Character

Ethics Dunce: Tender Miami Weatherman John Morales

/ Jack Marshall / 52 Comments

Aw, isn’t he caring! A supposedly professional meteorologist gained fans and social media hits by choking up as he covered Hurricane Hurricane Milton. Oooh, it was so big and scary!

Time to retire, John.

Now we know the professionalism rot that has crippled law, science, journalism, academia, politics, the judiciary and so many other fields has struck meteorologists. Morales’s job is, or was supposed to be, relaying information about weather phenomenon, not to show everyone how sensitive and frightened he is. There is no excuse for this, none, never. If you can’t broadcast the explosion of the Hindenburg, a fire, a bomb blast or a murder without either losing control of your emotions or, worse, virtue-signaling with them, then you are in the wrong job.

Furthermore, such a reaction seeds panic. It is as irresponsible as it in incompetent.

Continue reading →

Two Faint Cheers For the Colorado Supreme Court in “Jerk vs. Jerk”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

It looks like the political correctness Furies who have been swarming around Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner whose refusal to bake, decorate and sell same-sex wedding cakes had him targeted for destruction have finally been foiled.The Colorado Supreme Court has dismissed the latest lawsuit against him, though not on the merits. Legal Insurrection has detailed coverage and a retrospective on this almost decade-long drama here.

Remember the old Mad Magazine series called “Spy vs. Spy”? This has been “Jerk vs. Jerk.” I sided with the baker in the original lawsuit over the same-sex wedding cake, though holding even then that the adversaries were being unreasonable. Ethics Alarms advised one, “Oh, bake the damn cake!” and the other, “So find another bakery!” That battle got all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the baker won on what non-lawyers call “a technicality.” Then Phillips was targeted again, as LGTBQ activists apparently considered it a matter of honor to bend him to their will.

Continue reading →

Why Would a GOP Candidate for Congress Aspire To Be the Next George Santos?

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This guy needs to pull out of the race. Now. What is the matter with these people? And why does the Republican Party keep nominating them?

In a short clip posted on Republican Derrick Anderson’s campaign website and YouTube channel, the Republican running for an open Congressional seat in Virginia’s 7th District poses alongside a smiling woman and three girls in front of a suburban house and then is shown seen sitting with them at the family table. Anderson is unmarried and childless, and apparently “borrowed” a friend’s family.

“Derrick Anderson is so desperate to mask his anti-abortion views and look like a family man that he’s posing for fake family pictures,” Democratic Party spokesperson Lauryn Fanguen said. “He’s clearly not above misleading Virginians and definitely can’t be trusted to represent them in Congress.”

That seems fair.He seems even less trustworthy than the pro-abortion Democrats who mischaracterize the Dobbs decision and abortion itself in every TV ad I see on their behalf in Northern Virginia.

Anderson’s campaign claims the video innocently shows the veteran posing with “female supporters and their children.”

Right.

George Santos, kicked out of Congress for lying about almost everything to fool half-asleep voters to elect him, still didn’t sink so low as to invent a fake family.

Just say you’re a knucklehead, Derrick. It might work!

Ethics Dunce: Donald Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Some day I’ll have to count up all of Trump’s honors here as an ethics dunce, “asshole of the year,” unethical quote of the week/month, etc. I know the total is impressive, and that’s even with the Julie Principle limiting his exposure. In a post yesterday I mused that a legitimate question could be posed regarding why Trump wasn’t far ahead in the polls, given the abysmal quality of his opposition and the multilateral botch the Biden Administration represents. This latest episode answers the question.

In an interview yesterday with conservative (though not always Trump-friendly] commentator Hugh Hewitt, Trump again was railing against the open border immigration policies of the Biden/Harris administration and the unvetted “migrants” who had, have or will commit serious crimes here. “Many of them murdered far more than one person, and they’re now happily living in the United States. You know, now a murderer…I believe this, it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.”

Translation: “Here, everybody, take this huge stick with nails in it and beat me bloody!”

Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: Ethics Villain Hillary Clinton [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

[I]f the platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control. And it’s not just the social and psychological affects, it’s real life.”

—Hillary Clinton, joining the chorus of Democrats, progressives and national ticket nominees past and present  advocating restricting free speech for the greater good.

Here is what a Pollyanna sap I am: I read the “we lose total control” section in several right-wing media posts, and assumed Hillary was unfairly taken out of context. After all, she’s not, or didn’t used to be, stupid. She ruthless and bitter and the U.S. ducked a metaphorical bullet by not electing her President, but surely, surely, Clinton wouldn’t be so careless and foolish as to say that out loud; surely she was a victim of selective editing. Then I checked the clip and the transcript. Nope, Clinton really said it and meant it. Ooh, Gina wants a word!

Thank-you, Gina!

Back to Hillary on CNN: Michael Smerconish, who is often cited as the most objective CNN host, didn’t faint and fall over on his face, then pop up to say, “What? What the hell is the matter with you?” It’s been the matter with Clinton for a while: Last month, Clinton suggested during an appearance on MSNBC (of course) that Americans accused of interfering in U.S. elections by spreading “propaganda” promoting former President Trump should be civilly or criminally charged. Democrats’ definition of propaganda in recent years often includes “the truth.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Verdict: This Is Unforgivable, and Accountability Is Mandatory

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

“Holy Crap!” indeed.

I have to come to the harsh but unavoidable ethics verdict that anyone who votes for the same political party responsible for us having a President in this condition is stupid, irreversibly ignorant, completely uninformed, or a mindless partisan robot eager to love Big Brother.

As I recently reminded readers by quoting from this post in early 2020, the fact that Joe Biden was losing his already tenuous grip on competence was evident before the Democrats nominated him. I wasn’t unusually perceptive; the Democratic Party’s Dark Leaders had to know that the assorted demagogues, anti-US socialists and empty suits competing with him for the Presidential nomination that year had little chance of defeating the Evil Donald Trump, and also that Biden was literally unfit to hold office. Then the pandemic struck, and the party, which aspires to be called The Party henceforth, realized that they could hide Joe in the basement, pretend he wasn’t losing marbles daily, and use pandemic terror spread by its media allies to justify useful changes in election security. Voilà! Victory “by any means necessary.” [Harry Reid chimes in from the Lake of Fire where he now resides, “Romney lost, didn’t he?”]

Continue reading →

So…The Second Gentleman Running For First Gentleman Impregnated His Nanny During His First Marriage and Slapped a Date In the Face: Is That a Problem?

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

By the established standards of the news media and the rest of the Axis of Unethical Conduct, it should be, don’t you think? But apparently not.

Huh.

A throbbing example of wildly varying standards in the media depending on whether they are covering Donald Trump or Kamala Harris just raised its warty head. Did you see that Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris’s husband who was largely invisible until she pushed President Biden off the Democratic ticket, admitted he had an adulterous affair with his nanny and got her pregnant, leading to his divorce? That happened in August, after the slimy Daily Mail broke the scandal and Emhoff came clean to CNN. I missed it entirely, which means that, for example, the New York Times either ignored it or soft-peddled it because, well, you know. But the story burst on the social media scene this week after ex-Obama paid liar Jen Psaki, now a full-time Axis propagandist at MSNBC, interviewed Emhoff and gushed that he had “reshaped the perception of masculinity.” “Has that been an evolution for you and do you think that’s part of the role you might play as first gentleman?” Psaki continued. Yecchh. That was nauseating enough (no Vice-President’s spouse has the power, visibility or status to “reshape” anything), but Emhoff’s answer exploded heads from coast to coast.

Continue reading →

More VP Debate Ethics: Oh-Oh! Tim Walz Doesn’t Get That First Amendment Thingy…

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Does this bother you? It should: It bothers me. And Walz has been saying the same illiterate crap about free speech for years. I don’t want Presidents who don’t understand the First Amendment. It means they are incompetent at least, and dangerous at worst. If I don’t want a President with these deficits, I don’t want a Vice President with them either.

I was late to this particular party because I can only find one transcript of the debate online, CBS’s, and the site demands that I dump my ad-blocker to read it. Bite me. This is public information, and CBS shouldn’t have a monopoly on it: that’s unethical. Journalism has no public interest at heart at all, at least not the outlets I usually deal with.

When J.D. Vance pointed out that Walz had said there is no First Amendment right to misinformation,” Walz interjected “or threatening, or hate speech.”  Why do woke fools like Walz keep saying this? While “True threats”—meaning threats that are accompanied by the means and circumstances to carry them out—aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Misinformation that falls short of fraud or defamation definitely is, indeed outright lies are protected.

“Hate speech” also has full First Amendment protection. Walz, a high ranking member of the Democratic Party, the pro-censorship party, naturally is in favor of gutting free speech, or he doesn’t know what it is. I’m guessing both.

That’s particularly troubling in someone who taught school.

Continue reading →

Here’s Your Ethics Challenge: Argue Convincingly That It Would Have Been More Ethical For This Horrible Couple To Abort The Baby…

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Early favorites for “Parents of the Year”!

Darien Urban, 21, and Shalene Ehlers, 20, decided to sell their baby to a stranger while they were at a camp ground. (No, they weren’t married: why would you even ask?) As Mom explained later, having to deal with a baby while taking care of three dogs was just too much. All they asked for was a six-pack of beer and a thousand bucks. What a deal!

“I, Darien Urban and Shalene Ehlers, are signing our rights over to [Cody Martin] of our baby for $1,000 on 9/21/24,” their contract read. Good: these things should be legal. “After signing this there will be no changing y’all two’s minds and to never contact again,” it concluded.

Continue reading →

On Pete Rose

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Pete Rose died yesterday: he was 83. A documentary on Rose came out this year, but there was nothing new in it except some more interviews with Pete in which he proved, again, that he just didn’t have functioning ethics alarms. Honesty, integrity, responsibility, trustworthiness, fairness, and a lot more on the list of ethical values, baseball’s all time hit leader didn’t understand at all. If you had any doubts that Rose was a sociopath, his own words in that documentary should have banished them.

Rose was the subject of my second ethics essay online, at the old, finally gone forever, Ethics Scoreboard. Here, I wrote about Pete for the first time shortly after launching Ethics Alarms in 2010. The topic: the discovery that Rose had used a corked bat (that’s illegal in baseball) as a player. I wrote in part, beginning by dismissing the theory that corked bats don’t actually help batters so using one shouldn’t count as cheating…

Continue reading →