Ethics Dunces

Post 250th Ethics Observations

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

That whiny, divisive, Trump Deranged video re-hashing familiar progressive, “No Kings” talking points while attacking the elected President of the United States is as good a symbol as any of the despicable efforts the Angry Left…now in the process of morphing into the Communist Left, made to undermine our 250th Anniversary celebration.

What a collection of Hollywood has-beens and hysterics! Then, for good measure, they had to include Margaret Atwood, because everyone knows President Trump wants to force American women to be baby machines. Then there was Chuck Todd, by far the worst, dimmest, most biased an partisan host “Meet the Press ” ever had, whining on his podcast,

Trump’s doing all of us a favor by selfishly trying to steal this anniversary from us. We now see who he really is. So no, it’s not the celebration we deserve. It’s not the one we could could have had. But we get a mirror, and the mirror is telling us something. The country is a lot bigger than Donald Trump. It is bigger than any president and it’s obviously bigger than any political party. And there’s no one definition of patriotism. But it still needs leaders who understand that. It still needs citizens who insist on it. And it still needs people willing to say that the national story belongs to all of us, not just whoever happens to hold power at any one moment. America at 250 may be a lost opportunity. Donald Trump has absolutely sullied the brand of America, doesn’t have to be at 275 Donald Trump has absolutely sullied the brand of America. But America 275 does not have to be…For some people the central text in their lives is religious and I respect that. For me the constitution has always carried that kind of weight. So that’s why I’m so angry and feel betrayed. I do. I feel betrayed as an American by him on this. The Constitution is not perfect, but it gives us a way to keep going. It gives us structure for disagreement. It gives us a method for repair. It gives us the possibility of becoming better without pretending we were always good.May it makes some of the same promises that some religious texts do for people.And this is why I’m so pissed off. Not because I love the country less, but because I love the idea of America enough to resent seeing it cheapened by this man.America deserved better at 250. Someday, I believe it will get better, but it’s in your hands.”

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Observations on Stephen King’s Unethical Tweets Supporting Graham Platner

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Wow. Stephen King is so Trump Deranged and politically obtuse that he’s really publicly defending a Nazi-loving, lying, unqualified, serial sexually-abusing accused rapist communist as the Democratic candidate to be a U.S. Senator of his home state, Maine.

And they say President Trump is losing it.

I admire and enjoy Stephen King as a writer. Few writers’ books and stories have spawned as many excellent movies as King. He manages to keep politics out of his horror tales, for the most part. His political opinions are routinely infantile, but let’s face it, artists are usually like that. Stevey doesn’t style himself as an intellectual: G.K. Chesterton he’s not. I would be surprised if anyone is influenced by King’s political outbursts, to which the only response should be “Shut up and scare us.”

However, those tweets cross an ethics line, embracing multiple rationalizations while indicating the ethics standards of a mollusk.

Observations:

1. Why in the world would King, or anybody, hope that Platner doesn’t drop out? At this point Platner can’t win. His party has announced that it will not support him. At best he was a long-shot to defeat Susan Collins even before the latest rape allegation. Does King like Nazis? Tattoos? Communism? He can’t like Communism, can he? King is worth an estimated $500 million. If he’s into income redistribution, why hasn’t he redistributed his?

2. Whatever Donald Trump has or hasn’t done, his conduct is irrelevant to Platner’s qualifications to be a Senator. This is whataboutism at its dumbest. The corresponding rationalizations on the list are #2, Whataboutism, or “They’re Just as Bad,” #22, The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things,” and #31, The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now.”

3. The term “Abuser in Chief” is a trope of the Epstein conspiracy theorists, and they are the dumbest, most vicious and most immune to justice, fairness and logic of the Trump Deranged.

4. King’s second tweet is even worse, which is remarkable. He libels every member of Congress with no facts whatsoever. “If we knew what we don’t know, I know that every member of Congress has done horrible things.” What an astoundingly irresponsible statement, as well as pompous, arrogant and mean! King also tops his previous rationalizations with the biggest rationalization of them all, and the most childish: #1 on the list, “Everybody does it.” But everybody doesn’t rape women. Or get a giant Nazi tattoo on his chest. Or post vile things on social media.

5. Finally, King defaults to the hoary “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8: 7,10,11), #5 on the Rationalizations list. It doesn’t mean what King and other lazy wielders of the line cite it to mean. Jesus said that to a group of men preparing to stone a prostitute that all of them had slept with. He was condemning hypocrisy of a very extreme sort, not saying that only the perfect and blameless could make moral judgments. In the context of Platner’s conduct, the quote means, “Let him who isn’t a serial sexual abuser, rapist and substance abuser who has no experience in governing whatsoever and who presumes to run for U.S. Senate cast the first stone.

From The Flat Learning Curve Files: President Trump Unethically Meddles In The World Cup…[Expanded and Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

I could write a long post on this, or a short one. The short version is: “After star U.S. forward Folarin Balogun was suspended from playing in the next U.S. match (he got a “red card” for an infraction on the field), President Donald Trump intervened on his behalf by calling FIFA president Gianni Infantino. The red card suspension was subsequently lifted, and now Balogen can play in today’s match against Belgium.”

That summary is all you need to know, and I certainly don’t need to follow or care about soccer or the World Cup (I don’t) to make this easy ethics call: It was unethical for the President to use his influence to interfere with the World Cup for the benefit of the U.S. team. Nothing else is relevant:

  • Not whether the ref’s call that got Balogun the red card was deserved or not…
  • Not that Balogun is crucial to the U.S. team if it is to have any chance of continuing success in the tournament….
  • Not that Trump played a key role in getting the World Cup to the U.S…
  • Not that soccer’s governing body, FIFA, is even more corrupt than the National Football League, which is quite an accomplishment…
  • Not even the fact, if it is a fact, that the suspension was going to be lifted anyway and Trump’s intervention didn’t influence the decision.

What is relevant are these truths:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunce: Brown Professor Robert Serrano

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Prof. Robert Serrano, who has been teaching in Brown University’s Economics Department for 34 years, is sounding off in horror about the scourge of artificial intelligence being used by students to cheat. He apparently missed the last two years.

Serrano had allowed the class in Econ 1170, an advanced course he has been teaching for many years, to take the mid-term exam at home. He was shocked—shocked!—that a large number of his students apparently cheated and used ChatGPT to do it. The grades for a midterm exam were not only significantly higher than in previous years, but a review of the answers submitted found that many responses were identical to those the bot came up with. Not only that, but when Serrano told the class that they could keep the midterm grade they received but that the final would be taken in an exam room with a monitor, nearly a third of the class , 27 out of 86, dropped out. Coincidentally, most the drop-outs had scored 100 on the mid-term.

This was sufficient evidence for the professor to conclude that his students had cheated on the test. No shit, Sherlock.

“This is a very challenging course that attracts typically very strong students, and in the past, the average grade for the midterm ranged from 65 to 80,” says Serrano. “The average this time was 96.” He also saw a huge increase in enrollments in his class this year. “In past editions of the course, the enrollments were at most 30, as low as 8 one semester,” he says. “This semester it jumped to 86. Perhaps many of them saw that this exam would be take-home.”

Ya think?

Pages: 1 2

An Idiot Test For Conservatives: Tucker Carlson Says He’s Starting A New Political Party

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I’m giving my inner Fredo a workout lately, because so, SO many positions that I have emphasized early and often on Ethics Alarms have been proving blazingly accurate. To be fair, it didn’t take an IQ much higher than Fredo’s to figure out that Tucker Carlson was a huckster, a fraud, a hypocrite, a shameless self-promoter, a liar and a weasel, but for some strange reason—maybe it was the hair?—an amazing number of usually smart people couldn’t see it. Glib demagogues and sociopaths are like that, though: they hypnotize people with their verbal facility and shameless audacity

Tucker’s latest grift is that he says he wants to start a new political party, presumably of dim-witted, gullible, anti-Semitic, isolationist Republicans. He even appeared on MSNow right after renouncing the GOP, knowing well what the network is and the America it wants to create, but never mind, Tucker Carlson literally has no integrity. He’s smarter than Marjorie Taylor Greene (who isn’t?), not as obviously bat-house crazy as Candace Owen, not as pathetic as Bill Kristol, but still: the man is not a serious person. He makes Bill Maher seem like Victor Davis Hanson. Carlson is a trust fund rich kid who never had to do a hard day’s work in his life, and is the kind of pseudo-intellectual not very bright people think is brilliant.

I’ve written way too much about this creep, but I’m proud to say that I declared that Fox News needed to fire him in 2013, a full decade before they did. Since then I’ve caught him in conflicts of interest, rigging his debates, promoting anti-vaxxers, leaking to the New York Times, found him to be a race-baiter and a legal ignoramus, a destructive agent of distrust and division like Father Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, General Edwin Walker, Alex Jones, and Robert Welch, openly racist, a hypocrite, a conspiracy theorist and a liar, a toadying suck-up, a publicity whore, and a anti-Semitic Holocaust denier, and more. Other than that, however, he seems to be a great guy.

That’s going to be some party he starts.

And Speaking of Fake News: NPR!

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

See? “I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everybody says! I’m smart, and I want respect!“

Excuse me while I gleefully gloat over pointing out once again what a rotten, biased, disgrace of a news organization NPR is (and has been for a long while) right before it beclowned itself spectacularly yesterday by breaking the imaginary story that Justice Samuel Alito was retiring from the Supreme Court.

No, you can’t excuse this putrid example of the variety of fake news I call “Wishin’ and Hopin’ News” (in honor of the late, great Dusty Springfield) with the rationalization (#19 on the list) “Anyone can make a mistake!” For a professional news organization that has any scruples or legitimate editorial procedures literally never makes a mistake like this. NPR didn’t check its “facts” with the subject of the story. It didn’t get confirmation from the Supreme Court. It literally broke a story that didn’t exist because the Axis and the Axis propaganda network and the Trump Deranged and so, so many fans of NPR wanted this to be true so badly that NPR decided that Ethics Don’t Matter….though, to be fair, NPR decided this long, long ago, as when, oh, just to pick a random example out of the air, they blacklisted me as the network’s go-to ethics expert after a woke hostess deemed my 100% accurate explanation of how celebrities are vulnerable to late-hit sexual harassment accusations intolerable because, she told me, “I thought you were trying to defend Donald Trump.”

I may use the Alito episode from now on as my routine example of confirmation bias. The fiasco is so wonderful for Ethics Alarms in so many ways!

Pages: 1 2

Today’s “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Note, NPR Division

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This is hack, bottom-of-the-barrel journalism at its worst.

The statistics show that the “The United States almost certainly had the lowest murder rate ever recorded in 2025” according to crime data analyst Jeff Asher. “And the available evidence suggests that we’re going to go even lower this year,” he predicts based on the numbers and trend so far.

Here is how NPR starts its story:

“As the U.S. nears its 250th birthday, it’s doing pretty well by at least one measure: the national murder rate.”

That’s not news reporting. That’s partisan damnation with faint praise, while also engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. The story states that President Trump has achieved the best result in reducing the murder rate since at least 1960. That’s not, by any reasonable use of the English language, doing “pretty well.” It is an extraordinary success, and should be reported as such.

Then there is “at least one measure,” because, you see, everything else is terrible, but NPR’s Trump Deranged listeners assume that, so a major Trump accomplishment has to be minimized in the reporting. The technique is called “poisoning the well” and it isn’t journalism, it is pure bias. NPR, like the rest of the Axis, can’t tell a straight news story fairly, directly or honestly without applying a negative spin if President Trump is involved. You can almost hear the sneers: the outlet might as well had written,

“Well, how about that, the asshole did something right!”

“Look! Trump lucked out this time!”

“Hey, I guess everything the President does can’t blow up in his face!”

“Even a blind squirrel will find a nut now and then!”

As Clarence Darrow memorably said at the end of his closing argument in the Sweet case,

“I am the last one to come here to stir up race hatred, or any other hatred. I do not believe in the law of hate… I believe in the law of love, and I believe you can do nothing with hatred.”

So I am wrestling my brain to the ground to fight hating these awful, arrogant, unprofessional, smug and destructive people. They refuse to extend even moderate respect and decency to the President of the United States. They do everything in their power to distort facts, data, reality and analysis to confuse the public and turn it against their own leader. They will not give credit when it is due, and they will not assign responsibility where it belongs, if there is any way to twist the facts to impugn President Trump.

Pages: 1 2

It’s Time To Play That Exciting Game Show, “How Stupid Do They Think We Are?”!

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Hello everybody! I’m your host, Wink Smarmy! [APPLAUSE] Welcome to “How Stupid Do They Think We Are?,” the popular ethics game show where our panelists try to puzzle out just how stupid the usual suspects—we all know who they are, don’t we?—-think we are based on their lies, poses, flagrant misrepresentations and embarrassing efforts to deceive! [APPLAUSE] 

Welcome panel! And here’s today’s challenge…

UC at Berkeley has announced that it is launching a nonpartisan academic institute in the political science department will become a hub for research, teaching and civic engagement.

The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy, or NPI, will be a hub for research, teaching and civic engagement rooted in a shared commitment to advancing the public good. Through faculty research initiatives, undergraduate courses and a visiting fellows program, the institute will explore what impedes progress and how best to solve political problems, from polarization to the future of artificial intelligence.

Chancellor Rich Lyons said the institute aligns with Berkeley’s commitment to fostering civil discourse, advancing democracy and preparing students to lead with integrity. 

“The purpose and impact of the NPI will be defined and strengthened by Berkeley’s ability to bring together world-class faculty and extraordinary students and by our commitment, as the country’s preeminent public university, to advancing the greater good,” Lyons said. “We intend to do more than simply study democracy; we are building this institute to strengthen it.”

Before I throw the challenge over to you, panel, let me ask our resident ethicist, Jack Marshall, just how stupid does UC at Berkeley think we are?

“Thank-you, Wink. I have to say,  to answer your question, so stupid I’m having trouble processing it. To begin with, Berkeley is one of the most left-leaning institutions in the country, as well as one of the most egregiously partisan. One landmark study by “Econ Journal Watch” found that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans at UC Berkeley by a ratio of roughly 9.9 to 1. 

“But putting that beside, Nancy Pelosi was one of the most partisan Speakers of the House in U.S. political history. She green-lighted two impeachments against a Republican President purely because she had Democratic votes to do it, though the intent of the Constitution’s provision envisioned non-partisan consensus regarding actual “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Later, she violated both House rules and Congressional norms by rejecting Republican nominations to participate in the so-called “J-6” Committee, ensuring a purely partisan witch hunt constructed as a political weapon. Pelosi is the only House Speaker to deliberately show disrespect to a President, ostentatiously ripping up his State of the Union speech on camera.

“Calling an institution “non-partisan” that is named after Nancy Pelosi is head-explodingly cynical. Who could possibly believe that, except someone who is completely ignorant of recent political history, or someone who would lose Scrabble game to a mollusk?”

Thank you Jack. I see your point. In light of that, panel, let me re-frame the question a bit. Fill in the rest of this sentence: “Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….

Jack, do you have an example to get us started?

“Hmmm. Okay, Wink, how about this: Claiming  The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as The Kristi Noem Institute for the Ethical Treatment of Pets?

Perfect! OK, panel, now its up to you! how stupid does UC at Berkeley think we are? Answer by finishing this sentence: 

“Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….???

Good Luck! You have 30 second to come up with the best answer! The clock starts…NOW

This Ethics Story Is Bad Enough, But The Conservative Media Ignoring It Is Worse

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The New York Times “breaking news” story from the weekend begins, “Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit: An agreement between the U.S. and Kazakhstan has given a group of American investors with ties to the President and the Commerce Secretary access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten.”

You can read it all here, at a gift link. From my reading, the story seems well sourced and fair, though it is the Times, and the Times has been doing everything in its power for over a decade to undermine Donald Trump. The Times isn’t the only one reporting the story, though: The Nation pounced on it with glee; I’ve also found the story reported by Mother Jones, The Daily Beast, MSN, India Today, various leftist substacks (Paul Krugman loves this story), Yahoo Finance, Mediaite, the Financial Times, and more obscure platforms. I expect CNN, PBS, MSNOW and the alphabet networks to be along any minute.

What I can’t find is any reporting on this apparent conflict of interest and Trump family self-dealing by the conservative media. (As of this moment it is also missing from news aggregator “memeorandum,” I assume because this partisan site is so excited about the Supreme Court upholding the $5 million jury verdict against the President regarding the E. Jean Carroll affair.)

Pages: 1 2

A Fine Example of “Legal But Unethical”: Gwar’s Trump Massacre— The Justice Department Should Know the Difference

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Gwar, an American heavy metal band, has been contacted by the Secret Service because it held a mock execution of President Trump onstage. A theatrical “science-fiction musical project” formed in 1984, the satirical band has been doing this kind of thing at its concerts for decades. Fake Trump was “killed” during the group’s performance at Warped Tour in Washington, D.C. this month. There’s a video: someone in a Donald Trump costume walks onstage and is disemboweled by the band, fake blood spurting.

The Band’s mock murders of public figures have offed such prominent figures as former President Barack Obama, former President Joe Biden, Queen Elizabeth, Elon Musk, Hillary Clinton, and Kanye West, and others. This is clearly non-partisan sick humor.

Trump’s Justice Department does itself, Republicans and conservatives no favors when it engages in dumb abuses of process and power like this. It is even more futile and less defensible than arresting James Comey for posting a numerical threat to President Trump written on the beach in sea shells. Demonstrating a sense of proportion as well as humor would be wise as well as endearing. I mean, Gwar’s manager is named Sleazy P. Martini. Reacting with fear as if a theatrical bad joke is a genuine threat makes the Administration and the President look weak, thin-skinned and foolish.

Pages: 1 2