Comment of the Day

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Observations On Byron Noem’s ‘Bimbofication’ Scandal'”

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Not only was this Comment of the Day a sharp analysis of a weird story: I learned about “The Lavender Scare.” under President Eisenhower.

Here is our Netherlands correspondent Cees Van Barnveldt’s COTD on the post, “Ethics Observations On Byron Noem’s ‘Bimbofication’ Scandal'”...

***

I am not going to milk the hypocrisy on the side of the Democrats angle here, except to says that a member of a party that celebrates people like Admiral Rachel Levine as Assistant Secretary of Health, and Sam Brinton as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition and transgenderism in general should be ethically estopped from ridiculing Bryon Noem for his particular sexual interests. You cannot explain to me that transgenderism is normal and acceptable, and Bryon Noem’s sexual interests are not.

In the 1950s there was a Lavender Scare, in which LGBTQ+ people were disqualified from working for the U.S Federal Government. President Dwight Eisenhower signed EO 10450, which defined “sexual perversion” as a security risk (blackmail), leading to the firing of over 10,000 employees. Intense investigations involving lie detector tests and interviews with families and neighbors were launched to identify gay and lesbian employees; those who were not cleared in these investigations were forced to resign. EO 10450 was rescinded under President Obama.

Sexual morals have liberalized since the 1950s. The election of Ronald Reagan as POTUS ended divorce as a disqualifier for high office in elections. The Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco settled issues as well: consensual sinful sexual conduct is not a disqualifier for the Presidency. That settled the matter for conservatives too: popular politicians do not have to resign for extramarital affairs and other sins. Trump as POTUS is supported by conservative Christians despite his colorful marital and sexual past. Elon Musk has 14 children with multiple women, which did not disqualifying from DOGE. Scott Bessent as Secretary of Treasury is openly gay. Many do not see transgenderism as a kink or perversion anymore, disqualifying a person from office (Rachel Levine). So why is Bryon Noem’s interest in cross dressing a matter of ethical concern? Shouldn’t we simply see this issue as a personal matter, only of interest to the Noem family?

One of the main reason the issue is raised is that the Noem family professes to be evangelical Christians. The double life of both Bryon and Kristi Noem violates Biblical morals. Kristi had a longstanding extramarital affair with Corey Lewandowski, which I think was an ethics issue due to the work relationship of Kristi and Corey. Many were surprised that husband Bryon, who was fully aware of the affair, did not file for divorce. Did he not have any self respect? Was he tied to Kristi with golden handcuffs? Did he perhaps have a cuckold fetish? Now we know what was happening. Bryon quietly quit the marriage a long time ago, indulging in his own sexual interests. And Kristi knew about it, and did not care. This is not the picture of a Christian marriage. But not living up to Biblical norms does not make it an ethics issue in a society that has said farewell to Christian sexual ethics.

Comment of the Day: “The Cowardice and Obstinacy of the Trump Deranged: A Depressing Case Study From Facebook (I Despair)”

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Our house moderate/common-ground seeking/ division-mending optimist/ space-traveling commentator Extradimensional Cephalopod authored another helpful post, and his (its?) perspective is always provocative. It was also buried so deep in the comments that I wonder how many read it, so giving the piece COTD status is appropriate.

Here is E.C.’s Comment of the day on the post, “The Cowardice and Obstinacy of the Trump Deranged: A Depressing Case Study From Facebook (I Despair)“…

There will absolutely be people who aren’t prepared to handle the possibility that they’re wrong.  I recognize those people when their responses don’t engage with what I’m saying, no matter how many times I repeat the question.  They’ll reply with non sequiturs, strawmen, or simple repetition.  Even the most basic and reasonable questions, asked with complete respect, will slide right off of their mind.  

Those people are not the low-hanging fruit.  We can disregard them for the time being.  Someone else can create an environment where they feel safe enough to let go of the dogma they cling to, but that doesn’t need to happen right now.  

Part of why I use the values reconciliation method on everyone is that if I don’t, everyone looks like that to me.  Barking at people just starts an endless circle of barking.  Mutual defensiveness creates the illusion of intractable conflict.  I wrote an article about that: https://ginnungagapfoundation.wordpress.com/2025/12/12/how-can-we-stop-chihuahua-rhetoric/.

There is almost no possibility that a person will start thinking reasonably if the approach I use, no matter how solid the logic, appears to threaten their values.  Instead, I work to create conditions that reward people for reflecting.  

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Jump Ball” (or “Brilliant Guest Post by Ryan Harkins”)….

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Yesterday, in near shock that a good and once wise friend posted on Facebook the head-exploding meme by a simple-minded activist named Jenny Carter, above, I challenged Ethics Alarms readers to perform the thorough defenestration of that smug brain-garbage it deserves. I had neither the time nor energy. Responding to my metaphorical Bat Signal, erudite veteran commenter Ryan Harkins came through like a champ, authoring the masterpiece below, a Comment of the Day if there ever was one. Here is his rebuttal, really a guest post in length and quality, in response to the post, “Ethics Jump Ball”:

Dear Jenny,

You can make strawmen of our principles all you want, and argue all day against them, but all that will gain you is a smug feeling and “likes” from your friends, and make absolutely no inroads with the MAGA crowd whatsoever.  But I know that your entire intent is to make me waste my time answering you.  So, perhaps foolishly, I will oblige.

To begin, a little groundwork.  A dilemma is only a dilemma if you really only have the two options.  If there is any other alternative, such argumentation falls apart.  Second, if you are going to address our principles, maybe you should determine what those principles actually are.  For example, being pro-Second Amendment is not about shooting people.  It is about the right to bear arms against, especially, an overbearing, tyrannical government.  Being pro-life does not mean that you believe that no one should die, ever.  Third, in any given situation, there may be more than one principle in play, and to ignore that to score rhetorical points is arguing in bad faith. 

So let’s get into it.

Pages: 1 2

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 →