U.S. Society

Assorted Ethics-Related 2024 Election Notes…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I’m cramming for a legal ethics presentation for a federal agency that must remain nameless, so posts are going to be delayed a bit. I have time, almost, to post a few quick items, as well as this one that has nothing to do with the election: We’re finally having a memorial event in Arlington, Virginia for Grace, my wife of 43 years, best friend, business partner and mots reliable ally, on October 12. A good freind is organizing it for me; I’m going to have a tough time even attending. Commenting on the laborious process of letting friends, clients and distant relatives know about it, my friend said, “You can pretend to care, but you can’t pretend to come.”

Meanwhile:

Continue reading →

Once Again, Trump Is Being Skewered For Telling the Truth

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Donald Trump handed the Trump-Hating Axis another stick to beat him with when he commented on recent polls showing American Jews supporting the Democrats by a 60%-40% margin. “I’ve said long and loud anybody who’s Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat,” Trump said. “If you want Israel to survive you need Donald J. Trump as the 47th president of the United States, it’s very simple.”

For this typically blunt observationTrump is being called, of all things, “anti-Semitic.” No, the correct word is “undiplomatic.” Another word is “correct.”

Continue reading →

You Laugh, But This Tells Us a Lot About China

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

When I saw the story above last night, what I foolishly call my mind raced to two other related matters. One was the failed pseudo-sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda,” “Fierce Creatures,” in which the entire cast of the earlier, far superior comedy reunited to perform a John Cleese screenplay about a corrupt zoo-owner who, among other schemes, tries to pass off a mechanical panda as the real thing. The other was this story….

…from 2011.

Continue reading →

“The Sopranos” Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

HBO has been running a documentary about “The Sopranos”‘creator David Chase. I rewatched his series recently: I wouldn’t call it an ethics drama, for the ethical issues are pretty clear in every episode with the possible exception of the psychiatry ethics conflicts involved in treating a gangster. That, however, is very much a tangential plot line. The series, all seven seasons, is exactly as excellent as its reputation, and Chase, as the creator and show-runner, deserves all the accolades he has received. I just wish he hadn’t stooped to the cheap and typical woke-speak that “The Sopranos” is about America, capitalism, and its decaying “dream.” Ah well. He lives in Hollywood, so I shouldn’t expect anything different.

But I digress…

As Chase talks about the series, however, a stunning fact reveals itself: he doesn’t understand his own creation, particularly from an ethical and psychological perspective. Chase keeps describing his central character, Tony Soprano, as a “bad guy,” “a monster,” and “a sociopath.” Yet the entire premise of the show is that Tony isn’t a sociopath, but a man trapped by his family background, culture and socialization into a lifestyle that only a sociopath can flourish in, and Tony has a conscience. This is why he keeps having panic attacks and is clinically depressed, and why seeks the help of a therapist. It is why he gets emotionally upset about the mistreatment of dogs and horses, and in many cases, the people he is responsible for killing.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunces: Rob McElhenney, Kaitlin Olson and the Hacks Who Wrote Their Material For The Emmys

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I usually ignore the Emmys unless something especially egregious happens on this perpetually unexciting and predictable awards show. Even the current topic, the rude and unfunny jibes of two C-list show-biz types at the expense of Meryl Streep during the latest installment, isn’t a big deal, just a provocative one prompting several ethics musings on the state of American culture and society.

Presenting the award for outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series ( Streep was a nominee) Rob McElhenney and wife Kaitlin Olson engaged in this scripted banter:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Sympathy For Really Stupid Accident Victims”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Sarah B.’s COTD on the ethics quiz regarding the ethical amount of sympathy due a 15-year-old girl who probably crippled herself for life by trying “car surfing” is , as her commentary usually is, clear and in need of no introduction from me. So here it is….

***

I don’t necessarily like blaming this on social media. I think that is putting the blame in the wrong place.

When I was in high school, a kid I had been in school with since first grade made a dumb choice. He killed two women by driving recklessly. At sixteen, he was tried as an adult and went to prison for two counts of vehicular manslaughter. I’m calling him Sam.

While no one can truly understand another’s reasoning, for those of us who knew him his whole life, the reasons for doing what he did were fairly obvious. Sam was one of two fatherless boys raised by their mom and grandma. The grandma, especially, did an okay job trying to raise him, putting him in the Catholic school, and holding to the old time values of respecting your teacher, ladies, etc. However, he never really managed to fit in with the other boys. In order to gain attention and acceptance, he willingly enacted whatever crazy idea the other boys conceived. Maybe it was bullying a girl. Maybe it was doing some silly prank. I was the target of a serious prank that was traced back to him when I was in fifth grade. He was in deep trouble and only avoided expulsion because Sister knew that this would never have come only from him. So when there was a rumor running around that if you drove down X road at Y mph, you could jump the main highway 3 miles east of town, it was logical that Sam would be pushed into trying it out. And try it out he did, with some of his fellows in the car. During third period, he T-boned two old ladies at the junction of X road and the highway at over 100 miles an hour.

Continue reading →

When You Are Running For President, I Suspend the Julie Principal…

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

Kamala Harris’s tendency to answer questions with circular, redundant nonsense, known around Ethics Alarms as “Authentic Frontier Gibberish” in honor of “Blazing Saddles'” Gabby Johnson, was mostly left alone during the last four years due to the application of the “Julie Principle.” The Julie Principle comes into play when an undesirable or annoying  characteristic or behavior pattern in a person or organization appears to be hard-wired and part of their essence.  In judging such a person or entity, it is useful to keep the lyrics of Julie’s song from “Show Boat” (“Can’t Help Lovin’ That Man O’ Mine,” lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein Jr., music by Jerome Kern) firmly in mind, when she sings…Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…I’ve gotta love that man til I die…Can’t help lovin’ that man of mine! To constantly harp on something the individual can’t change ultimately becomes pointless and cruel, and hence unethical.

When one is a major party’s nominee for President, however, Julie Principle privileges must be suspended. When one is a nominee for President who was spared the vetting, competitive nomination process, debates and primaries every other major party nominee has been required to conquer for almost 200 years, Julie Principle privileges really have to be suspended. And when your strategy is to try to avoid as many unscripted, competent and unbiased interviews as possible before election day so voters will know as little as possible about you, Julie Principle privileges really, really, really have to be suspended.

Thus we must ponder how Harris responded to a question at a National Association of Black Journalists panel discussion yesterday, before an audience strongly inclined to support her. Moderator Tanya Mosley of Philadelphia radio station WHYY asked the elevated Veep where she draws “the line between” Israel’s “aggression and defense” in the Israel-Hamas war.

Harris began by saying there was “a lot to unpack” in the question (Translation: “Huminahumina…”) then said that the Jewish state “has a right to defend itself.” Since Mosley was obviously asking how Harris squares that mantra with her demand that there be an “immediate and permanent cease fire,” she pressed Harris for a real answer. And the real answer was…

“No, no, let me finish! It’s important to put it in context, which is what I’m doing, and I’ll get to that. There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. That there be an ability to have security in the region, for all concerned, in a way that we create stability, and—let us all also recognize—in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability in the region.”

Oh.

This is called “faking it,” and not very well at that.

Musings on the “Unethical Quote of the Month” by MSNBC Columnist Steve Brenen

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

“[T]he Trump campaign seriously expects people to believe that Democrats are the “party of violence,” which is among the most ridiculous claims Team Trump has ever made.”

—-MSNBC columnist and producer/constributor to “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Steve Brenen.

I’m not going to dignify that “It isn’t what it is” piece of flagrant hyper- partisan gaslighting with a rebuttal or a debunking. If it isn’t obvious why that statement is deranged, there’s not much an ethics blog can do for you. (You might need a brain transplant.)

The statement, which just came to my attention, knocked a related post out of line by its sheer defiance of reality and the writer’s evident confidence that his addled readers would accept it. Wow. I would hope that you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who could both read and would be that incapable of critical thought. The real number is in the millions.

I was going to write about bitter, old, foiled but still raging ethics villain Hillary Clinton, who told fellow ethics villain Maddow yesterday that Donald Trump was a “danger to our country and the world” less than 24 hours after the second attempt on Trump’s life this year. Heck, it’s just self-defense to try to kill someone or something —you know, like Godzilla—that’s a danger to the country and the world. Everybody knows that!

“Americans need to understand that they have to take Trump both seriously and literally,” she told the ever-smirking Maddow. “He has said what he wants to do. He and his allies with Project 2025, his desire to be a dictator, at least on day one, all of that is in the public record. And I believe that more Americans have to be, you know, willing to endure what frankly is discomforting and to some extent kind of painful, to take him at his word and to be outraged by what he represents. We can’t go back and give this very dangerous man another chance to do harm to our country and the world,” she added.

I have considerable sympathy for Hillary, as I’ve written here before. I can’t imagine what it must be like to lose the Presidency after winning the popular vote, and to become a historical footnote like Samual Tilden because of one’s own stupid choices (like her super-secret server and the decision to stonewall about it rather than just to say, “Yeah, that was wrong. Sorry.”) It would have been nice if she had the character to take those metaphorical lemons and make yummy lemonade, but she has chosen to use them to make acid bombs (and book deals) instead. Too bad.

It also is too bad Hillary can’t elevate her conduct above even lower forms of Democrat Party life like Biden and Kamala by avoiding outright anti-Trump Big Lies, but she’s not up to that either. She actually resorted to that hoary claim that Trump promised to be a dictator because he told Sean Hannity that he would “only be a dictator on Day One”, when he would “dictate” that we close the border and “drill, drill, drill.” That one’s right there next to the “fine people” lie and the others.

I expect better lies from Hillary. Bill needs to coach her.

Other thoughts…

Continue reading →

Integrity Check Coming: Will the Alleged ABC Whistleblower Report Be the Hunter Biden Laptop of 2024?

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

If you read conservative websites and news sources, but probably not if you get your news from MSNBC and the rest, you probably know that an alleged whistleblower has emerged to claim that Disney’s political mouthpiece ABC News conspired with Harris Campaign officials to rig the Presidential debate that Harris “won.” From the Hindustan Times (yes, it’s come to that…):

An affidavit, purportedly from an anonymous “ABC News whistleblower,” has sparked controversy after being circulated online. The document alleges close collaboration between the network and Kamala Harris’ campaign leading up to the recent debate against Donald Trump…

The affidavit alleges several serious claims regarding the debate preparation and ABC News’ role. One of the primary allegations is that Kamala Harris was given access to sample or similar questions before the debate. If true, this would have given her an unfair advantage over Donald Trump by allowing her to prepare more thoroughly for specific topics.

Another claim is that the Harris campaign actively blocked ABC News from questioning Joe Biden’s health. This issue has been a point of discussion throughout the election cycle, with some critics suggesting that Biden’s fitness for office should be more rigorously examined. According to the whistleblower, Harris’ team ensured that this line of questioning was off-limits.

The affidavit also asserts that the Harris campaign influenced ABC to avoid probing into allegations against Harris’ brother-in-law, who has been accused of embezzling billions in taxpayer money.

Additionally, ABC staff members are said to have been fearful of retribution from Trump, possibly implying that they felt pressured to comply with the Harris campaign’s requests to avoid conflict.

The whistleblower claims to have secret recordings that prove the Harris campaign pressured moderators to fact-check Trump during the debate. These recordings, if they exist, could provide key evidence in backing the whistleblower’s assertions.

Moreover, it is alleged that ABC News was given instructions about which questions to steer clear of during the debate, implying that the Harris campaign had significant influence over the content and flow of the event. This control over the debate, according to the whistleblower, included a demand for live fact-checking of Trump while Harris faced no such scrutiny, even when she made statements that were factually questionable.

The whistleblower reportedly signed the affidavit in New York and has sent a copy to Speaker Mike Johnson, further raising the stakes as these claims are now in the hands of political leadership.

Bill Acker, the conservative billionaire who helped rid Harvard of Claudine Gay, sent a letter to Disney chair Bob Iger that has given the alleged whistleblower story a bit more visibility…

Continue reading →

Perplexing Ethics Quote of the Week: Ann Althouse

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

“I have never trusted the people who want to be President, and I have despaired over the structural problem that we’re always stuck having to vote for somebody who has strongly desired the presidency.”

—-Ann Althouse, in a very strange blog post in which she sympathizes with Kamala Harris for what Althouse sees as a weariness and dislike of campaigning.

I suppose it is good to know that Althouse doesn’t comprehend the nature of leadership, leaders and the people who aspire to be leaders, but as someone who has studied leadership for a long, long time as well as having done my share of leading (and leadership is one of the major topics of this blog), I must say that her comment is perplexing to say the least.

Leadership is a special role that requires special traits, talents and abilities, and one of those traits is believing oneself to be a leader while being willing to accept the responsibility leadership requires. The greater the responsibilities a leadership position entails, the more essential it is that a leader be confident in his or her ability to meet those responsibilities, and seek the burden they confer.

Stating that one does not trust people who want to be President to be President is like saying you only trust a doctor who never wanted to be a doctor. It makes no sense. Every one of our best and most acclaimed Presidents demonstrated their leadership abilities at a young age and actively sought leadership, proceeding to the next stage after demonstrated success. We have had a few reluctant Presidents, all Vice-Presidents thrust into a job they didn’t expect, and some, notably Chester A. Arthur, managed to overcome their lack of an appetite for leadership to do a workmanlike job. Other so-called “accidental Presidents,” notably Teddy Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, were natural leaders and thrilled to become President.

There are plenty of reasons to distrust the so-called “leader type.” Most, if not all are narcissists. Power does corrupt, and many who seek power and who are skilled in using it are also often drawn to the abuse of power for to less than admirable motives. Nevertheless, leadership requires confidence, a willingness to accept accountability, the courage to take risks, and a belief in the likelihood of success based on a history of success. Not wanting to lead strongly suggests an absence of these essential leadership traits.