Comment of the Day

Comment Of The Day: “Let’s Play “What’s Wrong With This Guy?”!”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

There I was, thinking dark thoughts and moping about the horrible traffic here over the weekend, and along comes A.M. Golden to remind me that this blog has always sought to inspire quality rather than quantity, with this superb Comment of the Day on the post about the enterprising Mr. Clifford, who feels that IBM isn’t him paying him enough not to work for 30 years, Let’s Play “What’s Wrong With This Guy?”! Here it is; it even has a “Facts of Life” reference!

* * *

Stipulated: The plaintiff’s disability could be a legitimate one. We don’t know. That doesn’t really change my answer.

How did we get here?

The Deep Pockets Rationalization aka The Jo Polniaczek Excuse: Named for Nancy McKeon’s character on the ’80s show “The Facts of Life.” In one episode, Jo borrows a watch belonging to her frenemy, wealthy Blair Warner, without asking so she can time herself while taking an exam. On her way back, the watch is damaged when she jumps into a quick basketball game. She blows it off because Blair is wealthy and has a lot of watches.

The Deep Pockets Rationalization states that the person with the most money should pay even if not at fault. A guy driving a Hyundai hits a guy driving a BMW. The Hyundai driver tries to argue that the BMW driver should pay for everything because he has more money. A person trips in a store and tries to compel the business to pay even though she tripped because she wasn’t paying attention to what she was doing. Or a restaurant is pressured to pay for a disfigured child’s surgery after the family failed to extort money with false allegations against employees (Remember the KFC incident from a few years’ back?).

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Unethical Quote Of The Month: President Joe Biden’s Howard University Class of 2023 Commencement Address”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Perhaps you could tell: I was disgusted by President Biden’s speech at Howard. Was it more destructive demagoguery than his “Soul of the Nation” speech last fall? At such unethical depths, comparisons don’t matter. Is it worse to try to turn half the nation against the other half, or to poison the minds of young college graduates by using the authority of the Presidency to convince them that their own country is a dark and dangerous place with large segments of the public determined to harm them because of the color of their skin?

For those sufficiently independent-minded, Biden’s speech was not just hypocrisy, but stunningly thinly-veiled hypocrisy. Ann Althouse focused on one example, Biden referring to SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as “one bright woman.” The blogging retired law professor wrote,

“Isn’t that a microaggression? It’s my subjective experience — disagree with me if you want — that “bright” is a patronizing word. It’s used for children, and when it’s used on an adult, it’s looking down on the person as if they are something like a child. It expresses vague surprise that the person stands out and can do reasonably difficult tasks, but it sets them apart as not able to do the most sophisticated things that the speaker imagines himself to be doing. Older men in superior positions have said it through the years about younger associates and, especially, women. And I think it’s what a racist would say about a capable black person.”

The routinely perceptive and incisive Mrs. Q. picks up on the same vibes in her Comment of the Day on the post, “Unethical Quote Of The Month: President Joe Biden’s Howard University Class of 2023 Commencement Address”:

* * *

Where to begin…

Who was Biden’s mentor? An Exalted Cyclops who recruited at least 150 members into his chapter of the KKK.

What did Biden tell a digital audience on a black man’s podcast?
That if they had trouble deciding if they were for him or Trump, then they “weren’t black.” Last I checked an old white guy mentored by a formerly virulent white supremacist should be last person to tell blacks if they were in fact black.

Who said this about Obama?
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” That was Biden.

Who said this during his campaign?
“…poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.” That was Biden.

And who said this gem?
” You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” Biden of course!

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “More Weird Tales From The Great Stupid: Oh Yeah, This Will Work Out Well…”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Unlike so many of us here so often, Jim Hodgson is writing about a topic in which he has directly relevant experience as he explains some of the issues involved in the Los Angeles (nutso-cuckoo) proposal to have non-law enforcement personnel regulate traffic violations. His Comment of the Day is lengthy but ethically delicious and nutritious, so I am going to be uncharacteristically brief in my introduction. Here is Jim’s Comment of the Day on the post, “More Weird Tales From The Great Stupid: Oh Yeah, This Will Work Out Well…”:

* * *

There’s a lot to be unpacked on this topic. I have never found the term “pretextual stops” accurate for typical traffic stops, even when there is an enforcement emphasis on interdiction of illegal drugs or firearms. Officers are trained to be alert for signs of criminal activity and to investigate accordingly. When suspicion rises to the level of “reasonable suspicion,” officers are authorized (and expected) to detain people to determine whether or not there is criminal activity.

If reasonable suspicion becomes confirmed to the point of “probable cause” to believe that a felony crime is being or has been committed, then arrest is authorized. In my state and every state with whose laws I am knowledgeable, the traffic code is separate from the criminal code (except for overlap in areas like vehicular assault, vehicular homicide and perhaps habitual drunk driving) and are instead considered a regulatory function.

A legal traffic stop will begin when an officer witnesses a traffic violation and either initiates the stop or communicates with another officer who does so. If there is no actual traffic violation then there is no valid basis for a stop, making it a Fourth Amendment violation. If the traffic stop is factually valid, and the officer subsequently sees evidence of crime in plain view, or develops reasonable suspicion based on what he or she perceives with the five senses, the traffic stop can move into the territory of a “Terry stop,” justifying further inquiry, leading to a decision of whether or not there is probable cause for arrest.

Officers are trained to always cite or charge the violator with the original violation that precipitated the traffic stop, whether or not the extended detention results in an arrest. (In the litigious world we live in, officers are growing less and less prone to issue mere verbal warnings for traffic violations, due to frequent subsequent claims that, “If I had actually broken the law, the officer would have written me a ticket!”) This traffic stop process applies whether the violator is merely a bad or careless driver, a drug trafficker, gun runner, a burglar carrying a trunk load of stolen loot or a kindly-looking guy with a dead body in the back floorboard.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Comment Of The Day: “Ethics And The Death Of Jordan Neely”

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Further discussion of the Jordan Neely case is appropriate, as Daniel Penny, the US Marine veteran who apparently killed Neely, a homeless and mentally-disturbed man, while trying to protect passengers on a New York City subway train earlier this month, has been charged with second-degree manslaughter.

I expected that, and while the pressure being placed on authorities by race-hucksters trying to make this tragedy into George Floyd II probably played a part, I think Penny had to be charged. He used excessive force to engage in a defensible act of civic responsibility, and a man died. That’s manslaughter. “We believe that the conviction should be for murder because that was intentional,” said Neely family attorney Lennon Edwards said today. Right: it must have been intentional, because all white people are looking for excises to kill blacks. I can forgive the family for being angry, bitter, and legally ignorant, but Edwards’s statement is unforgivable.

Then there is the news media spin, with outlets like the Associated Press describing Neely as a “homeless street artist” to make him sound like he was restrained for painting portraits of subway riders without their consent. He was screaming at them and threatening them, and had harmed strangers before. The news media is already doing its Kyle Rittenhouse act on Penny. They want him to be tarred as a racist and murderer.

Here is Null Pointer’s Comment of the Day on Humble Talent’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics And The Death Of Jordan Neely”:

* * *

In order to live in a civilized society, citizens must agree to abide by a the rules of a social contract. No defecating in the streets. No fornicating in public. No random acts of aggression or violence. Things like that. Over the last few decades, a portion of the citizenry has decided to unilaterally rewrite the underlying rules of the social contract without any buy-in from the rest of the citizenry. What they don’t seem to understand is that this buy-in is necessary. If the vast majority of the citizenry does not agree on a new social contract, and the old contract is destroyed, then the civilization is destroyed. It reverts to fragmented tribal groups who refuse to cooperate with one another.

The attempt to normalize random acts of violence and aggression will never be agreed to by the majority of the citizenry. Safety is one of the base blocks in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If civilization cannot offer a baseline level of safety to its citizenry, then there is no reason to buy into it. The entire reason people form civilizations is to obtain a baseline level of safety. If a civilization does not offer a baseline level of safety, then what reason is there for people to subvert their own desires, customs, culture and beliefs to a larger group? Especially when that larger group also demands a large portion of the fruits of individual’s labor to be handed over to them to support that civilization.

The civilization saboteurs can keep kicking the pillars out from under the civilization, but they will not be able to stop the collapse that occurs as a result. More riots may not have the effect they are hoping for.

Comment Of The Day: “Ethics And The Death Of Jordan Neely”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

There are strong indications that the race-hucksters are revving up to make Jordan Neely the next George Floyd in time to re-charge the batteries of racial distrust in time for the 2024 Presidential campaign, so further attention must be paid. This is true, unfortunately, before the investigation of the tragic incident has been completed. The Federalist warns that the death of the black homeless man at the hands of a white former Marine attempting to protect fellow passengers is being primed for exploitation:

Penny’s fate will, as Peachy Keenan wrote in The Federalist, be a test of whether young American men should dare to act courageously when others are in peril. But there’s even more at stake in this case. With Neely being anointed as the new George Floyd, the questions of whether Penny was right to restrain Neely or if he used inappropriate force to do so are merely sidebars to a broader narrative about American racism. Floyd’s death became a metaphor for a myth about systemic police racism. Floyd’s actions the night of his death, his criminal record, and the fact that his body was full of what might have been a lethal dose of fentanyl were dismissed as irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was that he was a black man and that the cop who had, in an act of undoubted callous brutality, snuffed out his life was white. In the name of a belief, however mistaken, that Floyd’s death was just one of countless incidents in which blacks were being slaughtered with impunity, millions took to the streets in “mostly peaceful” riots that shook the nation.

More than that, it set off a moral panic in virtually every sector of American life that elevated the woke catechism of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to a new secular religion — since accepted by the Biden administration as mandatory for every government agency and department — that treats color-blind policies and even the goal of equal opportunity as forms of racism that must be eradicated.

Read the whole thing…but first read Humble Talent’s Comment of the Day on the related Ethics Alarms post, “Ethics And The Death Of Jordan Neely”:

* * *

“It is true that Penny could not have known that history when he intervened; it is also relevant information now.”

I don’t know that this is right… There’s evidence that Neely was kind of known in the subway community – You ride the same car to and from work five days a week, 200 days a year, and you’ll probably eventually start to recognize a face or two, and the face of the lunatic getting violent, perhaps one famous for cracking the orbital bone of a 67 year old woman or trying to kidnap a 7 year old girl might be a face to remember. Penny might not have known about all 44 arrests, but I don’t think it’s impossible that he knew the guy was a violent problem.

This case is… sad. I don’t know that this is Neely’s fault, so much as I’m pretty convinced that fault, if we have to look at it that way, doesn’t lie with Penny. Neely was failed so many different ways – When it comes to mental health, you just cannot expect people to reason themselves to sanity. For the people that are able to, that great. For the people who think the oven is their shoe rack, their pristine house is covered in bugs, that their arm is not their arm, that their 80 pound frame is too fat, or whatever psychosis brings on to Neely’s position, there needs to be people in your life that care enough to help.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Today’s Kentucky Derby Metaphor: Journalists May Be The Enemies Of Our Democracy, But Teachers Are Coming Up On The Inside Rail….”

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

What I am looking for in the Ethics Alarms comments is constructive, literate expositions on opinions and conclusions regarding the ethics-related issues raised here. Regular commenters who have proven their seriousness and genuine interest in the topic have leave to leave the periodic facetious or non-substantive posts, but the conduct of lesser and inevitable short-tenured commenters whose technique consists of “no it isn’t” assertions without proffers of evidence, new information or fresh analysis, pollute the site and defeat its mission.

Recently I had to ban two practitioners of this dark art who were tirelessly pushing the progressive narrative that Tucker Carlson had proven himself to be a racist during his late Fox News show. I asked a simple question: What’s an example of this alleged racism? One answered—after calling Carlson racist!—that the word couldn’t be defined; the other said that the conclusion was justified by nothing in particular, just “deductive reasoning.” Baseball analyst Bill James once wrote that when someone says something is true because they just know it is, that’s a bullshit alarm. Those commenters were eventually banned for other misconduct, but flinging bullshit around the place is not going to be tolerated.

In contrast, we have the following Comment of the Day by Jim Hodgson, as he offers actual evidence of how the current values rot in our education system can be countered, and has been, at least in his community. Here it is, in response to the post, “Today’s Kentucky Derby Metaphor: Journalists May Be The Enemies Of Our Democracy, But Teachers Are Coming Up On The Inside Rail….”

***

Although I am helping homeschool my two grandsons, I am still confident that our local (county) school system is substantially “woke free,” for several reasons. One reason is our community values which are overwhelmingly conservative to moderate with only a smattering of loonies from our local (church affiliated) university and a few legacy Democrats. The second reason is aware and involved parents, grandparents and other taxpayers who keep the school board accountable. School board meetings are always packed, even when there is not a hint of controversy in the air. There are also a lot of parent and grandparent volunteers in our schools who keep up with everything that is going on in the classrooms.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: Final Ethics Observations On The Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

When I implied that with yesterday’s post about the Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney fiasco I was through commenting on the matter, I didn’t mean to preclude others from doing so. Here, Michael R. opens up a whole new wing of commentary that I managed to keep shuttered.

Today was also another entry on the episode’s timeline with ethical resonance: The CEO of Anheuser-Busch tried to avoid some accountability in an earnings call with investors by insisting that the whole thing was misinterpreted, was “not a campaign,” and should not have had so much attention attached to it. He also promised investors that Bud Light will triple its marketing spend this summer to undo the damage that the company was not really at fault for. “Anheuser-Busch did not intend to create controversy or make a political statement,” he said, unconvincingly. “In reality, the Bud Light can posted by a social media influencer that sparked all the conversation was provided by an outside agency without Anheuser-Busch management awareness or approval. Since that time, the lack of oversight and control over marketing decisions has been addressed and a new VP of Bud Light marketing has been announced.”

How do investors retain trust in a company with such loose and inattentive management that this could happen? Is just announcing, “Not to worry, it’s all fixed now!” sufficient to restore their confidence?

Just asking, not observing.

Here is Michael R’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Final Ethics Observations On The Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney Ethics Train Wreck”:

***

I don’t see this as a boycott. I see this as people being done with a product. People boycotting something usually have demands. Bud Light’s former customers aren’t demanding anything. They are just done with the brand.

Let’s see the timeline of events:

(1) Company hires feminist, woke, woman as ‘historic’ hire.
(2) Woke female executive finds that none of her friends use or patronize ‘her’ product.
(3) Woke female executive finds that the customers of ‘her’ product are not ‘cool’ or ‘hip’, like her friends, but are ‘frattish’ and ‘out of touch’. Some of them might have even voted for Trump!
(4) Woke female executive decides that the brand is ‘dying’ despite its great success, so she needs to turn the brand around.
(5) She decides to ‘turn the brand around’ by getting rid of the current customers and attract a new, better clientele.
(6) This turnaround is accomplished by destroying the brand for the existing customer.

Oh, I’m sorry, that was the timeline of events for the destruction of Star Wars.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “If Cleopatra Was Black, Maybe I Am Too!”

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Once again I am confronted with the phenomenon of a Comment of the Day that is better written than the Ethics Alarms post at issue. This happens a lot (Curmie, today’s author, is a repeat offender). I am torn about it, actually: the comments here contribute greatly to the value of the blog, and my original concept was to create a colloquy of articulate readers interested in ethics who also bring different backgrounds and perspectives to the issues. The high quality of commentary obviously validates that mission; it’s only my fragile ego that suffers. Curmie, like several others who participate regularly here, is an experienced blogger himself. He’s also a better proof-reader than I am (though I found one typo this time, making my day).

But I digress. The topic of Curmie’s Comment of the Day is the controversy over Netflix suggesting that Cleopatra was black in a new series, a matter Ethics Alarms raised in the post, “If Cleopatra Was Black, Maybe I Am Too!”

From here on, it’s all Curmie; I’m just going to sit by quietly feeling inadequate…

***

There are several differences, I think, between this story and the brouhaha over the black Anne Boleyn a couple of years ago.

First is a fundamental difference in the way the casting of a major role was presented. The BBC would have us believe that race doesn’t matter in the casting of the title character in the “Anne Boleyn” mini-series so long as it’s “surprising.” (As you noted, Jack, a block of cheese would also have been surprising in the role.) The forthcoming Netflix series is at least honest that being black (or mixed race and appearing black, in this case) was a prerequisite for an actress being considered for the role of Cleopatra, who almost certainly was, shall we say, significantly lighter-complected.

This is apparent in the nonsensical utterances in the promotional video, in which anonymous voices are treated as authorities. If they had a legitimate historian who supported the cause, that person would be identified as such. That omission is more than a little telling.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “The Trouble With ‘Do Something!’ Part II”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Saturday is a ghost town on Ethics Alarms these days; I’ve decided to stop obsessing about it, and blog traffic generally, other than with occasional rueful observations like this one. Despite the lack of quantity, Saturday often produces a disproportionate level of high quality commentary and Comments of the Day, such as JutGory‘s observations on the “Do something!” conundrum. I was particularly charmed by his preface, which represented a microcosm of the eternal “Do something” vs “Do nothing” conflict:

“Been going back and forth all day (appropriately, perhaps) about whether I should comment or not). Eventually, the inclination to comment won out, because I think it will do some good. However, my hesitation is based upon the effort it would take to frame a fully organized and coherent response. So, having abandoned that as a goal, there is no reason not to comment.”

Here is JutGory’s Comment of the Day on the post, “The Trouble With “Do Something!” Part II: Applying The Scale.”

***

First off, a few first principles when it comes to action and inaction:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” –Edmund Burke (attribution may be disputed)

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for evil men to do nothing.” -JutGory

“All human action is aimed toward some good.” –Aristotle (heavily paraphrased opening lines from the “Nicomachean Ethics”)

“All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” –Pascal

The inclination to “do something” is natural because we all view our actions as good and we don’t want to stand by while evil people are causing trouble.

The problem with this mindset is that good people and evil people are often equally stupid.

The people who killed Emmett Till thought they were carrying out some good and they did not want to be one of those good people who did nothing.

Nazis too.

Freedom Riders.

Tea Party Members.

Along with the laundry list of protesters, strikers, and saboteurs.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “The Complete List Of Rationalizations To Excuse Justice Thomas’ Gross Betrayal Of Judicial Ethics, And Other Updates (Part II)”

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

I briefly considered slapping my name on this terrific comment by Extradimensional Cephalopod and posting it, but as Richard Nixon memorably said, “That would be wrong.” Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “The Complete List Of Rationalizations To Excuse Justice Thomas’ Gross Betrayal Of Judicial Ethics, And Other Updates (Part II)”:

***

Stipulated: In theory, the ethical course of action is for Justice Thomas to resign, because the institution of the Supreme Court functions based on the assumption that the justices are not corrupt, i.e. they do not accept incentives to influence their decisions. Anything that introduces serious doubt about that assumption damages trust in the court’s integrity, and is unethical.

Ethics does not exist as a set of arbitrary rules. The purpose of ethics is that it puts a society in a better position in the future. For Justice Thomas to resign would demonstrate a measure of good faith on his part (albeit diminished by having gone on the trips in the first place). It makes a statement that conservative justices value trust in the Supreme Court as an institution more than they value a political advantage. It indicates they will respect progressive justices for stepping down in a similar situation, that they would not press a political advantage which might incentivize progressive justices not to do so.

The reason that some people feel it is more desirable for Justice Thomas to remain on the court is because it seems like a critical short-term measure, a stopgap. If the point of ethics is to build the trust that allows society to function at its best, it seems to them that starting with this situation would build very little trust at the cost of sacrificing political power* to people who are perceived as destructive and unreasonable. If you apply ethics as you would in an ethical society, and it has a heavy short-term cost because of unethical actors, you had better be sure your sacrifice is helping set up some long-term change towards a more ethical society, or it’s a pointless gesture.

Continue reading →