Comment Of The Day: “On The Looming Indictment Of Donald Trump”

Jim Hodgson takes on, in his Comment of the Day, the unpleasant topic of where the current escalating divisiveness may take us. It immediately reminded me of this New York Times fantasy feature from 2021, where several artists—and you know the ideological orientation of artists—were asked to “redesign the American flag.” One artist wrote,

The colors of our flag are intended to stand for unity, valor and justice. The gray, monochrome flag represents America surrendering to its fall from power and loss of the ideals it once stood for….

He produced this design:

No, that’s not a mistake, that’s it. Another flag was this:

Here is Jim Hodgson’s Comment of the Day on the post, “On The Looming Indictment Of Donald Trump”

***

“What exactly makes us a country?”

From the perspective of our federal overlords, this country is approaching the big government perfection that has been the objective of politicians since Hamilton first moved us toward empire, and Lincoln and the Radical Republicans advanced the federal hegemony against the interests of the states.

State governments have been largely complicit as well. The South, of course, was forced to remain in the Union by force of arms, and only allowed to “return” to the Union (the one they supposedly could not leave) after they wrote new constitutions acceptable to the US government. The increasing centralization of power in Washington brought the states to line up like hogs at the federal money trough. Acceding to the popular election of US senators and not moving to counter the myriad instances of federal overreach decade after decade, has led us, like the proverbial frog in slowly warming water, to the boiling point we now face. The desired outcome is for us to capitulate our freedom for the “security” of a totalitarian socialist state.

Continue reading

A Comment Of The Day Spectacular! Re: “Ethics Conundrum: Is Teaching That Communism Is Evil History or Indoctrination?”

This has never happened before. The Ethics Alarms post on teaching communism attracted a modest number of comments (only 9 when you subtract my kibitzing), but five of them, by Ethics Alarms stalwarts JutGory, Steve-O-in-NJ, Extradimensional Cephalopod, Chris Marschner and Steve Witherspoon, rate Comment of the Day status. I’m posting them together (you can also go straight to the post itself, here, and find the whole conversation) for clarity and convenience, and also because I’m afraid if I post them individually a new visitor might think that I have died….

First up, Extradimensional Cephalopod:

***

There is no excuse for any kind of indoctrination. Existentialist epistemology provides a bright line between education and indoctrination.

Here is how to teach about communism without indoctrination:

“Here is what happened in these communist countries: the communications, the policies, the statistics, the conflicts, et cetera. Here is how we obtained this information. Some people say there are alternative inferences we could draw about the past based on the raw data in the present; here are some of the arguments about which inferences are more likely. Write a short essay on how people drew their various conclusions about historical events from the evidence available.

“As for communism itself, some people say that the principles of communism are inherently dysfunctional for running a society, and here is their reasoning for concluding this, both in the abstract and based on the historical events we discussed earlier. Others say that communism could still work in theory. They draw different conclusions from the historical events, saying that communist principles did not contribute to the downfall of communist countries. Write a short essay on how people drew their various conclusions about the causes of the collapse of communist countries from the evidence available.

Any proponent of the feasibility of a political ideology is asked answer an indefinitely long series of questions in the form of “how would your society handle X situation?”, because any real such society would have to answer those questions in real life, and before we go through the effort of overhauling everything people like to make sure the new society has plans for how to deal with the situations it creates. The plans the ideology provides must be convincing–they must be solutions whose outcomes people would consider both desirable and probable, otherwise people will dismiss the ideology as incomplete at best and irredeemably flawed at worst. Write a long essay on some situations communism might have to deal with, the results you predict from those situations, and the various opinions people might have about the results. At least one of those situations must involve experts making a mistake, and at least one must involve people breaking rules. ”

This approach is infinitely more rewarding for society than simply telling people that an idea is good or bad, and that’s just off the top of my head.

By the way, having spoken with communists, I find that despite providing good descriptions of the problems of capitalism, communism fails to provide any answers beyond “tell everyone about communism and then we’ll all get together and confiscate the property of the rich, and we’ll share it fairly.” I am disappointed that communists don’t seem inclined to remedy this critical lack of foresight.

***

Here is JutGory:

Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “Regarding Tucker Carlson’s Newly Revealed J6 Surveillance Videos”

Here is Steve Witherspoon’s Comment of the Day on the post, Regarding Tucker Carlson’s Newly Revealed J6 Surveillance Videos:

***

Personally I don’t care who the video evidence was released to as long as it is released to the public in a responsible manner. I’m not a big fan of Carlson’s tactics but he’s the one who now has all the video. We can’t do a damn thing to change that fact so, so be it. He had better take this responsibility to the people of the United States very seriously.

The government and the political left has had an absolute monopoly on the evidence to support their narrative since January 6th, 2021. It may be the tit-for-tat rationalization, but it’s fair political gamesmanship for an opposing narrative to be presented (using the video evidence) that completely contradicts the narrative that has been pushed by the political left.

Jonathan Turley has a blog post out this morning about the QAnon Shaman, The Curious Story of QAnon Shaman: Fox Footage Raises New Questions Over the Chansley Case.

In the midst of all the internet trolls commenting on Turley’s site, I wrote,

Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “Using Personality Testing For Anything But Party Games Is Unethical”

I was very pleased that the post on personality testing triggered the lively discussion it did. The topic is a long-time source of irritation to me. Reducing the infinite variety and complexity of human character to any test should obviously set off ethics alarms, and making life-changing decisions based on such lazy short-cuts to assessing character is a bright-line Golden Rule breach. Anyone who wants to start understanding my character should read all of the posts on Ethics Alarms, and even then should prepare to be surprised.

Before I get to Sarah B.’s Comment of the Day, let me relay the link to Extradimensional Cephalopod‘s website and its basic mindsets section in his Foundational Toolbox for Life.

I’ve combined two of Sarah’s comments here, because they are closely related and I couldn’t choose between them. Here is her Comment of the Day on the post, “Using Personality Testing For Anything But Party Games Is Unethical”…

***

I know a manager who believes strongly in personality testing, and focuses heavily on the Clifton Strengths profile. He has convinced everyone that it is the way to go and has every one of his employees list their five strengths in order on their work emails, just like some places want preferred pronouns. Everyone I have talked to about this seems totally bought into it. I volunteer here, and thus don’t have to have my Clifton profile done, but when I was introduced to my supervisor (T), he introduced himself as a strategist, which means that he knows how to get from point A to point B in the best possible way, but has a weakness with communication, so we should just all do what he says without question, because he knows better than we do and he doesn’t have time to communicate. If you want someone who is good at communicating, talk to person H. Another of my supervisors (D), introduced herself with her main strength, the ability to think out her problems very well, but as a down side, she must have time to think, so don’t bring her a problem and expect a solution that week. She needs quiet time to work it out.

This is not a way to introduce yourselves, in my opinion. Frankly, I’d rather be known for who I am and let you determine what you think my strengths and weaknesses are, rather than a self reported test that gives me, however accurately, an assessment of those things I am strong at and tells me to make them stronger. I’d rather work to be a well rounded person. I’d also rather think of myself, not as a combination of personality traits, but as a whole person, a person who may have strengths and weaknesses, but who can work to overcome weaknesses and may let certain strengths founder as a choice.

Even if strengths are good things to have, we have to work on our weaknesses too. Frankly, T lets his “strength” in strategizing be an excuse for acting like a controlling jackass. If something doesn’t work perfectly, he blames it all on others, and says we didn’t listen enough. He cannot handle changing conditions, because they throw off his plan, so he gets stressed and pushes people badly. I have nearly quit because of him, but am too stubborn and want the experience for later in life. D uses her “strength” as an excuse to not organize or prepare for anything, all with the excuse that she didn’t have adequate time to think through the problem. If a problem arises needing a quick solution, she shuts down totally, claiming that there is nothing to be done, and won’t accept anyone else’s solution to the problem. We go from about to do our work to completely cancelling our work in moments.

Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “‘Ick Or Ethics’ Ethics Quiz: The Self-Repossessing Car”

There were many enlightening responses to the ethics quiz involving Ford’s patent application for devices that would allow a deadbeat car purchaser’s automobile to progressively punish its owner and eventually repossess itself.

This one is through the auspices of Ethics Alarms vet Neil Dorr, whose Comment of the Day followed the post, “‘Ick Or Ethics’ Ethics Quiz: The Self-Repossessing Car”….

***

To my eyes, this extends far beyond normal penalties for a non-payment or breach of contract, especially since they get increasingly punitive and paternalistic. In most cases, if you stop making payments on a car they send you increasingly-nasty letters before finally hauling it away in the middle of the night. None of it includes the “tsk tsk” finger-wagging demonstrated here. Limiting you to “emergency use only” (whose emergency?) “Geofencing”? That’s what we do to dogs and cattle by way electronic collars (which often prove ineffective). “Annoying sounds”? Like the ones they play outside of convenience stores here to discourage vagrancy? Then, a final “lockout” where your allowed the privilege of looking at your car, shading some driveway, and providing them free storage (at least until they call it home) without use. Talk about cruel and unusual.

Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “Baseball Ethics Dunce: San Diego Padres Third Baseman Manny Machado”

The tricky ethics balancing act engaged in by professional athletes’ agents has been a regular topic of examination here from the very start, particularly the apparent conflicts of interest facing agents who might be inclined to tell a client to take less than the top monetary offer for other factor that might affect a player’s career and enjoyment of life.

I don’t know why you’re paying attention to me, though: Ethics Alarms has a real former player agent among the commentariat, and below are some of his thoughts on Padres star Manny Machado opting out of his contract to seek riches he neither needs nor could possible use.

[Since 77Zommie offered this Comment of the Day, it was reported that Manny has indicated that he is discussing an extension with the Padres, meaning that he’s taking advantage of his contract that allows him to become a free agent after only five years (the contact he signed in 2010  was for ten at 30 million bucks a year) but giving his current team an opportunity to craft a new deal to keep him around. This, after saying he would be going on the open market.]

Here is 77Zoomie’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Baseball Ethics Dunce: San Diego Padres Third Baseman Manny Machado”

***

A couple of thoughts on this post from the vantage point of a 20-year-plus former National Football League Players’ Association agent.

Most of the younger professional athletes with whom I interacted were fixated solely on money as a marker of professional success. This was especially true for players who came from poor or underprivileged backgrounds where financial success was almost unheard of and any affection directed their way tended to be purely mercenary. This is particularly true of those athletes who were identified as potential superstars early on in middle and high school. Those kids were surrounded by peers, adults, and an army of hangers-on who hoped to make some type of claim in the event the athlete strikes it rich. The culture surrounding many of these future superstars instructs them that without money, they have no respect, few friendships, and little access to members of the opposite sex. In other words, these players come into the professional leagues with a well-developed sense that money is virtually the only way they can define themselves as a success.

This attitude usually starts to change as the player matures after several years in the leagues. He interacts with similarly situated peers, many of whom are older, and understand how fleeting is the fame and how phony are the friendships and romantic relationships that are contingent on his paycheck. At some point, several of my clients came to understand that their professional and personal success involved more than simply being the biggest contract number, as they started to build a network of other players, coaches, sportscasters, and, in unusual cases, former teachers or professors and work toward a post-playing career.
But, as George Costanza frequently said, “ you just can’t help some people.” I had other clients who never got beyond the numbers game and remained unable or unwilling to assess the intangibles that really are the rewards of an athletic career. For those folks, I simply worked to get the best number that I could while trying to inject some sense of reality into their worldview.

There are other factors at work in these situations, as well. My father was an NFL coach from the mid-60s through the early 90s and I had an inside view on how the relationship between the players and their communities changed dramatically as more money moved into professional sports. NFL players were not particularly well-paid through the first two decades of my father’s NFL coaching career. Every one of them had to have some kind of backup employment in the offseason to make ends meet. As a result, players had to integrate Into their communities with jobs and careers that in many cases proved to be more lucrative than football. Considerations of family stability, fan loyalty, and team camaraderie are much more important when you don’t have the financial security to walk away and do nothing else to make a living.

Finally, do not discount the influence of the agent in these negotiations. The only effective marketing tool for professional sports agents is public knowledge of the value of the contracts they negotiate for their clients. The agent will push the player to demand the biggest contract possible, and then push the player to renegotiate if the market changes. An agent who is not doing this consistently will very quickly find himself or herself being undercut by other agents who will reach out to the client to say that money is still on the table that should be in the player’s pocket.

I’m sure there are elements of all of these factors in Machado’s situation.

Continue reading

Presidents Day Hangover, Jimmy Carter Edition: A Popeye, A KABOOM! And An Epic Comment Of The Day. Part II, Comment Of The Day On The Carter Presidency

Here is Steve-O-in NJ’s Comment of the Day:

***

Well, I have plenty to say about Carter, and this I will post the moment they announce his death.

I have only very vague recollections of the Carter administration, since I was a kid in single digits at the time. Two things stick out in my memory, though.

One was myself and my brother, also a young kid at the time, bickering in the beltless back seat of a 70s-vintage chartreuse VW beetle while mom sat in line on Paterson Plank Road thirty cars back from the gas station, waiting for gas so scarce it had to be de facto rationed. This car, purchased as a cheap second vehicle (and frequently made fun of by my classmates) had no air conditioning and that line did not move more than five miles an hour, so it was not possible to use the wind to cool off. There was nothing for us kids to do but swelter and nothing for the adults to do but seethe at the fact that Jimmy Carter’s policies regarding the Middle East and the Persian Gulf had landed us in this pickle, and no relief was in sight. The flip side of that was a bitterly cold winter where we set the heat to 65 degrees because that was all we could afford. His answer? Put on a sweater and turn those extra lights off. It’s one thing to try to do more with less in wartime when you face a designated and (hopefully) beatable threat. It’s another to have a diminished lifestyle because the man elected to lead this country was not doing his job anywhere near as well as he could have and should have been.

The other thing that sticks out in my memory was the daily number. No, not the lottery number, we were never fortunate enough to guess that, and not the Sesame Street number of the day either, although for a while that decade that still reached this house on the fat, bunny-eared television in the living room opposite the period covered sofas (featuring a weird pattern of circles in squares in black, off-white, and ginger orange), on which you had to change the seven or so channels manually.

I’m talking about the number that appeared daily behind the anchors on whatever network you got your news on, as they solemnly intoned that today was whatever day it was that the 52 diplomats and other hostages continued to be held in Iran. It ultimately reached 444 days, a full year plus 79 days, counted out day by excruciating day, each of which there was more and more of a feeling that our country, and by extension, we ourselves, could do nothing but wring our hands in anguish and powerlessness. Oh, there was one attempt to rescue them, Operation Eagle Claw, which never even left the staging area due to mechanical issues. Even the withdrawal was a disaster, leaving 5 US airmen and 3 marines dead. It was one of the lowest points in American military history, equaled perhaps only by the failed mission into Bolshevik Russia to kill the Communist serpent in the cradle, of which then-president Wilson said, “the tragedy was that it cost lives even to fail as badly as they did.” It was also the nail that closed the coffin on this utter failure of a presidency. Ironically, Carter has now become the president to escape the actual coffin the longest of any, although the last three presidents to die all made it well into their 90s.

Frankly, he is someone who, under normal circumstances, wouldn’t even have been considered as a candidate, leave alone been elected. He is someone who SHOULDN’T have been considered or elected under ANY circumstances. He was a once-failed, once-elected governor who was supposedly a civil rights idealist, but who tried to please both the civil rights Democrats and the still-powerful old-school southern Democrats. He engaged in symbolic measures like putting up pictures of prominent black Georgians in the state capitol, but opposed race-integration busing and did not hesitate to sign a revised death penalty statute that addressed the then-liberal SCOTUS’ issues with the existing statute in Gregg v. Georgia, which came damn close to throwing the penalty out nationwide. Of course, he later said that he regretted doing that and his position had “evolved,” which is Democrat-speak for flip-flopping. He was not well-known outside of Georgia.

What most folks don’t know is that he made a presidential bid in 1972, trying to use the same triangulation tactics between the civil rights left and more conservative right, that he had used as governor. That bid did not get very far, and the Democratic ticket that year was George McGovern and Thomas Eagleton, which went down in the second biggest defeat the Democratic party suffered in a presidential election, surpassed only by Ronald Reagan’s 49-1 near-clean sweep of the entire country in 1984. Just as John Kasich later planned to do after the catastrophic defeat of the GOP that failed to materialize in 2016, Carter swiftly made a move to “pick up the pieces” and move into the frontrunner slot for 1976. Although he did not succeed in an attempt to become chairman of the Democratic Governors’ Association, he did become chairman of both the Democratic National Committee’s congressional and gubernatorial campaigns. Ironically, he warned AGAINST politicizing the Watergate hearings, but a bit more on that later.

His recognition when he announced his candidacy for president a second time was 2%. The better-known Democrats scoffed and said, “Jimmy who?” Conventional wisdom was that he was a regional candidate who would have limited appeal outside the south. However, Carter had two factors working in his favor in the political perfect storm that was the United States political scene in 1976. One was the aforementioned regionalism. Normally, that would have worked against him, as it would have against any candidate in a country where the Northeast, the South, the Great Plains, the Southwest, and the West Coast were all VERY different in many ways. However, he happened to arrive as a Washington outsider just as the country’s trust of Washington and established politicians, as well as of the GOP, was at arguably the lowest point it ever reached due to Richard Nixon’s unnecessary overreach that led to all that followed. In the wake of Watergate and Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon to “close the book” on that episode and move forward, an outsider who promised never to lie to the American people looked like an attractive option. He looked especially so when matched against a man who had never been elected as president or vice-president, whose main act was pardoning Nixon, and whom the media played up as an oafish klutz (when in reality he was a college football all-star AND Phi Beta Kappa) by emphasizing a slip, a golf stroke gone awry, and a tennis serve gone wrong, any of which could have happened to anyone.

Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “Dispatches From The Great Stupid, An Ethics Dunce Family, And West Coast Bizarro World”

[Sherry Jackson’s famous turn as a comely android in the original “Star Trek” is a bit of a stretch to illustrate this post, but Sherry was a long-time crush (dating back to her role as Danny Thomas’s first daughter in “Make Room for Daddy”), and I always felt she deserved a better career than she ended up with.]

The tale of Jennifer Angel, the Oakland baker and social justice warrior who was killed in the course of a robbery and whose family asked that her killers not be subjected to punitive justice because that’s how Jen would have wanted it, generated a superb and varied discussion: Well done! The comments to “Dispatches From the Great Stupid, An Ethics Dunce Family, And West Coats Bizarro World” even took a side trip to Star Trek lore. One of the stand-out comments in this stand-out comment-fest was that of A.M. Golden, who generally delivers quality analysis—it also launched the “Star Trek” tangent. I immediately identified it as a Comment of the Day, and over the last eight days, as the metaphorical roof fell in here in Alexandria, my daily failure to post it (for eight days) has rankled me like the knowledge that one has left the bathtub faucet running.

Finally I’m getting A.M.’s COTD up; I apologize for the delay. Here it is (and you might want to check out all the comments; I just re-read them, and the array demonstrates how fortunate Ethics Alarms in its quality of readers):

***

This kind of philosophy comes out of the belief that humans are naturally good and that all that is required to make them eternally noble is meeting their basic needs by providing free food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care. Providing these needs will, ostensibly, end poverty which will, ostensibly, end crime and war.

They think they can educate people into rejecting wants, ignoring the example of every socialist country in the 20th century that failed to prevent people from wanting cars, designer jeans and meat.

It is the philosophy behind “Star Trek” and every other utopian futurism that has secular humanism at the core of its philosophy. Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “Dispatches From The Great Stupid, An Ethics Dunce Family, And West Coast Bizarro World”

The tale of the social justice warrior baker whose family announced that in her honor and memory they didn’t want any law enforcement “violence “—like, say, punishment, to be inflicted on her killers has generated a fascinating discussion.

Here is the Comment of the Day by Steve-O-in-NJ, who had been on quite a roll lately. The post under examination is “Dispatches From The Great Stupid, An Ethics Dunce Family, And West Coast Bizarro World”

***

I thought most of the aging hippies moved to upstate New York (home of Ithaca, the City of Evil according to many conservatives) and Vermont (the land of gray ponytails).

All silliness aside, this statement makes me want to yawn, not get angry. One of the ending themes I return to in my writing, both historical and fictional, is that evil always returns, although it may wear a different name or a different face, and it falls to a new generation to fight and defeat it. Yesterday it might have worn a hammer and sickle, the day before that it might have worn a swastika or a rising sun, today it wears a crescent or a double-headed eagle. But the underlying idea, that it is going to impose its will and its vision by force, never changes.

The foolish idealism that often supports it keeps returning also, though it too wears a different name and face in every age, actually often many different names and faces in each age. Today it wears the pan-African colors of Black Lives Matter and the rainbow colors of militant abnormal sexuality. Yesterday it wore the tie-dye of the hippies and the ragged habit of Christian anarchism. There have always been the black-clad true anarchists to spur the idealists along or take the action the idealists balk at. The underlying ideal is always the same: a perfect society with no coercion and perfectly good people, obtained by resistance to the current order. Yesterday the anthem was John Lennon’s “Imagine,” today it’s Brett Dennen’s “Heaven”: Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: On ChatGPT And Artificial Intelligence

On yesterday’s Open Forum, Null Pointer clarified some of the ethics issues surrounding ChatGPT, currently causing panic and consternation among teachers worried that their students will use artificial intelligence to write their essays. (They are already receiving an artificial education from most of those teachers, so this seems a bit hypocritical to me.)

Here is Null Pointer’s edifying Comment of the Day:

***

“AI” programs like ChatGPT are interesting toys that have some real world utility, but are not really artificial intelligence. They are pattern recognition applications. I would not suggest using them to do one’s homework because they lie. They are trained on large datasets pulled from the internet, and if the data pulled off the internet is wrong, then they spit out wrong answers. If they don’t know the answer, they make things up. https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/8/23590864/google-ai-chatbot-bard-mistake-error-exoplanet-demo

Like any tool, the ethics lies in the user utilizing them. Having someone or something else do your homework for you is cheating. Using an AI to proofread your grammar is not really any different than the built in grammar checks in Microsoft Word. Pattern recognition tools probably have a lot of real world utility, but they are not going to be replacing humans anytime soon. Continue reading