Gee, I Wonder Why We Haven’t Had a Female President Yet…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

…and aren’t like to have one any time soon?

Item: Department of Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer (above) is resigning from the Trump administration, the White House announced today. She was facing an internal investigation into allegations that she used agency resources for personal trips, and that she was having an affair with a member of her security team.

Item: Pam Bondi, Trump’s Attorney General, was forced to resign after multiple botches, a series of episodes of unethical conduct in the Justice Department, and being responsible for one of the most unprofessional appearances before a Congressional committee of any Cabinet member within memory.

Item: Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had to be fired in the midst of another sexual misconduct scandal as well as blatant misuse of department funds and making inflammatory and inaccurate public statements regarding I.C.E. activities in Minnesota.

Item: Hillary Clinton…well, do you need more? This week bipartisan scumbag (and longtime Clinton pollster) Dick Morris confirmed that the Bill & Hillary was pretty much a sham and a marriage of political convenience well before Bill was elected President. Admittedly, there is always reason to doubt Morris as well as the blog that first published this “bombshell” last week, but is anyone surprised? Hillary also launched the fake “Russian collusion” hoax after lying about her secret server, and had the “Worst Loser Ever” title for failed Presidential candidates locked up until Donald Trump dethroned her.

Item: Kamala Harris managed to unseat Hillary for the title of “Most Incompetent Presidential Candidate of a Major Party,” after being a babbling, useless, DEI Vice-President for four years.

Then consider how objectively awful the most prominent female elected officials around the country are. Nancy Pelosi…the Squad…Marjorie Taylor Greene…Jasmine Crockett…Lauren Boebert. Not only the elected officials either: this week we learned that the one qualified, intelligent woman making up the woke division on the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan, was a ringleader in the plot to delay the Dobbs decision’s release, even though the politically motivated stall put the lives of the conservative Justices at risk.

Could someone possibly be a worse big city mayor than Karen Bass in Los Angeles? Can anyone imagine D.C.’s Black Lives Matter pandering Mayor Muriel Bowser as Presidential material? Rep. Katie Porter, who once poured scalding mashed potatoes on her husband’s head and who held a “Fuck Trump” sign at her state party’s convention, is the leading Democratic female candidate for California Governor. NY Governor Kathy Hochul endorsed Mamdani: I can’t wait to hear how she tries to talk her way out of that one. Stacey Abrams was supposed to be rising star, but she proved to be a Machiavellian opportunist. On the GOP side, that description fits both has-beens Nikki Hailey and even has-beenier Sarah Palin.

I could go on—Susan Rice, Lori Lightfoot, the Massachusetts Woke Twins, Gov. Martha Healey and Boston Mayor Michelle Woo, and speaking of the Bay State, fake Native American Senator Elizabeth Warren— to just top off the iceberg—but the point is that the XX side of our society isn’t generating talent that justifies all of the wishing and hoping for a female POTUS.

I have theories about why our system and culture doesn’t produce competent and trustworthy female leaders in sufficient numbers, as well as why those it does produce tend to be corrupt and incompetent power-abusers. I will leave those theories for another day.

Ethics Quiz: AI Jesus

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

We all knew this was coming, as sure as God made little green idiots. Nonetheless, it poses an ethics conundrum. Several, in fact.

First, though: “What’s going on here?” What’s going on is that once again, someone has figured out a way to profit from human desperation, sadness, and gullibility, or, as P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” P.T. was being conservative in his estimate.

For just $1.99 per minute, or $49.99 for 45 minutes (what a deal!) anyone can have a spiritual conversation with a digital avatar of Jesus Christ, whose appearance is modeled on actor Jonathon Roumie’s portrayal on the TV show “The Chosen.” This courtesy of the Just Like Me website, which explains, “Jesus AI is an artificial intelligence tool designed to offer comfort, encouragement, and timeless wisdom inspired by teachings of love, compassion, forgiveness, and personal growth. It is not Jesus Christ himself, nor does it possess divine authority.”

We can cross off dishonesty from the list of possible ethics breaches, I guess. But historians and anthropologists believe that Jesus probably looked like this…

I still have questions, however.

Pages: 1 2

Gavin Newsom’s Book Trick

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

In November, California Gov. Gavin Newsom offered donors to his political donors a “free” copy of his forthcoming book: “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery.” “Make a contribution of ANY AMOUNT today and I will send you a copy,” he wrote.

67,000 supporters bit, and the book those donors received accounted for roughly two-thirds of the print copies of the memoir that have been sold so far. Federal records reveal that Newsom’s political action committee paid $1,561,875 to buy and distribute copies of his book through the donation program. Newsom gets no royalties from the book, avoiding the trap other politicians have fallen into. Meanwhile, the New York Times, which has, surprisingly, been alert to this long-standing slimy tactic, still listed Newsom’s book on its Best Seller list, even though the paper has elsewhere explained that the books were not “sold.”

Danielle Rhoades Ha, a Times spokeswoman, kind-of explained, “When The Times has reason to believe that sales of a book include a mix of organic and bulk sales, the book’s best-seller ranking is accompanied by a dagger. That’s what we did with the Newsom book.”

Oh. What?

Pages: 1 2

Smoking Gun Evidence That Democrats and Progressives Seek One-Party Rule, Not Democracy: The Virginia Special Election

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This is another integrity test for your woke friends who claim that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.

Tomorrow, Virginians (like me) will go to polling places to decide whether to vote for a “proposed constitutional amendment.” Note that the proposed amendment isn’t included on the ballot. This is because Democrats, who dominate the state government cheat. There is no other way to explain this.

Constitutional amendments, which must be approved by Virginia voters, have to be on the ballot with a full explanation of the amendment available to the public at least 90 days before the election. Virginia Code 30-19.9 provides,

“The explanation shall contain the ballot question, the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment, and a statement of not more than 500 words on the proposed amendment. The explanation shall be presented in plain English, shall be limited to a neutral explanation, which may include a brief statement on the effect of a “yes” and “no” vote on the question but shall not include arguments submitted by either proponents or opponents of the proposal.”

How has it been “made available”? I don’t know: I hadn’t seen it, and I’m fairly informed on such matters. Maybe it was in something I thought was junk mail. Maybe Democrats think posting something on a website nobody is likely to visit is sufficient advance notice. The alleged required explanation of the current proposed amendment is here. In addition to the deceitful and misleading language on the ballot above, we see:

Pages: 1 2

I’m Baaaack!

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I swore that I would get a post up before this horrible weekend was up. So here it is.

My computer, entirely because of unethical procrastination on my part, finally died as it was predicted to months ago. The time was 10:22, April 18, the anniversary of Paul Revere’s ride. My new computer was purchased and set up by my IT expert, who lives with me, at approximately 11:16 on April 19.

It’s going to take me a while to catch up. I am so sorry for the interruption: there is a lot going on, isn’t there?

I want to thank Steve Witherspoon for passing along the news of my technological demise so the Alexandria police didn’t show up at my door for a safety check, like the last time. Steve had emailed me off site shortly before the Great Crash, so he seemed like a logical messenger.

Right now, the ethics story that gets my special notice is this, from The Federalist, which writes in part,

When the draft of the Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Roe v. Wade leaked to the press, the conservative justices who signed on to the majority opinion [faced a] very real threat of assassination…And still their pro-abortion colleagues stalled the release of the official ruling for weeks, putting the justices’ lives at increased risk, as detailed in Mollie Hemingway’s new book on Justice Samuel Alito and reported Saturday by Fox News.

Alito is the justice who wrote Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling ending nationalized abortion. “Alito asked the dissenters to make the completion of their dissents their priority because delay of the decision was a security threat,” Hemingway, The Federalist’s editor-in-chief writes in Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution.“Abortion supporters had an incentive to kill one or more of the justices in the majority to change the outcome.” …Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the liberals when they expected to be wrapped up. They refused to provide a date. 

…On May 2, 2022, accomplice media outlet Politico published the 98-page draft of Dobbs. The unprecedented leak set off a wave of leftist protests and a literal firestorm of pro-abortion-led violence. …“In the ensuing weeks, hundreds of pregnancy centers, churches, and pro-life organizations would be vandalized, some even set ablaze,” Hemingway wrote. Protesters also lined the streets and sidewalks outside the conservative justices’ homes…

“Everyone knew that the leak posed a serious security risk for justices. Since decisions do not take effect until issued officially from the bench, the death of a justice before then could alter the result. The threat of assassination increased dramatically,” Hemingway writes.  It took 53 days to finally release the Dobbs decision. Despite the growing threat to their colleagues, the liberals on the court refused to listen to urgent pleas to complete their work, Hemingway reports….

 “Hemingway wrote that Kagan, an Obama appointee, angrily confronted Breyer, a Clinton appointee, in May 2022 behind closed doors after at least one justice, Samuel Alito, had asked his liberal colleagues to speed up writing their dissent because of security threats,” Fox reported. “Breyer was most likely to agree to Alito’s request, Hemingway wrote.” Hemingway wrote that “Kagan remonstrated with Breyer not to accommodate the majority, screaming so loudly, observers noted, that the ‘wall was shaking,’” according to Fox. 

While pro-abortion zealots were calling for heads to roll, the court’s liberal minority did nothing to, as the left likes to say with empty virtue, “turn down the temperature.”  The justices needed all the help they could get….

“Shortly after the leak, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to provide full-time security for all the justices, but he drew criticism because authorities did not arrest protesters despite a law that prohibits ‘picketing or parading’ near a federal judge’s home to influence a court decision,” Fox reported.

…Contrary to the belief by Roe’s supporters that the final outcome could be changed if they just demonstrated and threatened and destroyed enough, the conservatives on the court never wavered….The Fox report on Hemingway’s new book comes after former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer reported rumors earlier this week that the Supreme Court’s liberal minority is once again “slow-walking the dissent” in a landmark redistricting case Louisiana v. Callais, “so that [the decision] will not be issued in time for many Republican states to actually go in and redistrict based on the decision.”

Nice!

Unethical Substack of the Year (So Far): “Open Letters by Mersault”

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

The ficks are running thick this spring!

You know “Mersault” is an unethical and untrustworthy pundit because he, she or it won’t let readers know who is writing this far left, biased, garbage. (That’s a photo of the writer above) The author had the nerve to send this substack post to me unasked, and given its quality and content, I regard that act as in the same category as putting a flaming bag of poo on my doorstep.

Pages: 1 2

Oh No! Not The Redskins/Commanders “Racist Logo” Nonsense Again!

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I resent having to waste my time writing about this astoundingly stupid story. I have bills to pay, clients to satisfy and other much more interesting ethics stories to cover (like how the mainstream media can get away with ignoring the damning evidence that Trump’s first impeachment was a Deep State/Axis conspiracy to illicitly remove an elected President, as some of us <cough!> had figured out it was anyway).

But I’ve followed the political correctness, fake victim-mongering, Native American white guilt power play involving sports team names, mascots and logo too long not to take on this latest outbreak.

To summarize the past EA analyses of the contrived Washington Redskins controversies:

  • The team nickname was created to allude to both Boston baseball teams that hosted the first Boston NFL team, the Braves and the Red Sox. There was no intended derogatory homage to an Old West descriptive term for Native Americans, which some tribes used to refer to themselves.
  • The assault on team names, mascots and logos was a particularly silly side-effect of the outbreak of wokism and political correctness in the 90s. It wasn’t about the sports teams, but simply a means to the end of demonstrating the power of race-baiting and bending organizations and companies to the will of the Perpetually Offended.
  • The most annoying manifestation of this fraud was the “Would you accept a team called the Washington Negroes?” argument. Teams are named after people and things that the public views as admirable. Being referenced by a team nickname or mascot is a compliment, and nobody seriously considers such an association as “dehumanizing” unless there is a benefit to the imaginary victims in doing so.
  • Few of the teams under attack based on the contrived “racist” theory had the courage and fortitude to avoid capitulating, the Atlanta Braves being one worth saluting. (Ironic, because the Braves was the original name of the Redskins). Even Congressional Democrats (under Harry Reid, now roasting in Hell) tried to get into the act and force the D.C. team to ditch “Redskins,” because Democrats don’t believe in personal freedom and the First Amendment when either gets in the way of the party’s agenda.
  • Finally, a new owner changed the Redskins name to the bland “Commanders.” Many fans in D.C. still call them the Redskins anyway. 

That brings us up-to-date until this week, when the NFL team unveiled a new logo that alludes to the old Redskins name and legacy by shooting a graphic arrow (or a “native spear,” which is somehow more politically correct) through the generic “W” that has stood for “Washington Commanders.”

Demonstrating how petty and desperate for significance and publicity they are, some Native American activists crept out of their teepees to feign being offended again.

“The Washington Commanders’ decision to update their logo is disappointing and inappropriate to say the least,’’ the Association on American Indian Affairs said in a statement. “It is time to stop repeating this cycle and listen to Native Peoples who have been clear, consistent, and unwavering on this issue: We are not your mascot.’’

The association speaks with forked tongue, or, if you prefer, is lying. “Native Peoples” have repeatedly answered pollsters to the effect that they don’t care what the Washington NFL football team calls itself, and didn’t mind “Redskins” when it was still the team’s nickname. The “clear” message from the association is that the anti-Redskins activists do not speak for the people they claim to speak for, so that statement is flat-out false. I hold that nobody should respect, trust or pay attention to lying activists.

Becky Clayton-Anderson, president of the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA), says that her group’s members approve the new logo, and that NAGA “is pleased to see the Washington Commanders incorporate a Native spear into their new logo design. It’s encouraging to have a small piece of Native imagery represented again, honoring the deep connection between Native heritage and America’s sports traditions.’’

The result of the movement to erase all cultural references to Native Americans is to further alienate that rich part of U.S. cultural history from the rest. NAGA’s opposing activists will be considered successful when they expunge all Native American imagery and traditions from American life.

But wait, there’s more! There are “experts” to heed! Stephanie Fryberg, a social psychologist, suggested the new logo will cause harm.

Fryberg claimed in a statement, “Research has long shown that Native-themed mascots and symbols cause psychological harm, particularly to Native youth, by reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to the ongoing erasure of Native peoples in contemporary society.”

Yeah.

1. What research, Stephanie? We know: research created and manipulated to confirm the theory of the 10% of activists who were upset about “Redskins.” Please: show me. Show me a single individual who is tangibly “harmed” by the addition of an arrow or spear to the Commanders logo. Presumably that individual also was traumatized every time Steve Martin posed with that gag arrow through his head. If not, why not? Do Indian Head nickles also cause such victims distress?

2. Anyone who is truly harmed by the design of a logo for a local sports team has serious underlying emotional and intellectual problems that go far beyond that.

Comment of the Day: “Briefly Noted….” (Corrected)

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The Comment of the Day was inspired by the short post focusing on the video above, in which people who have been doubtless throwing up comments on social media about the poor, abused citizens of Gaza and Israeli “genocide” were confronted with easily available facts regarding the how the endless Palestinian conflict is fueled by decades of demonizing Jews, and were shocked–shocked!—that indoctrination and propaganda have consequences.

Sarah B., (not to be confused with Sarah Bales, who is also an ace commenter) as is her wont, posted in response two trenchant comments which I am combining as one. I’ll divide them with a page break to “split the baby” regarding the current complaints regarding the new WordPress page break system.

Here is Sarah’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Briefly noted…”:

***

Yes, being this ignorant is a problem, but the big question now is where were they to learn this? Surely not in school. As an early millennial, we sort of covered the Muslims in the Crusades, where the Muslims were poor, abused peaceful people who were abused by those nasty Catholics, skipping the years upon decades upon centuries of aggression beforehand. I watched footage of the Twin Towers my senior year, as parts of it were happening, but was cautioned not to think that this was done by Muslims, but instead some ragtag extremists.

The indoctrination has only gotten worse, I believe. And since it was already evil to think Muslims could be other than peaceful when I was in school, and the fact that several of my contemporaries who got pregnant right out of high school are already grandparents, that means we are multiple generations of indoctrination in. Other than my favorite option of razing the DOE to the ground, salting it, and going back to private tutors/mini-schools/homeschools, what can be done? If you are told the same thing by everyone, and it is common knowledge, why would you even think to look at another viewpoint. Only the old fogies, who are Islamophobes say otherwise and we already know to ignore Boomers.

We have an education crisis, but rather than calling those who suffer from it morons and unethical, we should celebrate things like this that start to explain how the real world works to those who have been brainwashed into believing falsehoods.

Pages: 1 2

Friday Open Forum, “Hail, Hail, the Morons Are All Here!” Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Question: How does anyone who purports to support the Democratic Party not feel like an idiot these days? Observe:

Now, what Ramses witnessed in “The Ten Commandments”—burning hail…THAT might have been evidence of global warming…

This woman, arguably made stupid by progressive indoctrination and propaganda though she might have been born that way, is still arguably more astute than “The View’s” resident lawyer, Sunny Hostin, who claimed that earthquakes and eclipses were also evidence of climate change.

There’s a lot of crazy ethics stuff going on this week. Analyze it for us. Me, I’m going to bang my head against a wall for a while…

From The Ethics Alarms Archives: “One More Time, The Second Accuser Scenario, And Fairness For Justin Fairfax”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Yesterday, the horrifying news was that former Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, once considered a rising star in the Democratic Party (you know, like Jasmine Crockett and Eric Swalwell) whose career was derailed by sexual assault allegations, murdered his estranged wife and killed himself.

The knee-jerk defenders of Fairfax among Virginia Democrats were head-exploding in 2019, as this EA post from February of that year reminds us. I held at the time that two rape allegation from two different women was sufficient to mark Fairfax as untrustworthy and unfit for office considering the factors surrounding them. I would not have guessed that they portended a murder-suicide, but I must admit that Fairfax’s violent and tragic last act didn’t shock me either.

***

From the Washington Post today:

“A Maryland woman said Friday she was raped by Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) in a “premeditated and aggressive” assault in 2000, while they both were undergraduate students at Duke University. She is the second woman this week to make an accusation of sexual assault.

The woman, Meredith Watson, said Friday in a written statement through her attorney that she shared her account immediately after it happened with several classmates and friends. Watson did not speak publicly Friday and her lawyer did not make her available for an interview.

Watson was friends with Fairfax at Duke but they never dated or had any romantic relationship, the lawyer, Nancy Erika Smith, said.

“At this time, Ms. Watson is reluctantly coming forward out of a strong sense of civic duty and her belief that those seeking or serving in public office should be of the highest character,” Smith said in the statement . “She has no interest in becoming a media personality or reliving the trauma that has greatly affected her life. Similarly, she is not seeking any financial damages.”

Now what?

An unrelated accusation of conduct X does not mean that a previous unsubstantiated accusation of the same conduct is true. However…

  • In the case of habitual or characteristic misconduct—like being a sexual predator or a sexual harasser—the likelihood that there have been more, undisclosed episodes involving the individual accused is high.
  • Thus the absence of a credible second (or third, fourth, and onward) accuser in a matter like this is legitimate evidence arguing for the innocence of the accused. An example would be Clarence Thomas.
  • When subsequent allegations are substantially similar to the original accusation, they are especially damning. Bill Cosby is the poster case for this variation. Another exampole: Kevin Spacey.
  • When the second and additional allegations are suspiciously timed, as during an election or a political controversy, when they involve general misconduct only, lack named accusers or when they are sketchy in their facts and proof, they should be regarded with extreme skepticism. The add-on Kavanaugh accusations fit this description.
  • The fact that a court decision or an official investigation has not definitively determined that misconduct has taken place does not require individuals, groups and the public to discard commons sense, if they can eliminate bias from their decision-making. O.J. Simpson, it is fair to say,  is guilty of murder, and it is completely fair to regard him in that light. Barry Bonds used banned and illegal drugs to enhance his major league baseball career. Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator who traded professional advancement for sex. We don’t need admissions here to come to informed decisions.

Now what does all of this mean for Justin Fairfax, next in line to be Governor of Virginia if Governor Northam decides, as an honorable public servant should, that he has made such an irredeemable ass of himself by his obfuscations, double-back flips, and tap-dancing around the question of whether he had a photo of himself in blackface in his yearbook that no Virginian in his or her right mind could possibly feel secure trusting such a boob to handle the affairs of the Commonwealth? What is fair? Continue reading →