Citizenship

Ethical Quote of the Week: Boston Judge Frances A. McIntyre

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Not speech.

“… while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during their protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit… ‘Occupation’ speaks of boldness, outrage, and a willingness to take personal risk but it does not carry the plaintiffs’ professed message. Essentially, it is viewed as a hostile act, an assertion of possession against the rights of another. The act of occupation, this court has determined as a matter of law, is not speech. Nor is it immune from criminal prosecution for trespass or other crimes.”

—Suffolk Superior Court Judge Frances A. McIntyre, in a 25 page decision lifting the temporary restraining order that has blocked Boston officials from forcibly dismantling Occupy Boston’s  encampment by declaring that mere occupation does not constitute “speech” within the First Amendment.

Well, of course.

Occupying property, public or private, and preventing rightful owners or those who should also have access to do likewise is hostile, and has been from the beginning. “Boldness, outrage, and a willingness to take personal risk” pretty much defines all the Occupy movement has been able to communicate clearly, its more substantive positions being a matter of some dispute, or changing according to tactical needs.

Too many municipal leaders, their political biases and yellow streaks showing, have been reluctant to make this obvious and necessary point in order to toady to hard-left voting blocks and cynical Democratic operatives who think the Occupiers bolster the class warfare theme that seems to be the agreed-upon 2012 electoral strategy. But as public annoyance with the endless occupations wore on (and the novelty wore off), the yellow streaks worked against the demonstrators. They are going to have to find some other way of “speaking” besides sitting around.

A well-reasoned, articulate and rational position would be nice.

Letting Homes Burn in Obion County: Re-send the Memo

/ Jack Marshall / 44 Comments

"I'll pay the $75 now."

Just in time for Christmas, we have the heart-warming story—or just plain “warming”—of the South Fulton (Tennessee) Fire Department once again standing by as someone’s home burns down.  Ethics Alarms wrote about this  outfit doing the same thing in 2010, following Obion County policy: pay the yearly $75 fire department fee, or be prepared to put out your own damn fires.

In 2010, it was the home of a cheapskate named Gene Cranick, who, like the people who can afford health insurance but don’t buy it anyway, figured that his  community would still do the right thing if the worst happened, so he gambled to save the money.  The South Fulton Fire Department did the right thing, all right, at least according to Obion County officials. They let his house go up in flames.

This time, it was mobile home owner Vicky Bell whose dumb gamble backfired.  Continue reading →

The Fat Kid, the Slippery Slope, and the Cliff

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

"Bill! They're putting me in foster care! How will you make THAT funny?"

Several recent ethics issues have raised the slippery slope question, which is itself a slippery slope. The rationale for any reasonable principle or act can usually be ratcheted forward in degrees until it becomes malevolent, dangerous or repugnant, including freedom, trust, loyalty, charity and honesty. Thus the easiest argument, at least for the mentally dexterous, that anything is unethical is the dreaded slippery slope.

The simple rebuttal to this is usually “let’s wait and see.” To claim that conduct is unethical for what it might lead to rather than for what it actually does is often, perhaps even usually, based on an unwarranted assumption, or a worst case scenario specifically concocted to foil otherwise unobjectionable conduct. When it is not based on an unwarranted assumption, however, is when proposed conduct or a new policy permitting it shatters a social norm or cultural standard that had previously been considered sacrosanct. In these cases, the slope isn’t merely slippery—which suggests “Be careful where you step next!”—but greased, meaning there is no longer any traction at all to stop a rapid slide to the bottom. A better cliché to use in such cases is “opening the floodgates.” Or perhaps “off a cliff.”

The recent post about the Dartmouth researchers who suggested that all manipulations of graphic images of celebrities be labeled as such is, I would argue, more floodgates than slippery slope. There is no obvious delineation point to stop the principle behind this oppressive constraint on illusion from spreading far beyond its origin. Similarly, the argument being made by the family of the mother with Stage 4 cancer that US Air is ethically obligated to refund the non-refundable tickets they could not use because of her terminal illness has no clear limits or coherent application. Are the refunds required because the mother is terminal? If she goes into remission, would the family be obligated to give the money back? What if she was only paralyzed? If the whole family was squashed by a boulder, would the airline be obligated to refund the money to their next of kin? What if the mother wounded herself terminally in a suicide attempt—would that change US Air’s supposed obligation of compassion? If so, would that mean that if the mother’s Stage 4 breast cancer occurred because she neglected to follow a physician’s recommended treatment, US Air could then refuse to refund the money without being pilloried for it? Sometimes that greased slope carries us into a swamp.

Now from Cleveland comes the story of the 200 lbs. + 8-year-old Cleveland Heights boy who has been taken from his family and placed in foster care because county case workers decided that his mother wasn’t doing enough to control his weight.  Continue reading →

Ethical Quote of the Week: Will Wilkinson

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

After the headlines and the drama, the real grunt work of democracy begins...or not.

“…now that the Occupy movement has succeeded in shining a spotlight on its primary concerns — rising inequality, political corruption, and debt peonage — Occupiers and their allies now ought to pull up stakes, give up their whimsically undemocratic semi-privatization of public spaces, and endeavor to reform public policy through the democratic institutions established to make the collective determination of binding public rules legitimate. Moving on to seek reform through established democratic channels would require giving up the insolent and frankly disrespectful presumption that these often radically left-wing congregations somehow represent not only a majority of Americans, but 99% of them. It would require Occupiers to square up to the fact that their movement’s implicit ideology is an ideology, and a minority ideology at that — just one among our society’s many rival moral and political worldviews. The intransigence of the Occupy movement suggests an unwillingness among its numbers to take seriously the fact of pluralism, and the corollary impossibility of consensus, which makes majoritarian democratic procedures necessary in the first place.”

—Blogger Will Wilkinson, in his essay, “The Occupy Movement’s Enthusiasm and Contempt For Democracy” on bigthink.com (Think Big).

You can read the entire essay by Wilkinson, who is much more supportive of the Occupy movement than I am, here.

Good thinking, good work.

Now Here’s A Terrible Idea: Mandated Disclosures for Photoshopped Images of Celebrities!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

And if you look real closely at the lower left corner, you'll read, "The model for Venus was a short, middle-aged bald man named Gino. His appearance was altered by the painter in the creation of this painting."

Here is another candidate for enshrinement in the Pantheon of Well- Intentioned But Terrible Ideas.

In an article published Monday in the journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” Dartmouth researchers Hany Farid, a professor of computer science, and Eric Kee, a doctoral student, propose a rating system of publicly displayed photographs of models, actors and celebrities to let viewers know exactly how and how much an image has been altered by photoshopping, airbrushing or other means.

“Impossibly thin, tall, and wrinkle- and blemish-free models are routinely splashed onto billboards, advertisements and magazine covers,” the two write. “The ubiquity of these unrealistic and highly idealized images has been linked to eating disorders and body-image dissatisfaction in men, women, and children.” In the interest of limiting the damage caused by unrealistic images of human beauty, the researchers argue that graphic images should include labels that disclose  “geometric adjustments” such as slimming legs, hips and arms, as well as adjusting facial symmetry—reducing a nose in size, or slightly enlarging eyes.  Users of such photos should also flag photometric adjustments that change the appearance of skin tone, blemishes and texture, such as wrinkles, dark circles under the eyes or cellulite, say the researchers.

Please, for the love of God, nobody introduce these guys to Sarah Deming and her lawyer, who are suing the distributers of the film “Drive” because the trailer was more exciting than the movie. And let us all remember this proposal when we are tempted to pooh-pooh accusations that the government is regulating creativity, commerce, art and enterprise right out of existence, and with them, individual liberty as well.The tea parties should use Farid and Kee’s article for recruitment. Continue reading →

A Inconvenient Question About the Death of Walter Vance

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

"He's everywhere! He's everywhere!"

I have little to add to the tragedy of Walter Vance that can’t be found in the list of 15 Ethics Alarms about failures to rescue that I posted during the recent Penn State discussions. Vance was the shopper who collapsed in a South Charleston, West Virginia Target store during the Black Friday rush and was ignored by dozens of other shoppers, some of whom stepped over his body to seek more bargains. Vance later died.

I do have one little question, though.

I wonder how many of those shoppers who callously reacted to Vance’s peril with indifference told everyone who would listen earlier this month that had they witnessed Jerry Sandusky’s sexual assault on a child in the Penn State showers like Mike McQueary, they would have rushed to the rescue, even if it meant battling Sandusky.

My guess?

Every single one of them.

[More thanks to Rick Jones, who writes about the Vance episode here, and nudged me to comment on it too.]

Abuse of Government Power+ School Administrator Cowardice = Student Persecution

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Enemy of the State.

Emma Sullivan, an 18-year-old high school senior at Fairway, Kansas’s Shawnee Mission East High School,  went with her class on a field trip to the Capitol and heard Gov. Sam Brownback speak. She tweeted her reactions to her Twitter followers, writing, “just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot”.

The part about making mean comments to the Governor was a lie, but on a scale of believability and damage done, not an especially momentous one. It was adults who turned this unremarkable student tweet into an ethics train wreck in three neat, unforgivable steps.

1. First, some over-zealous hack on the Brownback’s staff saw the tweet and complained to an administrator in the school district. This is a First Degree Ethics Foul. Nothing in Sullivan’s tweet brings it within his, the governor’s or the government’s legitimate concerns. For the staffer to complain was petty, vindictive and mean-spirited. Every second he spent on his vendetta was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Worst of all, he was bringing the power of the government to bear on a teenager for doing nothing more than expressing her opinion, which is that Governor Brownback sucks. I’m sure there have been foreign dictators who would punish a teen for doing no more than telling friends that she doesn’t like him, but I would have thought that someone who works in one of the United States governments would instinctively know that this kind of bullying mind-control isn’t allowed here. I was wrong. Brownback does suck, at least at picking staff. Continue reading →

Unethical Website of the Month: “Occupy Black Friday” Facebook Page

/ Jack Marshall / 36 Comments

The  intellectual, logical and ethical deficiencies of the tiresome “Occupy” movement are on full outrageous display on “Occupy Black Friday,” a Facebook page that is part of the effort to harm large retailers by interfering with holiday shopping. Naturally, as with segments of the “Occupy” groups that have advocated or engaged in violence, used anti-Semitic rhetoric, broken laws and made ridiculous statements, defenders of the movement will dismiss this as an aberration, not representative of the principles of the “Occupiers” as a whole. This is the group’s genius, or something: by being infuriatingly vague, it avoids accountability.

But an organization is accountable for the events it sets in motion, and the harm that its pretensions wreak. The idea promoted by the group’s Facebook page is for mobs of Occupiers to swarm stores during their deep discount sales today, interfering with shoppers and bringing commerce to a halt:

“The idea is simple, hit the corporations that corrupt and control American politics where it hurts, their profits. Black Friday is the one day where the mega-corporations blatantly dictate our actions, they say “shop” and we shop! Pushing their ledgers from red to black. This Black Friday, we will boycott all of the corporations that corrupt our government, and put profits before people.”

The idea is simple minded. Continue reading →

A Pre-Thanksgiving Day Ethics Quiz: Young vs. Brinkley

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

The  following heated exchange occurred yesterday between Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) and historian Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Rice University during a Congressional hearing.

Your Pre-Thanksgiving Ethics Quiz:

Who was more uncivil and disrespectful, the professor or the Congressman?

Possible Answers:

A. Rep. Young

B. Prof. Brinkley

C. Both

D. Neither was out of line.

I think it’s a surprisingly close contest. Brinkley is obviously a pompous jerk, as he was outraged at being called by the wrong name and couldn’t wait until the Congressman had finished speaking before he interrupted him with a definite “you’re an idiot” snark to his correction. Young’s barked retort, ordering Brinkley to be silent as if Young were some kind of Medieval Duke talking to an impudent  peasant was an obnoxious over-reaction, and Brinkley’s response to that was appropriate indeed: the Congressman needs to remember who he works for.

With reservations, I’ll choose A. I expect history professors to be full of themselves; that’s part of their charm. Brinkley was out of line and rude to interrupt Young, but Young’s disrespectful attitude toward a member of the public is more offensive than Brinkley’s disrespect for a member of Congress.

They both acted like jerks.

Ethical Quote of the Month: Newt Gingrich

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The Good Newt (newtus virtuous), once believe to be extinct, was sighted in D.C.

“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them. I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers… I don’t see how  the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.”

—-GOP Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, telling CNN debate moderator Wolf “Blitz” Blitzer his approach to illegal immigration, and spitting into the wind of Tea Party and and conservative Republican ideology on the subject.

Continue reading →