Ethics Dunces

Ethics Dunce: Tender Miami Weatherman John Morales

/ Jack Marshall / 52 Comments

Aw, isn’t he caring! A supposedly professional meteorologist gained fans and social media hits by choking up as he covered Hurricane Hurricane Milton. Oooh, it was so big and scary!

Time to retire, John.

Now we know the professionalism rot that has crippled law, science, journalism, academia, politics, the judiciary and so many other fields has struck meteorologists. Morales’s job is, or was supposed to be, relaying information about weather phenomenon, not to show everyone how sensitive and frightened he is. There is no excuse for this, none, never. If you can’t broadcast the explosion of the Hindenburg, a fire, a bomb blast or a murder without either losing control of your emotions or, worse, virtue-signaling with them, then you are in the wrong job.

Furthermore, such a reaction seeds panic. It is as irresponsible as it in incompetent.

Continue reading →

Two Faint Cheers For the Colorado Supreme Court in “Jerk vs. Jerk”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

It looks like the political correctness Furies who have been swarming around Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner whose refusal to bake, decorate and sell same-sex wedding cakes had him targeted for destruction have finally been foiled.The Colorado Supreme Court has dismissed the latest lawsuit against him, though not on the merits. Legal Insurrection has detailed coverage and a retrospective on this almost decade-long drama here.

Remember the old Mad Magazine series called “Spy vs. Spy”? This has been “Jerk vs. Jerk.” I sided with the baker in the original lawsuit over the same-sex wedding cake, though holding even then that the adversaries were being unreasonable. Ethics Alarms advised one, “Oh, bake the damn cake!” and the other, “So find another bakery!” That battle got all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the baker won on what non-lawyers call “a technicality.” Then Phillips was targeted again, as LGTBQ activists apparently considered it a matter of honor to bend him to their will.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: The University of Kansas [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 43 Comments

No, what’s insane is for anyone to watch that video and misunderstand the clear meaning of what lecturer Phillip Lowcock said. I doubt anyone did misunderstand him. This manufactured scandal is conservatives acting like political correctness-addled progressives.

“[If you believe] guys are smarter than girls, you’ve got some serious problems. That’s what frustrates me,” Lowcock says in the video. “There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don’t think females are smart enough to be president. We could line all those guys up and shoot them. They clearly don’t understand the way the world works.”

And he clearly doesn’t understand how university administrators work in age of The Great Stupid. They are weenies. They sacrifice common sense and principles to avoid conflict.

I have read conservative piranha claiming that he said that any man who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris should be shot. No, he said that thinking that women aren’t smart enough to be President is an idiotic reason not to vote for a woman, and they “should be shot” means that such ignorant bigots are useless and a blight on the culture, which isn’t that far off the mark. Now, thinking Kamala isn’t smart enough to be President is something else, and completely reasonable, but Lowcock didn’t say that.

As for “Did I say that? Scratch that from the recording. I don’t want the deans hearing that I said that,” it’s obviously a joke, not a serious cover-up. His tone is humorous. I’ve been a stage director long enough to know when a line is not intended to be taken seriously.

Any conservative social media troll or university administrator who seriously thinks Lowcock’s comment was anything but facetious exaggeration and completely benign should be shot.

I wish Lowcock would stand his ground and refuse to be sacrificed to the God of Perpetual Offense, but he’s already groveling. This is how the censors break you: it’s like Winston Smith having the hungry rats at his face. No job is worth surrendering one’s self respect to save.

Why Would a GOP Candidate for Congress Aspire To Be the Next George Santos?

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This guy needs to pull out of the race. Now. What is the matter with these people? And why does the Republican Party keep nominating them?

In a short clip posted on Republican Derrick Anderson’s campaign website and YouTube channel, the Republican running for an open Congressional seat in Virginia’s 7th District poses alongside a smiling woman and three girls in front of a suburban house and then is shown seen sitting with them at the family table. Anderson is unmarried and childless, and apparently “borrowed” a friend’s family.

“Derrick Anderson is so desperate to mask his anti-abortion views and look like a family man that he’s posing for fake family pictures,” Democratic Party spokesperson Lauryn Fanguen said. “He’s clearly not above misleading Virginians and definitely can’t be trusted to represent them in Congress.”

That seems fair.He seems even less trustworthy than the pro-abortion Democrats who mischaracterize the Dobbs decision and abortion itself in every TV ad I see on their behalf in Northern Virginia.

Anderson’s campaign claims the video innocently shows the veteran posing with “female supporters and their children.”

Right.

George Santos, kicked out of Congress for lying about almost everything to fool half-asleep voters to elect him, still didn’t sink so low as to invent a fake family.

Just say you’re a knucklehead, Derrick. It might work!

All The Unethical Journalist’s Gossip: Bob Woodward’s October Surprise

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Ever since Bob Woodward became an icon of investigative journalism with “All the President’s Men” ( and was able to have himself portrayed by Robert Redford in the movie), he has periodically issued another “inside information” hit job on other administrations and institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, for the first time close enough to a tight election to be legitimately be called election interference, the ancient ex-Washington Post reporter has produced “War,” and D.C. is “buzzing.” Woodward’s book was advanced to The New York Times and other news outlets on yesterday, though the book won’t be released until next week. Sayeth the Times, it “adds additional, inside-the-room details to… previous accounts,” previously unreported conversations and more involving President Biden, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris and other officials.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Ex-Jets Head Coach Robert Saleh

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Robert Saleh has been fired as head coach of the New York Jets after Sunday’s loss to the Minnesota Vikings. With high hopes for a winning season in 2024-25 because star quarterback Aaron Rodgers is finally healthy, the Jets have looked weak while managing only a 2-3 record. The King’s Pass might have worked for Saleh if he had led the Jets to a better record, but many suspect that the impetus for his dismissal was his controversial choice to sport a Lebanon flag below the Nike logo on the sleeve of his hoodie during the Vikings game. This was his tasteful choice while Israel was fighting for its life against the terrorist, Iran-funded organization Hezbollah, which uses Lebanon as its headquarters.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Donald Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Some day I’ll have to count up all of Trump’s honors here as an ethics dunce, “asshole of the year,” unethical quote of the week/month, etc. I know the total is impressive, and that’s even with the Julie Principle limiting his exposure. In a post yesterday I mused that a legitimate question could be posed regarding why Trump wasn’t far ahead in the polls, given the abysmal quality of his opposition and the multilateral botch the Biden Administration represents. This latest episode answers the question.

In an interview yesterday with conservative (though not always Trump-friendly] commentator Hugh Hewitt, Trump again was railing against the open border immigration policies of the Biden/Harris administration and the unvetted “migrants” who had, have or will commit serious crimes here. “Many of them murdered far more than one person, and they’re now happily living in the United States. You know, now a murderer…I believe this, it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.”

Translation: “Here, everybody, take this huge stick with nails in it and beat me bloody!”

Continue reading →

More VP Debate Ethics: Oh-Oh! Tim Walz Doesn’t Get That First Amendment Thingy…

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Does this bother you? It should: It bothers me. And Walz has been saying the same illiterate crap about free speech for years. I don’t want Presidents who don’t understand the First Amendment. It means they are incompetent at least, and dangerous at worst. If I don’t want a President with these deficits, I don’t want a Vice President with them either.

I was late to this particular party because I can only find one transcript of the debate online, CBS’s, and the site demands that I dump my ad-blocker to read it. Bite me. This is public information, and CBS shouldn’t have a monopoly on it: that’s unethical. Journalism has no public interest at heart at all, at least not the outlets I usually deal with.

When J.D. Vance pointed out that Walz had said there is no First Amendment right to misinformation,” Walz interjected “or threatening, or hate speech.”  Why do woke fools like Walz keep saying this? While “True threats”—meaning threats that are accompanied by the means and circumstances to carry them out—aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Misinformation that falls short of fraud or defamation definitely is, indeed outright lies are protected.

“Hate speech” also has full First Amendment protection. Walz, a high ranking member of the Democratic Party, the pro-censorship party, naturally is in favor of gutting free speech, or he doesn’t know what it is. I’m guessing both.

That’s particularly troubling in someone who taught school.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: The AARP

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

My mother, who resented aging and refused to “accept” it, constantly complained that younger people treated seniors like children or idiots. I would not expect the AARP to prove her point, but then, at a loss for bathroom reading material, I looked at the AARP’s “bulletin” tabloid. On the back page, I discovered, is a feature called “Wit and Wisdom.” Here is this month’s entire content of witty and wise repartee:

  • Ken: “I hear you quit your job digging wells. Ben: “Yeah, I got fed up with the hole business.’
  • Colin: “How would you describe a dry-erase board?” Caitlin: “Remarkable.”
  • John: “Are waterbeds bouncy?” Jan: “Yes, if you use spring water.”
  • Patient: “I need a cure for my paranoia.” Doctor: “We’ve been expecting you!”
  • Molly: “How do cats settle an argument?” Wally: “They hiss and make up.”
  • Customer: “I’d like a pizza delivered,. Will it be long?” Clerk: “No, it will be round.”
  • Student: “Do chemists tell dad jokes?” Professor: “Yes, periodically.”

There isn’t anything vaguely wise or witty in any of those moldy puns. When I was a cub scout,  I had a subscription to “Boy’s Life.” The back page had a feature called “Think and Grin,” and the jokes there were generally of a higher quality that that crap. There are so many legitimately clever jokes, one-liners and anecdotes out there, some of them true, that a little research and taste would uncover. Instead, the AARP infantalizes its member and view them as old geezers sitting around the radio cackling at “Lum and Abner” —which was also generally more clever than “No, round.” Heck, “Hee-Haw” had more wit and wisdom.

My dad, like me, had a sophomoric sense of humor. He also could quote Mark Twain, P.G. Wodehouse, S.J. Perelman, and Will Rogers—okay, also Henny Youngman— right up until the day I found him dead in his favorite chair. That AARP feature is disrespectful, lazy, and insulting.

Here’s Your Ethics Challenge: Argue Convincingly That It Would Have Been More Ethical For This Horrible Couple To Abort The Baby…

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Early favorites for “Parents of the Year”!

Darien Urban, 21, and Shalene Ehlers, 20, decided to sell their baby to a stranger while they were at a camp ground. (No, they weren’t married: why would you even ask?) As Mom explained later, having to deal with a baby while taking care of three dogs was just too much. All they asked for was a six-pack of beer and a thousand bucks. What a deal!

“I, Darien Urban and Shalene Ehlers, are signing our rights over to [Cody Martin] of our baby for $1,000 on 9/21/24,” their contract read. Good: these things should be legal. “After signing this there will be no changing y’all two’s minds and to never contact again,” it concluded.

Continue reading →