Etiquette and manners

Bad Neighbor, Uncivil Citizen and Christmas Jerk, But Sarah Childs Knows Her Rights!

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

christmasfinger

Sarah Childs decided to give her neighbors a bird that wasn’t mentioned in “The Twelve Days of Christmas.” The neighbors, for some reason, weren’t charmed, and in response to their complaints, police ordered Sarah to turn off the lights.

But U.S. District Judge James Brady granted  Childs’ request for a temporary restraining order blocking the City of Denham Springs in Louisiana from interfering with her  vulgar Christmas display on the roof of her house, giving a large, bright, middle finger to everyone within sight.  Marjorie R. Esman, the Executive Director of ACLU of Louisiana rejoiced, “This is a victory for the First Amendment and for the rule of law. We are gratified that Ms. Childs can express herself as the law permits without further risk of interference by the police.”

Yup, the First Amendment allows Sarah Childs to be an uncivil and intentionally offensive jerk, and to flip off her neighborhood with a Christmas flair. “Peace on Earth, and Up Yours! ” A better example of how conduct can be legal, Constitutionally protected, and completely, utterly, wrong would be hard to find. Apparently Childs was angry at her neighbors over an ongoing dispute, and this was her kind, polite, classy, Christmas-y way of handling the situation.

It is times like these that one really, really wishes there was a Santa Claus, so he could leave something appropriately disgusting in a deserving stocking.

_______________________

Pointer, Graphic: Volokh Conspiracy

Facts: Louisiana ACLU 1, Louisiana ACLU 2

Ethics Dunce: Matt Lauer

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments
It's lucky you're dead, Dave, because this would kill you...

It’s lucky you’re dead, Dave, because this would kill you…

Matt Lauer, as the primary host of the “Today” show, reigns where once distinguished journalists and professionals like Dave Garroway, Bryant Gumble, Tom Brokaw and Frank McGee made the show a morning oasis of news and pleasant banter. Yesterday Lauer, who has already revealed himself beyond any reasonable argument as a hack (yes, “Today” has had other hacks), showed himself to be an unmannerly creep as well. Continue reading →

UPDATE: A Cynical Ethics Tale That Wasn’t So Cynical After All

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

In the recent Ethics Alarms post The Asperger’s Child, the Company With A Heart, and the Cheapskate Parents: A Cynical Ethics Tale, I expressed both ethical and credibility doubts about the heart-warming story of a little boy who was sent the out-of stock LEGO set he had saved to buy for two years, only to discover that it was no longer manufactured and could only be purchased at premium rates via collectors or online auction. The child’s joyful reaction when he opened the box containing the set sent to him as a gift by the toymaker was captured in a family video that subsequently went viral on YouTube.

I won’t rehash my analysis here; read the post. I questioned why the family wouldn’t just contribute the necessary funds to ensure that the child’s long effort to obtain the toy didn’t come to naught, and I expressed skepticism that LEGO’s generosity wasn’t part of a pre-arranged quid pro quo in exchange for the video, especially since the father is professional videographer, and the YouTube product functioned as a promotion for LEGO.

By purest coincidence, a personal friend here in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, Jeff Westlake, is also a close personal friend of the Groccia family. He was privy to the events of the story as they unfolded, and relayed information to me about both the family and the events surrounding the YouTube video that were not evident in the media reports. Thanks to Jeff’s insight, I am now satisfied that the family’s decision to explore every avenue of obtaining the LEGO set was reasonable rather than penurious, and that there was no quid pro quo with LEGO.

I apologize for mistakenly impugning the Groccia’s motives and account in the episode. I don’t apologize for raising the ethical issues that I saw implicit in the media accounts. That’s my job, and provoking discussion and debate over the ethical or unethical conduct of public figures is why this blog exists. If a family is going to participate in making an occurrence in their lives the subject of news stories, features and blog posts, they cannot insist that all commentary be unequivocally positive. I thought the doubts I expressed were legitimate and fair; it happens that they were not borne out by the facts.

Mr. Groccia was offended, understandably, and not so understandably, decided to respond here with, first, an anonymous comment noting that my “foil hat must be too tight as it appears to be impeding your cognitive abilities.” I didn’t know who the author was, and informed him via the email; address accompanying the comment that I would post his remarks if 1) I had a real name, as the Comment Policies require,  and 2) if the screen name he used was not a commercial website, since this would lead to the comment being spammed. He responded that he “knew” I wouldn’t have the “spine” to print his comment, which is manifestly not the case. I told him that I would be happy to publish a more thorough account by him, and would retract my suspicions if I was persuaded by it. Instead. Mr. Groccia chose to send a series of alternately insulting and threatening e-mails, none of which were substantive, and all of which served to reinforce my doubts. There the matter would have laid, except for the intervention of Jeff Westlake. I’m grateful to him for setting the record straight.

 

Ethics Heroes: ABC 7 (Bangor, Maine) News Anchors Cindy Michaels And Tony Consiglio

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

[ To those who wonder why I am posting at Ethics Alarms when it’s 4:37 on Thanksgiving morning, I can only note that when you’re staying in a hotel in Baltimore and hacking your guts out with the world’s slowest moving chest cold, and your wife is asleep and your Jack Russell makes it clear it is either walk him or face the consequences—and with that breed, the consequences can mean anything from an unpleasant deposit in your suitcase or ground glass in your next meal, you’re going to be up for a while. A surprising number of prostitutes out around Fayette Street this time of night….and they were all more interested in Rugby than they were in me.]

When it comes to quitting on the job, there is the Steven Slater method, and then there is this.

Embroiled in various disputes with station management, the news team for ABC’s affiliate in Bangor, Maine (WVFX), Cindy Michaels and Tony Consiglio, decided to resign on the air, at the conclusion of the nightly news broadcast, without informing their soon-to-be ex-bosses. Normally I would frown at such a stunt as unprofessional, and I expected the pair’s performance to have a “take this job and shove it” flair. It did not. Their tone and execution was note perfect, saying good-bye and thank-you to their audience, community and staff, and barely hinting at any discord behind their departure at all, though one would have had to be a low-information voter not to surmise it. Michaels said afterward that the two had “figured if we had tendered our resignations off the air, we would not have been allowed to say goodbye to the community on the air and that was really important for us to do that.” Here was their farewell Wednesday night:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Photographer Flambé

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The YouTube video description reads:

“While photographing Murray and Emma’s wedding Ceremony at Netherwood Estate, Jacki Bruniquel’s hair caught alight after getting too close to a candle. One of Murray’s groomsmen attempted to help Jacki put the flames out.“

Now watch the video (you’ll want to skip the movie trailer at the beginning).

Does anyone seem to be the least concerned about the woman whose head is on fire? Would you react that way if a friend of yours caught fire?  Hypervocal headlined this “WHY ARE YOU LAUGHING? MY HEAD IS ON F*&KING FIRE!”

Your Ethics Quiz question:

Is it fair to conclude from the video that this is a wedding party of heartless jerks ?

I suppose not, but I have to say, I find the lack of any hint of concern on the faces of the bride and groom disturbing. Especially the bride. Then again, maybe it was her new husband’s old flame.
(Sorry.)
_______________________________________
Pointer: Hypervocal

Putting My Mouth Where My Blog Is

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

I’m on the way to New Mexico today, to speak to the news media there and to try to build some consensus—New Mexico is as good a place to start as any—that using faux indignation over manufactured political correctness offenses is no way to run a political system, community, society or culture. It is, in fact, a cynical and despicable practice  used by special interest groups and unscrupulous politicians to stifle legitimate debate, or, as in the case that inspired my trip, to unfairly tar the character and reputation of a political adversary. The victim in the New Mexico incident was attorney Pat Rogers, who saw his obviously satirical e-mail intentionally twisted by partisan foes who almost certainly knew its real meaning into being represented in the press as a gratuitous racist slur—which it was not. I wrote about this here, and a similar incident, with parties reversed in Washington state, here.

What am I going to tell the various interviews and reporters I speak with over the next few days? I will tell them that political blood sport has got to stop. That the effort to discredit political positions by seeking ways to demonize their advocates is unethical and wrong. That contrived accusations of racism (or sexism, homophobia, or any other form of bigotry) should not be aided and abetted by the media or tolerated by the public. I will also assert that political warriors on the right or left who intentionally choose to misinterpret innocent expressions of irony, satire or humor as racist attacks both diminish the charge of true bigotry when it is justified, and expose themselves as polluters of our culture and national cohesion.

I don’t know Pat Rogers well; we have only met once. But I know who he represents: those who have been harmed as collateral damage in a hyper-partisan environment encouraged by Washington, D.C. and cheered on by the vilest members of the blogosphere, to the detriment of our sense of community, decency, and trust. My efforts, whatever they are, will be modest at best, and, in all likelihood, inconsequential. But you never know.

Wish me luck.

Unethical Quote of the Month: Donald Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

“We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!…Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us…This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!…Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble…like never before…Our nation is a once great nation divided!..The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

—-Republican Designated Buffoon Donald Trump via Twitter, in the wake of last night’s election results.

Stay classy, Donald.

I can’t stand another picture of Donald Trump, so here is a great photo of a mastiff with a friend. I love mastiffs.

While most Americans instinctively understand that the great strength of our democracy is that after the votes are counted, we stand behind our collective decisions and support our chosen leaders. Not Trump. He doesn’t comprehend that vile comments like these, published to the world, are not merely irresponsible but also unpatriotic.

There is an upside to Trump’s poor impulse control, however. The possibility that a Romney administration might have found any role for Trump at all should make everybody, even die-hard partisan Republicans and end-of-civilization Rush Limbaugh conservatives feel better about last night’s vote tally.

__________________________

Pointer: Ron Sarro

Source: The Examiner

 

Mark Cuban and the Ethical Tit For Tat.

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

No thank-you.

“Tit for tat” is unethical always—almost. Few ethics rules are absolute, and this isn’t one of them Sometimes tit for tat, that is, doing something unethical to someone who has done the same unethical act to you or someone else, can be justifiable, if it causes no real harm, and does some good as well. Spreading the rumor that Harry Reid is a pederast because he falsely suggested that Mitt Romney was a tax evader doesn’t qualify.  But Mark Cuban offering to donate $1 million to charity if Donald Trump shaves what is allegedly the hair on his head?

Perfect. Continue reading →

Offense By Proxy: “Laugh At The Crippled Girl!”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The Offender and his friend,the Unoffended Offended.

Forest Thomer II  says he was conducting  “guerrilla marketing” when he went to a May 23 “Party in the Park”  hosted by the local Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. Pointing to Ally Bruener, wheelchair-bound because of Muscular Dystrophy, he quizzed various groups in the crowd, asking, “Do you want to laugh at the crippled girl?” Then Bruener, who is an aspiring comic, wheeled up, told a joke and announced the location and time of  her next performance.

Surprise! Someone was offended—so offended that the police were called. They threatened to shock Thomer with a taser and then arrested him, charging disorderly conduct by virtue of “grossly abusive language.” This could have sent Thomer to jail for a month. When Thomer’s attorney made it clear that he was going to argue censorship, the city changed the charge to “Turbulent behavior,” whatever that is. Amazingly, this ridiculous case actually went to trial, and after four days that could have been better spent making napkin holders out of popsicle sticks, a jury found Thomer “not guilty.” Continue reading →

This Is Obviously Wrong, But What IS It?

/ Jack Marshall / 78 Comments

“Me? ‘Full-figured?’ How DARE you?”

Christina Hendricks, the voluptuous actress who is one of the stars of the AMC cable drama “Mad Men,” reportedly stopped an interview on Australian TV when an interviewer referred to her as “full-figured.”

Christina earns millions of dollars with her figure, and exhibits it regularly and enthusiastically. If her figure isn’t accurately described as full, I don’t know what “full” is.What was the term she was expecting? “Spectacular?” “Eye-popping”?

“GwGahhhhmehenkRgh”?

Now that we have that definition straight, what is the proper description of her conduct toward the interviewer? Unfair? Dishonest? Unkind? Isn’t it a bait and switch? To me, it seems like a less debatable example of the conduct I criticized  by Comic Con attendee Mandy Caruso. Mandy, however, was undeniably treated crudely and impolitely, and had every reason to end the interview.

There needs to be a specific name for this sort of thing—intentionally courting a particular kind of comment or treatment, and then punishing those who take the bait. Is there one? I can’t seem to think of it, if there is.

_______________________________________________

Facts: Daily Motion

Graphic: Share Your Wallpapers