Comment of the Day

The Comment of the Day: “The White Male Scholarship”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Tim LeVier defends the controversial white male scholarship, as well as other scholarships determined by race and gender. Here is his Comment of the Day, in response to my post, “The White Male Scholarship”:

“…This is actually a subject that I feel passionate about for exactly the reasons you state. I’ve mentioned on this blog (in the comments) before about how I feel with regards to student groups that support every student except the straight white male. What’s a guy like me to do when everyone’s at their meetings? The names of their groups suggest exclusion of others and create an unwritten rule that you should only attend if you meet the qualifications.

“With regards to student groups, I think your post would be more accurate. I think there’s more opportunity for all individuals to flourish in mixed student groups plus it spreads awareness of your “race-based” goals when you aren’t just ‘preaching to the choir.’

“However, for scholarships, surprisingly, I have to take the opposite approach. I think it’s because I believe that with scholarships, it’s about providing opportunity, whereas with student groups it’s about taking opportunity. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quote of the Week: Blogger Jeff Jarvis”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Karl Penny calls me to task here for yielding to another commenter’s premise (but not his conclusion from it) that celebrities lead more interesting lives than their typical fans. Since “interesting” has various meanings—in Charlie Sheen’s case, the ironic Chinese definition (as in “may you live in interesting times”) comes to mind, and I could argue that celebrities by definition lead lives that their fans find more interesting than their own, hence the fact that they are celebrities. Nonetheless, Karl’s point is critical, and I thank him for making it so eloquently. And Karl’s would have been the Comment of the Day even if he hadn’t mentioned my dad—but it didn’t hurt. Here is Karl on “Ethics Quote of the Week: Blogger Jeff Jarvis”:

“Now, Jack: “Nobody denies that rich stars have more interesting lives than their fans,…” Nobody? Hey, what am I? Chopped liver? But, seriously I do deny that celebrities lead more interesting lives than the rest of us. In my experience—and these days, I hear a lot from others about the details of their lives—everyone has a story to tell. Indeed, they have a narrative, and one that is way more interesting, and far more uplifting, than those of the celebrities whose stories are broadcast at us. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Carnage in Wisconsin: The Ethics Grades So Far”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Commenter Glenn Logan argues that President Obama’s C- Ethics Grade in the post is too high. Here is his Comment of the Day, on the post “Ethics Carnage in Wisconsin: The Ethics Grades So Far.”

“I think that Obama is getting grade inflation here. Obama was elected to lead all Americans, not just unions.

“While Walker’s position and comments may be imperfect, and Obama is certainly within his rights to disagree, it is his duty to all Americans to at least take the other side into account. Presidents who are entirely partisan are poor presidents, and in this instance, a C- is unfairly high.

“Combine that with his pronouncement to Republicans after he was elected that “Elections have consequences, and I won,” and in my view, you have an ethics train wreck.  This is as two-faced and unfair as it is possible to be, and dispatching his political organization to inject an even more partisan impact into the problem and the best grade I could give him is a D-.”

Comment of the Day: “The Cabbie and the Jewelry”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Prodigal Commenter Penn re-entered the ethics fray with two anecdotes about ethics and Japanese culture in reaction to the Ethics Alarms quiz, “The Cabbie and the Jewelry.” This was the second COTD to be inspired by that story of the ethical—or pragmatic—cabbie who rescued $100,000 worth of jewelry left in his cab by a careless fare.

Here is Penn’s “Comment of the Day”:

“70s, Tokyo, 2 anecdotes: Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: Ethics Quiz: “The Cabbie and the Jewelry”…Ethics or Pragmatism?

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Karl Penny puts the perfect topping on this post, about the praise being heaped on the NYC cabbie who returned $100,000 in jewels to an absent-minded fare, when he could have made a dash for the Bahamas. I obviously couldn’t say it better myself, because I didn’t.

Here is Karl, a long-time and cherished reader, on Ethics Quiz: “The Cabbie and the Jewelry”…Ethics or Pragmatism?

“Well, it would be a pretty swell world if everyone did the right thing in cases like these, simply because it never occurred to them to do it any other way.  But that’s not the world we live in.  But, in either type of world, people like Mr. Jalloh should be highly praised:  in the world as it is, because he becomes an exemplar of the way things should be; and in the better world, because virtue never goes out of style and should be reaffirmed whenever an example of it occurs.”

Comment of the Day: “Dr. Phil’s Child-Abusing Mom”

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

I don’t want to pick on Cara, who made this comment in reply to my response to her earlier comment that objected to the original post referring to forcing a seven-year-old child  to drink hot sauce and making him stand in a cold shower as punishment as “abuse.” That comment had such gems as “screaming is not necessarily an indication of abuse, some children just can not express themselves” and “depending on how you look at it, all disciplinary methods could be called abusive.” Her follow-up message, even more than her first, shows how people can come to excuse, rationalize and eventually accept truly terrible and cruel conduct, by others and eventually themselves. Rationalization cripples the ethics alarms, and eventually, as in Cara’s reasoning, we are excusing evil, and condemning those who stand against it, arguing, as she does here, that they have no standing to judge others, since everybody makes mistakes.

The comment makes a better case than anything I have written thus far for the importance of us all to engage in constant efforts to perfect our ethical sensitivity, to improve our ethics alarms, and to be vigilant against facile rationalizations.

Here’s a challenge: How many rationalizations can you count being used here? I find at least six, and perhaps as many as eight.

Here is the comment, by Cara, on “Dr. Phil’s Child-Abusing Mom”: Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ronbo” on His Own Previous “Frivolous Complaint of the Month”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Ron Barbour, Tea Party warrior, has a priceless post on his website in response to Ethics Alarms’ flagging of his letter “demanding” that the Secret Service arrest the director of the Missoula “Mikado” for updating “The Lord High Executioner’s” gag list of societal irritants to include Sarah Palin.

I would normally post highlights at this point, but everyone should check out his website to see the face of hateful extremism first hand, and how it burns up IQ points like kindling. This is political activism mutated into a total war mentality, where fairness to the perceived enemy is translated as proof of alliance with the enemy. Ron thinks I am a Leftist, which is tied only with “New York Yankee fan” as the thing I have most seldom been accused of being.

Don’t miss this…you will find it here.

Comment of the Day: “How Not To Promote Tolerance and Undersatnding of Muslim Culture

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

From Jeff, a.k.a. King Kool, discussing a Muslim TV executive’s murder and beheading of his wife, who with him founded a New York tlevision channel aimed at promoting better understanding and less fear of Muslims:

“…This will certainly not promote tolerance, but in its own horrible way, it might promote understanding. On the one hand, all variety of men are capable of producing the sort of person who would sooner slay their significant other to avoid the shame of divorce. In a strange way, this just says that they’re just like anyone else.

On the other hand, the misogyny that is integral to some people’s practice of the religion is something that should be held to higher scrutiny. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Next: A Version of “The Mikado” Without Execution References”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I promise I won’t do this often, but this Comment of the Day is by me, a reply to a comment by Ichneumon, which you will find at the end. I have been involved in this debate elsewhere, and a common “gotcha!” being employed against me is the argument that I jumped the gun defending the production of “The Mikado,” because I didn’t (and don’t yet) know what the exact lyrics were. I think this is worth expanding on, since Ichneumon and others have accused me of being “unethical” for calling the critics of the Palin lyric, whatever it was, ignorant.  Saturday is usually quiet, and this seems to be all that is going on other than the Middle East blowing up; by tomorrow I’m hoping to be able to move on to issues having nothing to do with Sarah Palin, Missoula, or “The Mikado.” So here is my reply to Ichneumon, with sample verses, on the original post, “Next: A Version of “The Mikado” Without Execution References”:

“The fact is, everyone from the Wall Street Journal to local websites to conservative commentators have been slapping around the production without an exact quote from the production. I am in touch with someone in the cast, and am hoping, waiting, to learn exactly what the lyric was. So what, exactly, would you have me do, when the vast majority is citing this, and only this, as the basis for its condemnation: the production put Sarah Palin, by name on Ko-Ko’s list, and this constituted a declaration that she should be killed? Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Unethical Quote of the Week: Walmart”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The Comment of the Day on Walmart’s jaw-dropping justification for its new line of make-up for the under-12 set,  from Steven Mark Pilling:

“… This sort of thing is repugnant by nature. We’ve all seen other clothing lines for kids that reflect this sort of thing, to include sexy lingerie for little girls. This is unrelentingly vile, as it not only sexualizes children further in the eyes of predators, but that it normalizes it in their own developing minds. This is the same argument, of course, that I’ve long employed in my opposition to films employing child actors in R-rated performances. And, I maintain, just as valid. In other words, this is a case of pedophile bait.

“That slickly worded announcement from Walmart that you quoted even resembles that of filmmakers who present such things. The bottom line is profit… regardless of means. The excuse is in shifting the onus onto the parents who, while distracted by other items, will absentmindedly consent to their children (who have been attracted by some colorful, glitzy item- as children innocently are) and indulge them… only to later discover (maybe) the true nature of what they’ve bought. But the damage will have been done.”