Silly Ethics Dunce: NBC Sports

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

It almost seems absurd to mention this trivial ethics misdemeanor when discussing a soulless, greedy TV network that happily promotes a sport that sends young men onto its fields to maim their brains so team owners and sponsors can make millions. Yet somehow this level of moronic rote wokeness deserves our attention.

Here is part of what the election last month was a reaction against. Let’s hope NBC and the equally disgusting National Football League are tardy enough reading the metaphorical room that they both lose audiences, popularity and millions. I know it won’t happen. But I’m a dreamer…

Jayden Daniels, the quarterback of the Washington Commanders, set a record last night as he led his politically correctly named team into the NFL play-offs while breaking the old record for most rushing yards by a rookie quarterback. A Washington QB had held the previous record too: Robert Griffin III ran for 815 yards in his rookie year (2012), and Daniels topped him with 830.

So NBC quickly put that graphic up that you see above, but not before blotting out the name of Griffin’s team when he was playing…the REDSKINS!

NBC had to protect the delicate sensibilities of Sunday night football fans who thrill to see players break bones and crack skulls, making sure that their viewers wouldn’t suffer psychic trauma by being reminded that the Commanders once had a racist name, or so the Mad Left decreed. Thus it made sense to a news organization that it should misrepresent history, tamper with evidence and sacrifice truth to satisfy progressive crazies—you know, like it has done regularly for years now—and as PBS was doing tonight until I couldn’t stand watching any more, running a documentary about what a great President Jimmy Carter was.

Nah, airbrushing away a team name on a jersey is petty censorship. I know it. I also know that a news organization that will bother lying about something nobody cares about won’t blink at lying when it advances its own interests.

Addendum to “The Jimmy Carter Assessment”: Bless Those Libertarians’ Hearts!

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Libertarians contribute significantly to civic policy discourse by staking out an extreme position that serves as useful ballast against extreme statists from the other side of the spectrum. I often use Reason, which I used to subscribe to in its print format, for ethics topics. Unfortunately, libertarians constantly erode their credibility by taking absurd positions, arguing for open borders, wanting to legalize heroin, and mu particular favorite, arguing that the U.S. should have sat out World War II.

Today the libertarians, or at least too many of them (one would be too many) are arguing that Jimmy Carter was an excellent President. Yes, I am really reading that. Here is Reason quoting Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, with favor:

“Abroad, he favored diplomacy over war, garnering the least bloody record of any post–World War II president. So what if he didn’t look tough, or even particularly competent, as he did it? A clear-eyed look at the Carter record reveals something surprising: This bumbling, brittle, unloveable man was, by the standards that ought to matter, our best modern president.”

Because, you see, the standards that “ought to matter” mean that reducing the American Presidency in influence, prestige and power is a good thing. So what if Americans have no respect for the office or the man holding it? So what if the new template for future leaders is fecklessness and apathy? What “matters” is that if chaos reigns all over the globe, the United States canconfidently eschew all responsibility because no one we care about gets hurt.

Heck, if diminishing the Presidency is an accomplishment, Joe Biden must stand as one of the all-time greats!

I have tried arguing with libertarians periodically over the years, and found them to be cultists, like climate change fanatics, abortion activists and the Trump Deranged. Reality doesn’t impose on their beliefs at all, at least not the libertarians who have swallowed the whole philosophical enchilada. It is useful to have vocal individuals who express principled objections to government over-reach, but when they declare weak leaders good leaders and praise passivity as an absolute virtue, such voices disqualify themselves as serious advocates.

In short, if Jimmy Carter was our best modern President, I’m Woody Woodpecker.

Let Us Give Belated Thanks To President Biden’s Ventriloquists For Another Vivid Example of Unethical Anti-Gun Propaganda

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

I missed this, but the White House statement from “President Biden” (Who wrote it? Who approved it? Did the President even know about it?) following the Madison, Wisconsin school shooting two weeks ago couldn’t be a better demonstration of the intellectual dishonesty and ruthlessness of the Left’s anti-Second Amendment fanatics. Apparently gun-phobics are thrilled any time a gun-related tragedy occurs so they can rush out junk like this and fundraising appeals to exploit the event for all it’s worth, and the higher body count the better. The alleged Presidential sentiment deliberately misrepresents the shooting by linking it to standard tenets of the anti-gun agenda that literally have nothing to do with the incident being exploited.

The Biden statement also brands itself as standard issue cant by using the deliberately meaningless Axis phrase “commonsense gun safety laws,” overwhelming used by those whose idea of “common sense” is not to allow legal private gun ownership at all. Then the letter advocates universal background checks, a national red flag law, a ban on assault weapons, and a ban on high-capacity magazines, not one of which would have done anything to prevent the shooting that is supposed to be the subject of the letter.

The shooter in Madison was a 15-year-old girl who couldn’t legally purchase a gun anyway: background checks don’t apply to shooters like her. Nor would a “red flag law” have flagged her, since it doesn’t include children too young to own guns. The shooter didn’t use an “assault weapon”; she used a pistol; nor was a high-capacity magazine involved. Never mind! Guns bad, so this tragedy that might have been prevented if only “we could melt all the guns and give a new world to our daughters and sons” (which we can’t: Who recognizes the song lyric?) justifies rushing out anti-gun propaganda when the appeal to emotion would be most effective.

Yecchh.

_______________

Pointer: Not the Bee

The Jimmy Carter Assessment [Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Jimmy Carter, the 39th President, finally died at the age of 100 in, of course, Plains, Georgia, which no one ever heard of before he arrived on the national scene. Ethics Alarms last discussed Carter here, in the fifth chapter of its inquiry to name the Worst President Ever. Carter made the final field that was announced this month, along with Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and, last but not least, Joe Biden.

I doubt there are many strong arguments that can be made to assert that Carter doesn’t belong there, just as there is little doubt that he doesn’t deserve the booby prize. Carter’s Presidency stands as testimony to the foolishness of the belief that good intentions mitigate failure. Carter supporters’ argument for his Presidency ultimate devolves into rationalizations such as #3A,  The Road To Hell, or “I meant well,” #14, Self-validating Virtue, #38, The Miscreant’s Mulligan or “Give him/her/them/me a break!,” #18, Hamm’s Excuse, or “It wasn’t my fault,”and the dreaded #22, Comparative Virtue, or “It’s not the worst thing.” Given its crippling leftward bias, the mainstream media is tying itself into knots today to make Carter out to be something he was not, an effective President.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “An Eternally Troubling Ethics Conundrum—at Least to Me”

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

The conundrum I discussed in the post was the proper degree to which accomplishments should be judged according to the effort and sacrifice they required.

Here is Jutgory’s Comment of the Day exploring the question further:

***

Not to solve your problem, but maybe I can make it clearer.

The distinction between effort and outcome is very basic. The Stoics observed that you have complete control over your effort, but no control over the outcome of those efforts. As a result, you can control how much effort you put into something, but it will not guarantee success. (Nietzsche kind of flipped this around and said that the great man is the one who could make reality to conform to his will. Maybe that is what a ton of effort, tenacity, and luck will get you. I am sure you can find examples of that in the lives of the Presidents.)

It is also embedded in the Declaration of Independence. Happiness is not an inalienable right; you only are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. That is, you have the right to decide what you think will make you happy and pursue those goals, as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

Continue reading →

Presuming Bias Also Makes You Stupid…and a Failure

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

I’m really and truly searching for good ethics topics that haven’t been raised by politics, and its hard right now. This entry in the Ethics Alarms Hollywood clip archive is appropriate…

This time, I was pulled back in by an alleged news analysis story in the New York Times. If it had been an op-ed column, then its thrust would have been slightly more excusable. This was supposedly fact analysis, not opinion, and the article could do nothing but make its readers dumber and more resistant to harsh truths. The piece was headlined, “Will the U.S. Ever Be Ready for a Female President?”[Gift link!]

Morons. The question itself is dunderheaded and insulting in a vacuum, but as analysis of Kamala Harris’s well-deserved defeat, it is a throbbing neon example of “my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts” as well as how rationalizations are lies that we tell ourselves when we want to be deluded. Of course the U.S. will be ready for a female President, as soon as one of the parties nominates a woman who is a strong candidate and who doesn’t run a terrible campaign. Imagine writing this garbage without giggling…

Continue reading →

Addendum To “Return of the Faithless Legislator”: What If…?

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I’m hesitant to put this in print, but the idea has kept me awake much of the night. I meant to mention the idea in yesterday’s post about state legislators flipping their party affiliations after an election, but but, as too often happens, I was rushing because I had other responsibilities to fulfill and left it out.

I wouldn’t call this post an Ethics Quiz; I’d say it’s a thought experiment. Here it is:

What if Donald Trump either announced that he was no longer a Republican, or threatened to do so?

There is nothing stopping him from switching parties, or declaring that he is President under the banner of his own party, whether he called it “MAGA” or something else. The Constitution didn’t have a word about parties, and the Founders generally thought they were something to avoid. Trump could even cloak his radical decision in the spirit of the Founders. “I am not a President for Republicans or Democrats, but for all Americans!” he could say in the announcement, a national address. What would happen? The mind boggles, or at least mine does. Here are some thoughts and questions…

Continue reading →

Final 2024 Ethics Round-Up, 12/29/24: Of Jawbreakers, ‘Thinflation,’ Weasel Words and Prison Sex

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

(You’re going to have to wait until the end to learn who that is in the photo above….)

I’ve been trying to figure out an ethics angle for the best news story I saw today; the best I can come up with is “life incompetence.” The headline was “Woman Breaks Jaw After Biting into Jawbreaker Candy.” Apparently Canadian student Javeria Wasim wondered if someone could bite through a giant jawbreaker, and took it on as a challeng. She barely made a dent in the candy when she felt a pop followed by piercing pain in her lower jaw. Yup, it was a jawbreaker, all right! She had fractured her mandible in two places and also loosened her top and lower front teeth. Now her jaw is wired shut.

1. You’ve noticed “shrinkflation,” but have you picked up on ‘thinflation’? It appears that clothing manufacturers are using thinner, lighter fabric for such staples as T-shirts and chinos. “Pretty much everything is lighter and thinner,” Sean Cormier, a professor of textiles at the Fashion Institute of Technology, told Slate. He said chinos that used to weigh 8 ounces per square yard of fabric might be only 6 ounces today.

“It’s a trend in the industry, and not one that’s sustainable, because obviously the thinner the garment, it’s not going to last as long,” Cormier says. Two decades ago a T-shirt might have weighed 8 to 10 ounces per square yard of fabric. Today, experts report, it’s half that. Clothing doesn’t last as long as it used to, fabrics are generally thinner, and the quality of clothing has decreased. Not the prices, however. The garments also don’t have as much “covering power,” meaning that not only wet T-shirts but the dry ones too are revealing.

2. Apparently some people have a problem with this statement. Not me! An Illinois homeowner’s surveillance camera detected motion on the side of the home and he spotted two masked men. After instructing his wife to seek cover, he grabbed his gun. Then he shot shot and killed Jorge Nestevan Flores-Toledo, a 27-year-old from Mexico with a long criminal record. The second man, an illegal immigrant, aka. “a visitor” skedaddled but was tracked down by K9 dogs and arrested a few blocks away. Manatee County Sheriff Rick Wells said, in describing the incident, “This is the state of Florida. If you want to break into someone’s home, you should expect to be shot.” I don’t see why you shouldn’t expect to be shot when you want to break into anyone’s home in any state.

Continue reading →

Oh No, Not This Again: Return of the Faithless Legislator

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Broward County Rep. Hillary Cassel announced yesterday that she will leave the Democratic Party and join the GOP, becoming the second state lawmaker to do so this month. Hillsborough County Rep. Susan Valdés also announced this month that she had joined the Republicans.

Ethics Alarms has covered, and deplored, this behavior before. Doing what Cassel and Valdés have done is unethical, and the identities of the political parties involved don’t matter. By doing this, the two women have committed a fraud on the electorate. Democrats voted for them based in part on their status as members of their party. Their election victories were achieved by misrepresentation. Cassel, ran unopposed for her second term in November; if she had flipped before the election in a timely fashion, she may well have had opposition. Her rationalization for this unethical reversal, as posted on “X”:

Aww, that’s nice. The ethical way to handle a sudden epiphany when one has been elected by the partisans of one party and now suddenly wants to join the opposition is to resign, and run again under the new banner so voters have not been deceived and know who and what they are voting for. This was how former Texas U.S. Senator Phil Gramm handled the problem when he changed parties from Democrat to Republican as a Congressman. He resigned, then ran for his vacated seat and won again. Perfect.

As for the Florida Republicans, good luck with these two converts. They are as trustworthy as the husband who marries the second wife he was cheating with during the first marriage.

Chess Ethics: The International Chess Federation Makes “Professionalism” Look Ridiculous [Updated!]

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Did the world go nuts last week and I missed it? Curmie just sent me this crazy story, and I though it was a gag.

For those of you who don’t follow international chess (that is, all of you), the wonderfully named Magnus Carlsen is a five-time world chess champion from Norway. He has held the No. 1 position in the FIDE world chess rankings since July 1, 2011, indisputably making him one of the greatest chess players of all-time, right next to household names like Raul Capablanca, Ruy Lopez, and Emanuel Lasker. Yesterday he was kicked out of the World Rapid and Blitz Chess Championships in New York after chess’s governing body FIDE barred the Norwegian from participating in the tournament.

Why? He was wearing bluejeans.

Continue reading →