Etiquette and manners

Incident At Harris-Teeter’s

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Last night I found myself bereft of several food items, basics like bread, spaghetti sauce, milk, hot dog relish and grape soda, so I took a jaunt over to the local grocery store to re-stock. The place was almost literally deserted; I thought of Dick Van Dyke, on his show’s famous flying saucer episode (“Unny Uffs!”) working late in an empty office and saying to himself in his best Boris Karloff impression that he felt like “the only living thell in a dead body.”

But one human being was in evidence…a short, slight little middle aged man with slicked down hair who is apparently on the job all day and night, all week long. I see him every time I visit that branch. He is always bustling about, restocking shelves, giving directions to customers, and generally hurrying up and down aisles like the White Rabbit in Disney’s animated “Alice in Wonderland.”

I had thought before, in past visits, that he was as hard working and professional an individual as I had ever encountered anywhere in any occupation, always cheerful, always cheerily greeting me and anyone else he came across. My only discourse with him before last night was to answer his “How are you today. sir?” greetings and to answer, “No, I’m okay, thanks!” when he asked. “Can I help you find anything?’

Last night, however, when we passed in an aisle and briefly ended up face to face, I noticed that he had a blackened, swollen eye and a large bandage over his cheek beneath it. So I inquired, “What happened to your face?” His expression immediately brightened, his demeanor relaxed, and he began telling me that he had that week an operation on a basil carcinoma. Animatedly, the man, whose name I did not know and still don’t know, told me about his history with skin cancers, the experiences of his three sisters, the size of the small growth removed, and more: where he grew up, how much time he has spent in the sun as a child, and his favorite sports and activities growing up. I stood there for 20 minutes listening to him. It seemed that he was so grateful to receive a caring response from one of the hundreds of Harris Teeter’s shoppers he must encounter every day, most of whom treat him as if he were a mannequin at Target, as I always had.

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations On the President’s Latest Unpresidential Conduct

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

President Donald Trump was caught on camera “flipping the bird” and shouting “Fuck you!” to a heckler who called him a “pedophile protector,” presumably referring to the contrived Epstein files obsession being used in desperation by Democrats. Of course the White House flacks are defending this latest indefensible outburst by the Vulgarian in Chief, but there is no defense. (The stated defense is just Rationalization #2A, Sicilian Ethics, or “He had it coming!”)

Further observations:

Continue reading →

What’s This? A TV Show Satirizes Woke Obsessions?

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

And rather nastily, too.

I’ve been watching the Taylor Sheridan’s Paramount+ series “Landman” starring Billy Bob Thornton as a cynical oil drilling executive with the most non-feminist wife in TV history and a bimbo daughter. In the episode that just dropped, the daughter finds herself paired at TCU with a roommate from Hell: a militant, non-binary extremist who demands a “safe space” in “their” dorm room without music, light, fragrances…life, basically. Ainsley, the bimbo daughter who doesn’t know what her roommate’s pet ferret is (“What’s a ‘weasel’?”) despite an IQ around 80 (That’s a guess, and it might be generous) and a vocabulary to match, is shown winning a brief argument over the validity of gratuitous pronouns, with the grim roommate saying, not in jest, that without instruction she wouldn’t know what Ainsley “identifies” as.

I found the portrayal of the non-binary character unfairly negative, playing into the worst stereotypes imaginable. I know several non-binary individuals and trans men and women, and none of them is anything like the monster this character is. How is that character any different from a fairness perspective than a Steppin Fetchit character denigrating blacks as lazy, shuffling dolts, or the many ridiculous gay characters who lisp, flop their hands from limp wrists in Mel Brooks movies?

Of course, Ainsley Norris, Billy Bob’s bimbo slut daughter, is an absurd stereotype too, but at least she’s nice, sweet, and benign. What surprised me about the episode is that the writer and producer were willing to oppose their super-woke community’s knee-jerk, absolute support of the LGBTQ community, including its excesses, particularly as a trans rights controversy hits the Supreme Court.

The ethics question is whether such an extreme slap in the metaphorical face of the non-binery/trans social trend is a welcome ethical course correction for a biased popular culture, or unethical punching down at a troubled group that already has a lot to cope with, including body dysphoria, indoctrination by the Left in crippling beliefs, hostile, even violent bigots, and arguably, mental illness.

What’s going on here?

It’s Time To Play That Exciting Game Show, “Worth Confronting or Too Trivial To Bitch About?”!

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Hello everybody! I’m your ethics game show host Wink Smarmy, and welcome to “Worth Confronting or Too Trivial To Bitch About?”,” the popular ethics game show where our contestants try to decide whether clearly unethical conduct is worth only a shrug and a giggle, or is serious enough to try to stop.

Here’s our special guest, Touchy McCrankface, with the problem he encountered recently…

“Hello, panel. My name is is Touchy McCrankface. For some reason I am still a Facebook user despite that platform banning my favorite blog Ethics Alarms for almost two years because one of their censors decided that it was racist to even discuss the topic of blackface’s appearance in some classic movies. When a Facebook friend  I actually care about has allowed his or her birthday to be announced on Facebook, I will sometimes, as I am prompted, wish that friend a “Happy Birthday.”

“I do not use the stupid and juvenile pre-programmed emojis Facebook tries to stick on my message, the little cakes, candles and party hats. Recently I sent just such a birthday message to an old friend. Let’s call him “Mike.”

After I sent my “Happy Birthday”,  Facebook sent me the equivalent of a receipt. I have no idea why. Maybe it has always done this, but I’ve never noticed one before, or if I have, I never bothered to read one. The message to me read,

“You wished Michael XXXXX a happy birthday on their profile.”

This, frankly, ticked me off. First of all, I knew that. But most of all, I don’t use the pronouns “they” and “their” for single individuals, as in “non-conjoined twins.” If you seem to be male to me, I will use the pronouns “You/he/him. If you seem to be female, I will use “You/she/her.” If I can’t tell, I won’t use any pronoun, constructing a sentence so that “misgendering” isn’t necessary, since men and boys don’t typically like being mistaken for women and girls, and vice-versa. If someone informs me that “he” wants to be refereed to as “she,” that’s fine: I aim to please. Similarly with 250 pound bearded bald guys who want to be called “she.” I’ll call you a pangolin or an Archaeopteryx if that’s what you want, as long as you don’t try to make me eat insects or worms with you. (Archaeopteryx is described as an “early bird,” and as we all know, the early bird catches the worm.)

But I will NOT agree to utter a grammatical monstrosity by using a plural pronoun in reference to one individual. And if you tell me you haven’t decided on your gender, or that it switches back and forth without warning, I will respond, most politely, “Please let me know when you make up your mind or get psychiatric help. Until then, you’ll be “him” or “her” to me.

But back to Facebook….My friend Mike has been married trice, has two grown kids and is as male and heterosexual, as well as unambiguously so, as anyone I have ever met. Who or what is Facebook to impose a plural pronoun on him, or to suggest that it is appropriate to do so in either his case or anyone’s case? 

I view this as subtle cultural indoctrination regarding a societal practice that is at best a stupid fad and at worst ‘grooming’.” 

Thanks, Touchy! Before I throw the challenge over to you, contestants, let me ask our resident ethicist, Jack Marshall, about Touchy’s dilemma. Jack, is this worth bitching about?

Continue reading →

Stop Making Me Sort Of Defend Trump’s Social Media Posts…[Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Ugh. Yecchh. Blechh!

When I read that “People” headline, I genuinely thought that President Trump had deliberately decided to attack the Kennedy family in the aftermath of the tragic death of Caroline Kennedy’s daughter, Tatiana Schlossberg. That would have been insane, of course, but after Trump’s Rob Reiner outburst, I was ready to believe the worst. Clearly, “People” wanted readers to believe the worst, to give Trump-Haters more fuel to inflame them and Trump supporters reason to switch sides.

[Notice of correction: Because of the “People” headline, I didn’t realize that Trump personally had made no derogatory comments about the Kennedy family, and just reposted the comments of others. I apologize for that error, and have revised the post accordingly.]

It is crystal clear, even from the Truth Social posts quoted in the article, that the President’s re-posting of anti-Kennedy social media invective had nothing to do with Tatiana Schlossberg whatsoever. Yesterday the news was full of talk about artists and audiences boycotting the Kennedy Center because it now had Trump’s name on it, and Trump, predictably, was striking back, using the social media posts of others to do so.

Continue reading →

The Kennedy Center Boycotts

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

My Facebook friends are almost unanimously calling for audiences to boycott Kennedy Center performances because they hate Donald Trump so much, and view his name being added to the Kennedy Center facade a just cause to…What? Destroy the arts in order to save them?

The boycott, which is taking hold because D.C.’s arts patrons are overwhelmingly wealthy, woke Democrats, is certain to have negative effect on audiences and artists. The National Symphony Orchestra, to name one boycott target, is hanging by a thread financially already. It has no other venue open to it. But the boycotters literally don’t care. Their aim is to grandstand, signal their virtue, and declare their intractable opposition to the elected President of the United States.

Artists are also engaging in this destructive and illogical protest. The Cookers, an “all-star jazz septet that will ignite the Terrace Theater stage with fire and soul” and a New York dance company canceled scheduled appearances at the Kennedy Center on New Years Eve, so as with the annual Christmas Eve jazz concert hosted by Chuck Redd that also canceled at the last minute, audiences looking forward to the event are being punished as proxies for the hated POTUS. How these protests have any impact on President Trump has yet to be explained.

The Cookers, in a statement, said, “Jazz was born from struggle and from a relentless insistence on freedom: freedom of thought, of expression, and of the full human voice.” Oh. Doug Varone and Dancers, a New York dance company, announced that it was canceling two performances in April. Varone, the head of the company, said it would lose $40,000 by pulling out, but that “It is financially devastating but morally exhilarating.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations On The Dionne Quintuplets’ Resentment

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

The last of the famous Dionne Quintuplets died last week. Annette Dionne, who seems to have been the strongest of the five identical sisters from the very beginning, was 91. The New York Times has an obituary that is also an excellent feature on their unusual lives (Gift link!)—this is the kind of thing the Times still does well. There isn’t a single slap at President Trump anywhere, at least that I noticed.

The article begins by noting that Annette, like all of her sisters, “resented being exploited as part of a global sensation.” I get it: the five girls were celebrities from the second they were born, and their fame was such that they never really escaped it: thus the last surviving quint being deemed worthy of a Times obituary more than 60 years after her birth. But resenting something that any objective analysis would find unavoidable is not just pointless, it’s unfair. In this case, the resentment was unfair to the quints’ parents and the public.

In 1934, the birth of surviving quintuplets in Ontario, Canada was considered, justifiably, a medical miracle. All five of them together weighed only 13 pounds, 6 ounces. Yes, in a way they were freaks and treated as such, extraordinarily cute little freaks. Medical miracles give people hope; they suggest that the world is getting smarter, safer, more beneficent. This miracle happened in the pit of the Great Depression, when celebrities like Babe Ruth and Shirley Temple became icons because they made Americans forget their troubles.

To the girls’ parents, Oliva and Elzire Dionne, the arrival of five babies to a family living in poverty was a looming catastrophe. The parents and five children already lived in a run-down farmhouse lit by kerosene and serviced by an outhouse. The new babies were nursed on water and corn syrup until the family started receiving breast milk donations. The fact that the public was so interested in the quintuplets was a blessing that saved the family from disaster.

They were indeed exploited. The parents for a time surrendered custody of the girls and they were cared for by a government-appointed guardian, the doctor who had delivered them. The were housed and cared for by the doctor and a staff at “Quintland,” where they were displayed several times a day on a balcony as 6,000 spectators watched them through one-way glass.

Continue reading →

The Rest of the Story: Remember That UCLA Prof. Punished For Not Agreeing To Give Special Consideration to Black Students? [Repaired]

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Continue reading →

Here is what I wrote in part about this upsetting tale when it occurred four years ago…

“UCLA accounting professor Gordon Klein was investigated, suspended and publicly rebuked after he refused to exempt black students from his final exam by sending a tart response to an email requesting special leniency for black students in the wake of the George Floyd episode. Following Floyd’s demise, Klein received a student email, reading,

“The unjust murders of Amhaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, the life-threatening actions of Amy Cooper, and the violent conduct of the UCPD in our own neighborhood have led to fear and anxiety which is further compounded by the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on the Black community. As we approach finals week, we recognize that these conditions will place Black students at an unfair academic disadvantage due to traumatic circumstances out of their control. We implore you to mandate that our final exam is structured as no harm, where they will only benefit students’ grades if taken. In addition, we urgently request shortened exams and extended deadlines for final assignments and projects. This is not a joint effort to get finals canceled for non-Black students, but rather an ask that you exercise compassion and leniency with Black students in our major.”

 

[Added: The student also asked Klein to give high grades to black students, because… they were black. DEI, you know.]

Continue reading →

Stay Classy, DC Police Chief Smith! [Corrected and Revised]

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I’ve got four posts up today, and I’m tired, but I can’t resist this one…

Outgoing D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith decided to show what she was made of as she spoke as the honoree in a good-bye ceremony yesterday. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform had accused her of manipulating data to make it seem that crime has decreased in the District of Columbia when it had not. She could have stuck around, of course, until the final numbers were in, but instead she decided that she would leave her post “to be with her family.” That’s always a good dodge when you’re being investigated. In her farewell speech, she played the God card (she’s also a reverend at a Baptist church in D.C.), then the “haters” card, and finally the “it’s not my fault” card. Wait: are the statistics correct, or are they wrong? Smith’s argument somehow came out, “The statistics were accurate, but if they’re not, somebody else rigged them!”

That’s accountability, D.C. Government style!

“How dare you? How dare you attack my integrity? Attack my character? You don’t know who I belong to!” she said. Wait, what does THAT mean?

Continue reading →

The “Other Woman” Scorned Asks The Ethicist: “Is It Ethical To Wreck the Bastard’s Marriage?”

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

I’m surprised she didn’t ask if she could cook his little girl’s bunny too, like Glenn Close did in “Fatal Attraction.”

It amazed me that someone like this reads a NYT column called “The Ethicist.” She’s sounds like she’s never heard of the concept. She writes,

Last summer, I was dating a man in our weekender community outside New York City who seemed like a wonderful guy. A month after we became intimate, he told me that he was married but that he had been separated from his wife for a year. He explained that the reason he has not gotten a divorce is that she has cancer and is on his health insurance. He said she had just had surgery and was recovering. Naturally I felt compassion and said I wouldn’t push him. Eventually, I ended the relationship, because I started feeling I wasn’t getting the full story. When I mentioned our relationship to a friend who also knows him, I learned that my instincts were correct. Apparently, he is very much still with his wife, and she is healthy. I am so shocked by this. Should I contact his wife and let her know this is what he is doing and saying? Given that they are both journalists, I would think veracity would be a priority.

Translation: “I hate this lying bastard and want to hurt him, and his wife too. That’s OK, right?”

Uh. no. I haven’t even read The Ethicist’s answer, but Prof. Appiah, for all his faults and weaknesses, surely can get this one right. Let’s see…

Yup. In a mealy-mouthed way, but he agrees.