Anatomy of an Unethical Class Action Lawsuit, Badly Reported, Exposed by a Blogger

Here is how the Washington Post begins its story about the most recent assault on McDonald’s by the people who want to control your eating and parenting habits:

“The D.C.-based nutrition watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest has helped a California mother file a class-action suit against McDonald’s, demanding that the burger chain stop marketing toys to children. The woman, Monet Parham of Sacramento, claims that the marketing of Happy Meal toys has interfered with her ability as a parent to provide her two children with a healthful diet. Here’s a quote:

“I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” Parham said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes it that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

This is fairly typical of the hundreds of news stories on the web about the lawsuit. Over at Popehat, Patrick, the wittiest of the site’s witty staff, performs a crushing dissection of the lawsuit, the story, and the media’s incompetent reporting of it. You see, he writes..

“…Monet Parham is really Monet Parham-Lee.  Monet Parham-Lee is the name that Monet Parham uses professionally.  Monet Parham-Lee is represented in the suit by attorneys affiliated with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  Meaning Ralph Nader.  Monet Parham-Lee is an employee of the California Department of Public Health. Monet Parham-Lee works in the “Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Section” of the California Department of Public Health. Meaning that Monet Parham-Lee is tasked, professionally, by the State of California with ensuring that Californians eat their vegetables.  The power that the State of California grants Monet Parham-Lee evidently is not enough.  Monet Parham-Lee is taking the law into her own hands, to ensure that not only her own children eat their vegetables, but that everyone else is forced to make their children eat vegetables.” Continue reading

Welcome to The Nursing Blog! Next?

Dr. Chris MacDonald, the articulate Canadian ethicist who is already the proprietor of the best business ethics blog on the Web, is apparently on a mission to bring ethics to every corner of the professional landscape, and all power to him. He is already a collaborator on the useful Research Ethics Blog , a co-writer of The Food Ethics Blog, and the primary force behind the Biotech Ethics website. Now, along with Dr. Nancy Walton, his partner on the research ethics site, he is launching a new ethics blog, on the topic of nursing. The Nursing Blog is a great idea, for a profession that faces persistent, difficult, and daily ethical issues. As Dr. Walton says in the debut post, there is a need. Whenever I learn about professional blogs, I pass on the links in seminars with those professionals: nothing strengthens ethical instincts and conduct better than a daily dose of thoughtful discussion or debate on ethical issues related to one’s own field. Bravo and brava, Doctors McDonald and Walton! And thanks.

While I’m thinking about it, I have some other ethics blog ideas for Chris to consider as he broadens his ethics blogging empire.

How about a horny lawyers ethics blog, for example? Clearly one is needed. Another need: a New Jersey Turnpike employees ethics blog….and fast. There is also a pressing need for a prosecutors ethics blog, since California’s bar is investigating 130 of them for wrongdoing. I know there are a few such blogs already, but clearly, they are not enough. And, of course, we are waaay overdue for a Public Broadcasting fairness and integrity blog.

So congratulations, Chris…but you still have a lot of work to do.

Fox News Sunday Ethics Revelations: Wallace and Fiorina

Two things were stunningly in evidence during today’s interview of GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina (trying to unseat Barbara Boxer in California) by anchor Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

The first is that Chris Wallace does not conform to the media stereotype of a Fox journalist, a thinly veiled Republican operative committed to pushing a conservative agenda. If only interviewers on CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC were so unwilling to accept evasion, half-truths and nostrums from Democrats. Kudos to Wallace for doing his job, not lobbing softballs, and exemplifying journalistic integrity where most people least expect it.

The second is that candidate Fiorina, yet another Tea Party darling, is a fake. Continue reading

“Yes, THESE Figures Were Outrageously Mistaken, But You Should Trust Our OTHER Figures Completely!”

Question: What ethical conclusions can one reach from this story about the great, environmentally responsible state of California?

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

“California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards…The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries. Continue reading

Yucks All Over:Sifting Through the Whitman/Allred/Diaz/Brown Ethics Train Wreck

Is anyone doing or saying the right thing for the right reasons in the current controversy in California over Meg Whitman’s housekeeper? I think not. Let’s look at the main participants, and avert your eyes. It ain’t pretty:

Gloria Allred: Emerging out of nowhere to manufacture a campaign controversy that may sink conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s chance of beating liberal Democrat golden oldie Jerry Brown, feminist advocate Allred is exploiting a long-time illegal immigrant for political purposes (Allred’s support for Brown goes back decades), torpedoing the campaign of a woman trying to be the state’s first female governor. Continue reading

The Bell Salary Scandal and the Victims’ Breach of Duty

In most respects, this months horror story about the incredibly corrupt officials of Bell, California doesn’t require any ethics commentary. The verdict is obvious. Robert Rizzo, Bell’s city manager, was collecting an $800,000 a year salary to run a dirt-poor town of  40,000 residents. Part-time city council members took home almost $100,000 annually, mostly by paying themselves to serve on municipal boards and commissions. Rizzo stood to collect a $600,000-a-year pension, and police chief Randy Adams, who was paid more than most big city police chiefs, had arranged for a $411,300-a-year pension. The city officials of Bell were predators, using their positions to steal money from the cities citizens. To pay for all the rich salaries and pensions, Bell’s crooked officials passed unconscionable property taxes, levied on a city population that averaged income less than $25,000 per capita . Even Charlie Rangel wouldn’t argue that this is politics as usual.

Nevertheless, this is a republic, and citizens, even citizens of small towns, have an obligation to pay attention to what their elected officials are doing. Continue reading

Ethics Quote of the Month: Judge Vaughn Walker

His opinion declaring the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages in California unconstitutional is here.

The opinion really begins on page 110. Opponents of the opinion are calling it “judicial activism,” “overturning the will of the people,” and “ruling by fiat.” Don’t buy it. The judge logically, fairly and appropriately explains why withholding the basic right of marriage from same-sex couples is a violation of essential values and American principles of ethics and law. Forget about the pundits and the spin: read what Judge Walker wrote.

“Genetic Surveillance” and Law Enforcement Ethics

The “Grim Sleeper” serial killer was caught because California authorities found a partial DNA match with an individual in its database. That meant that the killer was probably related to the owner of that DNA, and indeed he was. We see this approach on the various “C.S.I” shows, but in real life using family DNA to identify a criminal is relatively rare, because only two states, Colorado and California, permit a  “familial search,” the use of DNA samples taken from convicted criminals to track down relatives who may themselves have committed a crime.

Why only two? The science is reliable, and a familial search can narrow the pool of suspects to the point where solving a crime becomes inevitable. Nevertheless, civil libertarians argue that the technique raises privacy concerns. Michael Risher, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, told the New York Times there was the possibility of innocent people being harassed in the pursuit of a crime. “It has the potential to invade the privacy of a lot of people,” he said. Continue reading

California’s Confused Welfare Ethics

The Los Angeles Times has been running a series of stories detailing how many California welfare recipients have been using their state-issued welfare debit cards (which take money directly out of state coffers) at casino ATM’s. The millions of dollars in taxpayer money dispensed to eager, if poor, gamblers produced predictable outrage, and the state responded by blocking use of the cards at over 200 ATM’s and revising the pledge signed by welfare recipients to require them to only use the assistance to “meet the basic subsistence needs” of their families.

The outrage is misplaced, and the remedial measures are symbolic at best. Continue reading