Ethics Quiz: Christmas Dancing At The White House

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Relax…today’s ethics quiz has nothing to do with whether Jill Biden’s Christmas video featuring the modern ballet troupe Dorrance Dance is your cup of eggnog.

Rather it is this…

Is it responsible and ethical for the White House to use the holidays to promote a politically radical, anti-police, anti-white, Marxist organization like Dorrance Dance?

For Dorrance Dance is an overtly and outspokenly Marxist dance company that even prominently displays a quote from Angela Davis on its website: “You have to act as if it were possible to radically transform the world. And you have to do it all the time.” The group advocates defunding the police across the country, and prominently endorses Black Lives Matters, another Marxist organization.

The group’s radical politics are a bit buried on its website behind standard aspirational artistic blather like “Our goal is to engage with audiences on a musical and emotional level, and to share the complex history and powerful legacy of this American art form throughout the country and the world.” Well, yes, that, and ending capitalism and the United States of America as we know it in order to achieve “racial justice.”

My answer to the quiz is that as long as the group keeps its politics out of its work for the White House, good luck to them. They were engaged—I hope—because of their dance artistry rather than their contempt for the United States. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bidens had no idea what the group advocates.

Yes, it’s annoying that Dorrance Dance will undoubtedly use its White House gig as cognitive dissonance helium to elevate their public image into more positive territory than any organization connected to Angela Davis, Black Lives Matter and Karl Marx deserves. But if we chose our art based on the political sophistication and delusions of artists, we’d just end up with bad art.

A “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Smoking Gun: An Insider Confirms The Ethics Rot At The New York Times And In American Journalism

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

The bad news is that the platform for this powerful exposé is The Economist, which most Americans don’t read. Another problem is that the essay by former Times opinion editor James Bennet is prohibitively long: over 17,000 words. Nonetheless, everyone should read it, especially those who still hold on to the myth that “advocacy journalism” is journalism, that’s it’s healthy for our democracy, or that the New York Times can be trusted to convey facts rather than propaganda.

The piece is titled “When the New York Times lost its way,” and the author begins by focusing on the Senator Tom Cotton op-ed piece that he was forced to take down and that cost him his job. It is understandable that Bennet feels that way, but the fact that he would point to that episode and not many others that occurred before it shows his own blindness and bias. Apparently the Times announcing in late 2016 that it would henceforth frame the news to ensure that Hillary Clinton, or pushing the Hillary-seeded Russian collusion myth for two years didn’t qualify as signature significance of a corrupted paper, but pulling a conservative U.S. Senator’s op-ed because the Times staff disagreed with it does. Well, that one cost Benett his job, after all.

Ironically, Bennet’s biases enhance his credibility: in many ways he’s a classic Democratic, Trump-hating progressive, and yet he’s still blowing a very loud whistle on his colleagues. Is he a “disgruntled ex-employee”? Sure he is; Bennet is bitter and disillusioned, and maybe that’s why he felt it necessary to write such an exhaustive piece. Nonetheless, his argument is persuasive. If the Times was the newspaper it claims to be (and that Bennet shows it is not), it would have published his essay itself.

The article is here, and to encourage you to read it, I’ll point out some representative passages:

Continue reading →

Worst-Timed Fundraising Appeal Of The Decade…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations.

Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.

Continue reading →

Some semi-alert Harvard fundraiser decided to tweak this letter to emphasize supporting students rather than the institution itself. I rule that deceitful, but it’s such an obvious and pathetic ploy that the chances of it fooling anyone with an IQ above 80—most, though not all, Harvard alums probably can top 100— are slim.

This year-end fundraising appeal arrives in my mailbox the same week that the school’s leadership unanimously supported a president who embarrassed herself, the school and its alumni in a public forum. It comes after Harvard gave tacit approval to students threatening the welfare and educational opportunities of Jewish students by refusing to take any action against other students extolling terrorism targeting Jews, and espousing intafada and genocide. While a lesser Ivy League institution, UPenn, correctly dismissed its president who made almost exactly the same tone-deaf and cowardly statements before Congress that Harvard’s Claudine Gay did, saying that whether calls for the death of Jews constitutes harassment and a violation of the school’s conduct code depends on their “context,” Harvard’s governing body submitted an absurd-on-its-face endorsement of Gay, stating “Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.”

Yes, the most prestigious university in the U.S., among all its scholars and graduates, can’t find a better leader than one unable to explain the limits of free speech on campus, or do better under questioning than to repeat verbatim the canned answers provided by lawyers as if she were reciting “The Wreck of the Hesperus.”

Who believes that? What informed graduate not yet in the throes of senility doesn’t comprehend that the vote of confidence means, “We chose this woman because she was black and a DEI hun, and not having black alums and woke faculty rebel is more important to us than showing that we reject anti-Semitism and care sufficiently about maintaining Harvard’s reputation. “

If there was doubt that President Gay could do anything short of running naked with a bloody machete through Harvard Square and keep her job, she was also permitted to pilot “Back to the Future’s” Delorean and remove plagiarized sections of her nearly 30 year-old PhD dissertation, though it was in its illicit form when the document won her the doctorate. Although the Harvard Crimson has supported Gay (on the theory that Harvard should never do anything demanded by evil, racist Republicans) it also concluded in an investigation…

The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations.

Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.

Continue reading →

‘Fund Raising Appeals I Stopped Reading After Two Paragraphs’ Dept.: No, ProPublica, I’m Not Giving Money To Your Brand Of “Independent Journalism”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I subscribe to ProPublica because the group often does valuable investigative reporting, just as I subscribed to Glenn Greenwald this year even after he took my substack subscription money and then produced nothing for months because he was sick or something. (Not again, Glenn, Sorry.) However, I will not give money to organizations who lie to me. This is how the year-end appeal I just received from ProPublica begins:

It’s no secret that American democracy is in peril. The 2020 elections were unlike anything our country has seen before — election deniers, an insurrection and bad actors sowing disinformation shed a harsh light on the fragile state of our democracy. As a ProPublica reader, I know you’ve been aware of these growing threats for some time now.

ProPublica is no bystander when it comes to ensuring a transparent government, regardless of who is in power. As a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom, we believe that investigative journalism is one of the most powerful tools we have to ensure a healthy democracy…

Continue reading →

See, This Is GOOD Discrimination. Got It?

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Honestly, how do these people look at themselves in the mirror without retching? Isn’t there some level of toxic hypocrisy that is physically disabling, or does one build up resistance over time?

An aide to Boston’s Asian-American mayor Michelle Wu was supposed to send that invitation for the Mayor’s “Electeds of Color Holiday Party” (Catchy name!) to, you know, only elected officials who aren’t white because, after all, who wants them at a party? Oopsie! Poor Denise DosSantos, soon to be ringing a bell by a red pot on a corner, accidentally sent the invitations for the secret racist and exclusive event to everyone. This prompted criticism, and this resulting “apology” from the aide: “I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow. I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.”

Continue reading →

What A Surprise! Unethical Ex-Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Has An Unethical Lawyer

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I guess that should be “another unethical lawyer,” since Trump’s disbarred fixer was previously represented by Lanny Davis, who previously spun for the Clintons.

This, however, is funny: Cohen’s current lawyer, in arguing to a judge that court supervision of his client should be terminated now thatCohen is out of prison, included three imaginary cases in his filing last month.

“As far as the court can tell,” Manhattan federal judge Jesse M. Furman, wrote yesterday, “none of these cases exist.”

Given that Cohen is Cohen and among the most unethical people with a law degree in the country, suspicion immediately was sparked that he was behind his lawyer’s fantasies. But this is the era of nascent SkyNet, and unwitting lawyers and paralegals have already been caught using chatbots for legal research, to their sorrow. Last June, for example, a federal judge fined two lawyers $5,000 for putting their names on a legal brief containing made-up cases and citations concocted by aspiring lawyer ChatGPT. The fines were widely derided as insufficient, but judges traditionally are sympathetic when lawyers misuse technology that the judges don’t understand….at least the first time around.

So maybe Cohen’s lawyer was fooled by a bot. Another possibility is that Cohen’s lawyer, Cohen-like, just cheated. I have been told by many litigators over the years that they routinely find fake cases in their adversaries’ briefs, memos and motions.

Furman has ordered Cohen’s attorney to provide copies of the three mystery decisions within a week, or provide a sworn declaration explaining “how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed.”

Given the client, this story is as perfect a candidate for a Nelson as I could imagine.

Confirmation Bias Test: The Rasmussen 2020 Voter Fraud Survey

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Trump’s reaction aside, what is a fair, rational, measured way to evaluate the results of the just-relased Rasmussen survey about voter fraud in the 2020 election?

The headline is “One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election.” The findings, in brief:

1. “More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.”

2. “21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child, while 78% say they didn’t.”

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Romanian Flag Ethics, or ‘Who Cares About Chad?’”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

“Unhinged” is a Russell Crowe horror movie about a woman in a bad mood one morning who honks angrily at the driver of a car in front of her when a light turns green at an intersection. Unfortunately for her, she finds out that she has triggered a lunatic who decides to ruin her life as revenge for her impulsive honk. In the background to this Very Special Comment of the Day, I am the equivalent of the woman, and the author, “Stacey’s Friend Chad” is Russell Crowe, if the Russell Crowe character waited over six years to decide to go on his rampage.

Welcome to my world. I woke up this morning to not one but six posts scattered around Ethics Alarms by a commenter whose first comment had him banned from Ethics Alarms on this post, a tongue-in-cheek bit of fluff that I wrote in 2017 after reading about a flag dispute between Romania and Chad. Two commenters didn’t appreciate my whimsy (out of over 40 comments—I’ll take that ratio any day), one of whom was writing from Romania to defend his country, and another who launched into diatribe about my “dishonesty.”

Normally such a comment wouldn’t get out of moderation, but I was in a bad mood that day for some reason, and posted the comment just so I could abuse the jerk for all to see. That was stupid and unethical. I’ve done it a couple of times, and even warn commenters about my occasional outbursts in the Comment Policies above, but still, reading what I wrote in 2017 is embarrassing. This is my penance: that banned commenter returned with a vengeance this morning, and it is all my fault. Thus for the second time I’m posting one of his attack comments instead of sending it to spam hell immediately (which is where the other five comments are now.)

I’m hoping I remember this episode the next time I’m tempted to call a commenter a “butt-head.” Here you go…

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Section 16

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

Here is a controversy that I was completely ignorant of, and I am embarrassed to admit it.

One more bi-product of the George Floyd Freakout, ‘The Great Stupid’ that has washed over the land like the Great Molasses Flood of 1919, and the Stalin-esque attempt to airbrush American history, including the toppling of statues honoring certain distinguished Americans who were not sufficiently psychic to absorb the lessons and accumulated ethics wisdom of those with the advantage of a century or more additional history and human experience, was the Naming Commission, established by the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act in the throes of all of the above malign influences. It’s official mission is to recommend removal of “all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America.” The Commission extended its reach to the Reconciliation Monument at Arlington National Cemetery, which is located in the special section known as Section 16. The monument, which you see above, is scheduled to come down.

Of all the many times I have visited Arlington—my father and mother are buried there, also my grandfather, and Dad loved to take me on tours of the place as he checked out his future residence, especially when he was taking part in the annual Battle of the Bulge veterans ceremonies—I never saw this section. It has a fascinating history.

Arlington was established as a burial ground for the Union military dead. Indeed, Montgomery Meigs, the Quartermaster General of the U.S. Army who was responsible for the burial of soldiers, ordered Robert E. Lee’s Arlington estate to be turned into a cemetery so Lee could never return there. Meigs had his son, an early casualty of the war, buried literally on the Confederate leader’s doorstep as a statement of contempt and defiance. No Rebel combatants were permitted on the sacred grounds.

However President William McKinley, himself a Medal of Honor recipient for his heroism at the Battle of Antietam, announced that the U.S. government would commit to honoring the Confederate dead, saying in a speech in Atlanta that “sectional feelings no longer holds back the love we feel for each other. The old flag waves over us in peace with new glories.” Congress authorized Confederate remains to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery in 1900, and in 1906, the construction of a monument was commissioned to represent the nation’s acceptance of the Confederacy back into the nation, healing of the deep wounds of civil war. 1903 saw President Theodore Roosevelt send a floral arrangement to the Section 16 to commemorate Confederate Memorial Day, and began a tradition that has been regularly observed since, with President Obama expanding the practice to laying two floral wreaths, one at the Confederate Memorial, the other at Washington, D.C.’s African American Civil War Memorial.

This week the Republican Congress has sent a letter of protest to the Defense Department, demanding that preparations to remove the monument cease, and pointing out that the purpose of the memorial is not to honor the Confederacy, but to stand for national unity, reconciliation, and peace.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Should the Reconciliation Memorial be removed along with the remains of the Confederate soldiers buried in Section 16?

Continue reading →

Fire The Teacher And School Board, Pull Out All The Students, Raze The Building And Sow The Grounds With Salt…But First, GET OUT!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Ugh. Here is another one of those “conservative stories” that so far the progressive media has ignored. I can’t find any non-conservative reports, but it appear to be real. A tenth-grade teacher of “Ethnic Studies World History” at Chief Sealth International High School (Could there be a description that screams “Woke mania!” any more shrilly?) failed a student on a class quiz called “Understanding Gender vs. Sex” because he wrote that only women can become pregnant as an answer to one question and and that only men have penises on another.

According to local radio 770 KTTH, some of the questions on the quiz focused involved personal pronoun use (“When someone uses ‘they/them’ pronouns, what does that mean about their gender identity?”) and stereotypes. (“True/false: Transgender people are gay”). Question 4 asked for a true or false response to the statement, “All men have penises.” The student chose “true” because 99.9% of the time it is true. The teacher marked it incorrect. Question 7 was another true or false question, “Only women can get pregnant.” Again, The same student marked this statement “true” as well. The teacher believes that men can get pregnant, though 99.999999999999999999999+ men throughout history and currently could not and can not.

The child’s mother is perplexed, reportedly telling the Jason Rantz Show on the radio station that her complaints have gone unanswered, and that her son says he has been called “fucked and racist” and “a product of the patriarchy” by teachers in the school.

Continue reading →