Ethics Heroes MSNBC Hosts Ari Melber And Chris Matthews, And The Post I Didn’t Have to Write [UPDATE]

Oh, this feels so good.

Just as I am always pleased when someone like Bill Clinton, a bona fide Ethics Corrupter, can he justifiably honored here for an Ethical Quote, or when a reliable ethics alarms punching bag like HBO’s  Bill Maher earns ethics kudos as he did when the snide HBO host condemned Facebook’s banning of Alex Jones recently, saying, in words that apply with equal force to YouTube’s recent ban on “Triumph of the Will”:

“If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country. If you care about the real American s*** or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak.”

It gives me hope; it reinforces the ethics tenet that very few people are 100% wrong, destructive, or irredeemable.  In today’s case, it is especially welcome because it saves me from having to fill out an ethics violation ticket that I was disgusted that I should have to  issue.

I was nauseated—yes, I think that’s the right word; certainly not “surprised”— to learn that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had said of the President, in a conference with her Democratic colleagues, “I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison.” This crosses a line that should not be crossed in a democracy, and frankly, I did not relish having to explain what I believe is an example of res ipsa loquitur.

If you don’t comprehend why attempts to criminalize politics strike at the core of American values and the viability of democratic government, then you should go back to school, frankly.  We’re adults here; I have a Stupidity Rule for commenters. Whenever possible I try to avoid posts that explain why something any citizen of reasonable education and intelligence should immediately know is unethical is, in fact, unethical. Such posts are boring, and that’s really not what this blog is for.

Yet in chronicling the horrible carnage of the Post 2016 Election Ethics Train Wreck, I could hardly ignore Pelosi’s new low, any more than I could ignore Rep. Tlaib’s disgusting  “We’re gonna impeach the motherfucker!” boast.

So, just as I sat down at the keyboard, weary and ill at ease, and my fingers wandered idly over the sticky keys, I discovered that two veteran, hate-flinging, Trump-smearing, journalism ethics-defying MSNBC social justice warriors  had explained to their viewers exactly what I was preparing to write.

Whew!

First, Ari Melber saw the hypocrisy of  Pelosi adopting a Democratic version of “lock her up,” the ugly Trump crowd chant that was widely condemned as evidence that Trump is a Nazi.  Then Melber pointed out that  “there was a judicial, legal, process,” the Mueller investigation, which “did not result in an indictment, whether you like it or not.” In fact, there isn’t a single crime even alleged or rumored involving the President that could result in his being jailed.

Chris Matthews, reminding me that way back in the 90s he was  a relatively balanced and fair liberal pundit before he sold out to MSNBC,  zeroed in on what is so wrong with Pelosi’s statement. His example was Pakistan, but he just as easily could have used any banana republic, or the Soviet Union:

“Now the Speaker of the House is saying [Trump] ought to be in prison,” Matthews said. “Imagine that you live in some rinky-dink country out in the world that has always looked up to ours. You know, some fourth-world country, doesn’t even have democracy. And here we have the leader of the opposition, saying the other guy ought to be in prison. This is the stuff we used to see in Pakistan in the old days. Defeat the guy, then hang him.”

Bingo.

The criticism of two stalwart Trump-haters on the all-Trump hate all the time network was so much more valuable as a slap in the face of the progressive Facebook Borg than hearing it on Fox New , even though on that network Alan Dershowitz completed what my lost post would have said:

“I have to tell you, as a liberal Democrat, I’m appalled at Nancy Pelosi. The idea of her weaponizing the criminal justice system — and calling for the imprisonment of the president of the United States without him being charged with any crime, without him being charged with any impeachable offense — it’s just outrageous,.”

Thank you all.

 

 

22 thoughts on “Ethics Heroes MSNBC Hosts Ari Melber And Chris Matthews, And The Post I Didn’t Have to Write [UPDATE]

  1. “Now the Speaker of the House is saying [Trump] ought to be in prison,” Matthews said. “Imagine that you live in some rinky-dink country out in the world that has always looked up to ours. You know, some fourth-world country, doesn’t even have democracy.”

    Would one be wrong to pejoratively refer to such a place as a shit hole?

  2. And thank you, Jack for being an island of sanity in a sea of blithering idiocy.

    Funny how Trump allegedly referred to shit hole countries. The Dems seem to want to turn the U.S. into one of them. In the name of diversity, I guess. Maybe he Guatemalans and Hondurans and Nicaraguans are just coming up here to help us on our way on that trajectory. Hooray!

  3. It just seems an unbelievable betrayal when the party that was all for free speech is the one leading attacks against it and empowering BIG BUSINESS- Evil big business to smack down the little people who object to speech and object to BIG business and BIG government smacking down consumer activism and safety. How did that happen?

  4. Forgive me for being cynical, but before I can give some of those mentioned too much credit, I’m going to have to convince myself that they thought it through, decided to be honest, and meant what they said, rather than were just reacting to their realization that the leftist crazy train is close to coming completely off the rails, so someone has to start putting on the brakes before they all get immolated in the crash.

  5. Bill Mahar said: “If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country. If you care about the real American s*** or you don’t. And if you do, it goes for every side. I don’t like Alex Jones, but Alex Jones gets to speak. Everybody gets to speak.”

    [I am not completely sure if Mayer said this as your post was not clear to me].

    Jack wrote: “It gives me hope; it reinforces the ethics tenet that very few people are 100% wrong, destructive, or irredeemable. In today’s case, it is especially welcome because it saves me from having to fill out an ethics violation ticket that I was disgusted that I should have to issue.”

    Personally, I think what Maher said is basically false, though I am happy that he did say it. The actual truth is you can only state unpopular ideas when and if they have no possibility of gaining ground and influencing people to take action in regard to them.

    This is, as I see it, Liberal America’s dilemma. I wish I had better terms to clarify what ‘liberal America’ is. I could say liberal America, I could say the American Left or American Progressives. It is hard to come up with a fair and descriptive term. But my point is: they might tolerate your speech when and if, and only when and if, you are not *winning the day*. If they sensed that your winning the day were a real possibility, they would resort to non-democratic methods to hold onto power.

    I refer to Lippmann and his ideas about the demos being incapable of self-rulership and that government needs to intervene. I believe this is what he means, in essence. His hope is that powerful and influential people can control the unruly demos, and he assumes that he represents the class that has the skill, insight and ability to do this ‘correctly’. Therefore, his class can intervene when democracy faces a ‘crisis’.

    And they will do this if the wrong people, who are free to speak their minds, gain too much influence.

    I think this is one of the obvious down-sides of democracy. The demos cannot rule themselves. The demos requires wise leadership. But when the social situation that gave rise to a sound democracy is weakened, and then perverted, and when entire classes within a culture act perversely (in the non-sexual sense of the word) some clique with ‘ownership interest’ will intervene. It is said that the end result of ‘democracy’, when it deteriorates, is tyranny. It seems to be the case.

    I will bet that in the coming years that circumstances will arise in which ‘free speech’ will be ever more curtailed. We are now seeing those efforts cranking up.

    • This is why our Constitution was written the way it is and the processes of power and transition were intentionally slowed. America, and maybe only America, has a chance to curtail and, perhaps, reverse this natural devolution to tyranny. Perhaps, using your perspective, the demographic groups which fear something like the American right most will see the wisdom of the Constitution if they see their power justly curtailed in turn via the 2020 election. In short, a balanced and tolerant government might be the most power any group can hope to get.

      • America, and maybe only America, has a chance to curtail and, perhaps, reverse this natural devolution to tyranny.

        I think I understand what you are saying and I value your thoughts. It occurred to me this morning as I mused on how I might respond (which involves clarification of what I myself actually think and believe) that ‘Constitutional Democracy’ is not a free-standing thing. It is not even a thing in itself. A given people, with given interests and capacities and qualities makes a choice to create a constitutionally democratic system. But the system they choose is a post-imposition. Kind of a ‘rule’ or a ‘guide’ that they accept. A constitutional democracy under a republican scheme was devised by specific people and, I am beginning to understand, can only function when those people and all their previously-determined, previously-achieved, previously-instituted qualities and aptitudes, had already been established. That is, that these people arrive in time and in history from a specific trajectory and they ‘institute constitutional democracy’ as the better means of self-government.

        In our present, and for an entire group of reasons that all function together, choices have been made which substantially alter the original social, and yes even ‘spiritual’ conditions under which the Republic was formed.

        I think it is safe to say, though it strikes my ears harshly as it will yours, that ‘Greg Johnson’ (I mean this name as a reference to a class of American that lives, breathes and thinks) does not wish to live in, participate in, nor become a subject of the post-modernist Americanopolistic ‘system’ of management and control that you refer to as ‘America’, and which is drearily sung about in contrived fabricated false-toned saccharine patriotic hymns at football matches after beer commercials and adverts for erectile dysfunction.

        In this sense (without going into a fuller exposition and painting of a certain rather dreary picture) the social scene has shifted, and if one wishes to understand it one has to step back from it and examine it ‘scientifically’. This is what the NR does and its main exponents like Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye. They have set in motion certain analyses which are having effect among thinking people.

        All manner of different things have happened since the more simple times when the American constitutional democracy functioned among the people who invented in, in whom it came to be as a natural evolution and a *next step* of who they were. But all those conditions, and a great deal of the *quality of being* necessary for that type of non-tyrannical system to function, has been superseded by all manner of different choices. It is, literally, ‘not the same world’.

        Greg Johnson, in The White Nationalist Manifesto, wrote:

        “Whites have gone from being about 90% of the US population in 1965 to about 60% today, and in many locations and age groups we are already a minority. Whites are projected to slip below 50% of the population around 2042. In a democracy, that inevitably means political disempowerment. (..) If white Americans want to see what life is like as a despised minority in a majority non-white society, they need only look at South Africa today, which was also touted as a rainbow nation.”

        You see, it is *you-plural* that advocated for what happened in South Africa, that is if what I have read is correct. This was the central advocacy of the 1980s and 1990s: the liberation of South Africa from the drear rule of that ruling and directing (and constructing) class: the only ones who were capable of building South Africa and the only ones who could continue it. It is — it was — an extension of their selves. No other people who did not share their history (their ‘trajectory’ is the world I use) could either built it or maintain it. Now, it is falling, day by day, into destructive tyranny. The result is atrocious and immoral.

        Similarly, this is what is taking shape within the Americanopolis. But having said this, *you* will rise up in adamant rejection of what I am stating, of what I am trying to make plain and clear and visible. You will have to rail against what I am resenting to your vision because something in your own self is deeply wedded to misunderstanding and misapprehension.

        There is a term ‘to get a purchase on something’:

        firm contact or grip: “the horse’s hooves fought for purchase on the slippery pavement”. Synonyms: grip, firm contact, attachment, hold, foothold, footing, toehold, finger-hold, anchorage, support, grasp

        What *we* seem to be proposing, and what I have been working on for 5 years now, is a reasoned, reasonable, ethical and moral conceptual means to gain ‘purchase’ through a group of solid ideas about *what is going on in our present and why* and what is becoming necessary as a response to the existent tyranny of the present.

        What will happen politically and in the future when these ideas take root among people — because they are the better and more solid ones — remains to be seen.

        Now however, the parameters of the ‘conversation’ need to be opened. And now, as well, and against this, a whole array of forces is acting to curtail this conversation and the exchange of ideas and view.

        • All I am saying is our separation of powers and deliberately slow motion system gives us a shot at not falling into tyranny the way others have. Perhaps it is misplaced optimism, but our Constitution seems to offer a sliver of hope others don’t have.

          • Intellectually, you and I exist in separate realms, if not separate planets! Every once in a while I acknowledge what an unlikely participant I am in this blog. Just like *you* need some lunatic Lefty to provide a focus to vent your ire, and to define yourself through that process, I recognize that I need middle-of-the-road people with ideas like yours in order to show me the backdrop against which I define myself, my views, my ideas: and a clear view of *what is really going on in our present and why*.

            Now, things are coming into a better focus. I say that with apprehension because later today, or next week, I may feel I am back in the Zone of Confusion.

            Here is an excerpt from an article now on Counter-Currents. It shows what is now developing:

            This last point was brought home to me in a major way last month when Greg Johnson was detained on arriving in the US to attend the AmRen conference. He was questioned by US government officials who refused to even give the name of the agency they worked for. A US citizen detained on re-entering the US; interrogated regarding his political views. That’s what things have come to. So thunderstruck was I by this turn of events, the most articulate thing I could manage to say to Greg was “Things have really gotten real.” But that actually does sum up the current situation.

            Yes, things have gotten really real. When I first aligned myself with the “Far Right,” almost twenty years ago, we didn’t expect events to move so quickly. We correctly identified all the decadent cultural trends, but still felt relatively comfortable. “Things probably won’t get really bad until after I’m dead,” I thought. I hoped for economic collapse (something all of us thought necessary to bring about a real reaction against the establishment). But I hoped it would happen after I died. Or that somehow it wouldn’t affect me personally. (“I want anarchy, but with full benefits,” I told a friend.) We also predicted that there would be a reaction against the Left in the form of a resurgent nationalism. But we didn’t think we’d live to see it.

            How wrong we were. The decadent cultural trends have become dramatically worse just in the last three years or so. And the reaction is here, now; it is strong and it is growing. As an added bonus, the enemy is flipping out in ways I could never have conceived of ten years ago. There is every reason for hope. But there is also every reason to be afraid. Things are likely to get worse before they get better – and in some places things may not get better; they may be lost. If you identify with the dissident Right, as I do, you and those you care for are in real peril.

  6. Small correction:it was Congresswoman Tlaib who advocated impeaching “the motherfucker”. Same poison, different label.

  7. I confess that I struggle with the “lock her up” comparisons.

    When Jack noted way back when the rationale for not pursuing charges against one’s political opponent, it made sense but for one small point: Hillary was almost certainly guilty of violations of 18 USC.

    Anyone who’s been briefed to access classified material sits through training initially and every year. It is stressed that it doesn’t matter whether or not one intended to release classified, its a violation.

    So, if we’re to be a nation of laws, they should be judiciously applied. No one is above the law, is what we say.
    It shouldn’t change subject to political perceptions.

    In Trumps’s case, a group of prosecuters who hated him at best and some who were trying to overthrow him at worst, found nothing where he violated any statutes (or, to aggravate Jack, statues :p ).

    What the democrats have so grievously done is to flip the notion on it’s ear, where political perceptions are the underlying “crime” with which to apply the law – to wit the Soviet Banana Republic references.

    I honestly don’t know how to stem the tide of that, except to say that it lies with ethical prosecuters doing the right thing, public perceptions be damned.

    But when there seem to be as many Mike Nifongs, Marilyn Mosbys, and Kim Foxxs as there are ethical prosecuters, I truly worry.

    • Thank you. Thought the same while reading it. Though locking her up is a big leap ahead and should only happen after a proper trial.

  8. Remember when Pelosi said she was afraid that Trump might refuse to leave office if he loses the election? Maybe she’s got a point. History tells us that’s what rational presidents do in rinky dink countries when elections are stolen from them by massive fraud and sleazy partisan legal maneuvering and they know that they face jail or execution if they leave. These people have no idea what sort of dangers their actions and rhetoric threaten to unleash on our country.

  9. Bill Maher is a libertarian. His base views match mine, but we go highly divergent in who the greater threat to liberty is. Maher is convinced the social conservatives are the greater threat. I do not, because they’ve basically lost. I think the progressive ownership of so many institutions is the greater threat.
    I think that this may be an awareness dawning on Maher.

    • I’m a little late to this because I’m just catching up on my EA reading. I just heard an interview with Bill Maher that I believe does shows how bad the left is getting. As he said his show is taped in the woke city of LA and he routinely end up with a hostile reaction to some of his statements regarding the behaviour of the Left. The one statement that stuck with me was “The left is for all diversity. Except diversity of opinion. “ At least to paraphrase.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.