U.S. Society

Jamie Lynn Grumet, Child Abuser

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Those were the days….

My focus in the earlier post regarding Time Magazine’s borderline kiddy porn cover, showing a young woman with one breast exposed as a three-year-old child simultaneously sucks on it and eyes the camera, was the sleazy professional ethics behind such a flagrant attempt to attract sales through titillation. It never occurred to me that the photograph was real, and that the model had dragooned her own toddler son into the public eye as the world’s most-viewed breast-feeder. It never occurred to me because it seemed obvious that doing this would be spectacularly irresponsible and wrong, indeed a form of child abuse and as well as an abuse of parental power.

Ironically, I was a sucker. Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Hillary Clinton

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Those are four words I once would have bet I would never type.

Real. Honest. Brave. Beautiful. Thanks.

The Secretary of State deserves them though, for appearing in public, before the cameras, with no make-up and just a touch of lipstick. Let Fox News and the Matt Drudge mock: Hillary didn’t “forget her make-up.” She just decided “to hell with it.” And, as the Washington Post correctly noted, she looks just fine.

I just spent an event sitting next to the wife of a friend. She must be pushing 70, and her face and hair would not provide a single clue that she was more than 45, except for this: but for the movement of her eyeballs and occasionally her lips, her expression was completely unchanging.It was creepy. Her husband, whom I hadn’t seen in about ten years, was aging normally, but now his marriage of 40-plus years looked like he had robbed the cradle, albeit the cradle of a family afflicted with genetic facial paralysis. What’s the point? Why do American women feel the need to feign youth, even to those who they can’t possibly fool? Hillary looks like a real person to me; my friend’s wife looks like she may crumble into dust when the sunlight hits her. Continue reading →

Elizabeth Warren and an Affirmative Action Flashback

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

Over at Popehat, Patrick, the more flamboyant of the libertarian performance artists who blog there, has erected a harsh condemnation of Elizabeth Warren’s attenuated Native American pose, as well as her subsequent defense of it. A sample:

“The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that, when she chose to call herself a Cherokee Indian, she failed to consider that she might one day be called on her claims. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that her decision to call herself a Cherokee Indian, at a time when she thought no one would ever call her on her claim, was more revealing of her character than all of her actions since becoming a politician in the spotlight. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she will lie about her background for professional advantage when she thinks that she can get away with it. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that it is only now dawning on her that lying about one’s race in order to gain affirmative action benefits is considered, by many, to be no different from lying about one’s college diploma, or lying about winning the Congressional Medal of Honor. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she is no more deserving of a seat in the United States Senate than she is of a seat on the Cherokee Nation’s tribal council.”

I more or less agree with Patrick on all points, and the criticism of his post from commenters has reinforced that conclusion. For the most part, their protests boil down to “but she’s a liberal/Democrat/ ally of the 99% and running against a Republican, and that’s what matters, not her character!” If it hasn’t already become obvious, the official position of Ethics Alarms is that if the public chose its elected officials on the basis of demonstrated virtues like  integrity, courage, honesty, fairness and responsibility rather than partisan affiliation, single issues and official policy positions, the nation would be far better served. Patrick’s post, however, following on the heels of my own, also sparked a flashback to a conversation I had almost 40 years ago, when I was working in the administration of Georgetown Law Center. Continue reading →

The Curse of the Honest Vice-President and the Evolving President

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

“EEEK! The President is EVOLVING!!!”

Vice-President Joe Biden sent Washington, D.C.’s pundits into a tizzy when he told  NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday that he was“absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage. It is amazing, when Biden has lapped all previous Vice Presidents in goofs, mistakes, outrageous statements and embarrassments that this statement—honest, reasonable and forthright—should be regarded as a serious blunder. What did he do wrong this time? As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it, Biden “committing the classic Washington gaffe of accidentally speaking the truth.”

And why is it a gaffe for this Vice President to tell the truth by stating his support for a position strongly favored by the majority of Democrats, and increasingly the public as a whole? Why would Biden be off message by embracing a core cause of the gay, lesbian and transgendered community, which is overwhelmingly in the Obama camp? The answer is that he has embarrassed the President by calling attention to the fact that President Obama has conspicuously avoided making such a clear and unequivocal statement on the issue, because he wants to avoid being open, honest, direct and truthful about his views on gay marriage until after the election. Continue reading →

Is Buzz Bissenger Right? Should College Football Be Banned? Is He KIDDING? Of Course It Should. And Everybody Knows It.

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Scholars all, I’m sure.

Not for the first time, sportswriter and commentator Buzz Bissinger has everybody buzzing about one of his frank opinion pieces, this one launched in the Wall Street Journal. His provocative title: “Why College Football Should Be Banned.”

Bissinger deserves credit for being willing to bite the hands that feed him: he is the author of “Friday Night Lights,” and many of Bissinger fans, at least up to now, tend to be football fans too. His article, however, is also one of those periodic slaps in the face of cultural apathy that occasionally causes a shift, as when Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a little novel that alerted a lot of people to the obvious fact that a system in which human beings were bought, sold, and bred like cattle might not be consistent with civilized morality. It doesn’t take a genius, a revolutionary or a careful analyst to conclude that big time college football is corrupt and corrupting to the core. It only takes a willingness to brush aside rationalizations and face the truth.

Here are the arguments Bissinger presents to support his thesis:

  1. Football has nothing to do with academics.
  2. It is a distraction from both the purpose of higher education and attention to the serious problems facing the university system.
  3. With college tuition reaching outrageous levels and the college loan system teetering, university expenditures on pricey football programs are unconscionable.
  4. The major beneficiaries from college football are the NFL, which uses it as its minor league system at minimal cost; pathetic alumni, who wrap their self-esteem up with the fortunes of their alma mater’s football fortunes; and obscenely-compensated football coaches.
  5. Football programs, contrary to what the public might think, often lose money and become a drag on tuition funds.
  6. Colleges like Maryland have cut other varsity sports (eight of them, in Maryland’s case) to allow it to pay for football.
  7. The representation that the athletes are students is largely a sham, with many of them failing to graduate and the majority spending minimal time on substantive course study.
  8. The athletes are exploited.
  9. The game entails serious health effects, primarily head trauma, that are only now being recognized.

I’m sure we can come up with a #10, too. Oh! I have one: Penn State. We were just given a front row seat to a frightening display of how even a “model” football program could warp the priorities and ethical values of an entire campus culture.

Of course Bissinger’s attack has college football supporters scrambling into a defense formation. What can they come up with? Not much, but it’s a fascinating study of how rationalizations rush into voids caused by the lack of substantive arguments. One college football-hyping blog’s first response was this: Continue reading →

Estate Tax Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

This was not my father. For one thing, he was shorter.

My sister and I finally settled up the estate of our parents after over a year of paper signing, meetings with accountants, and mind-numbing calculations. The estate, as my folks wanted it, was divided 35%-35%-30%, with the last portion going into a trust for the three grandchildren. The amount of money in the estate was a shock to my sister and me, and a very pleasant surprise, though for all the problems the money will solve, we would have forfeited all of it to have Mom and Dad alive today. Still, being able to give over substantial assets to their children and grandchildren was one of their lifelong goals, and they would have been satisfied and proud that they succeeded so spectacularly.

My sister, a good, reliable liberal, asked me whether I felt guilty about the inheritance. I said yes, in the sense that I wish our parents hadn’t been so resolutely frugal in their retirement, and had spent more of the money they earned and saved on more of their own pleasure and enjoyment rather than squirreling it away for us. But did I feel any pangs of conscience because the money wasn’t going to Uncle Sam’s coffers?

Absolutely not. Continue reading →

Combating “Linsanity”—The Ethics Variety.

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Look out ! It’s a trap!

In today’s Washington Post letters section, Fred Shwaeary writes:

“In the April 28 Sports article “Harper called up to majors,” Adam Kilgore wrote, “General Manager Mike Rizzo made his bones in player development, and he crafted a careful scheme for [outfielder Bryce] Harper’s ascension.” “Made his bones”? Not the old mob reference again! This is a phrase that should never be used when writing about those of Italian descent — or anyone else, for that matter.”

Thanks, Fred! Now Mike knows he ought to be grievously offended,  Kilgore knows that he was derisively suggesting that Italian Americans are all Mafia types the rest of us know Kilgore is a bigot, and the Italian-American Anti-Defamation League can demand that 1) the Post ban the term, which I have been using now and then for years and never associated it with Italians at all, from its writers’ lexicon; 2) Kilgore issue an abject apology to save his job and 3) Kilgore be symbolically suspended for a slur he neither intended nor that anybody else other than Shwaeary, and perhaps Fredo Corleone, took as an insult. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Elizabeth Warren’s Native American Ancestry

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Remember that old Cher song, “1/32 Breed”?

If Scott Brown wins re-election as a Republican Senator from Massachusetts this fall, he will go on record as one of the luckiest political candidates since, well, Barack Obama. Brown won an upset victory in the special election in 2009 (any time a Republican wins in my home state, it’s an upset) in part because his inept Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, showed herself to be unforgivably ignorant on the one topic most state residents really care about—the Boston Red Sox. Now he has the latest contender for his job, Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, on the ropes because of her own self-inflicted wound, Warren’s dubious claim of minority status as a Native American between 1986 and 1995.

Warren listed herself as part Native American in the Association of American Law Schools desk book, she says, in the hope of meeting others in her field with similar backgrounds. She did not, she insists, do so to gain any professional edge. Yet in 1992 she was hired to teach at Harvard, and when she became a permanent faculty member in 1995, Warren dropped the minority claim from her profile in the directory. Harvard, meanwhile, began counting Warren as a Native American in its diversity statistics, just as her previous employers had at the University of Texas and the University of Pennsylvania. Whatever her intent may have been, a former chair of the AALS confirms that minority listings in the organization’s directory were used in hiring decisions by members.“In the old days before the internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people. There are schools that if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority, ” George Mason University Law professor David Bernstein, a former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools, has told reporters. Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: CNN Morning Anchor Carol Costello

/ Jack Marshall / 70 Comments

“Does this make sense in the real world? No. But this is the world of politics.”

—CNN’s Carol Costello, editorializing—as usual—while ridiculing a Republican—as usual. Her target was Rep. Michele Bachmann’s recently announced endorsement of  former rival Mitt Romney, now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

The ethical values  that “make no sense” to Carol Costello might  fill the Pacific Ocean.

Does it make sense for competitors, once the competition is decided, to shake hands, reconcile, and behave professionally? Not in Costello’s world. Is it absurd, when two members of an organization have made their individual passionate pitches to supervisors  regarding the reasons why they, and not their rival, should receive a major promotion, for the losing employee to promise, and deliver, full support and cooperation to the winner of the job? To Costello, it is. Should loyalty to an organization and the goals of that organization trump the bitterness and animus of prior arguments and disputes, allowing former adversaries to work together? Costello’s answer is no. It makes no sense to her.

It makes no sense to Carol Costello because she has no comprehension of what professionalism is, why graciousness, mutual respect and compromise are critical to any organization’s ultimate success, or that mature, serious professionals do not regard competitive advocacy as personal affronts. It makes no sense to her because she is not professional, and cannot comprehend what ethical professional conduct is. Her statement that Bachmann’s willingness to support the rival she opposed while advocating her own candidacy “makes no sense in the real world” demonstrates her Costello’s inexcusable ignorance of the real world, the status of which she presumes to analyze daily for the viewing public. What makes no sense is that CNN tolerates such smug foolishness from its anchors.

I am no fan of Michele Bachmann, her values or her abilities, as any regular visitor here knows. In this matter, however, Bachmann shows that she understands professionalism, loyalty, humility, respect, cooperation and compromise infinitely better than the foolish CNN anchor who dares to mock her for it.

_________________________________________

Spark: Carol Costello. I heard her say this, gagged, and ran upstairs to my computer to write the post.

Graphics: Wikipedia

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.

Ethics Article of the Week: George Will On His Son’s Birthday

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Happy birthday, Jon.

Conservative columnist George Will has only occasionally mentioned his Down Syndrome-inflicted son Jon in his columns, but when he has, it has provided an extra dimension to Jon’s father, who usually comes across in print and on TV as cynical, dour, and archly intellectual. Today is Jon’s birthday, so Will devotes the full column to him, his challenges, and, when all is said and done, ethics.

It’s a beautifully written piece, as Will’s columns often are, and a tender one. More importantly, however, it is an essay that should provoke thought, beginning with the fact that the only reason Will wrote this column is that he and his wife chose, 40 years ago, to do what 90% of all parents informed that their gestating child has Down Syndrome refuse to do: allow the child to be born.

The column is here

__________________________________________________

Graphics: Richmond Times-Dispatch