Family

From “Non-Partisan” Pro Publica, a Lie and a Misrepresentation in a “Good Illegal Immmigrant” Story.

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

ProPublica is certainly full of itself.

“ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force,” it crows. “We dig deep into important issues, shining a light on abuses of power and betrayals of public trust — and we stick with those issues as long as it takes to hold power to account.” The reality is that whatever meaning “independent’ carries in that statement, it is deceitful. The companion word is supposed to be “objective.” Pro Publican only cares about Republican abuses of power, although it will occasionally tweak a Democrat to maintain the illusion of fairness. It is another Democratic Party ally, like CREW, Media Matters and (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), which has an Ethics Alarms dossier longer than my arm, that poses as non-partisan so its constant attacks on one side of the political spectrum are trusted by the inattentive and gullible.

Today it treats its readers to another “good illegal immigrant” story. The dishonest headline: Trump’s Latest Deportation Tactic: Targeting Immigrants With Minor Family Court Cases.

This is a lie. It suggest that legal immigrants and citizens of the U.S. may be deported based on child care violations. Here is the story behind the headline:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: Oh No, Not Legalized Prostitution Again…

/ Jack Marshall / 43 Comments

In Colorado, a bill that would decriminalize prostitution statewide is moving through the legislature. Its sponsor, member of the Party of Terrible Ideas (at least lately) Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, argues that the measure “would improve safety and health outcomes for sex workers.” More about that presently.

Senate Bill 26-097 would eliminate criminal penalties for consensual commercial sexual activity between adults, repealing existing laws against prostitution, soliciting for prostitution, keeping a place of prostitution and patronizing a prostitute. Pimping would remain illegal.

Commenter JutGory flagged the story for me and the commentariate with a post on yesterday’s Friday Open Forum, where it sparked some lively and thoughtful responses. I decided that the issue was complex and contentious enough to move the discussion here, under its own banner via an ethics quiz.

I recognize that quizzing on this topic is a departure for Ethics Alarms. Ethics quizzes are usually prompted by ethics close calls, dilemmas and conflicts where I lack my usual certitude about their ethical standing. That’s not the case with legalized prostitution. Way back in 2009, I began a post,

“A stimulating ethics alarm drill surfaced over at Freakonomics, where Stephen Dubner challenged the site’s  readers to help him compile a list of goods, services and activities that one can legally give away or perform gratis, but that  when money changes hands, the transactions become illegal. It is a provocative exercise, especially when one ponders why the addition of  money should change the nature of the act from benign to objectionable in the view of culture, society, or government. It is even more revealing to expand the list to include uses of money that may not create illegality, but which change an act from ethical to unethical.

Sometimes commerce turns the act wrongful only for the individual do the paying. Sometimes only the individual accepting the cash becomes unethical.  Money doesn’t corrupt these transactions for the same reasons in all cases. I see three distinct categories:

1.Abuses of economic power: situations where an individual or organization uses money to coerce or induce people to do something that is bad for them, those to whom they have duties, or society, such as prostitution…“

I stated thatwith prostitution, both the payer and the payee were engaging in unethical conduct. And they are.

Pages: 1 2

Dogs Are People Too, Sort Of, At Least When It Comes To Divorce, Says Pennsylvania.

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Pennsylvania looks poised to complete the passage of legislation requiring judges to consider the welfare of “companion animals”—you know, pets?— in divorce proceedings. House Bill 97, sponsored by dog-loving Rep. Anita Kulik, D-Allegheny, is heading to the statute book unless Governor Josh Shapiro has the guts to alienate a rather passionate voting bloc by vetoing it.

The bill amends the state’s Domestic Relations statute to add a special category for companion animals, recognizing them as sentient, “living beings that are generally regarded as cherished family members” and not property to be treated as such. As of now, pets in Pennsylvania divorces have the same status as furniture or appliances. Under the new law, judges would decide which member of the dissolving union should get custody of pets based on…

  • …whether the animal was acquired before or during the marriage.
  • …the pet’s basic daily needs, and who is best able to fulfill them
  • …which party was usually in charge of veterinary care and took care of the animals’ exercise and social interaction.
  • …which party is most likely to comply with compliance with state and local regulations regarding pets.
  • …who haa the greater financial ability to support the animal.

Reasonably, the legislation also presumes that a service animal should remain with the party who needs the service.

My late wife, an animal junkie who got far more upset over movies where a dog dies (as in “Turner and Hooch,” “Old Yeller,” “My Dog Skip”…actually, the dog usually dies in dog movies) than when, say, Ali MacGraw died in “Love Story,” would have loved that law. She never forgave Tom Cruise for treating his dog “like a piece of furniture” in “The Firm.”

Pages: 1 2

Jeez, Conservatives! Ever Heard of the Ethical Virtues Prudence, Proportion, Self-Restraint, Respect and Fairness?

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

How about “priorities”?

Who would have guessed that Otter would become a conservative? The Rule of Law is under organized, well-funded attack in this country, states are defying federal law and law enforcement, elected Democratic officials are telling citizens that the national government is the Gestapo and should be violently opposed, the news media is paving the way for two years of Congressional obstruction, and conservatives are organizing…against gay marriage?

A coalition of 47 conservative organizations is launching a campaign to challenge the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring same sex marriage to be a civil right. Wow, what great timing. The Democrats are intent on packing the Supreme Court already, the news media is fear-mongering daily about what the Evil Republicans have in store, and just in time for the mid-term elections, which already are looking like an open door to an impeachment orgy and a return to open borders and weenie foreign policies, conservatives decide to metaphorically die on a hill for a cause that is both futile, unpopular and unethical.

Among these deluded obsessives are Them Before Us , the American Family Association, the Colson Center for Biblical Worldview, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family,the Christian Medical and Dental Association, Live Action, the Ruth Institute, the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, and family policy nonprofits across the country, representing Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and others.

This group of bitter-enders should be joining principled conservatives in critical, winnable battles instead of focusing their time, trumpets and resources on an issue that has not only been settled but settled ethically. The right to same-sex marriage cannot be reversed without cruel and massive upheavals of lives and families, never mind giving the Left something else to riot about. Such a movement also guarantees the alienation of libertarians, who already line up with the Left regarding open borders.

The stubborn foes of the right to marry have laid out a three-prong strategy: “returning marriage policy to focus on the parent-child relationship; changing public opinion by emphasizing how same-sex marriage and other forms of family breakdown harm children; and mobilizing Christian churches to take a stand for protecting children.”

Hmmm, let’s see:

Pages: 1 2

Pssst! Prof. Attiah (“The Ethicist”)! Check Out That Golden Rule Thingy…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

A particularly clueless inquirer to “The Ethicist” advice column in the New York Times asked Prof. Appiah, a real ethicist or so we are assured, “Was it wrong to exclude one person from our family reunion?” The woman explains that her large extended family has frequent reunions, but “when plans began for our latest event, an agreement was reached to delete a particular woman from all invitations.”

Oh, the decision “was reached,” was it? Just sort of happened…

The inquirer goes on to explain that the Shunned has become estranged from many people in her life, including her daughter, and the family chose the daughter over the mother. Now the mother is distraught and threatening suicide. “Is it wrong to exclude one (or more) members who would bring pain and anguish rather than joy?,” the shunner asks “The Ethicist.”

Continue reading →

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 →

We Now Know Scientific Pronouncements Are Frequently Garbage, So We Also Should Know “The ’60s Parenting Practices We Now Know Were Terrible For Kids’ Brains” Is Mostly Crap…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Being raised in the Sixties, I was naturally curious about the article in Media Feed titled “The ’60s parenting practices we now know were terrible for kids’ brains.” What I discovered, as one usually will with social science essays with an agenda, is carefully cherry-picked research being used to support an author’s already pre-determined position. You know, “Science!”

“Science” has been so thoroughly polluted by the political left to justify its objectives and claim absolute authority for propositions that are far from determined (or determinable) that the public should be conditioned to doubt any claim that begins, as this one does, “This article explores a dozen once-standard practices and uses modern research to explain why they were tough on a child’s developing brain, emotional health, and long-term well-being.” Here is what modern research as revealed in recent years: it can’t be trusted. It can’t be trusted because researchers and scientists can’t be trusted, and interlocutors like Kaitlyn Farley, the gullible (or dishonest) author, don’t know enough about science to interpret studies with appropriate skepticism. (I just checked: Kaitlyn claims to be, among other things, an AI trainer who specializes in “content creation.” That explains a lot about the article.)

Continue reading →

Announcement: “Fuck” Has Been Officially Upgraded From Taboo Obscenity to Mainstream Colloquialism

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

This battle was lost long ago.

“Wheel of Fortune” has launched a new “What the Fun?” category because it implies “fuck.” The One Million Moms group is disgusted and outraged. “The once family-friendly ‘Wheel of Fortune’ game show is no more,” its site declared on October 30. “Unfortunately, the recently added puzzle category ‘What the Fun’ aims at a mature, modern audience with insinuated profanity making it no longer suitable for family viewing.”

“It is not the show it was with this implication of the f-word,” it continued. “Parents will have to explain to their children that the primetime program they were once allowed to watch is no longer a clean show.” The page included a link for a petition on which to pledge never to watch the show again unless the category is eliminated. More than 12,500 have signed.

Imagine a life so devoid of meaning and so full of discretionary time that one can organize a campaign to change a “Wheel of Fortune” category.

I have news for the conservative group, and by now it is old news. “Fuck” is now just acceptable naughtiness, and not the taboo obscenity it once was. Ditto “shit.” There are lots of reason why this has happened, and things like “What the Fun” are a big one.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: My Father’s Dream Prank

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

My father, Jack A. Marshall Sr. was always remarkably fatalistic about death, much to the chagrin of my mother. She was never amused when he repeated his supposed desire to be displayed sitting in a chair, eyes open, at his wake with a metal plate in the floor in front of his casket that would trigger a recording when mourners stepped on it. Then a recording would boom out in his voice saying, “Hello! I’m so glad that you came!”

Dad was half-kidding, but only half. My father hated the solemnity of funerals and found open casket wakes barbaric. Yet I have to believe he would have been secretly honored by the send-off the military gave him when he was buried at Arlington, with the horse-drawn caisson, the riderless steed and the 21-gun salute.

Today I learned that someone actually carried out my father’s threatened posthumous prank, but even in worst taste than what he proposed. The Wills, Trusts, & Estates Prof Blog reveals that Irish grandpa Shay Bradley, a Dublin native, arranged that after his death in 2019 a recording of his voice would be played at his funeral from inside his grave. Mourners heard repeated banging noises that sounded like they were coming from the interior of the coffin. “Hello? It is dark in here! Let me out! I can hear you! Is that the priest I can hear? I am in the box, can you hear that?” his voice could be heard shouting, in apparent panic.

Hilarity ensued.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is executing such a prank at a funeral ethical?

Continue reading →

Ethical Motive, Stupid Idea: The 6 pound Smart Phone

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

There are quite a few posts on Ethics Alarms about the scourge of smart phones: mothers’ eyes glued to the screen when they should be watching the kids; dog-owners ignoring their canine companions on walks, teens interacting with the web while ignoring the world around them; narcissism-feeding selfies; intrusive assholes looking for social media fame while destroying any semblance of privacy by taking photos and videos of everyone and everything, and more.

But start-up company Matter Neuroscience has a solution! Their masterstroke is to create the most inconvenient smartphone case imaginable to make using one’s phone tiring and uncomfortable. It’s stainless steel phone case weighs 6 pounds, mote than a 16-inch MacBook Pro laptop and light dumb-bell. Two separate pieces that screw together around the phone ensure that you can’t wait to put the damn thing away unless you’re a pro arm-wrestling champ in training.

The stainless steel smartphone case won’t fit in your pocket and becomes more annoying the more you check your phone. The 6-pound smartphone case is currently in the crowdfunding stage on Kickstarter, but you can pre-order one for $210, or opt for the brass version, which is heavier and costs a $500.

I cannot imagine any adult, even one acknowledging that he or she is addicted to cell phones, buying one that is inherently inconvenient to use. Maybe, maybe, giving unwieldy phones to one’s kids will have some appeal, using the “Look, it’s this, two vans with a string, or nothing” ultimatum.

I doubt it, however. The too-heavy phone gets ethics points for good intentions, but loses them and more for incompetence.

Matter Neuroscience has a $75,000 crowdfunding goal, but has raised just $17,000.