Author: Jack Marshall

‘Supporting Terrorism, Hating Jews and Filing Dumb Lawsuits Is No Way to Get Hired by a Law Firm, Kid…’

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

What an idiot.

2023 Georgetown Law School grad Jinan Chehade had been offered a job as an associate at the prominent law firm Foley & Lardner. The firm’s Director of Diversity and Inclusion told her they “valued and supported” her Arab Muslim heritage, and she took that to mean, “Go ahead and publicly support Hamas,murder,rape and hostage-taking, and it’s fine if you also proclaim your hatred of Jews and your inability to interpret world history too.

Chehade worked as a summer clerk at Foley in 2023 and was slated to join the firm as a full-time associate at its Chicago office two months ago. But following last year’s October 7th terrorist attacks attacks on Israel by Hamas, she began speaking out against Israel on her social media accounts and at a public Chicago City Hall meeting. Chehade appeared at the meeting wrapped in a keffiyeh and spoke out against a resolution condemning the Hamas massacre that started the current Gazan war. Though “the Western Zionist-controlled media machine would have you believe” it was an unprovoked attack, she said, the attack was just because it was the “legal right” of Palestinians to strike back for “75 years of occupation” by Israel’s “apartheid regime.”

Continue reading →

Look! “The Ethicist” Has A Real Ethics Question That Doesn’t Involve Trump Derangement!

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The New York Times Sunday advice column “The Ethicist” has been indulging itself by joining in the mass Times mourning over the election of Donald Trump and the failure of the paper’s years long propaganda campaign against him. The past four featured questions have been “Is It Fair to Judge a Friend by the Way She Voted?”, “Can Voters Be Held Accountable for Their Candidate’s Behavior?”, “Am I a Hypocrite for Calling Donald Trump a Liar?”, and my personal favorite, “My Mom Voted for Trump. Can We Let It Go?” It has taken a month to get back to genuine ethics dilemmas and conflicts, but at last Prof. Appiah is where he is supposed to be all the time.

This weeks query was “A Guy I Know Had a Liver Transplant. Now He’s Boozing Again.” [Gift link! Merry Christmas!]It raises more than one ethics question worthy of discussion, including:

1. Should alcoholics who have destroyed their livers be eligible for liver transplants?

2. Is the recipient of a liver transplant behaving unethically if he or she returns to the same lifestyle that ruined the first one?

3. Do the friends of the now boozing liver transplant recipient “have an obligation to tell this man’s wife that he’s still drinking?”

The first one came up for debate nationwide when Mickey Mantle, the hard-drinking baseball great, strangely came up at the top of a liver transplant list despite being predominantly responsible for his first liver’s demise. Organ transplant waiting lists are created using several formulas and weighted values, which makes sense when distributing rare commodities. On the other hand, this is a slippery slope that slides directly into punishing people for not exercising enough, eating too much pizza, smoking or favoring dangerous hobbies, like motorcycle racing, and withholding medical care or insurance coverage of the adverse results. Alcoholism, as I learned the hard way, is not volitional though alcohol abuse is, and good luck telling the two apart.

2. The second question is also squarely in an ethics gray area. Once the liver is in an individual’s body, he or she should have complete autonomy. Sure, it’s irresponsible for someone with obligations to others to take unnecessary risks with his or her life, but that’s true with or without a new liver. I can’t define a special obligation to those who did not receive a particular liver that should affect the recipient’s decisions going forward. What happens to the new liver won’t help or harm those who didn’t get it.

3. The third question is the easy one, and Golden Rule 101. Would you want to be told if your loved one was secretly endangering his or her health? Sure you would. However, if the wife in this case has been paying attention to her alcoholic husband, I doubt very much that anyone needs to tell her that he’s drinking again.

But did he vote for Donald Trump????

Unethical Quote of the Week By One of the U.S. Senate’s Most Unethical Members

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

“Violence is never the answer. This guy gets a trial who’s allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth. But you can only push people so far. And then they start to take matters into their own hands.”

—Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) rationalizing the actions of a cowardly assassin who who shot an innocent man in the back.

One minor benefit of the vicious, calculated and certifiably insane execution-style murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson is that it proved a catalyst for self-unmasking by so many unethical socialists and crypto-communists on the Left. Many of these same people were wishing death on Donald Trump earlier this year, or describing him in ways calculated to motivate slightly more deranged people to kill him…and several tried.

Warren represents a very sick strain running through Woke World: people who wanted to see hero Daniel Penny convicted of murder for stopping a dangerous madman whom their policies had loosed on the public have been cheering for Luigi Mangione. This is how much they want a socialized healthcare system so we have to wait months to have a needed operation: they are willing to see insurance executives murdered to make their point.

Continue reading →

On “Blanket Pardons” and “Preemptive Pardons”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

President Trump says he will pardon the January 6 rioters. President Biden just pardoned his son for crimes we may not even know about yet. “The Nation”—yes, the far Left crypto-Commie rag is nuts, but still—argued this week that Biden should issue a blanket pardon to all illegal immigrants.

What’s going on here?

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce (And Ethics Corrupter): John Pavlovitz

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Quotes by his guy, a defrocked Methodist pastor known for his social and political activism and “writings from a liberal Christian perspective,” (I’m quoting Wikipedia there) always start popping up on social media this time of year. He’s been quoted a lot on Facebook especially lately because he is a vocal advocate of the idiotic “Mary and Joseph were immigrants too” analogy used by nice, deluded people to justify open borders and illegal immigrants.

These memes are notable because their emotion-based, legally and ethically bonkers argument is even more absurd than the one that claims the U.S. should let everybody in because the Statue of Liberty says so. I think I banned a commenter this year for using that one, invoking the Ethics Alarms “Stupidity Rule.” I will do the same if someone makes the “we should let illegals in because all they want is better lives for their children just like Mary and Joseph” argument. The same logic justifies theft. This is how shoplifting became legal in California.

Pavolovitz, who has about 374,000 followers on Twitter/X, every one of them dumber than when they first encountered him, was at it again this holiday season, posting after the election last month, “It’s good the Christians excited about the mass deportation of immigrants weren’t in Egypt when Jesus’s family fled there, or we’d have a much shorter Bible.”

It’s unethical to use one’s influence and reputation to make people ignorant and stupid: that fatuous statement (and his many like it) marks Pavolovitz as an Ethics Corrupter. I’m assuming readers here don’t have to have explained to them the reasons why analogies between public policies today in the United States and those in the Middle East 2,000 years ago are completely invalid and useless.

When one X-user pointed out to Pavolovitz that his argument was flawed, this modern follower of Jesus replied, “You’re a Trump lapdog. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. Shove it.”

To be fair, that last part is a rough translation of what Jesus said to the Romans…

Unethical…But Funny! The Googly Eyes Public Art Vandal

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

The City of Bend, near Portland, Oregon, is being plagued by a mystery vandal who has been affixing googly eyes to the public art around the city. Above is his improvement of “Big Ears” by John Halko; another is Zebold’s “Orb 1″…

You will not be surprised to learn that his enhancements are generally popular with the public. Nevertheless, the city is not amused. Eight artworks have been given eyes reminiscent of the villain in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” and the city announced on social media that removing the googly eyes has cost about $1,500 so far in labor and the process of removing the adhesive without harming the art. “While the googly eyes placed on the various art pieces around town might give you a chuckle, it costs money to remove them with care to not damage the art,” the City of Bend said in an Instagram post.

Now, some cities regard what could be called vandalism as itself art, as in the cases of urban paintings of walls and and buildings by graffiti artists. True, the googly eyes do unjustly interfere with the artist’s intent, and this is unfair as well as a Golden Rule breach. After all, what would Leonardo think if this..

… was the fate of his masterpiece?

Still, most public art is hideous, and there is no question that googly eyes would improve a lot of it. You may recall that the statue of the defiant little girl secretly placed in front of the angry bull sculpture on Wall Street was allowed to remain because the public appreciated the image of the bull being confronted by the saucy child more than it did the bull by itself.

If the purpose of public art is to please the public, maybe the googly eyes should be put to a vote. Maybe googly eyes present a palatable compromise with the statue topplers! Instead of tearing down Robert E. Lee’s statues, why not give him googly eyes instead?

OK, it was just a thought….

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: A “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Headline For The Ages

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Where’s “A Friend” when you need him? The Ethics Alarms self-banned NYT defender who keeps trying to sneak into the comments anyway would have to get especially creative with this despicable headline in the print edition. I’d love to read how he would try to spin this one, but that would mean I’d have to read his unauthorized comment before spamming it, and I won’t.

This one is even worse than the typical “fake news” Times headlines, as the jury’s verdict in the Daniel Penny case makes the official facts of the case that Penny was not “choking a rider” but was restraining a dangerous and menacing lunatic in order to protect other riders. The headline is misleading, deceitful and an obvious attempt to cover for Manhattan’s unethical District Attorney, Alvin Bragg.

And this is the “best” newspaper in the United States. One of the main reasons I was rooting for a Trump win is that it would represent a rebuke of the biased mainstream media, which has debased itself, politics, and civic literacy with its complete commitment to progressive propaganda. The headline is a perfect example of what voters were symbolically spitting on with their votes for Donald Trump.

______________

Pointer: John Podhoretz

Unethical Wise-Ass Quote of the Week: Baseball Writer Keith Law

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

“Of course, the size and length of the deal look absurd, and I doubt anyone expects Soto to still be a $50-million-a-year player in 2039, when he’ll be 40 if we haven’t burned up the planet by then.”

—Baseball writer Keith Law, writing in The Athletic regarding the impact of the Mets signing outfielder Juan Soto to a 15 year, $765 million dollar contract as discussed on Ethics Alarms here.

I’ll start with a full disclosure: I’ve had some unpleasant personal interaction with Keith Law, who is a talented baseball analyst of long-standing but out of his depth in the field of business and sports ethics, where his nasty exchanges with me occurred more than a decade ago. This quote would be flagged by me as unethical if had been made by my sister in a national publication.

Experts have an obligation to not abuse their authority, influence, presumed wisdom and ability to persuade the public. Keith Law is a very qualified commentator on all aspects of baseball, from the business of the game to talent evaluation and statistics. Unlike a lot of sportswriters, he has an impressive educational background including an undergraduate degree with honors in sociology and economics from the same disgraced but unfortunately still prestigious college that I graduated from, as well as a Masters in Business Administration from Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business. He is not, however, a climate scientist, and as it appears that his every waking hour has been and is devoted to the wide, wonderful world of baseball, it is safe to presume that he has not acquired any special expertise in the area of climate change other than what he reads in the New York Times (which owns the Athletic) and other progressive propaganda media.

Continue reading →

Unethical Website of the Month: “Locals”

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Nothing I like better than a big dose of frustration to start up the morning…

Glen Greenwald may be a fine and brave independent reporter, but he’s an unethical one, as I have pointed out here before. I am apparently unable to get out from his clutches, or at least from the con artists he hangs out with. As I wrote about earlier this year, I subscribed to Greewald’s substack, which he stopped contributing to because of some personal matters, but I was still charged for the subscription. (I also have had to endure some personal setbacks this year, but I have managed to fulfill my obligations to Ethics Alarms readers nonetheless, none of whom have paid me for subscriptions. Cry me a river, Glenn.) Then he announced that he was leaving Substack.

On December 10 of 2023, I received a “friendly reminder” from Glenn that my subscription to his new platform would renew in six days. I had never subscribed to the new platform, as indeed I wouldn’t trust Greenwald with another subscription if it cost me only ten cents. I had bigger metaphorical fish to fry a year ago, and never took the time to figure out what the hell was going on, but apparently my subscription renewed.

I have not heard a peep from Greenwald since that message last year, but today I received the same “friendly reminder” as you can see above. The email was “no-reply.” Nowhere was there a link to cancel the subscription, which I had never agreed to any way.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Critics of Federal Workers Telecommuting May Exaggerate But the Truth Is Bad Enough”

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

This Comment of the Day by new participant in the comment wars Dr. Blae cheers my pre-Christmas cockles more than most for two reasons: 1) I always love it when a first time commenter weighs in with a Comment of the Day. This is especially true since I spend so much time reading attempted first-time comments that read: “You suck, asshole!” 2) Genuine expertise on these topics is always a godsend. I am a pan-ethicist, meaning that I work in the ethics field regarding too many areas to count, legal ethics substantially but also business ethics, government ethics, sports ethics, academic ethics, journalism ethics, and more. I am neither a participant nor an expert in many of these fields themselves, so when ethics and one of them intersect, a specialist is especially welcome.

Here is Dr. Blae’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Critics of Federal Workers Telecommuting May Exaggerate But the Truth Is Bad Enough”:

***

So let’s break this down…

  • Federal agencies have been maintaining uninhabited office space in some of the most expensive real estate markets in the US.
  • The majority of federal workers, that can, telework/remote work and avoid coming into the office.
  • There is an assumption of a lack of efficiency due to telework/remote work, but the evidence is anecdotal or not directly relevant (e.g., office occupation).

Now for a couple of questions… prior to COVID:

  • When were government employees accused of being efficient?
  • What is efficiency? This is really important since the implication is a quantitative comparison, so we need some numbers.
  • Are all jobs/positions the same? Is there a single solution?
  • Where do most federal employees (in the DC area) come from?
  • How do you “drain the swamp” by reconcentrating employees in the swamp?
  • What is a comparison of costs between an employee doing telework/remote work v. being physically in the office?
  • Why do federal agencies continue to rent unoccupied spaces when according to GSA regulations/policies they are supposed to “right size” office space?

Ok let’s take into consideration a few points…

Continue reading →