Workplace

Rachel Maddow’s Self-Indicting Message on MSNBC’s Firing Joy Reid

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

As EA noted in last night’s post, MSNBC finally fired Joy Reid and ended her nightly racist, unhinged rants on the network. For this it deserves no special credit or plaudits, for Reid was objectively terrible, getting worse as her Trump Derangement raged, and should have been fired years ago….for this head-exploding incident, for example.

On yesterday’s episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Maddow told us all we should need to know…. about Maddow…with this outburst:

“Joy Reid’s show “The ReidOut” ended tonight. And Joy is not taking a different job in the network. She is leaving the network altogether and that is very, very, very hard to take. I am 51 years old. I have been gainfully employed since I was 12. And I have had so many different types of jobs you wouldn’t believe me if I told you. But in all the jobs that I have had, in all of the years I have been alive, there is no colleague for whom I have had more affection and more respect than Joy Reid. I love everything about her. I have learned so much from her. I have so much more to learn from her. I do not want to lose her as a colleague here at MSNBC, and personally, I think it is a bad mistake to let her walk out the door. It is not my call and I understand that, but that’s what I think. I will tell you, it is also unnerving to see that on a network where we’ve got two—count them, two—non-white hosts in prime time, both of our non-white hosts in prime time are losing their shows, as is Katie Phang on the weekend, and that feels worse than bad no matter who replaces them. That feels indefensible. And I do not defend it.”

All righty then! There we have it: a full-throated endorsement of racial quotas, discrimination in hiring and career advancement, and double standards. For a special bonus, Maddow endorsed the practices and conduct of an unethical and untrustworthy former colleague, which means that Maddow is unfit to appear on any respectable news organization’s broadcasts.

Continue reading →

The YouGov. Poll: Maybe Americans Are Just Too Stupid and Unethical For Democracy to Survive After All…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

All research indicates that the majority of Americans, not having the IQ’s of Pet Rocks, recognize that our bloated government is corrupt, inept and wasteful. Pew Research polling concluded that 56% of Americans felt that way last year. “Nearly 2/3 of Americans fear that our government is run by corrupt officials, stated another survey. In January, A.P.-NORC researchers found that 70% of Americans believe corruption in the federal government is a serious problem.

Despite these beliefs, only 39 % of Americans polled gave DOGE a “favorable” rating in the latest The Economist/YouGov poll, with”unfavorable” at 36%, and the human slugs who chose “don’t know” came in at a whopping 25%. Another poll this month found only 49% approving DOGE’s cost-cutting efforts.

Continue reading →

Musk’s Email

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

There are many others, but two tells the Trump Deranged on my Facebook feed are displaying symptomatic of their malady are the ridiculous obsession with the name change to “Gulf of America,” and most recently, Elon Musk’s email to the Federal workforce.

Yesterday Musk tweeted out, “Consistent with President @realDonaldTrump’s instructions, all federal employees will shortly receive an email requesting to understand what they got done last week. Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.” And as night follows day, this email from Allan Smith was delivered as promised:

“Subject: What did you do last week?” “Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets of what you accomplished last week and cc your manager.”

Echoing my bizarre Facebook friends, Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, sent out a ludicrous statement that read: “It is cruel and disrespectful to hundreds of thousands of veterans who are wearing their second uniform in the civil service to be forced to justify their job duties to this out-of-touch, privileged, unelected billionaire who has never performed one single hour of honest public service in his life. Once again, Elon Musk and the Trump Administration have shown their utter disdain for federal employees and the critical services they provide to the American people.”

This should go into the “Methinks he doth protest too much!” Hall of Fame. As has become all-too familiar, the lazy resorting to ad hominem insults, the certifiably ignorant emphasis on an agent of the President being “unelected,” and the juvenile working class hero smear of a man who has strengthened and benefited his country and its citizens by his industry, boldness and public mindedness are all throbbing evidence of desperation. But throwing a fit because workers are asked to list five things they accomplished on the job in a week?

I doubt that I have ever had a week in my spectacularly varied, eccentric and often failed career when I couldn’t do that. Today is a Sunday. I can list three substantive work-related accomplishments on this single day, and I feel like I didn’t meet my self-identified goals.

If there is a principled, reasonable, logical reason to find that email threatening, demeaning or unfair, I’d love to know what it is.

Regarding That Tom Hanks SNL Skit…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I just knew that there would be some part of last week’s “Saturday Night Live” 50th Anniversary special that sparked a controversy, and there was. As promised here, I didn’t watch the thing and, I am proud to say, know few people who did, at least not all the way through. Still, I was directed to watch two clips: Paul McCartney (with his band) performing the last part of the “Abbey Road” musical collage from “Once There Was a Way” through to “The End” (When the general reaction to an iconic singer’s performance is “He sounds pretty good for 82!,” it’s time to retire…), and the reprise of an old “Jeopardy!” skit, in which Tom Hanks, as a Southern contestant wearing a MAGA cap, jumped away from the black MC offering his hand as if it was a rattlesnake. Nice.

Continue reading →

Doxxing, “Big Balls,” J.D. Vance and “The Racist Tweeter Principle”: A Tragi-Comedy With a Twist

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Like my old law school roomie who left “Gone With the Wind” at the intermission thinking it was over, I almost posted on this ethics mess too early. There were three acts, and there might be a fourth. I thought the ethics show was over after Act II.

Act I. The news media’s tantrum: Upon finding that Elon Musk and DOGE were serious about uncovering government waste, that he was employing some of his young computer nerds from SpaceX to do it, and that they had brought down USAID, a foreign aid, woke slush fund icon by exposing just how profligate and irresponsible it was, Katherine Long, a progressive reporter on the Wall Street Journal, targeted the young geniuses who may all be on the autistic spectrum (like Musk). One of them, a 19-year-old, she embarrassed by revealing that his social media handle when he was in high school was “Big Balls.” She also doxxed Marko Elez, writing that he was a “25-year-old who is part of a cadre of Elon Musk lieutenants deployed by the Department of Government Efficiency to scrutinize federal spending” and had published troubling social media posts like, “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool.” “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity,” he wrote on “Twitter/X” in September. Long revealed that his account declared, “Normalize Indian hate,” in the same month, expressing his disapproval of the large numbers of tech workers from India in Silicon Valley.

Ethics takeaway: Doxxing is unethical; so is using old social media posts to make a newly prominent figure a victim of the “cancel culture.”

Continue reading →

Awww, Some Law School Seniors Just Had Their Job Offers Revoked By That Mean President Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The New York Times and other sources are weeping with the dozens of recent law school graduates whose job offers were rescinded by the Justice Department after the students thought they were about to begin entry-level positions in its antitrust, criminal, civil rights, immigration and national security divisions, and at the F.B.I. This is another good example of how the Times cannot help itself from spinning and editorializing in a partisan manner even the most straightforward story. “The offers were made through the Attorney General’s Honors Program,” sayeth the Times, “which has functioned without controversy,” for decades, it says. See? This is so unfair! Except the fact that something has avoided controversy doesn’t mean it should be free from change, reform, or even elimination. “The program appears to be the latest target of Trump political appointees intent on reversing even the most workaday decisions made by their predecessors,” sniffs the paper. Oooh, these were political appointees who obviously don’t understand a good program when they see one. And those MAGA Nazis want to mess with harmless, innocent, inconsequential “workaday” decisions! (Pssst! Hiring lawyers is never a “workaday” decision, or shouldn’t be, even in the Justice Department.)

Continue reading →

Curmie’s Conjectures: Too White A Christmas?

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

by Curmie

[Curmie raises so many casting ethics issues that fascinate me in this post that I’m going to announce right now that I’ll post a veritable “Part II” tomorrow, although it will be “Jack’s Conjectures”, or something. Not that I disagree with anything the esteemed Ethics Alarms featured columnist writes here, because I don’t. Here’s a clue about one issue I’ll be covering which Curmie only hints at: for a cast to be sufficiently “diverse,” do the BIPOC members have to obviously LOOK like they are “of color”? I’m thinking of performers like Jennifer Beals, the late Olivia Hussey, and Jessica Alba—JM]

Jack and I exchanged a couple of emails about this story, which I first saw on the OnStageBlog back around Thanksgiving, when this was still news.  I’m pretty sure both of us wanted the other to write about it.  So, a little late, here we go…

The case involves the casting of the Christmas-themed musical Elf at Broadway at Music Circus in Sacramento.  OnStageBlog’s founder Chris Peterson often gets what Curmie’s grad school mentor would call “foam-flecked,” and his editorial here is no exception.  But he does have a point.  Sort of.

The company came under criticism when they announced the cast list for Elf; although a number of the leads were non-white, the entire chorus (seen above) looks pretty vanilla, white-passing if not literally white. Actress (or is she a “social media manager for major hotel brands”?) Victoria Price is one of those who led the charge, pointing to the difference between the Broadway ensemble and the one in Sacramento, and noting that any comments critical of the casting were being deleted.  (I assume she’s telling the truth about this.)

Tony nominee Amber Imam joined the fray, writing that Price’s criticism of both the casting and the removal of negative comments was “absolutely right.  A show that takes place in NEW YORK CITY cannot… CAN NOT have an ensemble that LOOKS LIKE THIS!!!  Do better.  Have you learned nothing?????”

The company’s CEO Scott Klier issued a response that made the situation much, much worse: “cover-up worse than the crime” worse.  Here’s part of it:

“Inclusivity has been and remains my casting and staffing goal for every production. I fell short of that goal for ELF. There is an uncomfortable truth here: Our industry as a whole has largely failed to attract, train and foster the artists necessary to meet today’s demand, and I fear this conversation will continue until it does. It will unfortunately take time. The painful reality of ELF’s casting process was that both the casting submissions and audition attendance revealed few candidates of color and, while those few were undoubtedly talented, they did not meet the dance, music and acting criteria set by our team.”

Hoo boy… Claiming inclusivity as a “goal” and then going 0-for-15 at fulfilling it?  Blaming other people while admitting the decision was yours?  Admitting there’s a “demand” and then ignoring it? 

Continue reading →

Snow Day Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Yet another episode of “It’s Hell Being an Ethicist…

It’s a snow day in the D.C. area. Most stores are closed, and most workers are taking the day off. For families with young kids it’s unavoidable: schools around here close with even a prediction of snow. For someone born and bred in New England, this phobia over the white stuff seems especially ludicrous; there are maybe five inches on the ground right now, and in Boston, that would not even slow traffic down, much less close schools. It took at least a two or three feet of snow to close the schools when I was a nubbin.

Still, the old memories are bright. A snow day was always marked by a nice fire in the fireplace, hot cocoa, playing board games with my sister and, of course, dressing warm and going sledding. Today is a snow day. But I have a home office and no excuse not to work—even though I worked all weekend, even though everything in my mind and body is saying, “Take it easy! This is one of life’s special joys! It’s a respite from responsibility! Give yourself a break—heck, everybody else is doing it!“

Ah, but that last part, the Golden Rationalization, is like a splash ice water in the puss. I see the chart of “The Six Pillars of Character” on the wall, and “diligence” is staring at me. So is “responsibility,” and “prudence.” I’m behind in so many things, and there is so much I need to finish, then more still after I finish that. Snow days are about being carefree and having fun. I can’t remember the last time I had fun.

I want a snow day; I deserve a snow day. A snow day would be good for me.

But I’m an ethicist, and I have to be consistent: “Integrity ” is staring at me now. I have to work. No snow day for me.

Fuck.

Political Cartoon Ethics: Talk About Picking The Wrong Hill To Die On!

/ Jack Marshall / 43 Comments

Ann Telnaes, “a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist” (So what?) for The Washington Post, announced that she was resigning after editors rejected a cartoon depicting WaPo’s owner, Jeff Bezos, genuflecting toward a statue of President-elect Donald J. Trump.

On her substack, Telnaes called the newspaper’s decision to kill her cartoon a “game changer” that was “dangerous for a free press.”

Riiight. The cartoon shows Jeff Bezos and other media figures prostrating themselves to Trump, which is not only untrue, it’s juvenile. That cartoon could have been published in a middle school newspaper. The Post has had a succession of knee-jerk, shrill progressive scolds as political cartoonists in an unbroken line since the partisan-biased Herb Block was also a “Pulitzer Prize winner”—- you know, like the Post was for its false reporting on the Russian Collusion hoax. Like Nikole Hannah-Jones and the New York Times were Pulitzered for creating the anti-America propaganda screed called “The 1619 Project.”

Ethics Alarms has long maintained that political cartoons don’t warrant presence on editorial pages because 90% of them or more communicate grade-school level political sophistication through the jaundiced eyes of artists lacking education, perspective and critical thinking skills. That drawing above illustrates the Ethics Alarms position nicely.

Telnaes is throwing a hissy-fit because she isn’t allowed to publish an obnoxious and simple-minded cartoon—it also isn’t remotely funny—attacking her employer with a cheap shot. The Trump-Deranged, progressives and Democrats on the Post—that is, 98% of the staff, were triggered because Bezos chose not to have his paper endorse Kamala Harris, the worst candidate a major party has run for President since, oh, maybe Horace Greeley in 1872, except that Horace was smarter than Kamala and he never waffled on his positions, which were a matter of record.

It would be a different if the cartoon the artist is so determined to see promoted was interesting, trenchant, original or clever, but it isn’t. The baseball equivalent would be a .216 hitting player quitting his team because the manager chose to leave him off the line-up card.

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: Ford’s Anti-Israel Tweets

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Some questions present themselves, such as,

How much trust should we place in the management of a company that can’t staff and oversee its social media accounts better than this?

Is mere firing sufficient punishment for an employee who would post those? Such an egregious level of betrayal of an employer should carry a lifetime brand, like the scarlet letter.

What could someone guilty of such conduct do to redeem himself?

Ford’s headquarters are in Detroit, an area with a large Arab-American population with strong pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel sentiments. You would think that this incident would be sufficiently predictable that special care would be taken to avoid it. Clearly, that didn’t happen. The incident is also magnified because of the ugly legacy of the company’s anti-Semitic founder, Henry Ford, who among other things promoted the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Henry’s company’s apology was about as inept as one would expect from one that allowed this to occur: “Our X account was briefly compromised and the previous three posts were not authorized or posted by Ford,” a spokesperson said. “We are investigating the issue, and apologize for any confusion caused.”

Ford apologizes for the “confusion”?