I Know, I Know: “The Heart Wants What the Heart Wants.” Tough. Grow Up.

Norfolk Southern’s board has fired CEO Alan Shaw after an investigation found that he has been “engaging in a consensual relationship with the company’s chief legal officer,” the colorfully named Nabanita Nag. She was also canned from her positions as executive vice president corporate affairs, chief legal officer and corporate secretary.

Those are the lovebirds above.

Because this is a firing for cause, Shaw might have lost millions of dollars in what otherwise would be a “golden parachute.” This kind of vertical messing around is always stupid and unethical (but so romantic!), but it is particularly reckless for a CEO who is on metaphorical thin ice already, for then the “King’s Pass” is not going to be in play.

His two-year tenure included bitter labor negotiations that nearly resulted in an economy-crippling strike and the horrific derailment in East Palestine, Ohio that released tank cars full of toxic materials. This was not a good time for the company’s chief executive to go all Woody Allen.

But there is never a good time. When Cupid’s dart strikes, the only professional, ethical decision is to suck it up and resist, or play Edward the Eighth and abdicate “for the woman you love.”

The fact that Shaw was married to someone else should have giving him a strong hint that his ethics alarms should be ringing.

Ethics Quiz: The Onion’s Sick Joke

A tweet by the once-dominant satire site “The Onion” has sparked a battle on “Twitter/X” and in the conservative blogosphere:

Your Ethic Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Are the objections by conservatives and Trump fans hypocritical in light of the Right’s widespread mockery of  progressive reactions to  insufficiently sensittive or politically incorrect humor?

The Onion Thinks It’s Funny Corey Comperatore was Murdered at Trump’s Rally,” protests Legal Insurrection. “The tweet has over 80,000 likes, too. What is wrong with people!?” “The Simpsons'” Krusty the Clown might ask, “Too soon?” The black humor attempt is certainly no more insensitive than the jokes about the Japanese tsunami that got the late Gilbert Gottfried fired as the voice of the Aflack duck, and, I blush to say, I found those both horrible and amusing.

Continue reading

A Crazy Argument With A Trump-Deranged Friend Made Me Post This….

…so don’t blame me. Not too much, anyway.

I told my freind that I bailed on the debate when the ABC Axis hacks didn’t factcheck Harris’s repeating the Big Lie about Trump praising the Charlottesville white supremacists. My freind, who is about as Trump-Deranged as one can get, argued that yes, it’s true that Trump didn’t mean that and that the insinuation that he did had been debunked repeatedly, even on CNN and by Snopes. But, she said, Harris accurately quoted Trump, so she was technically accurate.

I reminded my freind, a lawyer who should know better, that using a fact out of context to mislead is called “deceit,” and that deceit is a variety of lie. Her response: “Well, Trump speaks imprecisely, so it’s legitimate to call attention to that.” But, I said, calmly, that wasn’t Harris’s purpose in using the quote. To that, my friend replied, “Then Trump should have explained what he meant.”

“So,” I said, “your theory is that it was Trump’s job to factcheck Harris, while the moderators factchecked him! That seems fair…” She also told me that her extreme-Left daughter saw the debate and thought that the moderators were clearly trying to help Trump.

Wow.

All of this leads me to quote Ann Coulter, whom I have scrupulously ignored for years once it became clear that she is a performance artist who concocts her opinions in order to get the most headlines and the most campus speaking gigs, and has no integrity whatsoever. I have no idea what she really believes, and I certainly don’t care. Ann is, however, not stupid. She has also credibly (to some) posed as a Never Trump conservative, so I found her observations about the debate interesting, and, as they appear to dovetail with mine, astute:

Trump is Trump, a known quantity. His scattershot delivery isn’t going to shock anyone. If you already detest the man, your view was confirmed. But if you don’t hate him, Trump put a lot of points on the board, while Harris said nothing, and said it smugly.

The debate sure didn’t give undecided voters what they wanted from Harris. As has been widely reported, they are waiting breathlessly for some hint of what she believes and what she would do as president. After the ABC debate, they’re still waiting. About all they learned is that Harris comes from a middle-class family…

But they know that life was better under Trump. And they know that Harris, like Clinton, is a nasty woman.

Artificial Intelligence Raises a Lot of Ethics Issues, But This Isn’t One of Them…

From An Experiment in Lust, Regret and Kissing (gift link!) in the Times by novelist Curtis Sittenfeld :

My editor fed ChatGPT the same prompts I was writing from and asked it to write a story of the same length “in the style of Curtis Sittenfeld.” (I’m one of the many fiction writers whose novels were used, without my permission and without my being compensated, to train ChatGPT. Groups of fiction writers, including people I’m friends with, have sued OpenAI, which developed ChatGPT, for copyright infringement. The New York Times has sued Microsoft and OpenAI over the use of copyrighted work.)

The essay describes a contest between the bot and the human novelist, who also employed suggestions from readers. I do not see how an AI “writer” being programmed with another author’s work is any more of a copyright violation than a human writer reading a book or story for inspiration. Herman Melville wrote “Moby-Dick” after immersing himself in the works of William Shakespeare. Nor is imitating another author’s style unethical. All art involves borrowing, adopting, adapting and following the cues and lessons of those who came before. In “Follies,” Stephen Sondheim deliberately wrote songs that evoked the styles of specific earlier songwriters. He couldn’t have done this as effectively as he did without “programming” himself with their works. Continue reading

Ethics Quote of the Week: PJ Media Pundit Stephen Green [Expanded]

“The Dems got what they wanted tonight. The Progressive Axis — Harris and her ABC News foils — got under Trump’s skin and stayed there…”

Stephen Green, aka Vodkapundit, on last night’s debate.

Finally. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone adopt the Ethics Alarms description of the anti-democratic cabal as “the Axis.” I did a search just now: I may have missed one somewhere, but Green’s is the first I can find. Good. Ethics Alarms has been using the term “Axis of Unethical Conduct” for years. It is fair, descriptive, and appropriate.

The coordination last night between Harris and the unabashedly biased ABC moderators during the debate was one of the more obvious examples of the Axis at work.

Added: I bailed out when the ABC hacks let Harris’s Big Lie about Trump calling white supremacists “fine people” go with being “factchecked” after the Axis pair had repeatedly challenged Trump. Presumably I wasn’t the only one who noticed.

Tuesday PM Ethics Anxieties, 9/10/24

It’s been slim ethics pickin’s of late, probably because everyone is obsessed with the campaign and the Debate To Decide The Fate Of Democracy (or DTDTFOD for short). These things always launch ridiculous numbers of fake news items, like “How Trump and Harris Will Try to Attack Each Other at the Debate” on the Times website, a variety of what I call “psychic fake news;” “How Trump Has Used Debates to Belittle Women” (‘poisoning the well”) on its front page, and also “As Debate Looms, Trump Is Now the One Facing Questions About Age and Capacity.” Translation: The mainstream media Democratic shills want to make the election about “age and capacity.” Then we have the hilarious “Hillary Clinton Has Advice on Debating Trump: ‘He Can Be Rattled’” Taking advice from Hillary on how to beat Trump is like taking advice from George Foreman about how to beat Muhammad Ali. I chuckled at “Liz Cheney Accuses G.O.P. Trump Backers of Betraying Their Principles.” Kamala Harris literally represents the opposite of everything she and her father at least pretended to stand for until Trump Derangement struck. Still, there are some issues lying around that need to be cleared…

Continue reading

Who IS This Woman? Why Does CNN Let Someone This Dishonest Appear On A Panel? Do CNN Viewers Realize What the Significance of Her Argument Is?

There are so many frustrating aspects of this clip from CNN’s Newsnight, but let’s get to the main issue: what the Harris surrogate/Democratic Party mouthpiece/shameless gaslighter said:

I find it ironic where, in 2020, Republicans were screaming at the top of their lungs when people were changing rules because we were in a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic and we needed to do it to accommodate voters …I want to remove politics from this and talk about people being actually able to exercise the franchise. And it is disenfranchising North Carolina voters right now that they believe they can start voting today and they are not. That is how confusion is disseminated in communities. That is how mis and disinformation starts, that is how you start to see narratives that our system is not working, when you start to let politics play into the role of when people should be able to start voting. Follow the rules. He was on the ballot, he wanted to run, he decided he didn’t want to run, he should have made that decision 6 months ago, but disenfranchising voters is not right.

The issue being discussed is a Democratic Party that was once fighting to keep Robert Kennedy Jr. OFF the ballot in states where the party thought he would draw votes away from Biden is fighting to stop him from removing his name from the ballot because he has dropped out of the race and endorsed Donald Trump. NOW they want him on the ballot because they think he will take votes from Trump.

Continue reading

ABC Provides A Fake News Classic!

“Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” I find this stunt by ABC News today as astounding as it is unforgivable.

The Axis, as I noted yesterday, is shaken to its core by polling data that seems to show that Kamala Harris’s efforts to hide, lie, cackle and flip-flop her way to the White House is no longer working despite the news media’s intense assistance. Meanwhile, Nate Silver posted today that his analytical model gives Trump a 53.4% chance of winning Wisconsin, 54.9% in Michigan, 60.8% in Nevada, and a 64.9% chance of winning Pennsylvania, giving Trump a likely 312 votes in the Electoral College.

So ABC, determined to rescue their party’s flagging spirits, published a story headlined, “Harris support rises among some likely voters: POLL.” “As previously reported, Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump by a slight 4 percentage points, 50-46%, among all adults and registered voters alike, and by 6 points, 52-46%, among likely voters in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll. While those numbers are virtually identical, closer assessment shows movement to Harris in some groups when comparing all adults with likely voters — notably, those younger than 40, younger women in particular and Black people,” this trusted name in journalism announced.

Continue reading

What’s Going On Here? Whatever It Is, Someone Is Extremely Unethical…

I love this story! It has everything…except any certainty about who is telling the truth.

Chad Condit, California Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil’s former chief of staff, has filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against her. He alleges that she pressured him into performing sex acts for her enjoyment when they were traveling together on her official business.

Point of interest #1: Does that name ring a bell? Yes, Chad is the son of Gary Condit, the former Congressman who was a suspect in the Chandra Levy disappearance and murder. He allegedly was having a sexual affair with her, an intern who worked in his office. Now, for this family, the alleged sexual harassment is on the other foot—well, you know what I mean.

Point of interest #2: Alvarado-Gila, meanwhile, is a longtime Democrat who recently got national headlines when she switched to the Republican Party, saying that the Democratic Party had become so extreme that she could no longer support it. I’m ruling that she is—if guilty, of course—is an embarrassment to both parties.

Continue reading

THIS Is Ethics Zugzwang: The Infrastructure Problem

The tweet above illustrates a modern ethics zugzwang phenomenon. I was struck by the tweet because I had recently had an argument with my relentlessly Democratic sister about the Supreme Court’s decision in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, striking down the landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that made federal agencies the presumptive lawmakers in matters Congress had not specifically addressed if an agency rule was “reasonable.” She believes that Chevron’s fall will be a disaster.

Continue reading