isn’t something people can change the channel on.
Actually, they can…in a little more than two years, if RFK doesn’t resign first or get replaced by the President.
Elections…
It is indeed irrelevant to the post. RFJ Jr. was correct: they were complicit in the deceptions and they have blood on their hands. But RFK Jr.’s assertion would be that much more compelling if he ditched the clown suit.
Now I REALLY don’t understand your comment. What does “clown suit” signify in this instance?
Ben noted that falsehoods taint the entire message and the messenger. It’s difficult to trust someone who’s juggling falsehoods and throwing them at the audience like buckets of confetti. Unwisely perhaps, I reduced that to a single image. Nonetheless, there is a comic-tragic lack of seriousness underlying RFK Jr.’s most serious performances. Unlike Ben, I don’t reject everything the man said in that one, but I note the powerful temptation to do so.
As do I.