Comment of the Day

Comment of the Day: “Ethics and Human Nature Observations on Ethics Mega-Dunce Jurickson Profar”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The recent post about a highly-paid baseball player recently being suspended for the entire next season after being caught using forbidden PEDs (performance-enhancing drugs) inspired a fascinating comment by Ryan Harkins that examined an entirely separate aspect of the incident than any I had considered.

There is another angle on the case that I missed too. I had focused on how foolish it was for a player who had already achieved a guaranteed contract to risk it by cheating; so far, offender Jurickson Profar has forfeited over $20 million. But in today’s Athletic, Brittany Ghiroli observes that even though he has been revealed to be a cheat and that the one outstanding season he had that caused the Atlanta Braves to sign him to a three-year, $42 million guaranteed contract was likely the result of “juicing,” Profar still will receive all of his salary for the final year of his contract, $15 million. She writes in part, regarding why players risk taking steroids in the first place, what she has been told by other players:

“Guys didn’t take performance-enhancing drugs thinking they were risking their careers. Many of them did it so they could have careers — so they could elevate their stats, sign a big multiyear deal and set themselves and their families up for life. Sure, there was a risk of getting caught and forfeiting some pay. But baseball contracts are guaranteed. So as long as they didn’t get caught three times, teams were on the hook to pay them. Big risk, big reward. And until that reward goes away, the risk will always be worth it to certain players.”

Her solution, which she says the players union will never allow, is to make a rule that being caught using steroids allows a team to cancel the rest of a players’ contract.

Ryan’s focus is on human nature’s trap that may have snagged Profar after he had won his rich contract. Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics and Human Nature Observations on Ethics Mega-Dunce Jurickson Profar”:

***

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “No, Washington Post Editors, THIS Is What Stephen Colbert’s Spat With CBS Is REALLY About…”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Glenn Logan, once a prolific blogger himself, is an EA veteran who periodically shows his talent for forceful commentary, as in his Comment of the Day finishing off the Washington Post editors with a rhetorical haymaker after I had softened up the miscreants a bit. I admire Glenn’s precision in pointing out just how disingenuous the paper’s protest over the FCC’s revitalization of the Equal Time rule, which would never have been necessary if TV “entertainment” hadn’t devolve into single party propaganda.

Here’s Glenn’s Comment of the Day on the post, “No, Washington Post Editors, THIS Is What Stephen Colbert’s Spat With CBS Is REALLY About…”

***

Consider this:

“The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.”

First of all, in its “explanation” of the Equal Time rule, the Post deliberately muddles the intent of Congress in passing it. Congress wisely (omg, did I actually write that??) thought that it would be in the public interest to prevent networks from supporting only one side of the public debate on the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum. That spectrum, last time I checked, is still publicly owned, CBS is still a lessee and the subject broadcast was supposed to air on broadcast television.

For a Leftist outlet like the Post, fairness is supposed to be perhaps the most cherished touchstone of any debate, yet because reminding its audience of the two fundamental motivations for the FCC rule — fairness and the public interest — would undermine its argument, the post just glosses over them altogether and argues by implication that freedom of entertainment choice is the most important thing.

Again, it is with sadness that I observe many people, perhaps even a majority, are so unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking that they will accept this editorial as holy writ. But make no mistake — this was a malicious, deliberately partisan and utterly facile argument, and the Post knows it.

Verdict: Deliberately and intentionally unethical.

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s ‘Islamaphobic’ Quote”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

[Apologies to all: I was so eager to get Steve’s Comment of the Day up that I forgot to add the headline!]

The historically literate, unrestrained Ethics Alarms veteran commenter Steve-O-in NJ returns to the familiar (to him) Comment of the Day podium making the case that Rep. Fine was not being one bit unreasonable and certainly not “Islamophobic” when he responded to a New York City Muslim activists assertion that dogs should not be kept as pets in the Big Apple with the quip, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

In casual conversation about Fine’s line (not to be confused with “a fine line” ) I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn’t feel he got the better of the exchange. One lawyer friend, known for his combative courtroom style, opined that the woman’s ‘Islam is right that dogs are dirty’ remark was such a metaphorical hanging curve ball that it would have been unethical not to hit it out of the park.

Here is Steve-O-in-NJ’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s ‘Islamaphobic’ Quote”:

***

Islamic attitudes toward dogs vary. Some think of them as okay to use as working animals (herding, hunting etc.), but not pets. Judaism also for a time was anti-dog, and I think that ported over to Islam, same as the rule against pork.

I for one have never owned a dog, but I have known many, and I think they are useful in a number of ways, including as companion animals. They assist the disabled, protect and direct livestock, find people (or bodies), save those stranded on mountains, assist the emergency services, and even tow carts with Christmas trees or other evergreen decorations (the Bernese Mountain Dog is the usual breed for this). I’ll take a large gentle dog or an affectionate energetic dog (little yappy dogs are not my thing) over a hyper-religious neighbor who wants to tell me what to do any day. I’ve said a few times that Islam is not compatible with Western values, and this is just one other reason why it isn’t.

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “On Lincoln’s Favorite Poem, and the Poems’ We Memorize…”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

What a joy to wake up this morning not only to a spectacular Comment of the Day, but also to a note from an MIA commenter who was last seen in these parts almost nine years ago! I welcome Lisa Smith back to Ethics Alarms with a well-deserved Comment of the Day honor, for her note on the post, “On Lincoln’s Favorite Poem, and the Poems’ We Memorize…”

(I couldn’t resist leading this off with one of two brilliant Charles Addams cartoon about “The Raven.” The other has Poe pondering as a raven, perching over his door, says, “Occasionally.”)

***

I don’t know – Poe’s Raven has one of my favorite lines; it isn’t at all profound, but it is profoundly delightful to speak and to allow to roll over the brain like a cool river. I memorized the entire poem when I was a teen in the late 70’s and can still recite it. (But for the life of me, I can’t remember the “new” neighbor’s names, even though they have been here five or six years. Their dog is Annie. My priorities are laid bare, I suppose.)

“And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain thrills me, fills me with fantastic terrors never felt before.”

There may be errors in there. I write it from memory alone. [JM: Pretty close! “And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain, thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before”]

Poetry makes equals of us all. From Bukowski to Shakespeare. They speak to each person in their own way.

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “I Am Increasingly Reaching The Conclusion That We Can’t Trust Anyone…”

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

This rueful Comment of the Day arrived like manna from Heaven. I was cogitating about how we hadn’t had an “echo chamber” complaint on Ethics Alarms in a while, especially if we don’t count “Marisa’s” immortal “five commenters” snark. My mind went to that issue in part because I was marveling on how conservative Jonathan Turley’s commentariate had become, though he has always been described as a liberal, Democrat law professor, as almost all of the are. Most of the progressive and Trump-Deranged comments on his posts are anonymous (which I don’t allow) and also usually don’t deal with the post, but just regurgitate anti-Trump taking points. Jonathan need start moderating his comments.

Ann Althouse’s blog has evolved similarly. The few resolute progressive regulars are well-known by name, like the infamous “Inga,” but the vast majority of the former U. of Wisconsin law prof are conservative, though Ann insists that she is “fiercely” non-ideological.

I attribute the lament of EA’s house contrarian below to three factors.

1 Since 2016, Democrats, progressives, “the Resistance” and the their captive institutions have gone bonkers, abandoned ethics, and as a result, the bulk of criticism here has been aimed at their words and conduct, and appropriately so. I am as sick of this as anyone else, but it’s sure not my fault, and as an objective analyst I can’t pretend it is other than it is in the pursuit of “balance.”

2. The courageous, idealistic but annoying stance of some here that all points of view deserve respect and debate is periodically bracing, but in the case of many issues the myth involves literal denial of reality for various and generally unethical reasons. Illegal immigration is not defensible, and laws should not be cancelled by disobedience rather than legislative action. Open borders are by definition suicidal. The mainstream news media is biased in favor of the Left, and clearly so. Banning guns is unwise as well as impossible. Hate speech is constitutionally protected (and so is same sex marriage). Israel has not only a right but an obligation to end Hamas. DEI is repackaged racial and gender discrimination. The Democrats’ pursuit of Donald Trump was politically motivated and has destroyed an important bulwark of our democracy. The Joe Biden senility cover-up was among the worst and most dangerous political scandals in U.S. history. I could go on; the point is that I didn’t arrive at these conclusions and others because of any party affiliation. I arrived at them through strict ethical analysis, legal principles, and historical perspective, adjusting for bias. This is a hard time to be a loyal Democrat or a committed progressive, because so many of your positions have been proven to be wrong, and so many of your leaders have been exposed as hypocrites and frauds. I’m just reacting to reality. I feel bad for you, just as I felt bad for my Republican friends when the Religious Right, Tom Delay and assorted crooks and knaves made the GOP impossible to defend in good conscience.

3. When I was a fellow at the Ethics Resource Center in Washington, D.C, I argued vigorously that the organization, which calls itself “a source of information and guidance for ethics and compliance professionals everywhere,” needed to take stands on national issues with ethical implications, including corporate misconduct. Their response taught me a lot about the field. The organization wouldn’t take a black and white stand even when it was an easy call because it was afraid to alienate potential donors, board members and political allies. I vowed then and I retake that vow now that I will never accept that limitation, that indeed I view it unethical to do so. In both the Ethics Scoreboard (RIP) and Ethics Alarms, I have always tried to spawn discussion and enlightenment by taking strong positions, sometimes, I admit, more strongly than my true opinion justified, because I don’t think wishy-washy posts encourage dissent.

I have more to say on this topic, but the intro to Here’s Johnny‘s Comment of the Day on the post, I Am Increasingly Reaching The Conclusion That We Can’t Trust Anyone, “Experts,” Researchers and Scientists Included: My Dan Ariely Disillusionmentis too long already. So Heeeeeeere’s Johnny!

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “From Uvalde, The Message Is “Don’t Criminalize Incompetence and Cowardice”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I loved this: not only did long-time commenter Red Pill Ethics return to the fold after almost three years, he did it with brio, registering a Comment of the Day! This gives me hope: I periodically take inventories of which regular commenters have fled the nest, leaving me with only five. All I have to do is take the Ethics Alarms wayback machine, also known as “the archives” and peruse the names under “Comments.” I am always thrilled when I discover that an AWOL commenter has been following the blog all along when something rouses them from their torpor. We have had several instances of this lately.

Here is Red Pill’s Comment of the Day on the post, “From Uvalde, The Message Is “Don’t Criminalize Incompetence and Cowardice”…

***

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “Banning Thoughts, Positions and Ideas in Higher Education Is Unethical and Unconstitutional….But Is Cultural and Values Surrender the Only Alternative?”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Today became Frightening Mainstream Media Bias Saturday without my intention, so I’m going to shift gears to the other site of the massive Leftist societal and cultural manipulation, our conquered educational system. This Comment of the Day from one of EA’s resident authorities on the topic, will do quite nicely. Incidentally, I am a bit behind in my Comment of the Day posting. I’ll catch up, I promise.

In the meantime, here is Michael R.’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Banning Thoughts, Positions and Ideas in Higher Education Is Unethical and Unconstitutional….But Is Cultural and Values Surrender the Only Alternative?”…

***

There is a solution, but it cannot be implemented because of the corruption of the judiciary. The state schools are clearly in violation of numerous discrimination laws and they should be held to account.

Boys are being discriminated in schools. Look at the current performance of boys vs. girls in GPA and test scores below.

Now compare this to the 1975 – 1995 figures here. This is clearly a Title IX violation.

It is claimed that 20% of elementary school teachers are male, but I haven’t seen that and I doubt you have either. The real number is probably closer to 95% female. I am pretty sure this is clear evidence of sex discrimination by the schools and needs to be remedied. The 4 elementary schools my son went to had no, zero, male employees. Not even a janitor was male. This is clearly sex discrimination and should be remedied immediately.

Surveys show that at least 65% of public schoolteachers are Democrats. In the universities, it is MUCH higher. This type of viewpoint discrimination should not be allowed in public schools and the states need to outlaw it. The problem is, if you allow Democrats to be hired and they are allowed to determine hiring, the place becomes all Democrat eventually because Democrats are a cult that puts cult loyalty before merit. The concept of merit is considered evil to them. A solution would be to exempt Republicans from the taxes that support the schools (“Here is my Republican Card. This entitles me to a 60% property tax discount and a 3% sales tax discount”) or state-paid tuition at the private school of their choice. Since the schools are partisan, only that party should be required to support the schools.

The college population has been majority female since 1973 or 1974 (depending on if you define it as 50/50 or percentage of the population. Women are currently 61% of college students. The number in many surveys is below 60%, but it has been above 60% for some time in my experience. This is a massive Title IX violation.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: On the I.C.E. Shooting Ethics Train Wreck ( “Friday Open Forum, Depicated To Major Tipton”)

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Ace EA commenter Ryan Harkins, as he often does, flags the ethics conflict in the current escalating controversy over President Trump’s mass deportations, a.k.a, “Enforcing the immigration laws after a rogue Presidency refused to do so for four years.” The point he raises is not only a valid one but an important one, not just regarding this issue but others. I’m going to append a fairly long addition to Ryan’s excellent work, but first of all, here is his Comment of the Day from “Friday Open Forum, Dedicated To Major Tipton…”:

***

Here’s my concern about the situation we’re in. I would liken it to inconsistently disciplining your children. If you only irregularly discipline your child for a particular infraction, the child learns that most of the time, he can get away with that infraction. When that infraction is then punished, the child reactions disproportionately because he’s used to getting away with the infraction, and he believes that if he makes noncompliance painful enough, it will discourage further disciplinary action.

That seems to be the case we’re in with illegal immigrants. We’ve been very poor at enforcing our immigration laws, and so many said illegals and the communities around them grew complacent about the laws not being enforced. When the laws are enforced, it comes as a great shock, and the immediate reaction is to scream about how unfair it is. And to a certain extent, I do agree that it is unfair. It is unfair to cultivate the expectation that a law won’t be enforced, only to turn around and enforce it. But it is unfair because of cultivating that expectation, not because of the subsequent enforcement.

The significant problem is the whiplash effect of enforcement/non-enforcement depending upon who is in charge. We’ve run the gamut of no enforcement (even inviting in illegals), to soft enforcement, to promises of citizenship, to harsh enforcement. To anyone watching from outside the country, it is like dealing with a schizophrenic or someone suffering from multiple personality disorder. Worse, because we keep seesawing back and forth, the expectation right now is that by keeping up a defiant stance against the current administration, illegals and their allies can simply wait for the winds to change and go back to their lives as they’ve been.

I know this aspect of the situation glosses over the deliberate effort of radicals to the destabilize the nation, the outrage over the money spigots that are being closed, the efforts to import in reliable Democratic voters, and the genuine concerns over destabilizing families that had, admittedly against the law, put down roots and became productive members of their communities. But it is a serious problem that we seem to be lurching one direction, and then back the opposite way, with every swing of political power. This has been exacerbated by most policy changes coming from executive orders, which are easily undone, rather than congressional legislation, which is much harder to walk back.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “In Which I Call Ann Althouse’s Expressed Hatred Of ‘The Little Drummer Boy’ & Raise My Hatred of the Bing Crosby-David Bowie Duet”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

In fairness, the spirit of Christmas, and because it’s just an excellent post that interprets the song in a fresh manner that I have never encountered, here is Dwayne Zechman’s rebuttal of the criticism by me and others of the popular Christmas song written by American composer Katherine Kennicott Davis in 1941. Did you know that the song was first recorded by the Trapp Family singers of “The Sound of Music” fame? That alone raises it a bit in my estimation. I also note that Dwayne, wisely does not defend the wretched lyrics in the David Bowie-Bing Crosby version. That would be impossible.

Here is Dwayne’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Comment of the Day: ‘In Which I Call Ann Althouse’s Expressed Hatred Of ‘The Little Drummer Boy’ & Raise My Hatred of the Bing Crosby-David Bowie Duet'”…

***

I have to take issue with all the dunking on “The Little Drummer Boy” that I’m reading here. It’s a favorite of mine, and the reason has nothing to do with the ridiculous scenario.

The reason is that this song is a microcosmic allegory of the Christian experience.

I don’t normally speak of my faith and religious beliefs here. I’m a firm believer in the notion that Truth stands on its own; it doesn’t need the support of religion in order to be true. So this post is definitely a bit of a departure for me.

“Come, they told me.” “A newborn King to see”

This is how it begins. We learn from others about the Gospel of Jesus. We are encouraged to come along on the journey.

“Our finest gifts we bring” “to lay before the King”
“So to honor Him” “When we come”

We begin the journey and quickly learn that, to those who invited us on this journey, it’s a big deal. There are songs we may or may not have heard. There are responsive readings that we almost certainly don’t know. There are people here whose whole lives are dedicated to their faith and their church. Am I expected to do that too? What IS expected of me? What does Jesus actually want from me?

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “If A.I. Wrote a WAPO Op-Ed Piece to Set Us Up For a Take-Over By the Bots, This Is What It Would Be Like…”

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Jon’s excellent comment began by marveling that the commentariate here at Ethics Alarms doesn’t seem to be vary interested in the artificial intelligence issue, which is the focus of TIME’s annual “Person of the Year” issue. See?

I immediately felt it was a Comment of the Day; now we’ll find out if this essay also inspires apathy and shrugs.

Here is Jon’s Comment of the Day on the post, “If A.I. Wrote a WAPO Op-Ed Piece to Set Us Up For a Take-Over By the Bots, This Is What It Would Be Like…”

***

It’s interesting that this post has only garnered a couple of comments, and your previous AI post on the 7th didn’t get any. Not to oversell it, but AI may be the most important issue ever.  Already entry-level white collar jobs are disappearing.  I heard of a recent study that 13% of such jobs were gone, and that was published back in August. AI is being compared to the industrial revolution in terms of workforce displacement, but exponentially more disruptive since it’s taking place in the span of a few years rather than several decades. As if that’s not enough, there’s serious talk that we may be ushering in an extinction event for homo-sapiens.  On the plus side, though, my AI heavy stock portfolio is doing quite well, thank you.

My own experience with AI has been less than encouraging.  I really hadn’t made much use of it, but last week I was putting together a spreadsheet to project annual returns on some weekly stock market moves I was considering.  Creating the spreadsheet and then populating the data for about 20 stocks was going to take me the better part of an hour, and then updating the data in real time would be difficult.  It struck me that AI might do it better and more quickly than I could.

My first task was to determining which AI to use.  I figured I’d have to subscribe to one of them to get the job done decently and in a timely fashion, so I asked Google which AI was best for real-time data.  The answer both from the Google AI and various Reddit forums was that an AI model I hadn’t heard of, Perplexity, was superior when dealing with pulling information from the web in real time.  I found I could get a year-long free trial, so that’s what I went with.

Continue reading →