Author: Jack Marshall

Patriots Day Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The proper and necessary celebration of “The Shot Heard Round the World” and the Battles of Lexington and Concord is, for some strange reason—-I’m guessing apathy and incompetence—diffused and unfocused. Although April 19, 1775, was the momentous day, we haven’t agreed when it should honored, or even what the day should be called.

Only six states—Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Florida recognize Patriots Day, though Maine, being perverse, calls it “Patriot’s Day.” It is a legal holiday in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and North Dakota. In Florida and Wisconsin, it is recognized without being a state holiday. Massachusetts and Maine celebrate the day on the third Monday of April. The other states that observe the date celebrate on the 19th, when they should. Why Massachusetts and Maine (which was part of the Bay State when “The Shot” was fired), of all states, don’t use the historically correct date is bewildering. Wisconsin designates April 19 is a special observance day for schools, which are required to teach students about the events and key figures of Patriots’ Day. but the observance is moved to Friday, April 18, if April 19 is a Saturday and to Monday, April 20, if April 19 falls on a Sunday. Got that?

Continue reading →

“What’s Going On Here?” Oh, Just the Usual Biased and Slanted Journalism Making It Impossible to Know What’s Going On Here…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I cannot describe how sick I am of this phenomenon.

Here is the Conservative Brief’s report on the recent decision by a judge not to take further steps enforcing his order that the Trump White House cease discriminating against the Associated Press following its refusal to embrace the President’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. Headline: “Associated Press Loses Court Case To Regain Coveted White House Access.” But it didn’t “lose the case.” Still, the slanted analysis was reported as fact by the conservative news site PJ Media. Here’s the New York Times spin. [Let’s see if the Gift Link works this time…]. Headline: “Judge Rejects A.P.’s Challenge to New White House Press Policy, for Now.” For now. “The judge said that he needed more time to determine whether the new policy was discriminatory, but said that the elimination of rotating access for newswires was ‘facially neutral.’”

Here’s the Associated Press: “Judge won’t take further steps to enforce his order in AP case against Trump administration.” “U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who handed the AP a victory last week in its efforts to end the ban, said it’s too soon to say that President Donald Trump is violating his order — as the AP suggests. ‘We are not at the point where we can make much of a determination one way or another,’ said McFadden, ruling from the bench. ‘I don’t intend to micromanage the White House.’”

Having read these three reports and a couple more, what seems to be the story is that the judge who said that the White House couldn’t punish the AP for which name it chooses to call the Gulf by banning it from White House functions (thanks to the White House announcing publicly that this was its motivation, making the ban a government infringement on free speech), the Associate Press could not insist that it has special privileges due to its once-justifiable status as long-time trustworthy news source, and could be placed in rotation with other news services instead of keeping a regular, permanent spot in the press pool.

The judge made clear what his conclusion was: that the proverbial jury is still out on whether the White House is engaging in viewpoint discrimination, which it may not do, or simply treating the AP like any other news service. However, he did reject the idea that because the AP has been anointed with special deference by past Presidents, the Trump White House is constitutionally obligated to continue them.

Especially since the AP now sucks. (But the judge didn’t say that.)

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: Gee, What a Christian, Presidential, Sincere and Uniting Easter Message!

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I know, I know…The Julie Principle.

Even so, as I said in brief summary of Rep. Mace’s uncivil and disrespecful treatment of a constituent who dared to imply criticism of her representational, “This doesn’t help.”

Once upon a time, Presidents chose their words carefully for their public pronouncements. I defy anyone to explain how the Truth Social rant above can accomplish anything positive. I place it in the same category as the Trump Hate outbursts by the likes of Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff or Jasmine Crockett, all of which are designed to inflame rather than to unite, except that a President should be held to higher standards than members of Congress.

The only question in my mind is whether exploiting the holiest of Christian holidays to barf out insults and declarations of personal pique is less revolting, more revolting, or about as revolting than President Biden’s use of the day last year to issue a pandering, celebratory proclamation about “Transgender Day of Visibility.” I score Trump’s message as worse, as in “more unethical,” because its language is, though typical of this President, still inappropriate for any resident of the White House. (Trump issued a similar message last Easter, but he wasn’t President them. That’s a material distinction, or should be.)

It is also, like Biden’s message, stupid and incompetent. Trump has a challenging agenda and a tough road ahead; his personal popularity is crucial to achieving that agenda, and there is no way these kinds of self-indulgent outbursts can do anything but alienate potential supporters.

Ethics Dunce: Rep. Nancy Mace (Res Ipsa Loquitur Division)

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

This doesn’t help. The Speaker of the House needs to insist that his party members adhere to basic standards of dignity, civility and decorum both in the House and in public. Mace is a repeat offender. She’s an embarrassment to her party, her district, Congress and the nation. Behold….

Ethics verdict: the Representative is 100% in the wrong in this confrontation. To say Mace was looking for a fight is an understatement. There was nothing inappropriate or uncivil in this constituent’s demeanor or rhetoric. For Mace to immediately stereotype him because he appeared to be gay was obnoxious; for her to resort to crude language, especially in a public setting, is indefensible.

Finally, for Mace to post this incident as if it is something to be proud of is profoundly disturbing. She appears to be seeking cognitive dissonance points with homophobics.

What did this Democrat (if he indeed is a Democrat) say that marked him as “nuts”? He was being civil, and it was Mace who acted like she was angry at the man’s very existence.

I challenge anyone to offer a justification or excuse for her conduct. (Hint: There isn’t any.)

Easter Sunday Ethics Eggs

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

—-I would respect my various Facebook friends, including many lawyers, posting diatribes about President Trump’s deportation efforts “violating the rule of law” if they had ever, ever, evinced similar concerns about President Biden or whoever…) deliberately foiling U.S. immigration laws while allowing millions of illegal immigrants to breach our borders and scatter, often leaving violent crimes in their wake.

—-As a Greater Bostonian who was brought up in the shadows of Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill, the Paul Revere House, Fanuel Hall, the Old North Church and other Meccas of the American Revolution (I must not omit the one such landmark in my home town of Arlington, the Jason Russell House, where Jason and several Menotomy Minute Men were shot to death on April 19 by the British while they were hiding in Jason’s closet), I’m going to save the Ethics Alarms celebrations of the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World” and related events for Patriots Day, which is tomorrow.

Meanwhile…

1. Just to push Harvard further down the Cognitive Dissonance Scale where it belongs, I want to note that Cedric Lodge, manager of the morgue at Harvard Medical School from 2018 until March 2023, will plead guilty to stealing body parts that had been donated for research and selling them for thousands of dollars to non-medical personnel, aka ghouls, who collect them as trophies. Nice! He had been entrusted with handling cadavers that were part of the medical school’s Anatomical Gift Program and were supposed to be cremated after the research on them had been completed. Instead, Lodge “turned the morgue into a shopping emporium for brains, skin and other body parts, that were purchased by collectors.” Investigators say that he drove the stolen body parts to his home in New Hampshire.

2. Baseball Ethics alert! New York Yankees second baseman Jazz Chisholm Jr. was ejected from Thursday’s game against the Tampa Bay Rays for arguing balls and strikes with home-plate umpire John Bacon. That’s an automatic ejection now. Immediately thereafter, the angry player referred to the incident on in a Twitter/ X post, writing, “Not even fucking close!!!!!” I can’t say he was wrong…

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “’What’s Going On Here?’ Is This Incident Just A Single Teenage Idiot In Love Or Does It Have Larger Cultural Significance?”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I wanted to start Easter (and Greek Easter: for once the calendars agree) morning off on a moral note, and Glenn Logan‘s ringing Comment of the Day on the revolting Axis admiration of murderer Luigi Mangione provides exactly that. Glenn was a prolific blogger himself, has been a regular commenter here from the beginning (2009) and I have recognized him here too seldom, probably because he is economical with his pronouncements.

Yesterday was pretty quiet around these parts with few comments, but, as Spencer Tracy says of the “meat” on Katherine Hepburn’s person in “Pat and Mike,” what there was “is cherce.”

Here is Glenn Logan’s COTD on the post, “What’s Going On Here?” Is This Incident Just A Single Teenage Idiot In Love Or Does It Have Larger Cultural Significance?

Continue reading →

Funniest Unethical Quote of the Week: The New York Post

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

“The precise reason that Biden is struggling to find top-dollar audiences is unclear.”

—The New York Post, in a report on the former President’s attempt to bill $300,000 per speaking appearance.

The “precise reason” is incredibly clear! Not only that, but the Post’s story is clear about what that reason is. For example, this passage: “Biden’s use of “colored” to refer to black people while speaking at a disability conference in Chicago earlier this week has some former aides hoping he will spend more time at his Rehoboth Beach house. ‘This was hard to watch,’ said one former White House official. ‘It felt like seeing someone you care about start to regress. We just wanted him to enjoy retirement like other presidents — not go out like this.'”

The man is suffering from progressive dementia, and has been for years. He was never especially bright to begin with. Biden has little or no influence now, and was an embarrassment as President. Decision-makers for any organization that paid $300,000 for Biden to stumble through a speech written by someone else would be liable for breach of fiduciary duties.

I suppose having him speak might be a draw for the same kinds of people who watched poor Anna Nicole Smith’s reality show, as the late obese and alcoholic model/actress/gold-digger stumbled through each episode, slurring her words and looking ridiculous. It was kind of like watching a geek bite the heads off of live chickens at a carnival: witnessing complate human degradation makes som feel better about themselves. But no carnival paid geeks a $300,000 salary.

I was trying to think of a former President of the United States whom I wouldn’t rather hear speak than Joe Biden. There isn’t any. How could there be? Yeah, it’s a real mystery why Joe’s agents are having trouble finding suckers willing to pay $300,000, plus expenses, for the privilege of assessing how far his dementia has progressed.

“What’s Going On Here?” Is This Incident Just A Single Teenage Idiot In Love Or Does It Have Larger Cultural Significance?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The time is January 2024. A few minutes after a Carnival Sunrise cruise ship left the port of Miami, Florida for Jamaica, Carnival Cruise Lines received an anonymous email saying: “Hey, I think someone might have a bomb on your sunrise cruise ship.”  This triggered security protocols that involved both the US and Jamaican Coast Guard. More than 1,000 rooms on the ship had to be searched, and were. After a delay of many hours, the ship was ruled safe to sail and continued the cruise.

An investigation eventually traced the email to 19-year-old Joshua Darrell Lowe II of Bailey, Michigan. He confessed to making the false bomb threat, explaining that he was trying to prevent his girlfriend and her family from going on the cruise without him. Though Lowe could have been sentenced to five years in prison, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney this month sentenced him to only eight months behind bars. The judge was apparently impressed by the teen’s letter to the Judge taking full responsibility for his actions, expressing remorse, and apologizing profusely.

There is no question that such an act is unethical as well as potentially dangerous. I am interested in whether our political and popular culture sends messages to the young, impressionable and stupid that this kind of extreme conduct in the name of love or other passionate feelings is admirable.

Continue reading →

Got It: Candace Owens Is An Idiot.

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I am happy to say that I was never especially impressed with Owens, but when she first emerged as a conservative black woman who was not deceived by Black Lives Matter and was an articulate and attractive pundit on the Right, many were. Lately the proverbial blush has been off the rose since she has displayed ugly anti-Semitic attitudes, but never mind: that video makes everything that has come before irrelevant.

That’s signature significance. Anyone who believes that space travel is a hoax is, by definition, an idiot. No one should take Candace Owens seriously. Ever.

Let us never speak of her again.

Ethics Drama at RT’s

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

RT’s is a local eatery about five minutes from my house. It specializes in seafood and Cajun/Creole dishes; its she-crab soup is the best I have ever slurped. My house guest—lets call him “Bert”—took me to lunch in celebration of progress we have made on a joint project, the substance of which is irrelevant to the tale.

The RT’s food and service were, as always, terrific, but while we were waiting for dessert, a middle-aged woman, shabbily dressed, came up to our table and asked for money, saying she was hungry. She asked Bert for money, and he said he would be happy to buy her a sandwich. She said she wanted the money so she could buy her own food, and was getting agitated.

Bert finally gave in, and handed her 20 bucks. After she left, he said that he was worried that she might cause a scene, and that it was worth the price to defuse the situation. Our waitress then ran over to our table and apologized profusely, saying the woman had been appearing and bothering diners lately, and that Bert shouldn’t have encouraged her by giving her cash. He told the waitress what he told me: he had felt trapped, and that giving her money seemed like the safest and quickest way to address the problem.

When the waitress brought our check, she told Bert that, again, she was very sorry, and that she had taken twenty dollars off the charges to compensate for us having to deal with a homeless woman. He told her that it wasn’t her fault and that the gesture was unnecessary; she responded that it was the restaurant’s responsibility to protect diners from such intrusions. Bert said that he wanted to give her the $20, and again, she refused.

When he paid the bill, however, he added ten dollars to her tip.

I think everyone did the right thing eventually, at least if the homeless woman really used the money to buy food.

Didn’t they?