Comment of the Day: “Unethical Bank of the Month: Merrick Bank”

Diego Garcia entered an instructive description of an interaction with a bank on credit card matters that nicely illustrates a theme Ethics Alarms has been commenting on for quite a while. It is not exaggerated, because I have been enmeshed in dozens of these maddening experiences almost every month since my wife died last year. The practices are cruel, frustrating, time-consuming and hostile, and, I am convinced, often intentional. They are the product of multiple unethical conditions and practices, including incompetent management, needless technology complexity, sloth, poor hiring criteria, poor training, the public school system, lack of sufficient emphasis on English proficiency, corporate arrogance, outsourcing of jobs, inadequate staffing, and more. I also believe these systems and the factors creating them cause serious stress-related health problems among the public and even domestic and urban violence as well as mass shootings.

People have been conditioned to just shrug it all off as “how we live now.” We shouldn’t do that.

Here is Diego Garcia’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Unethical Bank of the Month: Merrick Bank”:

…I do have a recent BoA experience regarding account setups.

My sister has had a BoA credit card for something like 50 (!) years. She is very much not tech savvy, and is someone who always wants paper statements mailed to her.

On this card, she had made arrangements for her payment to be automatically drafted each month — the payment would be $150 or the statement balance, whichever was smaller. She had made this arrangement by phone as she never had set up an online account for this card. Well, a couple months ago they wrote her to say that they were cancelling this automatic payment and she would have to go online to set it back up.

Continue reading

A.I.Comment of the Day: Grok on “No, Calling Out Somali-Americans For Their Unethical Conduct Isn’t ‘Racist’”

I hope this doesn’t become a habit, but Willem Reese quized AI bot “Grok,” Ann Althouse’s pal, on the matter at issue. His question: Do immigrants from some cultures, like Somalis, have relatively lower compatibility with American mores? How can large groups, like 80 people, get together to scam hundreds of millions of $?

Because the exchange between one of Ethics Alarms 5 regular commenters and the AI raises several ethical issues, including some regarding artificial intelligence, I feel the answer is worth pondering. Grok replied,

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “No, Calling Out Somali-Americans For Their Unethical Conduct Isn’t ‘Racist’”

The New York Times has a relatively fair explication of the astounding Somali scam in Minnesota, a perfect storm of the state allowing a “Somali diaspora” to become established there, too many products of a terrible culture, an intellectually lazy, woke culture in Minnsesota presided over by a knucklehead governor (Tim Walz, naturally), and an irresponsible immigration policy.

Best quotes:

1) “Over the last five years, law enforcement officials say, fraud took root in pockets of Minnesota’s Somali diaspora as scores of individuals made small fortunes by setting up companies that billed state agencies for millions of dollars’ worth of social services that were never provided.”

2) “Minnesota’s fraud scandal stood out even in the context of rampant theft during the pandemic, when Americans stole tens of billions through unemployment benefits, business loans and other forms of aid, according to federal auditors.” [See how the Times tries to use an “Everybody does it!” framing to minimize focus on the Somalis?] 3) “Many Somali Americans in Minnesota say the fraud has damaged the reputation of their entire community, around 80,000 people, at a moment when their political and economic standing was on the rise.” [ Gee, they figured that out, did they?]

4) “Kayseh Magan, a Somali American who formerly worked as a fraud investigator for the Minnesota attorney general’s office, said elected officials in the state — and particularly those who were part of the state’s Democratic-led administration — were reluctant to take more assertive action in response to allegations in the Somali community.” […because it was a reliable voting bloc for Democrats.]

5) “As a trial in the meals fraud case was coming to a close last summer, an attempt to bribe a juror included an explicit insinuation about racism, prosecutors said. Several defendants in the trial were found to have arranged to send a bag containing $120,000 to a juror along with a note that read, ‘Why, why, why is it always people of color and immigrants prosecuted for the fault of other people?'” [Always the same playbook…]

6) “Dr. Samatar said that Somali refugees who came to the United States after their country’s civil war were raised in a culture in which stealing from the country’s dysfunctional and corrupt government was widespread. Minnesota, he said, proved susceptible to rampant fraud because it is “so tolerant, so open and so geared toward keeping an eye on the weak.”

Here is A M Golden’s Comment of the Day on the post, “No, Calling Out Somali-Americans For Their Unethical Conduct Isn’t ‘Racist’”

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Discovered While Researching ‘Trump Derangement'(And Seeking A Cure)…”

In “Pulp Fiction,” leading up to the film’s memorable twist scene with John Travolta and Uma Thurmond tripping the light fantastic for a prize at Jack Rabbit Slim’s, Uma notes how great it is to visit the rest room at a resturant and come back to your table to find that your order has arrived. Now in my case, I find it similarly wonderful to wake up bleary-eyed with my brain in second gear to find a qualified Comment of the Day waiting for me.

That was the case today with DaveL (one of Ethics Alarms’ five regular commenters) depositing on my metaphorical Ethics Alarms table an excellent debunking of the DEI “sales pitch,” as he described it, in the fake “Calvin and Hobbes” cartoon above.

DaveL uses facts to rebut Calvin. The wokeness-crippled progressives who approvingly post such garbage on my Facebook feed are, in contrast, just insisting they are certain of their warped world view because they have willed it so. I have given up arguing with such people: I used to link Ethics Alarms essays (and sometimes comments) on Facebook, but all that accomplished was losing “friends” and having the posts ignored. People don’t like having their faith challenged by ugly reality. They wouldn’t consider the post and went off somewhere to sing “Imagine.”

Sigh.

Get well soon, my friends.

Here is DaveL’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Discovered While Researching ‘Trump Derangement'(And Seeking A Cure)…”

***

What Calvin says in the comic strip, like the words that DEI stands for, are the sales pitch. Just as there wasn’t a whole lot of genuine Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité to go around in the early years of the French Revolution, these slogans are a lie.

This is perhaps most plainly seen anywhere you have a years-long, multi-stage selection process. Take for instance the admission of new lawyers to the bar. There’s the SAT and undergraduate admissions, undergraduate performance and graduation, the LSAT and law school admissions, law school graduation, and finally the bar exam. What do these show us? That at every stage, DEI philosophy prioritizes the passing of low performers from favored demographics over higher performers from disfavored demographics.

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: Comment of the Day: “Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Month: Zohran Mamdani”

Well this is embarrassing. Not only have I been four days late in posting Tom P’s Comment of the Day, I also left Tom out of last night’s comment of my own listing the “five commenters” that a bitter reader had claimed was the total commentariate here, as I counted up the names of recent commenters, missing at least three, including Tom. (The total is currently 25. You know, as in “five.” I didn’t even count EA comment bomber “A Friend,” since he’s the equivalent of an illegal immigrant here).

Here is Tom’s excellent and well-researched Comment of the Day on the post [ A COTD by Extradimensional Cephalopod] , “Comment of the Day: ‘Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Month: Zohran Mamdani’”.

***

EC’s closing observation is spot on.

I was hoping from what I’d heard about Mamdani earlier that he was standing up for legitimate concerns of the people regarding the government and the economy, but it sounds like he’s yet another politician pandering to people’s biases to seize power.”

Whatever label you pin on Mamdani, communist or socialist, is irrelevant. It has been said that the only difference between the two ideologies is the speed and number of bodies that pile up. Both systems are anti-capitalist and have no respect for individual property rights. Mamdani is using the same playbook that the Democrats have used since FDR. Buying votes with the promise of free stuff.

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Comment of the Day: ‘Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Month: Zohran Mamdani’”

Gee, we haven’t had a Comment of the Day on a Comment of the Day for quite while around here. This one was especially satisfying. Reacting to Extradimensional Cephalopod‘s discouraged coda to his COTD on Mayor-to-be Mamdani’s scary-stupid victory rant, Old Bill registered commentary that should have been already featured on or in every legitimate news source. Unfortunately, there are no legitimate news sources, and the fact that OB’s point has been so far almost completely ignored by the Axis media has been making me doubt my own sanity. Am I missing something? How is a President supposed to actually lower grocery prices after inflation he had no responsibility for hit 9% under his predecessor, particularly after less than a year in office? How dare the Democrats choose “affordability” as a rallying cry against Trump when the affordability crash happened on their watch? Do they think the public is that stupid? IS the public that stupid?

Please don’t tell me that you really can fool all of the people all of the time.

It was high time for Old Bill ( we once had several Bills among the commentariate, now all among the missing; maybe they are hanging out with A Friend, Curmie and Charles Green somewhere….) to have another Comment of the Day. He is among the most attentive and prolific commenters Ethics Alarms has, and we should be grateful for him. I certainly am.

Here is Old Bill’s Comment of the Day on “Comment of the Day: “Comment of the Day: ‘Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Month: Zohran Mamdani.’” I know its mostly a quote, but it is the right quote, I hadn’t seen it, and maybe you haven’t either.

***

“I was hoping from what I’d heard about Mamdani earlier that he was standing up for legitimate concerns of the people regarding the government and the economy.”

This is the “affordability” talking point Dems have surfaced and harped on over the last few months and during the off-year elections. Remember when everything was “income inequality” and everyone pretended they’d read Thomas Piketty’s book.

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Month: Zohran Mamdani”

Extradimiensional Cephalopod gets a Comment of the Day for making a good faith effort to justify Mamdani’s absurd quote that is also the essence of totalitarian reasoning. Here it is, in reaction to “Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Month: Zohran Mamdani...”:

***

“We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.”

This statement is stupid enough that I consider it signature significance.

Arguably, it almost makes sense that there’s no problem too large for government to solve, but it would be more precise to assert that there’s no problem too large for people to solve (which I happen to agree with, but even I think it’s beyond the purview of a politician to officially assert something so absolutely optimistic). Government is just the process of establishing and enforcing rules if the solutions that people come up with need those rules in order to work, or to protect the solution from interference.

Continue reading

Ethics Alarms Threads of the Year: Reparations and Guaranteed Minimum Income

Well, I’m defeated! Two rich and lively threads this week have produced more Comment of the Day-worthy commentary and more essays worthy of guest columns than I can possibly do justice to without them swallowing the blog.

I’m sorry. For the first time ever, I am reduced to linking to the post that sprung these exchanges, and sending interested readers to them rather than my reposting them all.

The first: Friday Open Forum, Halloween Edition. Last week’s open forum was especially lively with many topics covered, but the epic thread, started by Extradimenensional Cephalopod, began with “Premise: The United States institutes a universal basic income of $1000 per person per month, except for people who opt to remain in existing welfare programs.” Many engaged, including Sarah B, AM Golden, Old Bill, CEES VAN BARNEVELDT and Michael Ejercito.

The second: Unethical Quote of the Month: Un-Named California Lawyer. The most prolix combatants in the discussion of slavery reparations are jdkazoo123 and Chris Marschner, but there is enlightening commentary by many others as well.

Ethics Alarms thanks and salutes everyone involved in both of these discussions. They are exactly what I hoped to inspire when I started Ethics Alarms.

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Observations on Another Progressive Academic Meltdown”

I have combined two related comments by prodigal son commenter jdkazoo123 to make one, big, bang-up Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Observations on Another Progressive Academic Meltdown.”

The “great column” jd references at the beginning was not mine (humph!) but his fellow D.C. area prof Jonathan Turley’s blog post which I referenced in mine. The result is an example of the very best EA commenters are capable of producing when they are civil, analytical, generous with their time and thoughts, and have direct experience with the subject matter, which fortunately is often.

And here it is…

***

It’s a great column. I agree that there is to my knowledge no comparable violence on the right on college campuses by faculty. I disagree that there is a systemic effort to exclude conservative voices from higher education. I coauthored a book in 2008, Closed Minds? about ideology and politics in higher education. We conducted a nationwide random sample survey of professors. We confirmed that profs are even more liberal than they were 20 years ago, and they’ve been on the left as an occupation since the first scientific polls of faculty in the 1930s. BUT–the causes of the initial and the intensifying tilt are not a conspiracy, or at least, Occam’s Razor would suggest several other better ones.

First, folks who are on the right are often believers in markets. Folks who believe in markets are often motivated by them. Academia has a very low ceiling for money. The big money on campus is in administration and in sports. Some superstar profs (usually in hard sciences, but sometimes business or econ or every now and then something else) gets north of 180K, but it’s rare. And there’s many tens of thousands scrapping by as adjuncts, who would risk that? It’s far more likely you end up teaching 8 adjunct courses a year for less than 50K with no benefits than that you get tenure at a high paid place and clear 170K at the end of your career. My friends who went into business, law, medicine…all make significantly more than me.

Second–most profs are at public universities. In 1950, both Ds and Rs were for spending on higher ed. Today…in most states…if an R wins the governorship, profs get no raises for a while. We are not shocked when oil and gas executives vote GOP because that makes them richer. Professors are not saints. We like money, too. Finally, and perhaps most importantly–campuses are places where the gay rights debate was over by about 1988. The rest of the nation was still having huge arguments about this in 2010. Similar thing happened in the 1950s with race–profs got their first on racial equality, on average. The GOP doubled down on anti-gay in elections like 2004, and also allowed figures who believe stuff like young earth creationism and the divine right of men to lead, to speak at their conventions. This was smart politically, because there are many more believers in creationism than there are college professors, but when you take those positions….you lose support on campuses.

Continue reading

Let’s Begin With The Comment of the Day, Shall We? In Response to “On The Axis Hypocrisy Re Letitia James, Tit-For-Tat, and Trump’s ‘Revenge'”

Either the Comment of the Day by CEES VAN BARNEVELDT on yesterday’s post on “tit for tat” needs to introduction, or I’m not awake enough to write one. I was just made nauseous by catching Letitia James’ shrill, shouted address declaring her self a victim of a politicized Justice Department. How does anyone that hard to listen to get any votes at all? I would rather listen to Kamala Harris until they hauled me off to padded room before I’d endure a whole James speech even once.

Ah! This reminds me of how most women in politics desperately need to seek vocal and public speaking training if they are going to successfully compete with (competent) men in elections without depending solely on pro-female voter bias. Don’t giggle, ladies, and don’t shout in a strident high-pitched tone! That’s the short version: give me two hours of coaching, and I might make one of you President.

But I digress. Here is CEES’s Comment of the Day on the post, Let’s Begin With The Comment of the Day, Shall We? In Response to “On The Axis Hypocrisy Re Letitia James, Tit-For-Tat, and Trump’s ‘Revenge'”(that’s clip #24 from the Ethics Alarms Hollywood Clip Archive above.)

***

Continue reading