Author: Jack Marshall

Ethics Dunces: Rob McElhenney, Kaitlin Olson and the Hacks Who Wrote Their Material For The Emmys

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I usually ignore the Emmys unless something especially egregious happens on this perpetually unexciting and predictable awards show. Even the current topic, the rude and unfunny jibes of two C-list show-biz types at the expense of Meryl Streep during the latest installment, isn’t a big deal, just a provocative one prompting several ethics musings on the state of American culture and society.

Presenting the award for outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series ( Streep was a nominee) Rob McElhenney and wife Kaitlin Olson engaged in this scripted banter:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Sympathy For Really Stupid Accident Victims”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Sarah B.’s COTD on the ethics quiz regarding the ethical amount of sympathy due a 15-year-old girl who probably crippled herself for life by trying “car surfing” is , as her commentary usually is, clear and in need of no introduction from me. So here it is….

***

I don’t necessarily like blaming this on social media. I think that is putting the blame in the wrong place.

When I was in high school, a kid I had been in school with since first grade made a dumb choice. He killed two women by driving recklessly. At sixteen, he was tried as an adult and went to prison for two counts of vehicular manslaughter. I’m calling him Sam.

While no one can truly understand another’s reasoning, for those of us who knew him his whole life, the reasons for doing what he did were fairly obvious. Sam was one of two fatherless boys raised by their mom and grandma. The grandma, especially, did an okay job trying to raise him, putting him in the Catholic school, and holding to the old time values of respecting your teacher, ladies, etc. However, he never really managed to fit in with the other boys. In order to gain attention and acceptance, he willingly enacted whatever crazy idea the other boys conceived. Maybe it was bullying a girl. Maybe it was doing some silly prank. I was the target of a serious prank that was traced back to him when I was in fifth grade. He was in deep trouble and only avoided expulsion because Sister knew that this would never have come only from him. So when there was a rumor running around that if you drove down X road at Y mph, you could jump the main highway 3 miles east of town, it was logical that Sam would be pushed into trying it out. And try it out he did, with some of his fellows in the car. During third period, he T-boned two old ladies at the junction of X road and the highway at over 100 miles an hour.

Continue reading →

When You Are Running For President, I Suspend the Julie Principal…

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

Kamala Harris’s tendency to answer questions with circular, redundant nonsense, known around Ethics Alarms as “Authentic Frontier Gibberish” in honor of “Blazing Saddles'” Gabby Johnson, was mostly left alone during the last four years due to the application of the “Julie Principle.” The Julie Principle comes into play when an undesirable or annoying  characteristic or behavior pattern in a person or organization appears to be hard-wired and part of their essence.  In judging such a person or entity, it is useful to keep the lyrics of Julie’s song from “Show Boat” (“Can’t Help Lovin’ That Man O’ Mine,” lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein Jr., music by Jerome Kern) firmly in mind, when she sings…Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…I’ve gotta love that man til I die…Can’t help lovin’ that man of mine! To constantly harp on something the individual can’t change ultimately becomes pointless and cruel, and hence unethical.

When one is a major party’s nominee for President, however, Julie Principle privileges must be suspended. When one is a nominee for President who was spared the vetting, competitive nomination process, debates and primaries every other major party nominee has been required to conquer for almost 200 years, Julie Principle privileges really have to be suspended. And when your strategy is to try to avoid as many unscripted, competent and unbiased interviews as possible before election day so voters will know as little as possible about you, Julie Principle privileges really, really, really have to be suspended.

Thus we must ponder how Harris responded to a question at a National Association of Black Journalists panel discussion yesterday, before an audience strongly inclined to support her. Moderator Tanya Mosley of Philadelphia radio station WHYY asked the elevated Veep where she draws “the line between” Israel’s “aggression and defense” in the Israel-Hamas war.

Harris began by saying there was “a lot to unpack” in the question (Translation: “Huminahumina…”) then said that the Jewish state “has a right to defend itself.” Since Mosley was obviously asking how Harris squares that mantra with her demand that there be an “immediate and permanent cease fire,” she pressed Harris for a real answer. And the real answer was…

“No, no, let me finish! It’s important to put it in context, which is what I’m doing, and I’ll get to that. There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. That there be an ability to have security in the region, for all concerned, in a way that we create stability, and—let us all also recognize—in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability in the region.”

Oh.

This is called “faking it,” and not very well at that.

Musings on the “Unethical Quote of the Month” by MSNBC Columnist Steve Brenen

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

“[T]he Trump campaign seriously expects people to believe that Democrats are the “party of violence,” which is among the most ridiculous claims Team Trump has ever made.”

—-MSNBC columnist and producer/constributor to “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Steve Brenen.

I’m not going to dignify that “It isn’t what it is” piece of flagrant hyper- partisan gaslighting with a rebuttal or a debunking. If it isn’t obvious why that statement is deranged, there’s not much an ethics blog can do for you. (You might need a brain transplant.)

The statement, which just came to my attention, knocked a related post out of line by its sheer defiance of reality and the writer’s evident confidence that his addled readers would accept it. Wow. I would hope that you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who could both read and would be that incapable of critical thought. The real number is in the millions.

I was going to write about bitter, old, foiled but still raging ethics villain Hillary Clinton, who told fellow ethics villain Maddow yesterday that Donald Trump was a “danger to our country and the world” less than 24 hours after the second attempt on Trump’s life this year. Heck, it’s just self-defense to try to kill someone or something —you know, like Godzilla—that’s a danger to the country and the world. Everybody knows that!

“Americans need to understand that they have to take Trump both seriously and literally,” she told the ever-smirking Maddow. “He has said what he wants to do. He and his allies with Project 2025, his desire to be a dictator, at least on day one, all of that is in the public record. And I believe that more Americans have to be, you know, willing to endure what frankly is discomforting and to some extent kind of painful, to take him at his word and to be outraged by what he represents. We can’t go back and give this very dangerous man another chance to do harm to our country and the world,” she added.

I have considerable sympathy for Hillary, as I’ve written here before. I can’t imagine what it must be like to lose the Presidency after winning the popular vote, and to become a historical footnote like Samual Tilden because of one’s own stupid choices (like her super-secret server and the decision to stonewall about it rather than just to say, “Yeah, that was wrong. Sorry.”) It would have been nice if she had the character to take those metaphorical lemons and make yummy lemonade, but she has chosen to use them to make acid bombs (and book deals) instead. Too bad.

It also is too bad Hillary can’t elevate her conduct above even lower forms of Democrat Party life like Biden and Kamala by avoiding outright anti-Trump Big Lies, but she’s not up to that either. She actually resorted to that hoary claim that Trump promised to be a dictator because he told Sean Hannity that he would “only be a dictator on Day One”, when he would “dictate” that we close the border and “drill, drill, drill.” That one’s right there next to the “fine people” lie and the others.

I expect better lies from Hillary. Bill needs to coach her.

Other thoughts…

Continue reading →

Cetacean Ethics: “No, Flipper, NO!”

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

 Off the shores of Fukui, Japan, a rogue dolphin appears to have attacked at least 53 bathers over the past three years, leaving them with bite wounds and sometimes broken bones. Most of the victims were bitten on their arms and hands, but seven were rammed. That’s how dolphins fight sharks.

Authorities believe that even more people have been injured because some victims did not report the attacks. In each reported incident, only one dolphin was involved: an aquatic mammal with an injured dorsal fin.

And a grudge.

Flipper the Ripper.

Integrity Check Coming: Will the Alleged ABC Whistleblower Report Be the Hunter Biden Laptop of 2024?

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

If you read conservative websites and news sources, but probably not if you get your news from MSNBC and the rest, you probably know that an alleged whistleblower has emerged to claim that Disney’s political mouthpiece ABC News conspired with Harris Campaign officials to rig the Presidential debate that Harris “won.” From the Hindustan Times (yes, it’s come to that…):

An affidavit, purportedly from an anonymous “ABC News whistleblower,” has sparked controversy after being circulated online. The document alleges close collaboration between the network and Kamala Harris’ campaign leading up to the recent debate against Donald Trump…

The affidavit alleges several serious claims regarding the debate preparation and ABC News’ role. One of the primary allegations is that Kamala Harris was given access to sample or similar questions before the debate. If true, this would have given her an unfair advantage over Donald Trump by allowing her to prepare more thoroughly for specific topics.

Another claim is that the Harris campaign actively blocked ABC News from questioning Joe Biden’s health. This issue has been a point of discussion throughout the election cycle, with some critics suggesting that Biden’s fitness for office should be more rigorously examined. According to the whistleblower, Harris’ team ensured that this line of questioning was off-limits.

The affidavit also asserts that the Harris campaign influenced ABC to avoid probing into allegations against Harris’ brother-in-law, who has been accused of embezzling billions in taxpayer money.

Additionally, ABC staff members are said to have been fearful of retribution from Trump, possibly implying that they felt pressured to comply with the Harris campaign’s requests to avoid conflict.

The whistleblower claims to have secret recordings that prove the Harris campaign pressured moderators to fact-check Trump during the debate. These recordings, if they exist, could provide key evidence in backing the whistleblower’s assertions.

Moreover, it is alleged that ABC News was given instructions about which questions to steer clear of during the debate, implying that the Harris campaign had significant influence over the content and flow of the event. This control over the debate, according to the whistleblower, included a demand for live fact-checking of Trump while Harris faced no such scrutiny, even when she made statements that were factually questionable.

The whistleblower reportedly signed the affidavit in New York and has sent a copy to Speaker Mike Johnson, further raising the stakes as these claims are now in the hands of political leadership.

Bill Acker, the conservative billionaire who helped rid Harvard of Claudine Gay, sent a letter to Disney chair Bob Iger that has given the alleged whistleblower story a bit more visibility…

Continue reading →

Middlesex County in Mass., Which Includes My Home Town, Is the Target of a “Travel Warning” Issued By Three Jewish Groups

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Yes, it’s come to this.

Continue reading →

As a proud Arlingtonian, born and bred in (still) the largest town in America, the home of “Uncle Sam,” and mentioned (as Menotomy, its former name) in “Paul Revere’s Ride,” I am obligated to report this story.

You can’t get more gentrified, liberal, suburban Boston than Middlesex County, which includes such famous locales as Cambridge, Lexington and Concord. But Betar USA, Magen Herut Canada, and Shields of David all say that until all charges are dropped against Scott Hayes, Americans, and especially American Jews and supporters of Israel, should stay away themselves and take their business elsewhere. This is because Hayes, who is not Jewish but who has attended pro-Isreal rallies, was charged with shooting a pro-Hamas activist who charged across the street and attacked Hayes during a pro-Israel demonstration in Newton. (Ah, Newton! My chess club played matches against both Newton high schools, regarded as among the best schools in the county…) A GoFundMe set up to support Hayes has raised nearly $250,000 with more than 3,500 people donating. 

Hayes was released on bail after his arraignment on Friday.

Michael Sinensky, Executive Director of Betar USA said, “These are dangerous times in America for those who stand with Israel. When a decorated Iraq War veteran and American citizen is prosecuted for defending himself against an individual who attacked him and openly supports a terrorist organization, it sends a chilling message: Middlesex County is not a safe place for anyone who values liberty, justice, and security.

He continued, “District Attorney Marian Ryan must know and understand this case is much larger than Scott Hayes. This case sends a chilling message to all Americans they cannot protect themselves in Massachusetts if attacked. We urge all Americans to stand with us, refuse to visit, and withhold their spending in all towns in Middlesex county, including Newton, Massachusetts, until this gross miscarriage of justice is corrected….We expect other organizations to join our call to action and will commence an advertising and marketing campaign calling on Americans to avoid visiting until charges against Hayes are dropped.”

Yes, it’s come to this.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Sympathy For Really Stupid Accident Victims

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

That’s a scene above from Quentin Tarntino’s “Death Proof,” and a dumber movie you are never likely to encounter. The clip is there not to celebrate the movie, originally half of a misconceived bomb called “Grind House,” but to illustrate the real and incredibly stupid phenomenon called “car surfing,” which has had a recent resurgence among teens thanks to social media.

15-year-old Cyprus High School (Utah) sophomore Ava Broadhead is now in a coma after she fell off the top of a moving car. She was car-surfing, and “unfortunately, pavement isn’t as forgiving and the victim hit their head,” a police officer told the news media. Ava suffered massive head injuries and faces a long recovery, with the chances of regaining her previous level of brain function slim.

A GoFundMe page seeks donations for Anna, stating, “Your generous donations will go directly toward her medical care and the resources needed to support her recovery. Any amount, no matter how small, will make a huge difference in Ava’s journey. If you are unable to contribute financially, we ask that you keep Ava in your prayers and share her story to raise awareness about the real dangers of car surfing.”

Who has have explained to them the dangers of riding on the outside of a moving car?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

How much compassion and sympathy, if any, is appropriate in response to someone harming themselves by engaging in such reckless behavior?

This kind of story always puts me in a quandary; I think I have posted about my dilemma before. My son nearly got himself killed or crippled a few times, although never doing anything quite as stupid as car-surfing. I note that the Go-Fund-Me page has raised only $6,000 so far, and I strongly suspect the weak response is because many have the same reflex reaction I do, which is that I’d rather give money to the victims of misfortunes they didn’t almost literally ask for. Anna’s story reminded me of the July Fourth accident this year when an idiot put fireworks on his head and set them off.

Of course Anna gets some points off her Darwin Awards score by virtue of her tender age…but how many? She devastated her own life while immersing her family in tragedy and the crushing burden of caring for her. It wasn’t intentional, but a drunk getting behind the wheel of a car isn’t intentionally trying to kill anyone, either.

I know that this self-inflicted tragedy will naturally cause many to blame social media. The suspicion lingers, however, that anyone foolish enough to try car-surfing is going to be disaster-prone one way or another.

Perplexing Ethics Quote of the Week: Ann Althouse

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

“I have never trusted the people who want to be President, and I have despaired over the structural problem that we’re always stuck having to vote for somebody who has strongly desired the presidency.”

—-Ann Althouse, in a very strange blog post in which she sympathizes with Kamala Harris for what Althouse sees as a weariness and dislike of campaigning.

I suppose it is good to know that Althouse doesn’t comprehend the nature of leadership, leaders and the people who aspire to be leaders, but as someone who has studied leadership for a long, long time as well as having done my share of leading (and leadership is one of the major topics of this blog), I must say that her comment is perplexing to say the least.

Leadership is a special role that requires special traits, talents and abilities, and one of those traits is believing oneself to be a leader while being willing to accept the responsibility leadership requires. The greater the responsibilities a leadership position entails, the more essential it is that a leader be confident in his or her ability to meet those responsibilities, and seek the burden they confer.

Stating that one does not trust people who want to be President to be President is like saying you only trust a doctor who never wanted to be a doctor. It makes no sense. Every one of our best and most acclaimed Presidents demonstrated their leadership abilities at a young age and actively sought leadership, proceeding to the next stage after demonstrated success. We have had a few reluctant Presidents, all Vice-Presidents thrust into a job they didn’t expect, and some, notably Chester A. Arthur, managed to overcome their lack of an appetite for leadership to do a workmanlike job. Other so-called “accidental Presidents,” notably Teddy Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, were natural leaders and thrilled to become President.

There are plenty of reasons to distrust the so-called “leader type.” Most, if not all are narcissists. Power does corrupt, and many who seek power and who are skilled in using it are also often drawn to the abuse of power for to less than admirable motives. Nevertheless, leadership requires confidence, a willingness to accept accountability, the courage to take risks, and a belief in the likelihood of success based on a history of success. Not wanting to lead strongly suggests an absence of these essential leadership traits.

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Verdict: When Your Town Is Being Overrun, It’s Not Racist To Use The Term ‘Overrun.’” [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Proving that even banned commenters have their uses, Chris Marschner offered a persuasive and enlightening rebuttal of the contention by a quickly-banned new commenter here that accounts of the problems visited on Springfield, Ohio by an overwhelming influx of Haitian immigrants were tainted by racism.

Chris’s Comment of the Day combines two comments that were piggy-backed in the thread, and here they are, inspired by the post, “Ethics Verdict: When Your Town Is Being Overrun, It’s Not Racist To Use The Term ‘Overrun.’”

***

Reuters did a good job spinning the actual data. Medicaid skyrocketing in the last three years; wage growth grew only after the pandemic and dropped faster than a neighboring town’s starting in 2022. Housing costs rose three times faster than in the US as a whole. Unemployment has been rising faster than in neighboring areas and the US as a whole.

Reuters makes the point that wage growth stayed above 6% longer than Dayton or the overall economy, but failed to say that it became more volatile as migrants moved in, dropping faster and farther than either Dayton or the US.

The story also makes statements like “false claims” by residents at community meetings and white supremacist protests during a jazz festival. Both statements are inflammatory and included no evidence to support the claims made.

Reuters has a progressive bias in all its reporting. Reuters wrote:
“More recently, Vance and other Republicans have amplified false claims aired by some residents at weekly city commission meetings. City commissioners in their public comments have pushed back, noting that the vast majority of Haitians are in the country legally and have a right to live where they choose”

The first statement states that locals are liars and the last statement fails to acknowledge that their legal status is exactly what the complaint is about. If Joe Biden had made an executive order giving temporary legal status for anyone in the world, anyone showing up would be here legally. At issue is the administration’s role in creating a massive influx of people who have not had to go through our normal processes to ensure they will not be a charge on society.

They continued,

“It is still a jarring increase from around 3,500 in just a few years – too fast to be reflected yet in Census data and the equivalent of 1.6 million or so new arrivals to New York City. There are growing pains – indeed outright tension – as a result, with sometimes ugly rhetoric at city commission open comment periods. A small group of white supremacists marched through town during a jazz festival in mid-August. For many local civic and business leaders, however, the advantages of having more people to fill jobs, start businesses, and buy goods and services are not lost.”

Continue reading →