Author: Jack Marshall

Sometimes, Though Rarely, Two Wrongs DO Make a Right…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Marco Evaristti’s “art” titled “And Now You Care?” at an art exhibition in Copenhagen consisted of three live piglets confined by two shopping carts on a pile of straw. The artist announced that the animals would be given water but no food until they died. Allowing the piglets to starve to death while on public exhibition was, you see, a powerful commentary on animal cruelty in Denmark, one of the world’s largest pork exporters. Evaristti explained yesterday that he aimed to “wake up the Danish society,” which is insufficiently concerned that tens of thousands of pigs die each day in Denmark because of poor conditions.

Oh, good plan.

Now do child neglect.

The exhibition was set inside a former butcher’s warehouse in the Meatpacking District of Copenhagen. Large paintings of the Danish flag and slaughtered pigs hung on the walls around the doomed little pigs. “Mona Lisa” this wasn’t.

The pigs were expected to live up to five days, but Evaristti said he also would not eat or drink along with them. That makes starving the helpless animals better, apparently. But as the exhibition space was being cleaned—it looked like a pig sty!— over the weekend, members of a Danish animal rights organization stole the piglets. Evaristti, says he does not expect his art to be returned.

Good.

Inadequate Notes on the State of the Union Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

This is exhausting. It is why I dreaded another Trump term, even though re-electing the Democrats after they had so disgraced themselves with the Joe Biden administration was, n my view, indefensible. I don’t want to keep writing about all this crap: Trump’s habitual excesses and rhetorical hyperbole, the partisan factchecking, the Axis news media propaganda, the absurd spectacle of Fox News gleefully spinning everything Trump of the Republicans do as marvelous while CNN and MSNBC give the public stony expressions and unrestrained hatred of the elected President of the United States; the increasingly unhinged conduct of Democrats, and the pathetic declarations of Trump Derangement by my Facebook friends (How did that February 28 boycott work out for you, morons?) The State of the Union debacle and its aftermath showed that while some of this has moderated from Trump’s first term in office, its not nearly enough. Will it really be this way for all four years? I see no reason to hope that it won’t be.

I accumulated over a dozen episodes and articles that would support individual post here related to the aftermath of Trump’s speech, and I don’t feel like writing any of them. I’ll touch on some in what follows, a random set of largely disgusted notes and observations….

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: A Spammed Commenter…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

…who shall remain nameless.

This:

“Experience the future of companionship with an AI girlfriend chatbot. Designed to listen engage and respond with intelligence and warmth this virtual partner offers meaningful conversations, emotional support, and personalized interactions. Whether you seek a friend a confidante or just casual chats this ai girlfriend chatbot companion is always there for you anytime anywhere. Enjoy a unique ever-evolving connection powered by artificial intelligence.”

I think a blow-up doll is more ethical. The product is as perilous as crack or heroin, and destined to cripple and manipulate vulnerable, lonely people, like, say, me. It is the logical and inevitable next step from 800 sex chat phone lines. They can’t be made illegal; someone will undoubtedly argue that AI girlfriend chatbots can be therapeutic and even, on balance, capable of accomplishing more good than bad.

Sure. As for me, I’m reminded of this post from 2017: The Unibomber Had A Point.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Ethics Quiz: The Symbolic Pardon

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

I should have come up with this quiz without a nudge from Ben Shapiro and Elon Musk, but I didn’t. I am ashamed.

Conservative gadfly and Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro called on President Trump to pardon Derek Chauvin, the white, former Minneapolis police officer who was convicted of murder in the 2020 death of George Floyd in a petition published on Shapiro’s website. (I don’t think it was murder, and I don’t think murder was ever proven, much less “beyond a reasonable doubt”.)

In his entreaty to the President, Shapiro declares, “We write to urge you to immediately issue a pardon for Officer Derek Chauvin, who was unjustly convicted and is currently serving a 22-and-a-half year sentence for the murder of George Floyd and associated federal charges.”

Shapiro accurately describes the incident as “the inciting event for the BLM riots,” which he says “set America’s race relations on their worst footing in recent memory.”

Most importantly, Shapiro says that the guilty verdict was tainted by the “massive overt pressure on the jury to return a guilty verdict regardless of the evidence or any semblance of impartial deliberation,” and that elected officials “pre-judged the outcome of the trial and took to national media to create pressure on the jury to go along with their preferred narrative.”

This, in my view, should be beyond dispute. I last posted on the way Chauvin was sacrificed in December of 2023, here. “Under these circumstances, there was no opportunity for blind justice to work, and a man is now rotting in prison because of it,” Shapiro concludes.

I concluded in part,

“The contrast between how Chauvin has been treated and the wall of protection erected around the black Capitol Hill cop who shot and killed an unarmed (white) January 7 rioter in 2021 is striking. From the beginning, the case against Chauvin lacked convincing intent, causation, or proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I keep seeing in various documentaries regarding other “true crime” stories rote statements by lawyers, prosecutors and judges about how in the United States, all citizens are presumed innocent and treated equally. If this equal treatment can be withheld from Derek Chauvin, and it has been, then it can and will be withheld by others who are deemed sufficiently unpopular. As [Professor Glenn] Loury writes, the result tells us that “the deep epistemic corruption at the heart of the affair will become, if it goes unchallenged, imperceptible to future generations, simply more evidence that the world is as the poetic truth has determined it to be.” Who will challenge it now? Who has the integrity and courage today to stand up for justice a “racist” who was profitably used as the excuse to advance such marvelous revolutionary movements as critical race theory and “diversity, equity and inclusion”?

Chauvin was convicted in two separate trials, state and federal, and is simultaneously serving a 21-year federal sentence for violating Floyd’s civil rights along with a 22.5-year state sentence for second-degree murder. He has tried to appeal his conviction numerous times, including to the Supreme Court. He has no plausible avenues to pursue now except a pardon.

Shapiro argues in a video that although Trump cannot pardon Chauvin in the state murder case, it is important for Chauvin be pardoned on federal charges anyway.

“Make no mistake—the Derek Chauvin conviction represents the defining achievement of the Woke movement in American politics. The country cannot turn the page on that dark, divisive, and racist era without righting this terrible wrong,” Shapiro said in the letter. Elon Musk, not knowing when he should “tend to his own knitting,” posted about Shapiro’s petition on Twitter/X yesterday saying, “Something to think about.”

OK, I’m thinking.

Your first Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of March, 2025, is…

Should President Trump pardon Derek Chauvin?

Continue reading →

Never Mind “The Appearance of Impropriety,” Democrats Need To Avoid The Appearance of Stupidity

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

Let’s see: the ethical values that Congressional Democrats spat upon last night were competence, responsibility, integrity, respect, civility, courtesy, decency, dignity, self-restraint, prudence, fairness and patriotism. That’s quite an accomplishment in a single event. The party’s decision to challenge the GOP’s well-earned title as “The Stupid Party” last night during the State of the Union address was, in turn,

  • Foolish
  • Juvenile
  • Desperate
  • Embarrassing (to their party, the  nation and the institution of Congress)
  • Damning
  • Damaging to democracy
  • An appeal to the Trump Deranged while simultaneously proving how crippling the malady can be…and…
  • …a gift to the man they hate so much, President Trump.

In “True Grit,” the villain Tom Cheney is shot by young Maddie Ross after he taunts her by telling the girl how to cock the giant pistol she has aimed at him. He is stunned when she shoots him, and cries out, “I didn’t think you’d do it!”

I might make “The Cheney” a new Ethics Alarms distinction. I had read about the ridiculous college campus protest-level tactics Democrats were considering, and posted about them yesterday, as well as noting that the party’s leader in the House, Hakeem Jefferies, had advised them to eschew such nonsense in favor of a “strong, determined and dignified Democratic presence in the chamber.” Jeffries was right for a change, and I really thought all of the stories about the Democrats bringing props and dressing up would prove to be false alarms. I didn’t think they’d do it! Yet when the time for the yearly Presidential “speech “state of the nation” speech arrived, there were the Democrats, looking like the studio audience in a particularly ugly episode of “Let’s Make a Deal.”

Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: President Donald Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

President Trump just used his State of the Union message to call Joe Biden “the worst President in the history of the United States.”

I wasn’t going to watch any of the speech, both because I dreaded what excesses Trump would inflict on his audience and the behavior of the Democrats. But I just couldn’t resist tuning in: the Netflix series I was watching stunk, so I switched over to DirecTV and landed on NBC for literally 20 seconds, maybe fewer. And what did I hear but the President talking about the success of his border crackdown and then insulting his predecessor. I instantly turned off the TV and went to my office to post this.

There was no need to say what Trump said, and no excuse for it. It was just gratuitously nasty, graceless, divisive and hateful. It was historic though, so maybe progressives will be impressed.

No President has used that traditional speech to denigrate a predecessor, and few have used any Presidential speech to insult a previous White House occupant. Presidents, more than anybody, understand the rigors of the job and are expected to convey at least a modicum of respect for the other members of the select group who have taken on the daunting challenge of leading this chaotic, ambitious, essential nation.

I say this with full understanding that Trump’s assessment of Joe Biden was accurate: Ethics Alarms came to the same conclusion over more than a year of analysis. That doesn’t make Trump’s outburst any more forgivable. Trump’s insult sprung from nothing but the worst of his character: cruelty, vengefulness, lack of self-control, immodesty, crudeness. It also, again, showed the President’s astoundingly flat learning curve: his similarly gratuitous attacks in the past made lifetime enemies out of the late John McCain, the entire Bush family, and the Cheneys, with no compensating benefits. He likes upsetting people.

It is the mark of an asshole.

Boy, If Aleysha Ortiz Wins Her Lawsuit, a Lot of School Boards Will Be Sweating Bullets…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Aleysha Ortiz, 19, has sued the Hartford Board of Education and city officials alleging that she cannot read or write even though she graduated with honors from Hartford Public High School in 2024. Her suit accuses defendants of negligence by failing to provide adequate special education services. She told CNN that she was promoted all the way through 12 years in Hartford public school despite never acquiring fundamental literacy skills; in a May 2024 city council meeting, she testified that she was unable to read or write, yet was awarded an honors diploma.

Ortiz is now enrolled at the University of Connecticut: yes, she was accepted and got a scholarship despite being, in her own assessment, illiterate. She explains this by her adeptness in using technology such as speech-to-text and text-to-speech programs.

Says Newsweek, amusingly, “The case has drawn attention to how academic achievement is measured and whether special education students are truly receiving the skills they need to succeed beyond high school.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Irony: Democrats “Resisting” the President During the State of the Union Address Will Be More Destructive Than the J-6 Riot

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

But they’ll do it anyway.

Some Democrats have told colleagues they will storm out of the chamber if and when Trump says specific lines they find objectionable. Some are going to boycott the speech entirely. They are considering using props, like noisemakers, signs (like the “war criminal” sign “Squad” member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) held up during Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech last year, eggs or empty egg cartons to taunt Trump for not bringing down inflation in less than two months, and so on.

Morons. Of course, Ethics Villain Nancy Pelosi set the precedent for such juvenile and divisive tactics when she ostentatiously ripped up the text of Trump’s last State of the Union Speech in 2020. Remember when GOP Representative Joe Wilson was excoriated in the media and by both Republicans and Democrats by shouting “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during a joint session of Congress in 2009? Wilson was formally rebuked by the House , which held that by shouting that during the president’s speech the Congressman had committed a “breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House.” The State of the Union is the most notable and in most years the most important joint session of the House and Senate, as well as a traditional demonstration of unity and respect for the U.S.’s government, the Presidency, and it institution. Elected officials deliberately breaching this “democratic norm” and showing such disrespect for a newly elected POTUS in the first address of his first year in office is destabilizing, dangerously divisive, and an unequivocal demonstration that the party will not give the people’s choice a fair chance—just like the last time.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Year (So Far): Donald Sensing

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

“Finally, hating Trump is merely cheap virtue signaling. It is neither a method nor a plan. But if you feel better about hating Trump than you feel bad about Ukrainians getting killed with no end in sight, then you are morally bankrupt and God forbid you have any say in what happens.”

—-Military expert, commentator and Methodist minister Daniel Sensing concluding his blog post, “‘I stand with Ukraine’ means what, exactly?”

Last night, probably the smartest and most reliably reasonable of my Trump-Deranged lawyer friends published a much-loved diatribe on Facebook condemning President Trump for the Oval Office meltdown with Zelenskyy last week. He doesn’t post often, but every one recently has been to take issue with a Trump, quote, policy or action. I’ve had to wrestle my metaphorical tongue to the floor every time. It would do no good to rebut him, and all my effort would do would diminish the respect he has for me because, on this topic, his powers of reasoning are gone. If I wanted to start a stampede of unfriending on my Facebook page, I would point him to the superb post by Donald Sensing flagged this morning on Instapundit by Prof. Glenn Reynolds. My friend would never see the post otherwise, since Reynolds’ legendary blog is relentlessly conservative and my friend would sooner draw a pentagram on his kitchen floor than sample anything written there. But Sensing, whose fascinating CV is here and who is better qualified to opine on the Ukraine-Russian conflict than either of us, has provided a superb analysis with clarity and logical force.

Continue reading →

American Students Are Falling Behind In Basic Academic Skills: How Can This Kind of Curriculum Be Justified?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

A news article in today’s New York Times [Gift link!] begins thusly:

“Late last fall at the Hugo Newman School in Harlem, two social studies teachers handed out pages of hip-hop lyrics to their seventh graders, and then flicked off the lights. The students appeared surprised. They had been studying ancient matriarchal societies, including Iroquois communities that had women as leaders. Now, their teachers were about to play the song ‘Ladies First’ by Queen Latifah and Monie Love. The teachers instructed their students to highlight any lyrics that reminded them of the Iroquois women, who were known as the Haudenosaunee Clan Mothers. Although they did not know it, the middle schoolers were in the midst of their first lesson of ‘Black Studies as the Study of the World,’ a curriculum that rolled out in September and is now available to every New York City public school.”

“In New York, we are trying our best to be Trump-proof,” the Times quoted Adrienne Adams, the speaker of the New York City Council, as saying in a recent interview. “We are doing everything we can to protect the curriculum.”

The obvious question is “Why?” Protect the curriculum from straightforward standards that ensure that the average student leaves high school with the core skills necessary for success in work and life? By its very nature, bombarding middle school students with lessons on “matriarchal societies”—an elective college course if there ever was one—is political in both nature and intent.

Continue reading →