Comment of the Day

Comment of the Day: “Life Imitates ‘Seinfeld’: For Fake Fat-Free Yogurt, Substitute Fake Gluten-Free Doughnuts”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

As I have learned in the nearly 15 years of writing Ethics Alarms, you (that is, I) never know which topics will generate profound commentary. The post about a vegan bakery that sold fake gluten-free doughnuts sparked this terrific and wide-ranging Comment of the Day by Sarah B. Here it is, in response to “Life Imitates ‘Seinfeld’: For Fake Fat-Free Yogurt, Substitute Fake Gluten-Free Doughnuts”:

***

I know of one person with celiac disease, and I know personally one person with celiac disease and another two people with a severe gluten intolerance/allergy.  These people puke blood when they eat gluten in a reasonable amount.  I know of another two people who are allergic to milk.  They have significant bone issues as well.  I had a best friend in college who was allergic to everything under the sun and had to be very careful to only eat safe foods.  She once thought she could actually order some food one night from a grill after watching them closely, but the grill used peanut oil instead of olive oil as she thought, and she had to go to the hospital.

Because I know these people, I feel great compassion for those with real food allergies, gluten and lactose intolerance, and other real dietary concerns.  However, there are so many people who pretend to have allergies who do not.  The amazing prevalence of fakes makes it hard to remember that people really have true problems. 

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Second Most Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Cal)”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Posting today has been a real chore, because I began it with a funeral and a Catholic Mass, both of which always exhaust me, and the old friends I saw there (most of them, anyway) looked so much older than the last time I saw them that I am afraid to look in the mirror.

That makes two reasons I’m grateful for Humble Talent’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Second Most Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Cal).” I’m exhausted, and the ethics issue he raises is a crucial one without an obvious solution.

Here it is:

***

The horrible thing about this conversation is that people like Lee have this nugget of truth, uncleverly hidden inside the fragrant package of their bullshit proposals, and that is that we need a plan going forward for labor. Workplace participation is going down, wages have been stagnant, cost of living is increasing, food back participation and foreclosure rates are rising… “Stock line goes up” be damned, the bottom seems to be falling out.

I don’t know what you realistically do about this. A “$50 minimum wage” seems like the kind of toddler thinking Democrats are good at: Address the problem by treating the most surface level of symptoms, realities of the market be damned.

Because the reality is that automation is already stealing jobs, and increasing the cost of labor just makes automation investment that much more appealing. That spirals into a situation where I think the average person is going to be unemployed.

And I don’t have the answer. This is a topic that keeps me up at night.

Frankly, I think that the decent into a laborless economy is unavoidable, it’s just a matter of time, regardless of whether or not we speed up the process with stupid policy. Right now, “Truck Driver” is the most common job in 29 out of the 50 states. As technology gets cheaper and as labor gets more expensive, eventually, I don’t think it’s impossible that in 20 years, self-driving vehicles will have made that job obsolete. What do you think that does to the market?

I think the fight that’s coming up is going to be whether we purposefully throttle innovation in order to preserve jobs, or we accept that the majority of people aren’t going to labor physically, and we start to conceptualize what that looks like. And again… Thoughts that keep me up: Even if we throttle our technology our adversaries won’t, so I don’t think that choice is viable, and I think the alternative is a deeply taxed, deeply controlled form of socialism. Which is obviously undesirable, but what else does capitalism look like when your average person owns nothing, and has no prospect to move forward with?

Comment of the Day: “The Deceitful January Jobs Report”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

This epic and must-read Comment of the Day by Chris Marschner—which he had to battle to get posted because of the WordPress glitches that have been plaguing EA commenters (and me, of course) for months, had me rejoicing in the wide range of expertise and experience the Ethics Alarms readers bring to the mission here. Then it caused me to become frustrated and depressed. The media makes no effort to explain these issues and enlighten the public with similar clear exposition, and if it did, I wonder how many Americans would take the time to read it. I also wonder how many Americans would understand such an explanation even if they tried.

Meanwhile, I despair of any politician or candidate for office having the clarity of thought and speech to bring what Chris is talking about into the political campaigns this year—-and there are no more crucial matters than these for voters to understand. In the 1992 presidential campaign, rogue candidate Ross Perot bought time on network TV to explain the national debt and why it was dangerous. He used humble tools: paper charts and a pointer. But Perot understood what he was describing, pulled no punches, and spoke clearly and simply. It was a national service: I voted for him as my gesture of gratitude.

If only Donald Trump could explain and debunk the lies being used to misrepresent the economy as clearly as Ross Perot explained the debt…but Trump couldn’t explain that the square of the hypotenuse in a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides without descending into stream-of-consciousness blather.

Isn’t there some way we could draft Chris Marschner to run for President?

Here is his Comment of the Day, supplemented by his subsequent comment expanding on his original post, on “The Deceitful January Jobs Report”…

***

I was hoping you would address this issue of misleading economic data. The jobs report is one that is always subject to deceit. Beyond the absolute numbers and hours worked we should mention that the growth sectors of jobs were health care, low wage hospitality and government. Many of these jobs are driven in large part by the massive numbers (about 7.5 million) of illegal “migrants” who have been given parole by the Biden administration and dispersed throughout the country.

When I taught first year Economics I would tell my students that numerical values do not tell the whole story and you must dig into the numbers to draw any real conclusions. For example, a higher investment value does not mean our capital stock is increasing which would lead to more output at lower costs. I see the Biden administration as the proverbial glazer who breaks windows to increase business. That activity will increase nominal GDP but we are wasting resources unnecessarily.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “’Ick or Ethics’ Ethics Quiz: The Robot Collaborator”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Here’s a fascinating Comment of the Day by John Paul, explaining his own experiences with ChatGpt relating to yesterday’s post, “’Ick or Ethics’ Ethics Quiz: The Robot Collaborator”:

***

Well if its a competition, and against the rules, I think its pretty easy to say yes its unethical.

However, to help out with just some simple problems, I see using an AI program as no different than asking an editor to go over your book. As someone who has messed around with AI on this particular level (mostly for help with grammar and syntax issues), I have concluded that its contributions are dubious at best, at least as far as the technology has advanced so far.

Consider the following: Here are two paragraphs I wrote for my book last night:

“Kesi stared at the back of the door for a long time. At some point, she lifted her hand to gingerly touch the spot that was starting to numb across her check. Its bite stung upon contact with her sweaty fingers and she reflexively drew it away, just to carefully guide it back again. For a brief moment she played this game of back and forth much like the younglings who would kick the ball in the yard, until she finally felt comfortable with feeling of leaving her hand to rest upon her face. When it finally found its place, the realization of what had just happened hit her just as quickly and suddenly as if Eliza slapped her.”

“Not once, not twice, but Eliza slapped her three times with enough force to send tears down her face. In the moment she might have been too confused to see what was going, but now she was forced to grapple with the weight of the truth that was settling in her chest. (Yes, I realize this isn’t the greatest prose, but it was 2am and I was tired).”

Here’s what ChatGPT suggested I do with those sections when correcting for issues:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Fani Willis Is Toast and Those Arguing That She Isn’t Are Revealing Their Own Ethics Problems”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The second Comment of the Day of the day emerges from the fertile mind of Humble Talent, who discusses the still popular use of the race card by diversity hires who have been in reality the beneficiary of racial bias, not victims of it. Here is his COTD on the post, “Fani Willis Is Toast and Those Arguing That She Isn’t Are Revealing Their Own Ethics Problems”:

***

There’s a Gordian knot here, and it’s one we’re going to continue fighting with for a very long time.

Fani Willis said in her statement: “First thing they say. Oh, she going to play the race card now? But no. God, isn’t it them who’s playing the race card when they only question one?”

There are competent black people in existence. This is so obvious that it shouldn’t need typing, but Democrats have been so interested in getting in representation regardless of the mediocrity of the candidates that it feels like every time a scandal like this asserts itself, we’re almost invariably criticizing a black person. More, because of the attention of the media, a disproportionate amount of attention gets placed on these cases.

It’s almost impossible not to label these people DEI hires. They tend to have light resumes, their conduct speaks for itself, and the moment they catch whiff of criticism, they reference their melanin and/or their sexual organs.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Regarding the ‘Substack Supports Nazis’ Controversy”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Joel Mundt makes an interesting comparison (that never occurred to me) regarding the movement by Substack writers to force the platform to ban its small contingent of white supremacists and Nazis. His Comment of the Day also shows that COTD does not have to approach “War and Peace” length to be worthy. Here’s Joel, on the post,“Regarding the ‘Substack Supports Nazis’ Controversy” :

***

This year, a Satanist group put an occult display – I believe it was Baphomet – in our state capitol building, which caused no small amount of consternation among the solid conservative majority in the state. There were calls to tear it down, remove it…all kinds of stuff.

Our governor, a Republican, gave what I thought was a pretty good response: “Like many Iowans, I find the Satanic Temple’s display in the Capitol absolutely objectionable. In a free society, the best response to objectionable speech is more speech, and I encourage all those of faith to join me today in praying over the Capitol and recognizing the nativity scene that will be on display – the true reason for the season.”

Substack has some objectionable content on it…its own version of Baphomet? Don’t eliminate it. Don’t censor it. Don’t force it elsewhere. Objectionable speech should be countered with more speech. Logical arguments and cogent thinking are what give people the chance to understand why some ideas are bad when compared to other ideas. Forcing silence just makes the banished ideas more enticing. Want your children to be white supremacists?…just do what the Left does and attempt to kill the point of view without debate. That will make it super-attractive to juvenile minds that don’t know better. People who simply want to eliminate talk of white supremacy and Hitler and Nazis are those that are probably too stupid to rationally counter it.

Maybe that’s why the Left wants to silence so many different topics.

***

[For the rest of the story regarding that Satanist display, it’s here. JM]

Comment of the Day: “Army Policy Is Apparently That Its Prosecutors Must ‘Believe All Women’”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

As I thought it might, the post about the Army’s head sexual assault prosecutor being fired because a decade’s old email suggested that defense attorneys would have to fight hard for the rights of accused servicemen being targeted by politicians “with an agenda” quickly attracted intense commentary. (Oddly, or perhaps not, the story has been largely ignored by mainstream media. My mining of obscure legal ethics sources has its benefits.) No commentary was more illuminating or useful than this, the Comment of the Day by 77Zoomie, on the post, “Army Policy Is Apparently That Its Prosecutors Must ‘Believe All Women’”…

***

Some thoughts from someone who has both prosecuted and defended sexual assault cases in military courts.

Although it is a difficult concept for most civilian attorneys to grasp, the military justice system that was put in place in the early 1950s (as the Uniform Code of Military Justice) Is designed to accomplish two, sometimes contradictory, tasks. The first is to provide constitutional due process to service members accused of any of a specific list of crimes delineated by the UCMJ. Military defense counsel are obviously crucial in this process because they are frequently the only individuals with the capability to adequately overcome the tremendous advantage possessed by the prosecution on a military installation. Prosecution authority rests ultimately in a series of commanders at various levels. These individuals have unlimited resources at their disposal, including the ability to select potential jurors and to influence proceedings in any one of a thousand different ways, some obvious but most not. Military defense attorneys are generally removed from the formal chain of command so that local commanders cannot affect the career of a zealous defense counsel working to protect the interests of her client.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Its Post-Harvard President Firing Tantrum Shows That The Left Is Even More Corrupt Than We Thought! Part II: Claudine Gay’s Disgusting NYT Op-Ed”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I owe Tom P. this Comment of the Day. In the post, I asked EA readers to check out the Times’ readers’ reactions, because I dreaded reading them. He was the first to provide an overview. I am most grateful.

It is not surprising, but still discouraging, that the early responses were positive to Gay’s truly awful attempt to shift the blame for her rapid demise as Harvard’s president to the critics and “racial stereotypes,” as well as implying what Hillary Clinton would call a “vast right wing conspiracy.” I cannot conceive of any good faith examination of the events leading to Gay’s resignation leading to the conclusion that anyone was responsible for her forced exit other than her, and to a lesser extent, the Harvard Corporation that elevated her, enabled her, and tried to cover for her, ultimately making a bad situation worse. Every attempt to defend Gay has fallen into three categories, and often all three: ignoring the facts (which Gay does in her Times op-ed), excusing plagiarism and endorsing the untenable double standard of holding students to a more exacting standard of integrity than Harvard’s faculty, deans, and president; race-baiting, which is particularly hard to justify under these facts when Gay’s race (and gender) have been the Golden Tickets that got her the job in the first place, and a “we can’t let them win!” rationalization. None of the four is rational or worthy of respect.

Tom’s survey, however, is encouraging. It suggest that all the metaphorical dust being thrown in the eyes of the public by Gay, progressives, pundits and the media, isn’t going to be sufficient to fool enough of the people enough of the time, as Honest Abe might put it.

Here is Tom P.’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Its Post-Harvard President Firing Tantrum Shows That The Left Is Even More Corrupt Than We Thought! Part II: Claudine Gay’s Disgusting NYT Op-Ed”...

***

Per your request, below are my observations of NY Times readers’ comments.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Scary and Unethical Reactions to the Hamas-Israel War on the Left and Right”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Steve-O-in NJ’s Comment of the Day was almost the last comment on this blog in 2023, and is an appropriate first COTD in 2024. I called it the “Comment of the Year” in my initial response, and though I haven’t done the homework to go back through all the year’s Comments of the Day to make that an official decision, his opus is certainly worthy of that honor.

Don’t waste your time with my introduction: Steve’s post is long, but both perceptive and a useful guide to some of what lies ahead.

Here is Steve-O-in NJ’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Scary and Unethical Reactions to the Hamas-Israel War on the Left and Right.”

***

You don’t understand anti-Semitism?

You don’t give yourself enough credit. There isn’t that much to understand about it. It’s simple hatred of “the other,”especially “the other” who does well.

Throughout their 4,000 years or more of history, the Jewish people have always been “the other.” In ancient days they were “the other” because they worshiped one god while almost all the other people of the Middle East worshiped several. In the days of the Greek and Roman empires they were “the other” because they refused to assimilate the way many conquered peoples did. The Greeks tried to impose their own culture on the Jews and got the Maccabean revolt for trying. The Romans tried to take the Jews into the firm the way they’d taken many others in. They were never fully successful, and after one revolt too many the Romans dispersed them, creating the province of Palestine.

In Christian Europe they were “the other” partly because of their different faith, partly because they were closed off from most professions and closed themselves off socially. In the Muslim Ottoman Empire they were “the other” for the same reasons. The majority never likes “the other” much, and it did not help that one of the few businesses the Jews were allowed to engage in was moneylending. Moneylenders are not well liked. It did not help either that the Jews were usually merchants and moneylenders who did better than the European non-noble classes or the Muslims, who were mostly farmers and small shopkeepers.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring: Nikki Haley’s Answer To ‘What Caused The Civil War?’

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

This choice was tough: yesterday’s post on Nikki Haley’s bone-headed and tone -deaf answer to the soft-ball question about the cause of the American Civil War sparked several COTD-worthy observations, but I chose this one, by Chris Marschner, to represent the field. Haley’s gaffe, along with her typically weaselly attempt to wiggle out of it, is looking like that rare breed these days, a botched public statement that actually has “legs” and does serious harm to a candidate’s prospects, like President Gerald Ford’s assertion in a debate that Poland wasn’t an Iron Curtain country, or Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” statement. Naturally some on the Right rushed to Haley’s defense, as with this WSJ piece, and critics on the Left “pounced,” as with historian Heather Cox Richardson’s substack piece that called Haley’s answer “the death knell of the Republican Party.” ( This is known as “wishcraft.”) To me, this was just one more instance of Haley proving that she is untrustworthy and excessively calculating to ever believe. In some respects she’s the opposite of Trump, who is, mostly correctly, regarded as an authentic character who believes what he says, at least when he says it. Like the vast majority of politicians, Haley appears to believe what she thinks the most people want her to believe, until she discovers that they don’t.

I’ll say here that I think Chris is too easy on Haley. To answer that question without even mentioning slavery is incomprehensible, especially in 2023, when an entire political party has bet all its chips on racial grievances, “a threat to democracy” by racist fascists, and Trump Derangement. Any minimally educated and aware politician should be able to say, succinctly: “There were three primary causes: slavery, states’ rights, and to preserve the union. Next question.”

Here is Chris’s Comment of the Day on the post, “When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring: Nikki Haley’s Answer To ‘What Caused The Civil War?’”…

***

South Carolina the first state to secede from the union did so on December 20, 1860. The rationale for secession was the fear that the institution of slavery was being threatened by the federal government. There was no blood spilled until the decision to preserve the union was made a year later.

According to Historytoday.com, “The American Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. There had long been tensions between the rights of the states under the constitution and those of the federal government, so much so that South Carolina and the administration in Washington almost came to blows over the issue of tariffs in the 1830s. It was slavery, however, that brought matters to breaking point.”

The Civil war began in April of 1861 when Abraham Lincoln ordered that Fort Sumter, under the command of U.S. Major Robert Anderson who occupied the still under construction fort during the approximate 15 month standoff between Union forces and the South Carolina militia, be resupplied with fresh troops and “humanitarian aid”. Naturally this was seen as an encroachment by U.S. troops on sovereign ground by the South Carolina Governor. Nonetheless, Lincoln sent the ship called the Star of the West with 200 troops and supplies to resupply the fort. When it arrived in Charleston harbor it was driven back to sea by the militia.

Continue reading →