Trevor Noah, the current Daily Show host who is more thoughtful than funny, made the same points Ethics Alarms did regarding Hillary Clinton’s weasel-like response to the New York Times exposé revealing that she protected a top adviser of hers, Burns Strider, Clinton’s faith adviser and founder of the American Values Network, when he was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing one of Clinton’s young subordinates during her 2008 campaign.
“Hillary’s Grammy cameo came at a weird moment for her,” Noah said, referring to the “Fire and Fury” skit at the Grammys Sunday that featured Clinton reading excerpts from the book. “Because last night’s theme was #MeToo, Time’s Up, which is a message Hillary found herself on the wrong side of over the weekend. Look, there’s a few areas where I don’t necessarily expect Hillary Clinton to nail it,” Noah continued, “managing emails, visiting Wisconsin, you know, weaknesses. But I won’t lie, I expected standing up for a woman on her staff to be one of her strengths. So the story is disturbing.”
“It’s possible that Hillary Clinton had a good explanation for why she kept this guy on over the objections of her top campaign advisers but instead of an explanation, all we got was this,” Noah said, regurgitating Hillary’s nauseating tweet,
“A story appeared today about something that happened in 2008. I was dismayed when it occurred, but was heartened the young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed…I called her today to tell her how proud I am of her and to make sure she knows what all women should: we deserve to be heard,”
“Yeah, ‘women deserve to be heard,’ and then quietly reassigned,” Noah said in reaction to this. “‘Thank you for speaking up — now into the closet…It feels like Hillary’s not only trying to dodge all the blame, she wants to present herself as having always been on this woman’s side, which doesn’t fly, because not only did the woman get reassigned, but this guy, Burns Strider, he went on to get another job in Democratic politics, where he got fired for doing the same thing to other women,” Noah said, correctly. “So you could argue that if Hillary had fired him, she would have been protecting many women, instead of just herself.”
I almost gave Noah an Ethics Hero for this, but thought better of it. The fact that none of his All-Trump-Bashing-All-The-Time comic colleagues, like Colbert, Kimmel, Samantha Bee, Bill Maher and Saturday Night Live lack the integrity to criticize Clinton doesn’t make him a hero. It’s a little like giving a medal to the only soldier who doesn’t run away as soon as the shooting starts. We should respect consistent standards and integrity instead of hypocrisy, not treat them like they are qualifications for sainthood.
However, the criticism Noah received on Twitter for stating the truth was an education in how people delude themselves and pollute their values with rationalizations to avoid facing uncomfortable facts:
- “We don’t actually know what was said in her call, so once again the critics attack HRC without the facts.”
A classic straw man. Noah wasn’t criticizing Clinton on the basis of the call, but because of what she did, and her double-talk attempt to claim that she treated a victim of sexual misconduct as she has been lecturing us for years, when in fact she did not.
- “No the part of the problem is people saying it’s OK for Trump to do what he did and to keep doing it. Please don’t blame her thanks.”
Trump derangement. “But Trump!” is the rebuttal for everything. I don’t know why Larry Nassar didn’t use the “But Trump!” defense, especially with a female judge. Malpractice, if you ask me.
- “And the Daily Show continues the media obsession with smearing HRC.”
Yes, reporting in what Hillary Clinton actually does, rather than the platitudes she espouses, is smearing her.”
- “A man is telling a woman that she is on the “wrong side” of #MeToo? Thanx for mansplaining, of course an American female former Secretary of State needs the advice of a male South African comedian.”
dindingdingdingding! There is it is! The notorious, unethical, galactically idiotic “mansplaining” dodge.! Yes, a man, a woman, a space alien, a talking dog or anyone with the power to tell right from wrong can and should tell a woman she is a flaming hypocrite when she is a flaming hypocrite.
- “Hillary’s issue happened years ago. In the meantime, we have a sexual predator in the WH. FOCUS!”
This one requires special mental gymnastics. The last sexual predator in the White House was Hillary’s husband, in part because of her efforts to allow him to duck accountability. Meanwhile, Noah is told that he should focus on the only topic the “resistance” believes is worthy of a comic’s attention: attacking Donald Trump. I also love the “years ago” excuse in the context of “#MeToo. Many, if not most, of the powerful men fired or forced to leave positions of power have been accused of misconduct that occurred years ago, on the theory that the events alleged were permanent stains on their character. “It happened years ago!” was one of Roy Moore’s defenses.
- “Shut up, Trevor Noah. You’ve been on the wrong side of a lot of things…But more importantly, you idiot, you are perpetuating a divide in the group of people fighting strongest to stop everything wrong with this country. Yes, HRC should be addressed – just not now.”
Got it: the only people who can criticize wrongful conduct that needs to be pointed up are those who have never been wrong! This is Rationalization #6, the lazy and ignorant “judge not” and “glass houses” dodge. (The ethics ignorance being exposed in by these comments are beginning to make me depressed…) When should HRC’s phony feminism be addressed? She’s been at it as long as she’s been in public life!
- “Yet again, let’s hold Hillary accountable for the actions of men. Her response went a step further than what was normal for 2008. Stop judging her harsher than her male colleagues & by today’s standards.”
This is the winner, I think. Yes, employers are accountable for how they handle sexual harassment complaints, both legally and ethically. The second sentence is pure Rationalization #22, “It’s not the worst thing.” Her handling was not “normal” for 2008, or if it was, “normal” was not legal or ethical. I was teaching companies that sexual harassment has to be handled better than that TWO decades ago. Hillary was and is a lawyer. She had cheered Anita Hill. She knew what the right thing to do was when an employee complains about sexual misconduct, and it isn’t “transfer the victim.” Her campaign manager understood that in 2008: what, was she a visionary? “HARSHER THAN HER MALE COLLEAGUES???” Men in politics, business and everywhere else have been crucified for their wrongful conduct in allowing predators to continue in their positions. Funny, I don’t recall the “it was a different time” excuse being accepted as a defense for Penn State (Jerry Sandusky), or the US Women’s Gymnastics Team (Larry Nassar), or Cardinal Law (the Boston Archdiocese predator priests), or NBC (Matt Lauer) or the Weinstein Group.
Today’s standards for the ethical and legal obligations of employers who receive a complaint of sexual harassment are exactly, exactly, the same as they were in 2008.
Those attacks on Noah show how thoroughly Hillary Clinton has corrupted her supporters, how they have enabled her, right into giving the Presidency to Donald Trump, and why she is one of the most damaging ethics corruptors in our nation’s political history.
_______________
Source: Twitchy
Ethics Alarms 
I said a couple of days ago that this will be a crossing of the Rubicon:
*those who defend her
*those who light into her
*and those who keep their yaps shut and wait for it to go away.
Everyone know HRC’s a scorekeeper.
Credit where credit is due, IMHO Noah could have just said: “yeah, Hillary really screwed this one up.”
But he set it up with the old one-two and a glancing…um…left hook: “Look, there’s a few areas where I don’t necessarily expect Hillary Clinton to nail it, managing emails, visiting Wisconsin, you know, weaknesses.”
THEN he ducked, feigned, parried, and went in for the knockout.
“So you could argue that if Hillary had fired him, she would have been protecting many women, instead of just herself.”
He landed a lot more body blows than everyone that wouldn’t dare get near the ring, much less into it.
Weakness emerges in the Clintonista Armor.
“of course an American female former Secretary of State needs the advice of a male South African comedian.”
So a feminist is telling an African to remember his place. How does intersectionality play into this?
I liked that part too.
Well, let’s consult the privilege scoreboard:
Hillary
American = 3
Female = -15
Secretary of state = 10
Secretary of state (D) = -8
Total privilege score = -10
Trevor
African = -25
South African = 10
Male = 20
Comedian = 3
Comedian who speaks truth to power = -8
Total privilege = 0
Not really that close.
“of course an American female former Secretary of State needs the advice of a male South African comedian.”
I surmise that the last part of this sentence is intended to be understood as,
“a male comedian coming from a shithole countrylike South Africa.”
BAM!!!
Jack,
In the sentence,
version 1. We should respect consistent standards and integrity instead of hypocrisy, not treat them like they are qualifications for sainthood.
I guess you meant expect instead of respect.
version 2: We should expect consistent standards and integrity instead of hypocrisy, not treat them like they are qualifications for sainthood.
And even then, I, with English as a second language, would read ‘ should expect’ firstly as “To consider likely or certain” but given the current climate that is not a given anymore. Therefore, to emphasize the (intended?) meaning of ‘expect’ as “To consider obligatory; require” the following sentence would have been clearer to me,
version 3:We should demand consistent standards and integrity instead of hypocrisy, not treat them like they are qualifications for sainthood.
Flash of insight
By pondering your sentence and rewriting it I realized that your sentence is fine but that I bracketed the sentence in a wrong way; which is made possible given the complexity of two polarities involved in this sentence:
a. consistent standards and integrity versus hypocrisy
b. [treat them with] respect versus treat them like they are qualifications for sainthood
Lets name the different parts of the sentence,
A: [should respect
B: consistent standards and integrity
C: hypocrisy
D: treat them like they are qualifications for sainthood
The bracketing I now think you meant is: { A { B_C } } versus { D }
The bracketing I understood first was: { A { B } versus { C } } versus { D }
But in bracketing the sentence in my way, ‘respect’ felt awkward once reading part D. That’s when I backtracked to A and thought-up ‘expect’. while thinking, “Just another typo by Jack and/or wrongly suggested/inserted word by the word processor”.
Okay, we now understand what went wrong in my understanding but why did I misunderstood it? One part of the answer is, as mentioned above, is that given 2 polarities in one sentence there are (‘No shit, Sherlock’, as my daughter would say) multiple interpretations possible.
But the other part of my misunderstanding comes from the context of the sentence and points to a minor disagreement with Jack.
I quote (emphasis mine, intended for later use),
The fact that none of his All-Trump-Bashing-All-The-Time comic colleagues, like Colbert, Kimmel, Samantha Bee, Bill Maher and Saturday Night Live lack the integrity to criticize Clinton doesn’t make him a hero. It’s a little like giving a medal to the only soldier who doesn’t run away as soon as the shooting starts.
My thinking is:
When it is normal that all soldiers stand their ground it is true that you should not give “a medal to the only soldier who doesn’t run away as soon as the shooting starts”, instead you should court marshall those who run away.
However, if it is normal, even rewarded that all “of his All-Trump-Bashing-All-The-Time comic colleagues, like Colbert, Kimmel, Samantha Bee, Bill Maher and Saturday Night Live lack the integrity to criticize Clinton” that does make Trevor Noah in my opinion exceptional, an ethics hero.
And by writing the above “My thinking” I realize that I now think you wrote none but meant to write all or, option 2 ,lack but meant have
Conclusion
While formulating version 3 of the sentence I got my ‘flash of insight’ and was about to cancel my comment.
But I came to the conclusion that it gives some insight how difficult writing and reading is and how easy misunderstandings are born.
That’s when I decided to share my full-circle of misunderstanding towards understanding.
Comment of the Day. I also will keep this one nearby to remind myself of the perils of being a first draft writer, who, confident in my ability to organize an essay as I compose it, seldom take the time to make it as clear as it could be. Those who marvel how EA can contain an average of 3000 or more words a day with content while I am obligated to do other things (work, laugh, love, live) have their answer—it’s the same reason I was able to graduate law school while directing plays and running a theater company—I have always been a compulsive multi-processor, a speed reader and a fast writer. It allows me to be the dilettante I am, for better or worse (is probably related to a mild ADD problem), but has a downside, about which I should always be vigilant. Thank you. I am grateful.
I actually thought “version 1” was at least mostly correct: we should respect Noah for applying consistent standards, but not treat him as a saint for doing so….
“do other things (work, laugh, love, live…”
Work: 10 hours
Laugh: 30 minutes
Live: 4 hours
Sleep: 8 hours
This should leave you an estimated 1.5 hours a day for Love… and that sounds exhausting for someone our age!
slickwilly, you missed in your calculation the time Jack/EA needs for blogging; and managing a successful blog is of course so much more then fast writing blog posts.
I figure, depending on the post content, it is in the ‘Work’ or ‘Live’ categories.
If it is in the ‘Love’ category, Jack is doing it wrong!
The way Jack formulated it, it is outside of the four categories; in the part you quoted ‘other’ is the word that gives it away.
““And the Daily Show continues the media obsession with smearing HRC.”
media obsession…with smearing HRC…
obsession with smearing HRC…by the media…
HRC…obsessively…….SMEARED….by the media….
‘ the hell universe this commenter live in?
The same one the commenters on this blog llve in who deny that the news media and popular culture are wildly biased toward the Left,?
Jack said:
“I don’t know why Larry Nassar didn’t use the “But Trump!” defense, especially with a female judge. Malpractice, if you ask me.”
Thank, s Jack. Always good to start the morning off snorting coffee.
“Always good to start the morning off snorting coffee.”
Yeah, the ground beans in my nose itch all day… I have regressed to just drinking the stuff these days
Well played.
If people would stop surprising me with snortable sentences, I’d do the same. At least I didn’t destroy another keyboard.
Just don’t drink and surf… problem solved 🙂
Jack, you said: “Her campaign manager understood that in 2008: what, was he a visionary? “HARSHER THAN HER MALE COLLEAGUES???”
If this is in reference to Clinton’s campaign manager, I thought that her manager was a woman named Solis. Doesn’t really detract from your main point though.
I’ll add the appropriate “s”. Thanks.
I see cracks in the wall… Some of HRC’s supporters are looking for the next pony to bet on, and perusing glue factory contracts, me thinks.
GAD, if we never have another Bush or Clinton in national office… My entire LIFE these families have run things!
Considering they want to push another Kennedy into the spotlight, we’ll just be backtracking to the royalty of yesteryear. New policy: we elect only presidents who are an only child with no siblings or cousins and we sterilize them upon election.
And my liberal friends wonder why I left the lefty plantation…
The overall message these commenters made towards Noah is this: Know Your Place.
Know Your Place means…
1. If you’re a minority (Noah is black/African) you are not allowed to hold accountable those who pretend to speak for you. If you do, your minority status will be held against you and used as a means to negate your position while reminding you that you’re below them.
2. If you point out a discrepancy between words and behavior, the actual point won’t be addressed. Instead every other kind of straw man argument will be produced including: “You don’t know what you’re talking about because you’re just a (male, human, thinker) and should shut up” or “That other person is worse” or “How dare you bring up aspects of this topic I don’t know about or don’t want to face.” Usually an insult is added to make sure you know who is the real boss just like in Noah’s case when he was called an idiot, divisive, judgmental, told to shut up, to focus, and stop mansplaining. The objective is to ALWAYS discredit the offender.
Is it any wonder minorities like gays, immigrants, women, POC, etc. are starting to leave the Democratic party? Being told repeatedly in essence “don’t think for yourself of challenge our agenda *In OUR America* or else you’ll be dismissed, insulted and worse” is starting to wear thin. Those of us who actually value church, family, police, border security are considered “wing nut Republicans.”
If the elitist Democrats want to be more than a party of hyperbolic, hypersensitive grandiose jerks who do more than speak platitudes while trying to choke the free thoughts of the very constituents they claim to speak for – they will have to start actually listening to people like Trevor Noah, Shelby Steele, Sage Steele, and so many more who are punished for daring to want to expose some truth and speak for themselves.
This is why folks like me go from Democrat to just about anything else. Because the party of ‘the people’ doesn’t really care about DACA, #me too, Black Lives Matters (as Joe Kennedy regurgitated). They care about power by any means necessary and will throw a man like Trevor Noah, one of their own, under the bus the minute a free thought is detected.
I want to give you a regular column on the blog.
I’d take it! It could be called “Reflections from a Former Liberal.” 😉
I would pay for such a blog… seriously
I’d be a fan! Oh…I already am.
COTD?
Marvelous post.