Ethics Quiz: The Turncoat Fat Comic

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I decided to skip this issue a month ago when comic Amy Schumer was being called a hypocrite for suddenly showing off her newly svelte, Ozempic-drowned body all over social media after spending years defending being”plus size.” Then she posted bikini photos yesterday and social media was freaking out again.

“I think there’s nothing wrong with being plus size,” Schumer argued in a tiff with Glamour Magazine a decade ago. “Beautiful healthy women.” Amy got progressively more plus-size as the years went by and was more militantly anti-fatshaming as a “body-positivity” advocate while the pounds piled on.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week (On That Fanciful “International Law” Thingy): Konstantin Klein

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

“All the bleating about “international law” shows just how completely deluded some of our elites have become. International law was a pleasant fiction that lasted for a few decades…It was never real. Laws are based on submission to an overarching authority backed by force. There is no such international authority and even if you view the UN as one, it does not have the ability to use force against those who violate “international law”…

—Someone named Konstantin Klein on Twitter/”X.” I have no idea who the hell he is, and I could have just as easily said that myself, but I’ve been waiting for someone else to point exactly this out, because it is true..

As a general rule, those criticizing the U.S. action in Venezuela based on “international law” don’t know what international law is, and those who criticize the seizing of Maduro and his wife who do know what international law is are deliberately misleading those who don’t. Why hasn’t the new media clarified the issue? Well, 1) it would undermine the Axis’s anti-Trump narrative and 2) most journalists are lazy and not too bright.

On The View yesterday, Sunny Hostin, who appeals to her own authority frequently because she is a lawyer and was once a prosecutor, again proved she was an affirmative action botch by her law school (Notre Dame) by showing beyond a reasonable doubt that she’s an idiot. According to her, the Trump administration arresting Maduro and extraditing him the United States was a “kidnapping,” “100 percent Illegal,” and akin to “piracy.” Piracy? Then she played the frayed international law card, babbling “And international law doesn’t allow it unless there is — unless Congress declares war, and Congress did not do at. So, this country was founded on the premise of the balance of power. Right? So, you have a checks and balances. So, you have co-equal powers — co-equal branches of power. So, you have the Judicial Branch and then you have the Executive Branch, which the president is a part of, and then you have, of course, the Legislative Branch and that’s Congress. And they are supposed to check each other!”

Psst, Sunny! International law doesn’t “allow” or disallow anything. The United States was actually founded on the premise that the people who lived here wanted to decide on and enforce their own laws and not be subject to foreign rule.

Continue reading →

Now THAT’S Non-Traditional Casting!

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Estonian theater Kinoteater recently staged Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” in a production with Romeo played by a rally truck and his secret love Juliet by a red Ford pickup truck. The climactic duel between Tybalt and Mercutio consisted of two excavators swinging their metal buckets in front of each other. The performance was staged in a limestone quarry. “Romula ja Julia” had virtually no lines, as there were no human actors, just ten drivers, two mechanics, a pyrotechnics expert, an excavator operator, and many vehicles to convey the classic love story. Among the Shakespearean were a front-end loader, a concrete mixer, a fire truck, city buses, other large machinery, and some smaller vehicles.

Co-director Paavo Piik explained that the contrast between the powerful vehicles and the themes of love and poetry is central to the production’s experimental approach. “I would still say that even though it was cars, it felt really sweet and cute. Like when you had the scene where the cars were, you would assume, kissing, the energy was captured really well. The sweetness and the love,” one spectator told Reuters.

Right. No lines, and a bunch of machines “kissing.” By what theory could such a spectacle be legitimately called “Shakespeare,” much less “Romeo and Juliet”? They might just as well have called a demolition derby “The Illiad.”

Ethics Alarms always takes the position that the acid test of any non-traditional theatrical concept or casting is 1) whether the creator’s message and vision is being fairly respected, and 2) whether the production “works” beyond the novelty factor.

Let’s just say that I’m highly dubious about this production.

(Curmie, Curmie! Wherefore art thou, Curmie?)

There Is Hope…[Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Update: The graphic above came from X, and I used it for convenience. Several commenters have expressed skepticism about the report because I didn’t include a source. I should have, and I apologize. The original story came from the website Semafor, and subsequent reports were published in the NY Post, NPR, Yahoo! and others. That doesn’t mean the story is necessarily true, but the two papers haven’t denied it, which is what one would expect if they didn’t want to put a target on their own metaphorical backs and those of the leakers.

***

I would like to think that the two banner-carrying newspapers in the Axis of Unethical Conduct did the right thing because it was the patriotic and ethical thing to do. I don’t believe that, unfortunately.

I believe that the mainstream media finally knows it is on metaphorical thin ice. Despite their attacks on President Trump for calling them—correctly and fairly— “enemies of the people,” they are smart enough to figure out that they have eroded the public’s trust to a perilous degree. Their competence, motives and integrity are in doubt now. Their arrogance and flagrant violations of the most basic tenets of journalism ethics are the cause of that.

In the past, leaking military plans of a controversial President would have been the natural course for these organizations, and they would have stood proudly on “the public’s right to know.” But I think they fear a tipping point after the Biden disability cover-up and the news media’s conspicuous failure to aggressively follow the bread crumbs in the Somali social services fraud scandal. The Times and the Post didn’t do the right thing because it was in the nation’s interest. It did the right thing because they are afraid.

And, ironically, that is also in the nation’s interest,

It’s Time To Play That Exciting Game Show, “Worth Confronting or Too Trivial To Bitch About?”!

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Hello everybody! I’m your ethics game show host Wink Smarmy, and welcome to “Worth Confronting or Too Trivial To Bitch About?”,” the popular ethics game show where our contestants try to decide whether clearly unethical conduct is worth only a shrug and a giggle, or is serious enough to try to stop.

Here’s our special guest, Touchy McCrankface, with the problem he encountered recently…

“Hello, panel. My name is is Touchy McCrankface. For some reason I am still a Facebook user despite that platform banning my favorite blog Ethics Alarms for almost two years because one of their censors decided that it was racist to even discuss the topic of blackface’s appearance in some classic movies. When a Facebook friend  I actually care about has allowed his or her birthday to be announced on Facebook, I will sometimes, as I am prompted, wish that friend a “Happy Birthday.”

“I do not use the stupid and juvenile pre-programmed emojis Facebook tries to stick on my message, the little cakes, candles and party hats. Recently I sent just such a birthday message to an old friend. Let’s call him “Mike.”

After I sent my “Happy Birthday”,  Facebook sent me the equivalent of a receipt. I have no idea why. Maybe it has always done this, but I’ve never noticed one before, or if I have, I never bothered to read one. The message to me read,

“You wished Michael XXXXX a happy birthday on their profile.”

This, frankly, ticked me off. First of all, I knew that. But most of all, I don’t use the pronouns “they” and “their” for single individuals, as in “non-conjoined twins.” If you seem to be male to me, I will use the pronouns “You/he/him. If you seem to be female, I will use “You/she/her.” If I can’t tell, I won’t use any pronoun, constructing a sentence so that “misgendering” isn’t necessary, since men and boys don’t typically like being mistaken for women and girls, and vice-versa. If someone informs me that “he” wants to be refereed to as “she,” that’s fine: I aim to please. Similarly with 250 pound bearded bald guys who want to be called “she.” I’ll call you a pangolin or an Archaeopteryx if that’s what you want, as long as you don’t try to make me eat insects or worms with you. (Archaeopteryx is described as an “early bird,” and as we all know, the early bird catches the worm.)

But I will NOT agree to utter a grammatical monstrosity by using a plural pronoun in reference to one individual. And if you tell me you haven’t decided on your gender, or that it switches back and forth without warning, I will respond, most politely, “Please let me know when you make up your mind or get psychiatric help. Until then, you’ll be “him” or “her” to me.

But back to Facebook….My friend Mike has been married trice, has two grown kids and is as male and heterosexual, as well as unambiguously so, as anyone I have ever met. Who or what is Facebook to impose a plural pronoun on him, or to suggest that it is appropriate to do so in either his case or anyone’s case? 

I view this as subtle cultural indoctrination regarding a societal practice that is at best a stupid fad and at worst ‘grooming’.” 

Thanks, Touchy! Before I throw the challenge over to you, contestants, let me ask our resident ethicist, Jack Marshall, about Touchy’s dilemma. Jack, is this worth bitching about?

Continue reading →

Musk’s Ethics Rorschach Maduro Meme

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I was originally going to make Elon Musk’s endorsement of the meme above on Twitter/”X” an ethics quiz, but decided, after reading the furious and wide-ranging arguments from Ann Althouse’s own commenters that I’d rather focus on this as an example of how political orientation, personal morality and confirmation bias combine to make cultural coherence increasingly difficult today.

The main focus of the comments…there are 141 of them now (I’m envious)—is on Althouse’s declaration that it is “shameful” for Musk to circulate such a thing with a laughing emoji.

I must confess, I didn’t completely get the joke at first because I didn’t recognize rapper, P Diddy (Sean Combs), now serving time in a Federal prison for sex-related charges. Rap and Hip-Hop are big holes in my cultural literacy.

Had I used the meme as an EA ethics quiz, my own conclusions would have been 1) jokes are not unethical if they make people laugh, even if they are cruel, vulgar, or politically incorrect, but 2) it is unethical, as in irresponsible and incompetent, for important, valuable, influential figures in our culture to gratuitously and recklessly undermine their own credibility and popularity by associating themselves with divisive practices and ideas for no good reason. President Trump does this constantly. It is Cognitive Dissonance Scale malpractice.

However, Ann’s single word “Shameful” landed in her blog like a bomb thrown into Times Square at midnight on New Year’s Eve. You can (and should) read the responses here. An incomplete summary of the various arguments:

Continue reading →

On Maduro’s Arrest, the Ethics Dunces and Villains Are All In Agreement: What Does This Tell Us? [Part 2] [Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 58 Comments

Part 1 is here.

I assumed that headline was a misstatement, because the jokes write themselves (Hamas is condemning an abduction?). But I checked some Arab world sources, and indeed, all of the terrorist organizations are big mad over President Trump nabbing Maduro. From an Arabic news agency:

Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah has condemned the US aggression against Venezuela as a blatant and unprecedented violation of international law…Hezbollah movement, in a statement, condemned the U.S. aggression against Venezuela and the targeting of the country’s vital facilities, civilians, and residential buildings, describing it as a blatant and unprecedented violation of international law….It added that the military aggression shows disregard for global stability and security, and aimed at entrenching the “law of the jungle” in order to dismantle the remnants of the international system and strip it of any substance that could serve as a safeguard for nations and peoples.

The Palestinian movement, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, denounced what it called an “imperialist American aggression” on Venezuela, including airstrikes and missile attacks on Caracas and civilian, residential, and military sites, casting it as a new episode of ‘organized American terrorism” against sovereign states….

Palestinian Islamic Jihad described the US assault on Venezuela as an escalating campaign, from blockade to direct strikes, aimed at domination, occupation, and plunder, and a flagrant breach of sovereignty and international law. It said Venezuela is targeted for its steadfast support for Palestine and regional resistance forces, describing the struggle as part of a shared anti-imperialist battle.

Hamas, for its part, denounced the military aggression on Caracas and the kidnapping of President Maduro and his wife, calling it a grave violation of international law and the sovereignty of an independent state. The movement cast the assault as an extension of unjust U.S. interventions driven by imperial ambition that have destabilized multiple countries and threatened international peace. Hamas urged the UN, especially the Security Council, to take measures to stop the attack immediately.

I have to say, I find this mordantly funny. Could there be a more villainous, despicable group of critics for Democrats to find common cause with? Any minute now, I’m expecting a statement from the Seven Princes of Hell, Lucifer, Beelzebub, Asmodeus, Leviathan, Mammon, Belphegor,, and Satan, joined by demons Astaroth, Belial, and Azazel, declaring the U.S.’s dazzling Venezuelan operation to be a violation of international law.

Continue reading →

AI Weighs In On The Maduro Operation

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Before I finish Part 2 of On Maduro’s Arrest, the Ethics Dunces and Villains Are All In Agreement: What Does This Tell Us? , it is worth noting that one analyst posed the question, “Was it illegal for Trump to arrest Maduro?” to the AI bots ChatGPT and Grok.

ChatGPT, sounding, the inquirer notes, like a typical left-biased law professor, said that the arrest was illegal. It also wrongly stated that Maduro had been legitimately elected and adopted the positions of “international experts” as well as the United Nations Charter.

Grok, however, pronounced the arrest legal, citing the Venezuelan dictator’s illegitimate election, his federal indictment, and the power of the President, as Commander in Chief, to execute criminal warrants abroad.

Just now I asked Google’s bot the same question. It refused to answer, saying only that “The legality of the U.S. operation to capture Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, is a subject of intense debate, with most international legal experts considering it a violation of international law, while U.S. authorities defend it as a law enforcement action.”

On Maduro’s Arrest, the Ethics Dunces and Villains Are All In Agreement: What Does This Tell Us? [PART I]

/ Jack Marshall / 29 Comments

The headline is a rhetorical question.

Every now and then—the last was the assassination of Charlie Kirk—all the masks come off and anyone capable of objectivity can see exactly who the unethical, untrustworthy and dishonest among us are. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of objectivity, because bias makes you stupid. One would think, however, that at least those who present themselves to the public as skilled and independent analysts would take some care not to expose their double standards, lack of integrity and hypocrisy for all to see. One would be wrong to think that, as the video compilation above vividly demonstrates.

But why, oh why, do otherwise intelligent people continue to trust these hacks?

Well, you can decide whether that is a rhetorical question or not.

Meanwhile, here is the first part of an incomplete collection of telling reactions to the U.S.’s perfectly executed incursion into Venezuela to remove an illegitimate ruler and his wife who were both under U.S. indictment.

1. Two lawyer bloggers, Ann Althouse and Jonathan Turley, who I respect and often reference here, made it clear—Turley a bit more expressly than Ann—that the U.S. action was legal and justified. Althouse went back over her previous comments on Maduro—gee, why didn’t Jen Psaki do that?—to find her expressing sympathy with the plight of Venezuelans and the absence of U.S. action, as in her discovery of a post from 2019:

When Trump was pleading with the Venezuelan military to support Juan Guaido, I wrote: “I was surprised that on the channel I was watching — Fox News — the analysis after the speech was about the 2020 presidential campaign…. People in Venezuela are suffering. They’re starving. We need to help. I thought Trump was trying to get something done, but the news folk rush to talk about the damned campaign, as if that’s what sophisticated, savvy people do. I found it offensive.”

Turley has posted twice already explaining that the action was legally justified, with some other useful analysis today, including a pointed reference to Axis hypocrisy:

…Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and General Dan Caine stayed on script and reinforced this narrative. Both repeatedly noted that this was an operation intended to bring two individuals to justice and that law enforcement personnel were part of the extraction team to place them into legal custody. Rubio was, again, particularly effective in emphasizing that Maduro was not the head of state but a criminal dictator who took control after losing democratic elections.

However, while noting the purpose of the capture, President Trump proceeded to declare that the United States would engage in nation-building to achieve lasting regime change. He stated that they would be running Venezuela to ensure a friendly government and the repayment of seized U.S. property dating back to the government of Hugo Chávez.

… [Trump]is the most transparent president in my lifetime with prolonged (at times excruciatingly long) press conferences and a brutal frankness about his motivations. Second, he is unabashedly and undeniably transactional in most of his dealings. He is not ashamed to state what he wants the country to get out of the deal.

In Venezuela, he wants a stable partner, and he wants oil.

Chávez and Maduro had implemented moronic socialist policies that reduced one of the most prosperous nations to an economic basket case. They brought in Cuban security thugs to help keep the population under repressive conditions, as a third fled to the United States and other countries.

After an extraordinary operation to capture Maduro, Trump was faced with socialist Maduro allies on every level of the government. He is not willing to allow those same regressive elements to reassert themselves.

The problem is that, if the purpose was regime change, this attack was an act of war, which is why Rubio struggled to bring the presser back to the law enforcement purpose. I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.

The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this “kill list” policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.

My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.

A couple items in that analysis warrant special attention, like…

  • “[Trump]is the most transparent president in my lifetime.” That is absolutely true, yet the narrative being pushed by the unscrupulous Axis is that he is a habitual liar of epic proportions.
  • “….most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress.” Indeed, this is the gold standard of double standards that should be shaken in the faces of the reflex Trump-haters like a terrier shakes a rat.

2. 2024’s Ethics Hero of the Year Elon Musk called the elimination of Maduro “a win for the world.” Well, the Good Guys of the world, anyway. Russia, China, Iran and Cuba, as well as neighboring South American leftist states like Columbia and Brazil and drug cartel-run states like Mexico, condemned Trump’s action. Gee, wouldn’t that collection provide the Mad Left a big clue regarding the distribution of bad Guys and Good Guys on this issue? No, because to the Trump Deranged and the anti-Americans, wherever Trump is automatically is the House Where Evil Dwells.

Continue reading →

A Brief and Obvious Ethics Observation

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

If the Democrats, anti-Trump news media and Trump Deranged social media progressives had the sense and integrity to be able to grant that one of President Trump’s actions is beneficial, wise and effective when it should be clear to all that it is, they would have far more legitimacy and perceived objectivity when there is valid justifications for their criticism regarding other Presidential actions.

The removal of Maduro in a perfectly executed military operation is the best example of this yet. It removed an illegitimate dictator who lost his election overwhelmingly. He is a criminal drug lord who had been sending fentanyl into the U.S., a deadly and addictive drug. Under his rule, the nation of Venezuela, which has great natural resources and should be a wealthy and thriving state, had a disastrous economy. Maduro’s political opponent just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Venezuelans in and out of that country are rejoicing in the dictator’s removal. The capture of Maduro also weakens Cuba, a Maduro ally and another dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.

The United States benefits from the capture of Maduro in many ways, and suffers no deficits from it at all. It projects American power. It demonstrates that U.S. leadership is not dominated by weenies (as in Joe Biden’s “Don’t!” and Barack Obama’s erased “red lines”) It puts America’s foes on notice. The action also re-establishes the Monroe Doctrine, which had been weakened for half a century.

In short, the Venezuelan operation should be an easy one for any rational, patriotic, astute American to cheer for, but the Axis of Unethical Conduct and the Trump Deranged just can’t do it, even in response to an unequivocal American triumph.

Going forward, they should have no credibility at all. They already didn’t, in my estimation, but this should settle the issue.