incompetence

Comment Of The Day: “Update: This Is The Student’s Controversial Essay Emulating The Satire Of Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal'”

/ Jack Marshall / 68 Comments

Grading

The indefatigable Charles Green delivered a tough critique of Connor Poole’s essay fulfilling the requirement of an assignment asking  high school students to emulate the satire in Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” and similarly propose an outrageous solution to a contemporary social problem. There are really two issues here, and Charles only deals with one: I believe Connor’s paper was an excellent attempt at Swiftian satire, especially for a high school student, and this is Charles counterpoint to that position. He does not, as far as I can perceive, try to justify the school, North County High School, turning the essay into a controversy and Connor into a pariah.

Good. That, which is the primary ethics issue, is beyond rational dispute. What the school and community are doing to Connor is the equivalent of ordering a kid to juggle flaming torches, and then attacking him when something gets scorched.

Here is Charles’ Comment of the Day on the post, Update: This Is The Student’s Controversial Essay Emulating The Satire Of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”.

I’ll be back at the end.

Here is what I think Poole’s teacher should have written to him in response to his essay:

Connor, I’m giving you a grade of C+ on this paper. Here’s why.

Continue reading →

Update: This Is The Student’s Controversial Essay Emulating The Satire Of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments
Now THIS, arguably, is taking satire too far...

Now THIS, arguably, is taking satire too far…

Here, thanks to some links provided to Ethics Alarms by students at North County High School, is the essay that was written in response to a teacher’s directive to write a satirical solution to a current societal problem in the style and spirit of  Jonathan Swift’s famous essay advocating the conversion of excess Irish children to foodstuffs.

Student’s name: Connor Poole

Verdict: Pure satire, bold and for a writer so young, brilliantly executed.

Grade: A+

Here is the paper that  prompted administrators to try to turn Connor into a pariah, so precisely delivering what was assigned that it has exposed mass incompetence and cowardice at North County High School:

Modest proposal

Wow. Continue reading →

Why Public Schools Are Too Incompetent To Be Trusted To Teach: The Swift Assignment

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments
Now, if those children were black, this would really be offensive...

Now, if those children were black, this would really be offensive. Luckily, they are Irish…

My head hasn’t exploded over this one yet, but I am in extreme pain.

A teacher at North County High School in Maryland assigned her students to write essays that would embody a contemporary  satirical solution to a societal problem, emulating satirist Jonathan Swift’s famous 18th century essay, “A Modest Proposal,” in which the author  proposed, tongue firmly in cheek, that poor Irish folk sell their children as food, thus solving both a population glut and a food shortage.

One student fully embraced the spirit of Swift by suggesting that America should consider deporting African-Americans to the Sahara Desert to address U.S. racism.

A perfect execution of the assignment, wouldn’t you say? The “proposal” is outrageous and offensive; it would indeed address the problem, and, as with some in Swift’s time, literal-minded reflex hysterics won’t understand that the suggestion is satire! Give that student an A!

Or, in the alternative, make him a pariah who wishes he was dead, and may be at risk to be so soon. For other students were offended and complained, and instead of using the incident as a lesson in political satire, the school system turned on the student who had done exactly what was assigned, and sided with the Political Correctness Mob, with Bob Mosier, speaking for Anne Arundel County Schools saying,

“The student chose a subject matter that was clearly insensitive and struck a nerve with students here and staff members here. And so, they have been meetings today where the staff has tried to allow students to express their opinions and say why they’re hurt, why they’re angered.”

Oh, he chose a subject matter that was insensitive, unlike, say, selling and eating children, it that the school’s official position? Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Google Shows What’s Wrong With April Fooling”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

gmail-mic-drop-650x331

Extradimensional Cephalopod adds to the April Fool’s Day ethics lore on Ethics Alarms, commenting on the post about Google’s “Mic Drop” debacle.I especially like the three April Fool’s Day guidelines at the end.

Here is EC’s Comment of the Day on the post, Google Shows What’s Wrong With April Fooling: Continue reading →

Google Shows What’s Wrong With April Fooling

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

Google-Fool

April Fool’s Day is essentially “Betray Someone Who Trusts You So You Can Mock Them” Day, and I have come to detest it. The internet has made the tradition less tolerable than ever, with web hoaxes multiplying the victims of “jokes” from individual friends and family members into thousands of strangers.

What is necessary to have an April Fool’s prank “work” is for someone to trust the prankster and ideally to not be especially aware of April Fool’s Day. I have a problem with the latter: imposing a tradition on someone who doesn’t embrace the tradition is unethical. The first part is also ethically troubling when the April Fooler is a person or entity who is obligated to be trustworthy. I would never host an April Fool’s gag on Ethics Alarms, and I have criticized other professionals who have carelessly used their professional blogs to indulge their juvenile senses of humor at the expense of others. No professional should be pulling tricks on clients or anyone who looks to them for facts, advice, experience or truth. That means April Fool’s Day is off limits to doctors, lawyers, journalists, elected officials, serious bloggers, accountants, law enforcement officials, teachers and priests in their official capacities, to name just a few. It also means that corporations should leave the faux holiday from honesty to individuals.

Nothing illustrates the latter principle better than the Google fiasco two days ago. I’ll let Google tell its own story: Continue reading →

MSNBC Reporter Tony Dokoupil Explains Why His Profession Is Incompetent And Untrustworthy

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

softball_dirt_thumb

On his MSNBC show “Last Word,” host Lawrence O’Donnell expressed surprise that Wisconsin radio personality Charlie Sykes, who conducted a tough interview with Donald Trump this  week, was so much more aggressive that the softball  mainstream media interviewers.

His guest, MSNBC reporter Tony Dokoupil, who is assigned the 2016 campaign beat,  explained that Sykes had done a “one and done” style interview with Trump, which, he said,  journalists who want to have access to Trump over the long haul cannot afford to do.

“People who are on the beat, people who work for our network, they have to keep that relationship going for a long, long time,” Dokoupil said. “Charlie did not have that burden.”

O’Donnell was shocked—shocked!—at this statement. “Well, I don’t think the fact that you have to cover Donald Trump means that you have to then play softball with him so that you can guarantee he will speak to you another time,” he said. “Once the mission of the interview is to get the next interview with the same person, we know how soft that interview is going to be.”

This is hilarious coming from O’Donnell, a blazing partisan who has barely given a tough interview to a Democrat or progressive politician in his life. But I digress.

Dokoupil had committed the cardinal sin of speaking the truth, and it explains a lot. Steve Kroft had essentially made the same confession a couple of years ago when he said that President Obama was willing to do interviews for “60 Minutes” because he knew they would be “fair.” (That was also hilarious, because “fair” is a standard “60 Minutes” has never applied to politicians and leaders it wanted to exhibit in a harsh light. Sorry, digressing again.) The soft-ball approach certainly explains why so many reporters refuse to challenge Trump, and Trump’s boycott and attacks on Fox’s Megyn Kelly for daring to challenge him made explicit the conditions that Dokoupil felt were implied. When ratings are driven by which talking head show gets the falshiest guests, of course most interviewers avoid the “one and done” approach. Is it cowardly? Yes. Does it serve the public interests? No. Does it make lying, misrepresentation and an absence of integrity easy, painless and effective for Trump, Clinton, Obama, Cruz, Sanders, etc., etc.? Sure it does. It also undermines democracy, and is a disgraceful breach of journalism’s obligation to view the public, not its leaders and powerbrokers, as its only constituency.

Would an ethical, trustworthy professional allow this? No, but journalism hasn’t been ethical, trustworthy or professional for a very long time, if ever. For example, the Guardian reported German historian Harriet Scharnberg’s claims  this week that the AP made a mutually beneficial pact with the Hitler regime in order to ensure access to Germany throughout the Holocaust and World War II. The deal had the Associated Press promising to abide by  the Schriftleitergesetz, or editor’s law, agreeing not to publish anything that could be “calculated to weaken the strength of the Reich abroad or at home.” .

I’m sure Lawrence O’Donnell is shocked at this, too.

Ethics Observations On The Michelle Fields-Corey Lewandowski Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

trainwreck6

Michelle Fields, a stand-in reporter for Breitbart, gets manhandled at a Trump rally while trying to ask The Donald a question. She complains, the Trump organization attacks her, her Trumpized employers refuse to back her, and now battery charges have been filed in North Carolina against Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, whom Fields says grabbed and bruised her. Meanwhile, multiple members of the Breitbart staff, including website star Ben Shapiro and the reporter, have resigned.

What’s going on here, and why does it matter?

1. It matters because what should have been a minor episode has turned into a full-scale ethics train wreck, with the still-growing passenger list including Donald Trump, his campaign, Breitbart, Fox News, the justice system, Fields, Shapiro, the Washington Post, Piers Morgan, and Trump’s embarrassing supporters. Nothing has escalated into a nasty and destructive battles of wills, because Donald Trump creates a culture in which winning and never apologizing turns every dispute into ugly confrontation and warfare.

2. This is how Trump as President would and could start a real war. His entire philosophy precludes common sense and diplomacy. Just because an incident is trivial in substance doesn’t mean its implications can’t be significant, and this is an excellent example. Look at how it developed. Trump’s staff embraces the culture he has created and endorses—thuggishness, misogyny, a contempt for manners, a refusal to be gracious, insistence on winning above all, even when the benefits are dwarfed by the costs. A government and nation under Trump would do the same. A complaint over fishing rights or an imagined diplomatic gaffe would deteriorate and escalate, with President Trump shouting insults from the Oval Office. Continue reading →

The Incompetent James Wagner, President Of Emory College

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Trump 2016

The incident was simple and easily handled for any college president with a modicum of common sense, respect for free speech, and a comprehension of the needs of basic higher education. Unfortunately for Emory college, its students and stake-holders, James Wagner is not such a college president. He is, instead, a craven incompetent. Harsh? You decide.

At Emory, someone wrote the frightening words “Trump 2016” with chalk on a stair railing. Given that this is an election year and Donald Trump is running for President, such a scribble should be regarded as unremarkable. Oh, if it happened on a campus where I was enrolled, I might think, “Gee, apparently they accept idiots into this institution, and my degree may not be worth spit,” but that would be the extent of my dismay.

Ah, but it’s 2016, and thanks to the pusillanimous campus leadership at the University of Missouri, Duke, Occidental, Princeton, Yale and so many other places, college students nationwide have gotten it into their delicate heads that there is a basic human right to be shielded from any writing, words, slogans, pictures, historical references or sidelong glances that might upset their preconceived views of life in any way. Thus a group of Emory students who gasped with horror at “Trump 2016,” which is not only political speech but, unfortunately, mainstream political speech, went to Wagner and demanded action.

What Wagner should have said, following in the footsteps of the few college presidents who have shown themselves worthy of their jobs, is some version of what Oklahoma Wesleyan University, Dr. Everett Piper, wrote on his school’s website in response to similar student complaints on his campus: Continue reading →

John Kasich Flunks An Honesty Test…Or Is It Sanity That’s His Problem?

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments
"I have a question for Gov. Kasich. WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU???"

“I have a question for Gov. Kasich. WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU???”

When Donald Trump again decided to boycott a Fox New debate because of his apparent terror of Megyn Kelly, it presented the remaining contenders for the Republican nomination to make their respective cases for 150 minutes without risking ad hominem attacks and having their best soundbites superseded the next day by whatever inflammatory gibberish Trump happened to launch that night for the fascination of talking heads.

What an opportunity—especially for long-time underdog John Kasich, who always seemed like he was on the margins of combat. Yet incredibly, Kasich pulled out of the debate too, forcing Fox to choose between a Ted Cruz monologue or no debate at all. The network chose the latter.

Thank you, Fox.

What sense did this make for Kasich? What politician running for office turns down free national exposure? Theories emerged, one complimentary to Kasich. Had he made a deal with Trump, a la Chris Christie? Was he afraid to go head to head with master debater Ted Cruz? Continue reading →

KABOOM! The Worst Presidential Endorsement Ever From The Biggest Fool Ever To Run For President

/ Jack Marshall / 77 Comments
"Excuse me, Can someone direct me to Dr. Carson's head?"

“Excuse me. Can someone direct me to Dr. Carson’s head?”

I must admit, I’m a little annoyed at my head for exploding this time, even given the provocation. After all, it involves Ben Carson, and I assumed that the small but nauseating doses of Ben Carson idiocy I was forced to listen to during all those debates served as an anti-head explosion vaccination of sorts, though if Donald Trump is to believed, which of course he isn’t, I was risking autism. I assumed there wasn’t anything the deluded doctor could say that would be so stupid and outrageous that it could cause a brain-pan eruption at this point. Obviously, as I stare up at the brain-splattered ceiling in my office, I was wrong.

I now realize that Ben Carson may be the only living human being alive whom I would consider voting for Donald Trump to keep out of the Presidency. I’m not certain, mind you, but it’s stunning to me that anyone is even close to that bad. What would a choice between Trump and Dr. Ben be like? It would be like choosing between Billionaire Biff in “Back to the Future II” and Chance, the well-meaning, lucky moron in “Being There.“ It would be like choosing between Mister Burns and Homer Simpson.

When Carson announced he was endorsing Trump, some pundit wrote that it was “huge.” I tried to imagine the kind of voter who would regard the judgment of a manifest dim-wit like Carson a persuasive reason to vote for a massive fraud like Donald Trump. See, endorsements are silly all by themselves, unless you are just lost. Who is so devoid of pride and self-confidence that they think, “Well, I admire X, and thus I will assume that X’s judgement about who I should vote for to lead my country is better than my own”?*

Now imagine someone thinking that when the endorsement comes from someone who isn’t wearing pants, has a gooney bird nesting on his head, and is carrying a sign that says “Kourtney Kardashsian is God.” What kind of a person is persuaded by that fool’s presidential choice? Yet Ben Carson, with his bizarre belief about how the best person to handle the most difficult job in the world would be someone with no relevant skills or experience whatsoever—let’s not even get into his beliefs about pyramids and other matters—is no less ridiculous than the pantless goony bird character, and a lot more arrogant.

Endorsing Donald Trump is foolish, but no surprise when a Ben Carson—you know, a moron— is the endorser. Today, however, he “explained” his endorsement, and revealed that it was even more incompetent and irresponsible than an endorsement of an atrocious candidate is by nature.

Interviewed  on the “Steve Malzberg Show” yesterday, Carson explained that..

I. He wasn’t really all that sure that Trump would be a good President. See, Ben, an endorsement is supposed to tell people that you have decided that a candidate is the best candidate, and that generally is taken to mean that the endorser at least thinks he would be a good President. Ben is apparently from the Bizarro Planet, however, and he said…

“Even if Donald Trump turns out not to be such a great president, which I don’t think is the case — I think he’s going to surround himself with really good people — but even if he didn’t, we’re only looking at four years, as opposed to multiple generations and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever.”

Wait—who is running against Trump who will be elected for  “multiple generations” ? What the heck is Carson babbling about?

Get the gooney bird! But it got worse.

At least Carson thinks Trump is the best of a bad lot, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s Ben:

“I didn’t see a path for Kasich, who I like, or for Rubio, who I like. As far as  Cruz is concerned, I don’t think he’s gonna be able to draw independents and Democrats unless has has some kind of miraculous change… Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes. But that scenario isn’t available.”

“With one of the other candidates, you mean?” Malzberg asked.

“Yes,” Carson replied.

What exactly does Carson think helps about a Presidential endorsement that is accompanied by the disclaimers that he isn’t really sure his candidate will be very good at the job, and that he would have preferred to endorse any of three other candidates? Does Carson think? Can he think? Continue reading →