Ethics Train Wreck Report: Lessons, Ethical and Otherwise, of the Missoula “Mikado” Mess

Much of my weekend was occupied by reading, writing, thinking, and talking about the bizarre controversy over a community theater production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado,” which, by a series of misunderstandings, misdeeds, hypocrisies and journalistic malpractice, has created much anger and unhappiness for no legitimate reason at all. If you are late to the story and want to catch up, you can do so here, here, here, and here.

For the first and perhaps only time I can honestly say that Ethics Alarms is the most reliable source on a story. There may be plenty of ethicists who are more knowledgeable, scholarly, prudent and experienced than I am regarding ethics theory, but none of them knows this topic—Gilbert and Sullivan and “The Mikado”, like I do. I have 50 years experience performing, directing, studying, parodying and laughing at the works of these Victorian geniuses. The second I read the astoundingly wrong-headed interpretation being attached to the Missoula Community Theatre’s inclusion of Sarah Palin in Ko-Ko’s famous song “I’ve Got a Little List,” I surmised exactly what was going on, and my assessment has been confirmed by everything that has come to light since.

I will summarize what we now know in brief (well, briefer than reading all the posts) form:

Continue reading

Unethical Journalist of the Week: Aaron Flint, of The Northern Broadcasting Network

Well, why not…before all-Mikado Saturday comes to an end, I might as well highlight this astounding example of spectacularly incompetent journalism by the Northern Broadcasting Network’s Aaron Flint, who actually posted this hilarious idiocy on his “Flint Report” (I will have to comment on the text as it goes, since there is too much nonsense to take in all at once.)

His headline: “Palin Beheaded in Missoula Play” Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Unethical Quote of the Week: Walmart”

The Comment of the Day on Walmart’s jaw-dropping justification for its new line of make-up for the under-12 set,  from Steven Mark Pilling:

“… This sort of thing is repugnant by nature. We’ve all seen other clothing lines for kids that reflect this sort of thing, to include sexy lingerie for little girls. This is unrelentingly vile, as it not only sexualizes children further in the eyes of predators, but that it normalizes it in their own developing minds. This is the same argument, of course, that I’ve long employed in my opposition to films employing child actors in R-rated performances. And, I maintain, just as valid. In other words, this is a case of pedophile bait.

“That slickly worded announcement from Walmart that you quoted even resembles that of filmmakers who present such things. The bottom line is profit… regardless of means. The excuse is in shifting the onus onto the parents who, while distracted by other items, will absentmindedly consent to their children (who have been attracted by some colorful, glitzy item- as children innocently are) and indulge them… only to later discover (maybe) the true nature of what they’ve bought. But the damage will have been done.”

Unethical Quote of the Week: Walmart

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/how-young-is-too-young-for-makeup

“The geoGIRL line was developed in partnership with our customers to give parents a healthier, age-appropriate option for their tween girls who ask about wearing make-up. The decision of what is age appropriate to wear makeup rests solely with the parent. The line will be marketed to parents and targets a certain life stage as opposed to a certain age of girl so parents can make informed decisions whenever they feel it’s appropriate for their child to wear makeup.

—-Walmart, in a statement addressing criticism of its new makeup line called geoGIRL that targets “tweens”–or 8-12 year old girls.  The products include a cleanser, blush, eye shadow, mascara, and more. Continue reading

Ethics Dunce Follow-up: Justice Thomas’s False Disclosures

From the New York Times:

“Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.
Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures listing Mrs. Thomas’s employment in that time with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, and Hillsdale College in Michigan, for which she ran a constitutional law center in Washington.” Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: Justice Clarence Thomas

Will Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas be impeached because he failed to disclose his wife’s income, as required by Federal law, for at least five years? No.

Should he be? Probably not, though if it was proven that he intentionally used incorrect information, he could be found guilty of perjury. More likely is a civil penalty. In any event, his wife’s income isn’t a crucial piece of information in Thomas’s case, though his ideological enemies will argue otherwise. Such an omission is virtually never a cause for judicial discipline.

Is it a serious breach of his duties nonetheless? Yes. Continue reading

Ethics Dunces: Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA)

Let us, in this case, emphasize the most important word, shall we? The Congressmen in question are Ethics DUNCES . As in dolts, fools, idiots, clods, slackers, meat-heads, dummies, dim-wits, lame-brains and bozos. Get out your thesauruses, because they deserve all the abuse we can heap on them. Continue reading

When a Law Makes a Problem Worse

Where should we file this legislative botch? Perhaps we should file it under incompetence, lack of diligence, irresponsibility, or inexcusable ignorance of unintended—but completely predictable–consequences.

In California, a statute  passed overwhelmingly by the State Legislature required that lawyers who work on loan modification agreements for homeowners facing foreclosure cannot require any payment until the work is complete. The law was intended to eliminate unscrupulous firms from running scams on desperate Californians, more of whom face foreclosure than in any other state, in which the firms charged large up-front fees and then did nothing. Unfortunately, it also made it unprofitable and risky for legitimate, honest lawyers to put in many hours battling lenders skilled at running out the clock in the hopes of being reimbursed by clients who are already in financial deep water. Thus stressed California homeowners, having been given protection by their tunnel-visioned representatives, now can find no legal help at all, honest or otherwise. Continue reading

No-Tolerance Idiocy of the Year: Southern Lee High School in Sanford, N.C.

Ethics Alarms has not yet completed its annual Best and Worst of Ethics lists for 2010, but I’ll hand out this title right now.  The persecution of student Ashley Smithwick, 17, of Sanford, N.C., has all the elements that make no-tolerance enforcement of school rules ethically offensive: a lack of common sense, absence of proportion, dismissal of empathy, rejection of fairness and justice, disregard for the welfare of an innocent child, and most of all, incompetent, cowardly, utterly stupid school administrators.

Yes, I think we have a winner. Continue reading

Incompetence and Political Correctness at the Y: Ditching Santa For Frosty

Last week, the McBurney YMCA in the West Village of New York City fired Santa Claus, who traditionally takes gift requests from children at its annual holiday luncheon, in favor of Frosty the Snowman. Why, you ask?

John Rappaport, executive director of the McBurney YMCA, explained, “We realized that change is sometimes good, and that Frosty is a great winter character who would appeal to a broader number of kids.”

Translation: Continue reading