Open Forum Friday!

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

What amazing ethics stories will you uncover today?

I’m going to let Prof. Turley handle the follow-up to this post, which he did yesterday quite nicely. In “You’re Not Alone”: Reporters Comfort Those Triggered and Traumatized by Scenes of Patriotism” the red-pilled George Washington University Law School professor expressed his dismay and disgust at “how some in the media found the entire demonstration of patriotism to be intolerable and triggering.” He was speaking of the Axis media’s Trump Derangement that the Mad Left transferred to the U.S. hockey team. Turley wrote in part,

“The HuffPost even published an article with therapeutic advice for liberals triggered by seeing so many American flags. The liberal publication ran an article titled “There’s a Name for the Discomfort You’re Feeling Watching the Olympics Right Now.” It then published it a second time before the gold-medal hockey game with Canada — presumably to prepare its readers for the nightmare of the United States actually winning. The subheading read, “If waving the American flag or chanting ‘USA!’ turns you off right now, you’re not alone.”

“Senior writer Monica Torres began the article with this line: “While President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda separates families, and federal agents detain 5-year-olds and kill unarmed civilians, American athletes are winning medals on behalf of the nation at the Olympics right now.”

“Torres goes on to interview three therapists for this “story” about how the celebration of the United States team has forced many liberals into therapy over their trauma and “the cognitive dissonance of rooting for U.S. sports.”

“Los Angeles-based licensed clinical social worker Aimee Monterrosa explained that the “atrocities” of the United States can trigger feelings of guilt, despair, shame, anger” in seeing the country celebrate these sports victories.

“Expert Lauren Appio echoed how “waving the American flag or chanting, ‘USA!’ [can make] us feel grossed out or ashamed.”

I was going to write a follow-up to this post centering on the amazing comments by The Athletic, the New York Times owned sports website, which criticized the U.S. hockey team for taking a congratulatory call from their President and coming to the SOTU address. “This isn’t a neutral climate,” he wrote. “This isn’t a neutral president. And in a nation this polarized, the proximity carries weight whether the players are being intentional or merely naive.” Both The Athletic and Vox claimed the star of the Olympics was…wait for it…Elaine Gu, the American who accepted millions to skate for China, an international criminal and enemy of the U.S.

Trump is, of course, being criticized for saying in Tuesday’s performance, “These people are crazy.” I believe that statement was one of his best, and should have the same delayed effect as Ronald Reagan’s pronouncement that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire.”

Because, you know, they really are crazy.

Over to you, Clarence…

Incompetent Elected Official of the Week (If you don’t count all the others): Drunk Washington State Legislator Joe Fitzgibbon

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

This video brings back some bad memories as I head to the second anniversary of my wife’s sudden death. Grace battled alcoholism our whole marriage, and the careful, plodding, slightly slurred speech pattern you hear above from Rep. Fitzgibbon is exactly how she would speak when she was smashed and trying to hide it. Sober, she was quick-tongued and sparklingly articulate.

I feel sympathy for Fitzgibbon, but he has to resign, and so far doesn’t have the integrity to do it. Fortunately for him, he belongs to a side of the ideological spectrum that doesn’t believe in responsibility or accountability among their other ethical quirks.

Fitzgibbon, to his credit, at least issued an ethical apology for his disgraceful conduct, except for one teeny-tiny omission: there was no “therefore, today I tender my resignation as representative of the 34th District”:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Image Of The Year

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

And signature significance.

Was the image manipulated? Of course: I don’t really care. The image perfectly illustrates the ugliness and un-American essence of Trump Derangement. These two representatives of foreign values and foreign entitlement embody the sickness that our inattention to maintaining core prioritizes in our domestic policies and democratic institutions has wrought.

Incompetent, Unethical Elected Official of the Month Who Wasn’t Behaving Like An Ass At The SOTU: Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-Co)

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

What an unprofessional, lowlife disgrace Bobert (above, being classy) is. She should be censored and kicked off of every committee, and with luck she’ll quit in a huff to team up with only slightly less objectionable ex-colleague Marjorie Taylor Green to participate in tag-team mud-wrestling competitions.

Hillary Clinton’s Jeffrey Epstein deposition was suspended after Rep. Boebert surreptitiously snapped a picture of Clinton and her attorneys as she addressed lawmakers about her relationship with Epstein. Boebert then leaked the photo to slimeball MAGA influencer Benny Johnson, who posted it on social media.

Hillary’s lawyers demanded that the proceedings be halted after the photograph began circulating on social media. It is strictly prohibited for legislators or witnesses to take pictures inside a closed-door congressional testimony. But Boebert, who has the maturity of a 14-year-old, the judgment of a brain-damaged puppy, and the professionalism of carnival geek did it anyway.

Be proud, Republicans.

Maybe 14 is giving her too much credit. She is a real, live, honest-to-goodness bimbo Congresswoman, and her presence in the Capitol is an insult to the nation, the public, and the Constitution. Also her sex, her species, family, order, phylum, and the galaxy. Her district’s voters should have their citizenship suspended and their district made an official territory of Haiti. They and lazy, ignorant Americans like them in both parties are the reason our political process is looking more an more like an episode of “The Jerry Springer Show.” A bad episode.

If public approval of Congress is anything but zero after this week, it will be more proof that Ben Franklin’s challenge to us to see if we could keep our republic is proving too difficult, not because of adversaries abroad, but because of cranial vacuums within.

I Can’t Let This Pass…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

As long as ABC News persists in making Americans dumber by presenting the biased, silly, incompetent panel of women on “The View” as a news program, that network has to rank third from the bottom of the journalism barrel, slightly above MSNOW and CNN. Its commentary on the SOTU speech, however deserves some kind of prize for being the most ludicrous of all. If you’ve been paying attention, that’s quite an achievement.

Co-host Amanda Carpenter got the gold by complaining that Trump had an “unfair dynamic” while delivering the speech:

CARPENTER: He got that split screen. And when he was talking about Minnesota and saying we’re not going to go easy on them. Who thinks he’s been easy on them? And so, she was shouting back, ‘you’ve killed Americans’ but you couldn’t see what she said!

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: No.

CARPENTER: And so, it’s such an unfair dynamic that I just – We got to find ways not to participate in that and give him that kind of advantage. I just can’t believe we haven’t learned this lesson after ten-plus years.

Uh, see, it’s the President’s speech, see, and the members of Congress are there to sit, listen, show respect for the Presidency, and maybe applaud. This is like saying that an actor playing “Hamlet” has an “unfair dynamic” if members of the audience aren’t welcome to run up on stage and dance.

The Trump Deranged think the fact that Trump exists and is the President is an “unfair dynamic.”

These people are crazy.

Ethics Observations On That “Proud To Be An American” Chart

/ Jack Marshall / 43 Comments

Yes, as with all polls and surveys, one should be wary of this one; still, Gallup is as close to non-partisan as one can get in 2026, and the results seem consistent with what we have been observing for a long time.

And true, confirmation bias comes into play. However, what we saw with the Democrats in Congress refusing to enthusiastically applaud the U.S. Olympic champion hockey team certainly seemed significant, especially since one assumed that if nothing else, the party knows its base. The core Democratic base looks, sounds, and behaves as if it is hostile to American values, traditions and history. With such quacking and waddling going on, it would take an ingenious argument to maintain that this isn’t a metaphorical duck.

I was drawn to the chart, which has been around for several months, because an “X” pundit wrote, “What’s going on here?,” the threshold question for all ethics inquiries. So what is going on here?

This:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: Ethics Zugzwang From “The Ethicist”

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

This time, not only does “The Ethicist,” aka. Kwame Anthony Appiah, give a bad answer to a reader’s ethics advice request, but I agree with it. [Gift link here.]

That’s because I don’t have a better answer, and that’s because there is no good answer. They are all bad; terrible in fact. The reader is in ethics zugzwang, from the term common in chess commentary, a situation where a player has no good moves available, only disastrous ones.

But I’m making this an ethics quiz on the chance that one of you out there in Ethics Land may have better answer than either of us.

As usual, it’s the pesky “Name Withheld” writing (What messes that poor boob gets into, with new ones every week!),

“My wife and I recently became the legal guardians of a teenager, and we are struggling with how to ethically navigate the emotional complexities of this arrangement.

“We met this person through our children’s athletic community. They come from an extremely difficult situation involving neglect and emotional abuse. A year ago, we offered them our home temporarily. As we learned more about their circumstances, we decided to pursue legal guardianship until they turn 18. We have no familial ties — we simply wanted to offer stability, safety and a chance at a better future.

“From the beginning, we agreed with our ward that we would treat them as we treat our own children — same expectations, same privileges and full support. For a few months, this arrangement seemed to be working: Our ward’s grades improved, they joined family activities and outings and appeared to settle into the rhythm of our family life. Then, little by little, they withdrew from us, no longer spending time with the family, and started getting worse grades again.

“Our ward has indicated that we intervene too much in their life and has complained to others that we’re “suffocating.” We’ve made adjustments — offering alternative meal arrangements, allowing them to stay with trusted friends on occasion and making space for their independence. Still, the distance has widened.

“My wife and I are about to engage in therapy with our ward. I am not looking forward to it; I worry that even in that safe space, I will not take well the possible complaints and criticisms we may hear from them.

“What obligations do we have — beyond the legal ones that we’ll meet — to our ward, and to ourselves, as we navigate a painful emotional landscape? And what moral, economic and emotional obligations should we anticipate when they turn 18 and become independent with no real support network?”

Yikes.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

What is the most ethical course for the couple to take now?

All I can offer, at least this early in the morning before a shot of coffee into my jugular, is “No good deed goes unpunished!” Somehow I don’t think this desperate couple will appreciate Oscar’s wit in their current dilemma.

Meanwhile, A Major Ethics Disgrace From The Other Side of the Aisle…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales, though he has managed not humiliate himself and his party on the House floor like so many Democrats last night, is a revolting representative of Congress for other reasons.

Gonzales apparently had an affair in 2025 with his former district staffer, Regina Santos-Aviles. She committed suicide by setting herself later that same year, on fire last September. The San Antonio Express-News obtained alleged text messages between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles in which he requested a “sexy pic” and asked about her “favorite” sexual position. “This is going too far boss,” Santos-Aviles replied.

Ya think? How hard is it for high elected officials, charged with being role models sufficiently convincingly to allow the public to trust that the republic isn’t in the hands of scoundrels, to avoid workplace misconduct for the length of a term in office? Apparently too hard, for creeps like Gonzales, and, of course, Bill Clinton. I hate to sound like a broken record, but there is no excuse for this.

The texts were revealed by Adrian Aviles, her widower. It seems that he was the likely cause of his wife’s self-inflicted death, for the police report report states that before she died of her burns, Santos-Aviles told an officer that she learned that her husband had been having an affair with her best friend, and because of that she poured gasoline on herself and set herself ablaze According to the report, a video shows Santos-Aviles walking into the backyard, pouring liquid from a gas canister on herself and lighting herself on fire. (Tangential question: who took the video?)

In torts there is a maxim that one takes his victim as he finds her. Perhaps the object of his forbidden affections was emotionally unstable and Gonzales complicating her already complicated life was the final metaphorical straw pushing her over the edge. In that case, he is still responsible, because there was no reason for him to harass her. Even if the Congressman’s affair was not a proximate cause of her death, and even if there was no affair but just the text messages, Gonzales is still a blight on Congress.

A growing number of Republican have called for Gonzales’ resignation, including South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert and Texas Rep. Brandon Gill. That’s nice, but nicer still would be if both parties could manage to find fewer creeps. lowlifes, morons and villains to present to voters, who obviously have the civic literacy of bread mold based on their choices.

Recent surveys show that Americans’ trust in their government institutions has never been lower. I guess the good news is that at least the public is paying some attention to the swill around them.

On The State of the Union Message

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I haven’t done this before and may never do it again, but I found conservative podcaster Vice Dao’s assessment of Trump’s State of the Union Addresses pretty much spot-on, so I’m posting a lengthy section from his podcast.

Was last night a tipping point, a moment that history will show suddenly made the previous victims of the Axis of Unethical Conduct’s Big Lies, propaganda and acceptance of Trump Derangement as a justifiable attitude toward the elected President of the United States of America slap their collective foreheads at last exclaiming, “Wait, what have I been thinking? The Democratic Party is nuts! How can anyone in their right mind support such anti-American crackpots?” Time will tell. As Dao says, Democrats and the Axis media seem to be whistling past the graveyard now, giving the agreed-upon line that ‘yeah, Trump pleased his racist base because that’s who was watching, but State of the Unions never have any lasting impact, and that means this one won’t.‘

They hope. I wouldn’t be so sure of that, and they probably aren’t so sure themselves. Sure, Trump loaded up his speech with his usual hyperbole, fudged statistics and claims that this or that was the best, the greatest, the most wonderful ever, giving the New York Times and the rest plenty of opportunity to “factcheck” the speech and call Trump a liar. (The Times really and truly published a “factcheck” of Trump’s speech before he made it, apparently oblivious to how biased and unfair that looked.) Nobody is going to remember any of the usual drivel, which is indeed standard SOTU blather. What they will remember, because unless Republicans are even more incompetent than I already think they are, the GOP won’t let anyone forget it, is the two anti-American “Squad” members, Representatives Omar (who has said that she cares about Somalians more than Americans) and Tlaib (who is a Palestinian, anti-Semitic mole) screaming at the President from the sidelines, wearing “Fuck ICE” pins. The public will remember that not one Democrat had the sense to avoid falling into Trump’s well-laid trap, refusing to stand when he asked for an impromptu vote on whether they agreed that the duty of the government was to protect citizens rather than illegal immigrants.

“One of the great things about the State of the Union,” he said, “is how it gives Americans the chance to see clearly what their representatives really believe. Tonight, I’m inviting every legislator to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

No Democrats among those who chose not to boycott the event—how unifying of them!–stood. The entire Republican contingent stood and cheered. “With one maneuver,” conceded the Times today, “Mr. Trump divided the room, asking viewers to see the two camps as he saw them: There were the Good Americans and there were those willing to jeopardize the country’s security.”

Pages: 1 2

Imagine: You and I Have Friends Who Think This Bernie Sanders Quote Is Profound…

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

…rather than unethical and idiotic. Some of these people even supported the old fool for President.

If fact, democracy dies in fatuous logic like that quote. Jeff Bezos has no more obligation to keep the Washington Post operating than I do. It’s a money losing operation that has squandered its reputation and good will by ceasing to trading objective journalism for leftist propaganda. At least Jeff’s $500 mil. yacht and his wife’s $5 million ring were worth what he paid for them. Bernie’s statement is like saying “If Bezos can afford expensive yachts and rings, then he should build bonfires with $100 bills.” Or “If Y spends money on A because he wants A, then he should waste money on X because I like X.” Brilliant, Bernie. But typical.

Without Bezos or some other billionaire with discretionary funds, there would be no Washington Post at all. Economics, however, has never been Bernie’s long suit, being the fan of Karl Marx that he is. There are few cognitive voids in Woke World more annoying that the “It’s wrong for people to spend money on what they want and care about because they should spend their money on what I want and care about.” The corollary to that is “Therefore, I should have control of those people’s money.”

In related news, climatologist Bjorn Lomborg has calculated that worldwide, governments have spent a staggering $16 trillion at least on climate change policies that have not succeeded in lowering the world’s temperature one bit. Meanwhile, not a single life has been saved. Limiting access to fossil fuels has made poor countries poorer by blocking their access to affordable energy. To be fair, many hustlers and companies have profited from this extravagant exercise in virtue-signalling. Why doesn’t Bernie focus on all those wasted taxpayer dollars? As Stephen Moore writes,

What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off? What if the $16 trillion had been spent on clean water for poor countries? Preventing avoidable deaths from diseases like malaria? Building schools in African villages to end illiteracy? Bringing reliable and affordable electric power to the more than 1 billion people who still lack access? Curing cancer?Many millions of lives could have been saved. We could have lifted millions more out of poverty. The benefits of speeding up the race for the cure for cancer could have added tens of millions of additional years of life at an economic value in the tens of trillions of dollars. Instead, we effectively poured $16 trillion down the drain.

And…and…we could have saved democracy by keeping the Washington Post staff at full strength!

Verdict: Moore is correct. Well except that instead of “we effectively poured $16 trillion down the drain, he should have written we ineffectively poured $16 trillion down the drain.