Confronting My Biases, Episode 7: Buying Lottery Tickets

Interjecting itself before my planned first post this morning is the latest installment of the Ethics Alarms series in which your friendly neighborhood ethicist examines the biases that may make him (that is, me ) stupid, or not. At my local 7-11 just now on an emergency errand, I spied one of my next door neighbors purchasing lottery tickets. I have long suspected that he is an idiot, and this pretty much locked down my diagnosis.

Ethics Alarms has covered the issue of state lotteries extensively; you can see most of the results at this depressing tag. The most recent piece was in 2022, reacting to a CNN segment that declared state lotteries to be racist because a disproportionate percentage of the players are black. I believe that CNN’s analysis is racist, and I ended the post this way…

Continue reading

How Greedy Parents Pimp Out Their Daughters on the Web

Those are some of the comments that the New York Times found on Instagram in response to the photo of a pretty nine-year-old girl posing in a bikini. Her parents posted the photo to attract attention, and they are not as rare as you might think. In one of the investigative reporting projects that periodically justifies the Times’ existence, the paper found many juvenile “Instagram influencers” whose accounts are managed by their parents. “Although the site prohibits children under 13, parents can open so-called mom-run accounts for them, and they can live on even when the girls become teenagers,” the story reports. “But what often starts as a parent’s effort to jump-start a child’s modeling career, or win favors from clothing brands, can quickly descend into a dark underworld dominated by adult men, many of whom openly admit on other platforms to being sexually attracted to children.”

Ethics Alarms has long taken the position that parents posting revealing, embarrassing or provocative photos of their children on the web without a child’s informed consent (and children cannot give informed consent) is per se unethical, and that was before even considering this disgusting phenomenon.

The Times examined thousands of such accounts with parents operating the sale of their daughters’ photos, exclusive chat sessions and even offering their girls’ worn leotards and cheerleading outfits to followers. It’s profitable, for the parents, and the girls don’t understand the implications of what they have been thrust into. Some customers—pedophiles—- spend thousands of dollars nurturing the underage relationships. A demographics firm hired by the Times found 32 million connections to male followers on the 5,000 accounts examined by the paper.

This is all ethics rot, an unforeseen consequence of the World Wide Web colliding with the same unethical instincts that prompt parents to guide their young children into modeling, acting, gymnastics and other sports for their vicarious pleasure and profits. Here is the worst news in the piece:

“The troubling interactions on Instagram come as social media companies increasingly dominate the cultural landscape and the internet is seen as a career path of its own. Nearly one in three preteens lists influencing as a career goal, and 11 percent of those born in Generation Z, between 1997 and 2012, describe themselves as influencers. The so-called creator economy surpasses $250 billion worldwide, according to Goldman Sachs, with U.S. brands spending more than $5 billion a year on influencers.”

What the Times found is not an internet problem but an irresponsible, incompetent, greedy and abusive parent problem that has been around as long as there have been families. Social media only is giving it a new and revolting place to thrive. I was especially annoyed by the response of one of the mother/pimps whose daughter has been promoted on the web from a young age. “But she’s been doing this so long now,” the mother says. “Her numbers are so big. What do we do? Just stop it and walk away?”

Yes, you stupid, stupid woman. Just stop it.

Do read the whole piece. It is long and horrifying. This link lets you avoid the paywall.

How Did California Conclude That It Could Constitutionally Ban the Possession of Billy Clubs?

A case out of the Golden State reaffirms my belief that there are too many unconstitutional laws around the country to count, and that a lot of them are passed by irresponsible legislators with their fingers crossed, hoping that the bogus government restrictions will slip through the judicial net.

For example, did you know that a California law makes it a crime to simply possess or carry a billy club, which is basically a stick? That’s ridiculous, but there was such a law until it was struck down last week by a Judge Roger Benitez, a federal judge in San Diego, who ruled in Fouts v. Bonta that billy clubs are protected by the Second Amendment. Why wouldn’t they be? California really is estranged from basic American values and common sense. (The state’s billy club prohibition would make it illegal for a member of the LA Dodgers to walk to the stadium carrying his bat.) The core of the opinion is this:

This case is not about whether California can prohibit or restrict the use or possession of a billy for unlawful purposes…. Historically, the short wooden stick that police officers once carried on their beat was known as a billy or billy club. The term remains vague today and may encompass a metal baton, a little league bat, a wooden table leg, or a broken golf club shaft, all of which are weapons that could be used for self-defense but are less lethal than a firearm…not everybody wants to carry a firearm for self- defense. Some prefer less-lethal weapons. A billy is a less-lethal weapon that may be used for self-defense. It is a simple weapon that most anybody between the ages of eight and eighty can fashion from a wooden stick, or a clothes pole, or a dowel rod. One can easily imagine countless citizens carrying these weapons on daily walks and hikes to defend themselves against attacks by humans or animals. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms like the billy for lawful purposes.

In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to “‘repel force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury.’” The Founders of our country anticipated that as our nation matured circumstances might make the previous recognition of rights undesirable or inadequate. For that event, the Founders provided a built-in vehicle by which the Constitution could be amended, but a single state, no matter how well intended, may not do so, and neither can this court.

What other unconstitutional laws are lurking out there, unchallenged?

The Chrystal Clanton Saga: I Don’t Understand This Story At All…

Does this make sense to you?

SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas has hired Crystal Clanton to be his law clerk beginning in the upcoming term. In 2015, when Clanton was 20 and working for Turning Point USA, she was accused of sending racist texts to a fellow employee. One alleged text read, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE…Like fuck them all … I hate blacks. End of story.” The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer wrote about the texts in 2017 in an article about Turning Point USA, which is close with Thomas’s activist wife Ginni. Clanton wrote in an email to Mayer, “I have no recollection of these messages and they do not reflect what I believe or who I am and the same was true when I was a teenager.” The first aspect of the story I don’t understand: I am reading everywhere that Clanton didn’t deny writing the texts, which points to her guilt. I would say that stating that you don’t recall sending a message and that it isn’t something you believe, believed or would ever say is the equivalent of a denial.

Continue reading

Is It Too Much To Ask For Elected Officials, Journalists and Educators to Read, Understand and Respect the Constitution?

Apparently.

Sorry, W.E.B….

1. Politico national investigative correspondent Heidi Przybyla went on MSNBC (where reality goes to die) and smugly stated that an “extremist element” of Christian nationalists hold the nutty belief that rights “come from God” rather than the government. “They believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don’t come from any earthly authority, Przybyla said during her appearance on MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes.” “They don’t come from Congress. They don’t come from the Supreme Court. They come from God.”

This woman presumes to interpret political news for the public, and she doesn’t comprehend the Declaration of Independence or its activating document, the Constitution. Both are built on the philosophy of Locke and Rousseau that humans beings, by virtue of being alive, have intrinsic “unalienable rights,” and that governments may not take away those rights or infringe on them. It matters not whether “God,” “the Creator,” “Nature,” “Providence” or some other designation is used to describe the origin of those intrinsic rights, because the United States of America accepts the bedrock belief that government is limited in its ability to dictate to its constituents. Przybyla’s position, in addition to being stunningly ignorant, is the rejected concept that underlies monarchies and other totalitarian systems. Naturally Chris Hayes, poor man’s Rachel Maddow that he is, didn’t have the wit, guts or professionalism to point out to the reporter that she sounded like a complete ignoramus.

As an aside, I should probably post one of the “My Biases” essays about how quickly my respect for anyone plummets when they tell me that they watch MSNBC. The network will literally make you dumber the as you watch it. How anyone qualified to do something more challenging in life than running a bait shop could be so naive as to trust an alleged news source that employs Al Sharpton and Joy Reid is a constant mystery to me.

The question is, how many journalists, prominent pundits and U.S. citizens are just as addled as Przybyla? Remember, these are the people who are screaming about wanting to save democracy from Donald Trump, but they embrace Przybyla’s anti-democratic concept of human rights.

Continue reading

Ethics Quiz: The Gratuitous Diagnosis

I am 100% on the other side of an ethics question recently raised for the New York Times’ ethics advice maven, “The Ethicist.” You tell me which of us you think is right.

Details aside, the inquirer asked if he should, as a retired neurologist, tell a woman he admittedly barely knows but whom he has been in frequent contact with recently that he believes she has Parkinson’s Disease…

….There’s been no occasion to mention my professional background, and I’m now uncertain about whether I should tell her about it and my clinical impressions. Her disease, at its current stage, is likely to be successfully managed with oral medication. However, it is neither obvious that she will have access to skilled neurological care nor that she will be willing to seek it. And a new diagnosis of Parkinson’s, without prompt treatment, on top of her recent loss and the challenges that have followed, may further overwhelm her. My wife is in favor of my informing her, because treatment would benefit her quality of life. I’m hesitant, as there has been no invitation to become more involved in her personal life, and I cannot provide her with a supportive doctor-patient relationship. What would you recommend?

I’ll tell you which of us ethicists believe what after you’ve formulated your own answer. For now, Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is,

What would YOU recommend?

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Dunce: The National MS Society”

One would have a difficult time finding a more measured, considerate, honest and probing analysis of the preferred pronouns controversy than Ryan Harkins offers here. You certainly won’t get it from me: I drew a line in the sand (Remember the Alamo!) on this long ago, when I concluded that such rhetorical demands from various minority groups were cynical power plays designed to make everyone bend to their will or be branded one kind of bigot or another. Ryan’s reflections didn’t change my mind, but they did make me consider changing my mind.

Here is Ryan Harkins’ Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Dunce: The National MS Society”…

***

I have struggled with finding suitable reason to cave and use “preferred” pronouns. I can conceive of numerous reasons to reject them: using such pronouns is manipulative; using them is forcing division; using them is an effort to force the world to conform to an individual, rather than the individual accepting reality; or if none of those, using them is an effort to band-aid over and thus ignore serious issues.

I’ve been considering that maybe being willing to use someone’s preferred pronouns could be a measure of meeting them where they are. In Catholic apologetics and evangelization, that is one of the best tactics in seeking conversion. Walk with someone. Get to know him. Understand his problems. Genuinely care about him, because conversion is not a game where one keeps track of points, but where one is selflessly concerned about this person’s salvation. Furthermore, St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 9: “To the Jew, I become a Jew, to win over the Jew. To the Greek, I become a Greek, to win over the Greek. To the weak, I become weak, to win over the weak. I become all things to all people so that by all means I might save some.”

Continue reading

The Game Is Afoot in Missouri, and Boy, Is It Ever Stupid…

It didn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out this mystery.

The Springfield News-Leader reported on the most ridiculous example of attempted insurance fraud I’ve ever read or heard about. In addition to being spectacularly dishonest, it was also incompetent. Hold on to your heads for this one, and tell anyone in the room to move away to avoid flying pieces of skull…

The Howell County (Missouri) Sheriff’s last November sent out a release about a case of insurance fraud involving a man falsely claiming that an accident involving “a brush hog” had robbed him of both feet. A brush hog is a rotary mower often attached to a tractor; I never heard the term before. See? There are side benefits to even the most ridiculous ethics tales!

The perpetrator of the fraud was a 60-year-old paraplegic who had the brilliant idea of paying someone to cut off his feet so he could claim the insurance money. After all, he couldn’t walk anyway, so it seemed like a good idea at the time. The first problem with the plan was that the responding medics and law enforcement officers couldn’t find his severed feet anywhere. (Usually when someone says they have lost limbs, the limbs aren’t literally lost.) Authorities’ suspicions were also aroused by the tourniquets on the supposed brush hog victim’s legs. Who put them there? Then there were the wounds where the feet used to be. They were far too clean for foot manglings that result from farm equipment mishaps. “If it was done by a brush hog, it would have been a bloody, gory mess,” Torey Thompson, a lieutenant with the Howell County Sheriff’s Office, told the Springfield News Leader. “It was a poorly executed plan.”

Continue reading

And Speaking of Unethical Lawyers: It Sure Looks Like Fulton County’s Favorite Lawyer Love Birds Are Going Down…

Good.

So many of my legal ethics colleagues have been bending over backwards to deny that the blatant conflict of interest persisted in by Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis (being sexually involved with one of the prosecutors she hired to try to stop Donald Trump from being her party in November) implicates her trustworthiness and honesty as a prosecutor. Maybe this will teach them something. The lesson: bias makes you stupid, and it applies to Willis, main squeeze David Wade, and them. Most of my colleagues hate Donald Trump as much as she does, and thus despite every indication that the woman is a legal hack, a liar, and dumb as they get in the elected DA category, almost all of these supposedly objective lawyers and scholars have insisted that she should not be, and would not be, thrown off the contrived Georgia racketeering case.

Right now it looks like she will be lucky not to be thrown out of the law and into a jail cell.

Continue reading

Now THIS Is an Unethical Lawyer!

The Tennessee Supreme Court this month disbarred a Nashville lawyer, Brian Philip Manookian, for habitual unethical conduct that I have a hard time believing that any lawyer would dare to engage in even once. Manookian, wrote the Court, “engaged in this long pattern of intimidating and degrading conduct” to succeed in a medical liability case, the Tennessee Supreme Court said. His goal was to coerce opposing lawyers “into standing down to avoid personal humiliation and emotional distress for them or their families. A business model of sorts, based on fear….To say that Mr. Manookian engaged in multiple offenses is to understate,” the state supreme court continued. “Despite lectures, fines, sanctions and suspensions from judge after judge, Mr. Manookian did not choose merely to continue engaging in misconduct—each time he received the expected negative reaction to his behavior, he responded by escalating it.”

Continue reading