You wouldn’t believe what I am dealing with right now, so I’m not even going to tell you.
Let’s just say that in this case, writing ethics stories is a welcome respite..
1. Let’s give credit to the New York Times. On its front page Saturday, the Times highlighted three large graphs, one showing that “monthly job gains under President Trump have shown strong, consistent increases “even after a decade of economic expansion”; one showing that wage growth has “picked up momentum,” and the other showing that unemployment has dipped below “full employment.”
All of this, plus a record high stock market, are just as candidate Trump promised and predicted.
The Times then says,
“With 11 months to go before the 2020 election, a polarized electorate is dividing itself by which story line it views as more pertinent — the president’s potential abuse of power, or the comfort of a steady paycheck credited to his leadership.”
Gee, let’s see…. “potential abuse of power” that was not an abuse of power at all, or jobs, higher wages, and rock bottom low unemployment. Tough choice. What a dilemma.
Give the Times credit for making it ridiculously clear what a big lie Big Lie #5 (“Everything is Terrible!”) is.
2. But let’s not get carried away! Here’s another Times headline from the same edition:
“Republican Tactic: Using Impeachment Hearings To Smear Biden on Ukraine”
The demand to use “smear” as deceptive and manipulative description for “uncovering facts that the public has a right to know, if true” must have been included in the same secret DNC memo to the mainstream news media that requires all references to Biden’s alleged conflicts of interest benefiting his ne’er do well son to be described as “dirt.”
3. Now this is grandstanding. House Democrats passed an unethical bill that few members of the public understand, so it can call Republicans racist for opposing it.
This really is cynical, and another example of taking advantage of public ignorance. The Supreme Court struck down an archaic and now unconstitutional section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the 2013 case Shelby v. Holder. Ever since, Democrats have been race-baiting using the decision, which was ethical and correct.
In Shelby, the Obama Justice Department wanted to step in and over-rule a state decision involving charter schools in Louisiana, applying the 1965 Voting Rights Act provision that allowed Justice to unilaterally veto state actions by certain states, like Louisiana, that a commission found over 50 years ago to be certifiably racist. Louisiana objected, saying that the data was outdated (which it obviously was), and that it was unconstitutional to permit this incursion on federalism unless it was based on current data and real, not presumed, bigotry. The Shelby majority ruled that it was quite right, and if new data justified an updated list of states subject to Justice Department oversight, then the invalid provision could be reinstated. It also said that the states shouldn’t suffer a loss of sovereignty because Congress couldn’t agree on how to bring an outdated law into the present. (I wrote about the decision here.)
Never mind: the strong race-baiting division of the Democratic Party and many media pundits and reporters have called this sensible and necessary ruling “the Supreme Court gutting the voting rights of African-Americans, confident that the public won’t read SCOTUS decisions. Now, last week, the House passed legislation restoring Voting Rights Act provisions that were struck down, meaning that the old data would still be used to justify federal government vetoes of state action.
“No longer will cynical politicians and states with dark histories of discrimination have the green light to freely continue their systemic suppression campaign,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the floor.
Yes, instead, cynical politicians will be able to call the President, Republicans and the Supreme Court racist for rejecting a bill that wants to penalize states in 2019 for their Jim Crow conduct before 1965, regardless of what the states are like today.
Of course, Rep. John Lewis, the party’s most relentless race-baiter—but hey, he marched with Dr. King, so he must be right—sponsored the incompetent, dishonest and unfair bill.
4. When good intentions pave the road to hell: Meet the idealistic, compassionate Bronx Freedom Fund, dedicated to creating “a society that humanizes instead of criminalizes,” restoring “the presumption of innocence by keeping clients with their families, at their jobs, and out of jail while they await trial. We work tirelessly to fight mass incarceration and the criminalization of race and poverty, and to end the cash bail system as it exists.”
Good plan! The execution, however, seems a bit flawed.
Luis Olivo, who lived at a homeless shelter, was arrested following an incident in a Queens, New York, laundromat. He was caught on video talking to a 3-year-old boy and passing a balloon back and forth before he grabbed the boy’s head and shoved it into his crotch. Olivio was charged only with the misdemeanor of endangering the welfare of a child.
Though it had not seen the video (I hope), The Bronx Freedom Fund payed Olivo’s $2,000 bail (that means it only had to put up $200), and the grateful, innocent man was again free to roam. He was also free to moles tan 8-year-old girl inside a shopping mall in Queens, where an eyewitness told police he saw Olivo stick his hand under the girl’s skirt and grope her. The girl said Olivo took her hand and put it on his crotch under his jacket “so that no one would see” and “repeatedly tried to kiss her.”
He also failed to show up for his court date in the earlier matter.
13 thoughts on “Sunday Ethics Warm-Up, 12/08/2019: Bulletin! The New York Times Reports Pro-Trump News Straight!”
Does it have to do with the guy suing you?
Even if not, I for one am still curious (I’ll believe you I promise).
2. The so-called resistance and their allies in the news media and entertainment industry consistently accuse the Republicans of the same things they themselves are guilty of doing.
This isn’t the NYT, but my favorite anti-Trump article this week went above and beyond petty:
Yes, the entire article sets out to prove that President Trump’s salt and pepper shakers are bigger than everyone else’s and compares them to ones used by previous Presidents.
Because he’s Hitler, I guess.
He needs larger ones to fit his bigger hands. – I couldn’t resist
Did Verizon ever get your service fixed?
4. As Sparty would say, “Meh.” The Democratic Socialists of America want to outlaw prisons. Take that!
3. Now this is grandstanding
Well if you can’t have more recent supporting data when Dems have frequently dominated the House, that does imply the law is not needed. Would they really want their medicine based on standards and treatments from 70 years ago? (and an additional sarcasm, do they REALLY want to return to the schools of the 40s and fifties? Spoil the rod and harsh standards that demand hard work?) They can’t have it both ways.
4. When good intentions pave the road to hell:
Idiots, a homeless guy with nothing to lose has no motivation to amend his actions. Molesting a child should not be on their list of bailable crimes. And if he’s mentally ill, he won’t get treatment either when he can skirt penalties.
We got two cases of sunshine and care bear views of the world to insane levels today. And they like to look down on geeks for being out of touch with reality???
But what about Kalief Browder?
Is not what happened to him worse than what happened to those two kids?
The purpose is to avoid an even worse Hell.
What happened to Kalief Browder must never happen again, no matter what the cost. Any policy that might even make such a thing possible must be repealed.
In order to have freedom, we must have too much.