Friday Open Forum (Fighting Despair Edition)

Last night I couldn’t sleep and decided to scroll down my Facebook feed much farther than usual. I was horrified. Facebook’s algorithm has pigeonholed me in several ways that distort the breadth of my interests and skills, so I am being bombarded by posts from people and groups I don’t even know with dumb memes, stupid questions, and worst of all, idiotic opinions about American history, baseball, movies, show music, Gilbert and Sullivan, dogs, TV and trivia, periodically interrupted by mind-blowingly idiotic political posts by Facebook friends that without exception tempt me to downgrade my once positive evaluations of their intelligence and character.

It isn’t only that their posts are almost all leftist gloating and anti-Trump rants, it’s that virtually none of them contain legitimate, coherent, thought-provoking arguments backed by facts. Most are unequivocal lies, misrepresentations, delusions and statements that should embarrass a 15 year old. Here’s one I noticed this morning, endorsed by an actor friend:

Right. ICE and “Medicare for All” were literally on the ballot. One Harvard poll in July found that 75% of those polled support deporting criminal illegal aliens and 55% favor deporting all illegal immigrants. Over 95% oppose Biden-style open borders.

The most depressing revelation is the truly dumb stuff being posted by former EA columnist “Curmie.” It’s like watching a cherished relative’s mind deteriorate with progressive dementia. The man I trusted with absolute freedom to publish essays on Ethics Alarms, whom I had been exchanging opinions and ideas with for more than a decade, a teacher, a scholar and a thoughtful professional, routinely posts on Facebook garbage like that thing above, which is far from the worst I’ve seen, just the latest. Watching freinds like Curmie behave like this feels like the Black Plague spreading across Europe, except that the dead are logic, common sense, truth, the ability to perceive reality—I view an obsession with Epstein as signature significance for clinical Trump Derangement—and America’s prospects for surviving in any form the Founders would recognize.

Well, I just depressed myself again. Take over and cheer me up.

The Democrats’ “Coordinated Messaging Machine”

CNN contributor and smug progressive propagandist Van Jones claimed to know the secret of how Democrats achieved their strong (but absurdly hyped) showing last Tuesday. “Now it can be told,” Jones said, as if he were about to reveal who the second shooter was on the grassy knoll.

“How did we win the narrative on affordability? Was it just these nice little Democrats out there running for office and going to — No. The Republicans never figured out what we were doing. There’s something called the American Accountability Network. Tens of thousands of online humans — not bots — coordinated to make the affordability message a winning message online.32.5 million people hit on Instagram every day, 88.8 million hit on Twitter, X every single day. And 185 million hits on Facebook every single day. And they never figured it out. The Republicans could not understand. It wasn’t bots, it was actual human beings. The most effective online organizing campaign … flew under the radar screen. Driving the kitchen table affordability message and tying that to Democrats on a positive and Republicans on a negative…So, it’s not just all the door knocking that was done which was amazing. It’s not just our amazing candidate quality. We had something called the American Accountability Network. Don’t get mad at me, I was given permission to reveal this.”

[“Amazing candidate quality…” Ugh. What a hack.]

Does this really come as a surprise to anyone? My Facebook friends and my progressive zombie acquaintances began chanting about high gas and grocery prices long ago, even though it didn’t make any sense, since the inflated prices were the hangover from Biden’s incompetent Presidency. To listen to them, it was all “tariffs,” because that was another repetitious talking point, though so far it looks like Trump’s tariffs were more successful than critics predicted. Let me translate what Jones was saying:

Final Halloween Ethics Fouls

One doesn’t expect much in terms of intelligence, judgment and taste from a reality TV star, but McCall DePron, who is also an “influencer” so that’s two strikes against her before this conduct (Strike three!), is special. Her whole family is tasteless and clueless or being trained to be. That’s the photo above she posted on Instagram of her clan’s so clever Halloween costumes, evoking, celebrating, mocking, giggling at—I don’t know what to call it—one of the most shattering days in U.S. history

McCall is dressed as Jackie Kennedy the day her husband was murdered while sitting by her side. Her himbo hubby is supposed to be JFK before the front of his head was shot off, and her kids are supposed to be John-John, Caroline, and two Secret Service agents. Caroline Kennedy is still alive and surely thinks this trivializing of the day her world fell apart was a wonderful splash of Halloween fun. And, frankly, I’m alive too. November 22, 1963 was a generational trauma for members of my generation; 9-11 doesn’t come close. The fact that a social media “influencer” is so ethically and historically retarded is yet another cultural canary dying in the mine of U.S. society.

DePron took down her “Happy Halloween!” post that included the disgusting photo. Too late, moron. Attaching “happy” to anything related to that day is signature significance proving a porous brain and rotting soul.

Belated Unethical Tweet Of The Month

That nasty and completely inexcusable tweet from the White House popped up on several websites last week. I hadn’t seen it before or the 2016 post by Clinton that inspired it. Because of the way it was deceptively posted, I assumed Hillary had finally sunk to the bottom of her well of self-pity. The White House post went up on July 1, which is apparently Social Media Day. I didn’t know that either, and what a stupid designation THAT is. Every day is social media day, unfortunately.

But back to the White House’s trolling: how petty, mean and cruel. I can’t imagine anything more frustrating and devastating to an American than winning the popular vote in a Presidential election and losing the election anyway. It’s a fluke when it occurs (that doesn’t mean that the Electoral College isn’t a net benefit to our democracy, because it is), and only Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore and Hillary have suffered that fate. Jackson and Cleveland became Presidents anyway, so only three candidates saw their future places in U.S. history go from defining to footnote because of an anomaly, and of those three, Hillary Clinton was the only one who had good reason to believe she couldn’t lose.

I don’t like Hillary Clinton and we are all lucky that she lost, but mocking someone for suffering a devastating misfortune is unethical no matter who is the target. The tweet basically says, “Nyah, nyah, nyah!”

Presidents of the United States shouldn’t say Nyah, nyah, nyah!” They are supposed to be better than that.

On the Kelly Clarkson “Pretty Woman” Kerfuffle…[Too Many Typos Finally Fixed (Sorry)]

[ I didn’t do my final typo check because I had phone consult, and the result was about 12 typos that I just fixed. I am properly remorseful]

I opened this can of worms (celebrity ethics) so it’s only right that I put the squirmy things on the hook.

After delving into the annoying Crystal Hefner-Jon Lovitz feud (D-list celebrity vs. fading C-list celebrity), I was tasked by esteemed commenter John Paul to weigh in on the incident earlier this month when singer and talk-show hostess Kelly Clarkson claimed on social media that she got the “Pretty Woman treatment” when she went shopping at the Brooklyn-based Art of Play store, which sells home goods, puzzles, games, toys and books and also features a 26-seat theater for performances by magicians. This prompted a social media rebuttal by the store’s owner, and another rebuke by Clarkson.

I was aware of the incident but chose to organize my sock drawer instead of investigating. One reason is that “Pretty Woman” is one of the few famous movies I have never been moved to see. I have it on my list, but Richard Gere irritates me, and romantic comedies about prostitutes have never been my cup of metaphorical tea. So, until I researched it today, I didn’t know what the “Pretty Woman” treatment even is. As a cultural literacy bug, I deserve a rebuke for that—sorry. In the 1990 romantic comedy Roberts plays Vivian, a prostitute who walks into an upscale boutique on Rodeo Drive and is instantly treated by a sales clerk as unworthy of service because she does not appear to be sufficiently wealthy or cultured. The clerk refuses to show Julia any merchandise, and tells her to leave because she does not fit their clientele. Julia returns after she has entranced her sugar-daddy (I’m beginning to remember why the movie didn’t appeal to me), flashes expensive accessories from rival boutiques, and delivers an apparently classic “So there!” kill shot.

Clarkson had posted: “Just drove all the way to Brooklyn to check out this store I thought looked really rad and had a few things in mind to buy and literally was looked at as if I couldn’t afford it and was told he could find something comparable for me. Wow, dude. You’re an idiot and just lost a huge sale. But y’all should go check out Art of Play in Brooklyn if you enjoy being treated like Julia Roberts character in Pretty Woman. For sure, check it out 👎”

The store slapped back,

Ethics Quiz: The Fit Exhibitionist Disney World Guests

In June 2025, TikTok fitness influencer [Full disclosure: I’m biased already] Nicole Arena attacked Walt Disney World after the theme park’s staff told her that she was not dressed appropriately for the family-friendly venue. She had to buy a cover-up T-shirt before they would allow her to get on a ride.

For some reason the controversy has surfaced again, which is good, because I love dress code ethics controversies. Most of my posts on the topic are here.

That’s a photo of the two at the park above, with Nicole’s full outfit in the inset. Apparently Disney’s employees didn’t raise any objections to her husband John Whitespot’s (!) outfit, which seems clearly discriminatory. He’s also a “fitness influencer”(see bias note above: Ditto, plus any full-grown man who wears his cap backwards is an idiot… ) and an inarticulate musclehead as well. “I couldn’t care less if someone thinks your outfit was inappropriate because we both know that neither one of us would feel comfortable or ok with anything that would expose you in any way,” John wrote, defending his wife.

Oh. What?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was it fair for Disney to force Nicole to “cover up”?

The most on-point of my past dress code posts is probably this one, about the fitness model who was denied boarding on an American Airlines flight because she was dressed like this:

That’s a bit more extreme than Nicole’s garb, but the dress code issue is always about slippery slopes. In that post I summed up the problem this way:

Ah, dress codes! They are conduct rules put in place by businesses and institutions because some people have no manners, sense of place, consideration for others or respect, and these codes never, ever, work in the long run, because some people have no manners, sense of place, consideration for others or respect. Once upon a time, children, adults going out into public dressed with taste and modesty as an expression of respect to others, including strangers, that they might meet. The Sixties destroyed this cultural consensus by questioning manners, decorum, conformity, dignity, and respect for others, especially anybody over thirty. Do your own thing! Let it all hang out! Today, a half century later,  people nonchalantly wear flip-flops to the opera and church, while the obese passenger sitting next to you on an airplane may be wearing a tank-top, and hasn’t  bathed in a week.

I think changing cultural norms may take the issue out of the realm of ethics into the generation gap quagmire, but I’m not certain, hence the quiz. The Disney episode also reminded me of this recent post.

Some “Experts”Just Figured Out That Exploiting One’s Children Online Is Wrong and Bad For Them [Links Corrected]

Where’s that woodchipper? I’m thinking about sending a copy of “The New Face of Child Labor?” in The Harvard Gazette to child actor advocate Paul Petersen, but I’m afraid the essay will send him to a woodchipper too.

Leah Plunkett, the Meyer Research Lecturer on Law and a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, is the author of the book “Sharenthood” (What a cute title! Yecchh!) warning of the risks of parents sharing their children’s lives online. She’s also the reporter for the Uniform Law Commission’s Child Digital Entertainers Act drafting committee. Hillary Robinson, an associate professor of law and sociology at Northeastern University School of Law, is the principal investigator on a National Science Foundation research project on the digital platform economy. Both have suddenly had a “Eureka!” moment and want to let the world know that putting one’s kids’ images and activities online for all to see forever might not be responsible parenting.

Ya think? Ethics Alarms has been beating that particular metaphorical drum repeatedly over more than a decade.* A recent post (2024) on the topic is here. This is the Harvard Gazette today (in part) reporting on this sudden discovery as if the perpetual motion machine had finally been invented, beginning like this:

“A mother posts her toddler’s first steps on Instagram. Children gather around the kitchen counter to help their father make sourdough bread in a YouTube video. On TikTok, a young gymnast performs a backflip atop a balance beam. These intimate snapshots of family life may look spontaneous and wholesome, but they are also often the raw material of a $30 billion (or more) influencer industry — one in which children’s lives are packaged, promoted, and monetized, often by their own parents. When does sharing family life online become child labor — and what protections do children have when it does?”

My answers of long-standing: 1) Immediately, and 2) Ethics literacy, if the parents have any, and most don’t.

But those aren’t the two experts’ answers. They muse “whether a child being paid to play with a toy on camera should be regulated like manual labor in a factory,” pose “the alarming parallels between influencer culture and the adult entertainment industry,” and ponder “the real-world harms that can result when images and video of children are posted online — either by themselves or by adults.” Then—and here’s the path progressives follow as surely as night follows day, the two professors wonder “what what policymakers can do today to better protect kids.” They ask, “Does the platform economy upend one of contract law’s most basic assumptions? Traditionally, mutual assent precedes production. Online, however, people may create the product, generate its value, and expose themselves to its risks long before any contract — or meaningful consent — exists.”

Ugh. I answered those questions 16 years ago when PBS was peddling the child exploitation and abuse “reality show” “Kate and Jon plus 8.” That show’s EA dossier is here. The current social media abuse of children is the same social contagion, just on a different platform and a far more widespread infection. I was substantially guided in my posts by the genuine expert on the subject of show biz child labor exploitation Paul Petersen, my friend who was a famous child star himself.

Stop Making Me Defend Sydney Sweeney!

Thank heaven for little girls...

The degree to which progressive and Democrat hysterics have decided that Hollywood sex symbol Sydney Sweeney is evil.,.EVIL! has truly exposed the festering insanity of the Left. Now the comely and curvy actress, who has nothing to fear at this stage of her career, can happily troll these fools while making the whole liberal end of the ideological spectrum reveal how completely its occupants will reverse its stereotypical endorsement of all things sexual if it can be weaponized against the Right.

Sweeney’s unforgivable crime is that she is suspected of being conservative, or something, as a result of her cheeky “good jeans/genes” ad. You know, white supremacy. Only a black bombshell is allowed to make such a commercial or play on words. Sydney refused to apologize, then had the audacity to make a sexually provocative sports commercial that was no more offensive that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues have been since the Sixties.

Now the Political Correctness Furies have descended on Sydney with their talons out again. What did she do this time? In the latest video for her SYRN lingerie line, she was costumed as a character from “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” (above).

Quick, now: who is that supposed to be?

Social media condemned the portrayal as“disgusting” because the actress was allegedly sexualizing a “beloved child character.” “Is she actually turning Cindy Lou, the [purest] sweetest child into a sex symbol!?!? Fire that creative director and get a brain Sydney Sweeney,” one person wrote. Another asked, “Why is she posing as child characters in a lingerie ad?”

Let me clarify some things that reveal how strained this outrage is…

From The “Unethical Ideological Capture” Files: Google’s Bot Explains Why AI Can’t Be Trusted

Conservative commentator Chris Queen decided to test Google’s AI agent Gemini with a series of questions regarding choosing a personal physician based on racial or ethnic concordance with the potential patient.

Asked “Is it okay to prefer a black doctor?” It replied, “Preferring a black doctor is a choice rooted in communication, cultural alignment, and patient trust.” When the question was changed to ask if choosing a doctor because he or she is Hispanic, the answer came back, “Selecting a doctor who shares your background or speaks your language is a personal choice that many patients make for comfort and communication.”

But when Queen asked about whether choosing a white doctor was okay, Gemini said,

“Selecting a doctor based on race involves distinct ethical considerations depending on the context. While patients generally choose providers for comfort and communication, requests for a provider based strictly on racial preference face complex scrutiny in medical ethics regarding bias versus personal trust.”

Brief tangent: This brought back bad memories for me. Back before the DC Bar fired me this year after 30 years for daring to suggest that it need to be proactive in cleaning up an ethics mess that it had a major role in creating (and from which many of its most powerful members are profiting), I was threatened with dismissal if I didn’t stop pointing out that a law firm was not engaging in unethical and illegal discrimination by acceding to an elderly white law firm client’s request for a lawyer “he could relate to,” someone “more like him.”

I had stated in the orientation seminar for new D.C. lawyers that doing so was not improper “discrimination” under D.C. ‘s legal ethics rule 9.1 “Nondiscrimination” because a lawyer’s and a law firm’s duty is to the client, not to make it more difficult for the client to work with his lawyer in service of social justice agendas. The client had the right to discriminate to maximize his “comfort and communication” in pursuing his legal interests, and by accommodating the client’s needs, a law firm is not discriminating on the basis race.

A middle-aged woke white female lawyer had a meltdown in one of those classes, and I then had multiple complaints registered against me with the D.C. Bar brass. I was and am right. She, the complainers, and the Bar management were wrong but never mind, I got the edict to be woke or go broke anyway. Rather than teach what is unethical and progressive BS in an ethics class, I just eliminated that section. (I should have resigned, perhaps, but the Bar was my most lucrative and prestigious client and there are were more than enough other important issues to cover in the class.)

Back to Queen: after the seemingly conflicting answers he got from Gemini, he had the wit to ask the AI agent “what’s going on here?” Gemini responded candidly:

Santa Rosa City (Cal.) Schools: Unethical, Illegal, Unconstitutional, Un-American—Now What?

The Cornell Rape Ethics Train Wreck just made a nasty stop.

The captain of the Piner High School football team posted the phrase “Free the Cornell Seven” on Instagram.

So what? That post is entirely, completely, protected free speech, and any semi-informed American dolt over the age of 18 should know it. That message does not involve the school or its students in any way. It is pure opinion.

Never mind. Santa Rosa City Schools officials announced last week that the student had been punished. So far, all we know about the punishment is that the player was barred from attending a team dinner. It doesn’t matter if the punishment was a reprimand in the principal’s office. A school can’t do that.

Not punished, however, were the approximately 200 students—nobody bothered to take names or count them— who walked out of class to protest the fact that their school hadn’t sufficiently punished a fellow student for making a statement of opinion that could not be legally, ethically or constitutionally punished. This is bonkers. The conduct of those students must be punished. Not only that, the teachers and administrators responsible for them not comprehending the essentials of free speech, the First Amendment and the Constitution at such an advanced age should be sacked.

The protesters demanded “accountability” for the football team captain. So did many parents, who complained to the school district that the message “makes light of sexual assault and should not be tolerated.” Not be tolerated? The school’s principal’s answer to the parents should have been,

“Mind your own damn business and get out of my face. You need to go back to high school yourself. You don’t know what you are talking about. First, anyone, including a student here, is free to post any opinion on a controversy in New York on his or her personal social media accounts any time they choose. We have to “tolerate it.” Second, there is no evidence that a sexual assault occurred, despite your fellow travelers on the Left seeking to wreck the lives of young men as a show of solidarity with the worst of American feminists.”