And Now an Ethics Post About ANOTHER Set of Conjoined Twins…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I can’t resist. What were the odds that both famous sets of female conjoined twins would justifiably spark ethics commentary within just three months of each other? And yet here we are…

In January, Ethics Alarms designated Brittany Hansel, the “single” member of the amazing Hansel twins (who, I would argue, are really a two headed woman), an Ethics Hero for the mind-boggling concessions and sacrifices she has had to (and will continue to have to) endure so her dominant sister Abigail can be married. Now comes the news that he oldest living conjoined twins have died at the age of 62.

I’ve been fascinated by the Schappell twins most of my life, since their birth was widely publicized when I was a kid. They were joined at the head and shared 30% of their brains, so obviously separating them was not a realistic possibility. Frankly, I had forgotten about them until this morning: apparently my brain can only handle one set of conjoined twins at a time.

Digression: Is “set” the accepted term? And that question makes me recall a memorable line from “The Simpsons” in a Halloween episode where Bart is revealed to be one half of a good/evil set of conjoined twins. As the Simpsons’ pediatrician, Dr. Hibbard, tells the tale to Lisa (we don’t see much of Dr. Hibbard any more since it was decided that it was racist to have a white actor voice a “black” cartoon character. That, in turn, is one reason I don’t see much of “The Simpsons” any more), the doctor refers to Bart and his brother as “Siamese Twins.” Lisa, pedantic and politically correct as ever, tells him that such individuals prefer the term “conjoined twins,” to which Hibbard replies, “Hillbillies prefer to be called “Sons of the South,” too, but it ain’t going to happen!”

Digression over…back to the late Schappell twins: Their various obituaries are full of head-spinning (something these twins could not do) details with ethics implications:

Continue reading →

Say Hello to Rationalization #38D, Yoda’s Annoyance or “I Was Trying My Best!”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I almost called this “Kaine’s Delusion,” because it was the junior Virginia Senator, former governor and failed Hillary Clinton running mate whose fatuous remarks made me realize that this rationalization, a frequently used one, had some how been left off the list.

Yoda’s Annoyance fits neatly among the sub-rationalizations under #38. The Miscreant’s Mulligan or “Give him/her/them/me a break!” the versatile rationalization that aims to duck the consequences of wrongful conduct by making others feel guilty about placing responsibility squarely where it belongs, by arguing that the miscreant isn’t so bad, isn’t different from anyone else, that he or she meant well, or that the critic is just being an old meanie. The closely relate #38 A.“Mercy For Miscreants, ” embodies the theory that there should be cap on criticism handed out to groups and individuals no matter how much wrongful conduct has been authored by them.

38 B: Excessive Accountability, or “He’s (She’s) Suffered Enough,” previously most often heard when a parent has negligently allowed an infant or small child to perish in a locked car, has recently been repurposed to defend parents who allow their kids to get a hold of their negligently stored firearms, killing others or themselves as a result. Finally authorities are prosecuting such parents. (Good!) Next we have #38C. Biden’s Inoculation or “I don’t deny that I do this!,” which is based on the slippery theory that bad conduct is mitigated by one’s open admission and acknowledgment that it’s a bad habit. This one is a close cousin of a two others on the list, like #19A. Donald’s Dodge, or “I never said I was perfect!” and #41 A. Popeye’s Excuse, or “I am what I am.”

38 D would have been 38 A if I had added it earlier when I should have, and not waited for Tim Kaine to make an ass of himself by saying yesterday at a “block party” at a local park in Dumfries, Virginia…

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Conservative Pundit David Burge, a.k.a. “Iowahawk” [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Burge’s tweet above was in response to the episode described by ultra-woke UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in the statement below (you can view Chemerinsky’s damning Ethics Alarms dossier here).

Gee what a surprise.

Continue reading →

Enterprising! Gutsy! Bold! Funny!….But Unethical

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I bet someone tries to adapt this into a screenplay.

The Pinakothek der Moderne is an art museum in Munich renowned for having one of the most impressive collections of modern art in the world. It also has works by less-then-modern modern masters like Leonardo Da Vinci and Henri Mattise. A 51-year-old member of the gallery’s technical services team who regards art as his true calling decided to, as we say, “go for it” and secretly hung one of his own works, a 23 by 47 inch painting, in the museum gallery during the early morning hours of February 23, before the museum opened for the public.

He found an empty wall in a hallway, drilled two holes, put up his masterpiece, and waited to be discovered. He was. The stowaway art was quickly spotted by a staff member. To avoid disruption and perhaps fearing the Streisand Effect (I don’t know what it’s called in Germany), they waited until after closing to take the painting down. Then the museum fired the bold artist’s butt, and the rest of him too. He was also banned from the museum.

The museum didn’t reveal his name, and waited almost two months before revealing the incident this week. In that movie that I am sure will get made, some wealthy art patron or celebrity sees the painting, buys it, and the artist becomes an international sensation.

“We did not receive any positive feedback on the addition from visitors to the gallery,” a spokesperson for the museum told the press.

Ouch.

Apparently the News Media Has Decided That It Was Time For Another Ferguson-Style Phony Racist Police Story

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This kind of journalism goes well beyond unethical to near evil.

Here are the bare facts about the death of 26-year-old Dexter Reed on March 21, 2024, after his car was pulled over by Chicago police. He had been arrested on July 13, 2023 and charged with felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Reed had also been arrested on April 20, 2023 and charged with retail theft. After Reed was stopped on March 21 of this year, he refused to obey officers’ commands, and then started shooting. One shot wounded a Chicago police officer. Four officers returned fire, and Reed died in the exchange.

Now here is how the Washington Post began telling the story, in reports this week with these headlines: “Videos show Chicago police fired nearly 100 shots over 41 seconds during fatal traffic stop,” and “Police fire 96 shots in 41 seconds, killing Black man during traffic stop.”

Continue reading →

That Arizona Abortion Decision…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

This story is straightforward and ethically simple. Apparently neither Republicans, nor Democrats, nor abortion activists, nor the President, not the news media is capable or willing to say so. I guess that leaves it up to me.

When the constantly legislating Supreme Court of the Sixties and Seventies illegally made up a Constitutional right that didn’t exist—the right to have an abortion limited only by the Supreme Court’s arbitrary limit based on that decade’s belief regarding “viability”,””— in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, it stole away the power to make laws regulating abortion in the states. This, in turn rendered unenforceable a law in Arizona dating from its days as a territory in 1864 (Arizona didn’t become a state until 1912) that almost completely banned abortion. The law was still valid in 1973; laws passed by the territorial government were all grandfathered into the state statute book, and nobody disputed that they had to be treated like any other law until such laws were amended or repealed.

When the Supreme Court correctly if ridiculously tardily declared Roe to be the bad law, bad theory and irresponsible power grab by SCOTUS that it was in the Dobbs decision overturning it, that Arizona law was, as Dr. Frankenstein would say, “Alive! It’s alive!” And so it was. The beginning of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood et al v Kristin Mayes/Mayes Hazelrigg tells you pretty much all you need to know, though reading the whole opinion and its dissents in the 4-2 ruling is worth the time. The opinion begins,

Continue reading →

Rueful Observations on a Former O.J. Juror’s 2016 Admission

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

O.J. Simpson’s death this week brought back lots of bad memories—I can’t think of a good one—and a lot of familiar spin and dubious exclamations. One disturbing moment it brought back into the spotlight was the moment above, when in 2016, the ESPN series “O.J.: Made in America” showed Carrie Bess, one of the Simpson jurors, stating that her jury voted to acquit O.J. not because the jury didn’t think he was guilty, but because they sought “payback” for the police beating of Rodney King.

The whole exchange after the interviewer asks, “Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?”

Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90% of them.
Interviewer: 90 %! Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.
Interviewer: Do you think that’s right?

And the ex-juror shrugs.

Nice.

Observations:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The President’s Mexican Ventriloquist

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Over at Newsbusters, Jorge Bonilla argues that “the act of dubbing President Joe Biden in Spanish is tantamount to an act of election interference.”

He cites as evidence Biden’s interview this week about guns as aired on Univision and Unimás this week. Here is what the President said (so far, I haven’t found a YouTube video):

“The idea we don’t have background checks for anybody purchasing a weapon, the idea that we’re going to be in a position where he says that he famously told the NRA that don’t worry, no one’s going to touch your guns if I… From the very beginning, I used to teach the Second Amendment in law school, from the very beginning, there were limitations. You couldn’t own a cannon. You couldn’t… You could own a rifle or a gun.”

This is off the topic a bit, but did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? We require background checks for most gun purchases; the idea that “we don’t have background checks for anybody purchasing a weapon” is a false idea, and communicating it as if it isn’t is called “a lie.” Biden means that people making private purchases of firearms don’t currently have to get background checks. Then he again, as he has repeatedly for years, makes the absolutely untrue statement that “You couldn’t own a cannon.” No, Joe you could, and even lackey fact-checkers like the Post’s Glenn Kessler have called out this favorite piece of anti-Second Amendment fiction. Biden just keeps on repeating it, as interviewers nod their heads like those plastic German Shepherds in the back rear window of cars in the 80’s.

Back to Bonilla’s point: He says that listening to Biden’s weak and hesitant delivery should set off “Oh-oh…this guy is President?” alarms, but the President is protected from that legitimate realization when Spanish-language outlets dub his voice:

Those who watched the TelevisaUnivision interview of Joe Biden on Unimás (as I did, primarily) got English with subtitles. We heard the president in his own voice, speech pattern and mannerisms. We got to hear him trail off several times, and made assessments of his lucidity and cognition. Based on this feed we were able to speculate as to the efficacy of the (alleged) White House medical cocktail team…Those who watched the Spanish-dubbed interview on Univision were deprived of that perspective because of the stellar job done by the interpreter. When dubbed into Spanish, Biden sounds 40 years younger and without cognitive decline. The interpreter’s rich baritone, when transposed onto Biden, leaves viewers with the impression of a president far more vigorous than he actually is.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Is dubbing Biden voice in Spanish for Spanish-speaking voters unethical “election interference”?

Continue reading →

WHAAAAT? NPR is Politically BIASED??? How Could That Be? [CORRECTED!]

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Oh for heaven’s sake. National Public Radio’s cronies in Woke Journalism Land are stunned that Uri Berliner, a senior business editor who worked at NPR for 25 years, wrote in an essay published on Substack that “people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.” Seldom has the “Die Hard” clip above from the Ethics Alarms archive been more appropriate.

Here’s the Ethics Alarms NPR tag, which mostly catalogues the examples of NPR bias and unethical journalism Ethics Alarms has covered, and I’m sure it is still a drop in the metaphorical bucket. NPR was an Ethics Dunce recipient—again— just a few months ago.

NPR is extremely biased; its bias is flagrant and undeniable and has seeped into it programing on virtually every topic for decades. The only thing shocking about an NPR editor publicly admitting this is that anyone who was marinated in the organization’s dishonest and untrustworthy culture would be capable of telling the truth.

Continue reading →

‘Thank God It’s the Friday Open Forum!’ (TGITFO)

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Yikes. Once again, the Ethics Alarms attic is chaos, and I am waaaay behind in covering important ethics stories, breaking ethics stories and developments in recent ethics stories I did get around to. Yesterday, for example, we learned that LA Dodger two-way superstar Shohei Ohtani’s good friend and interpreter stole 16 million bucks from the player to cover his illegal gambling problem, not “just” four million.

I’m hoping the Wisdom of Crowds can help clear the metaphorical decks today.