Month: January 2022

Unethical Quote Of The Month (And Signature Significance): Barack Obama

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

“Few people have done more for this state and this country than this driven, brilliant, sometimes irascible, deeply good man from Searchlight, Nevada.”

—-Former President Barack Obama, speaking at former Democratic Party Senate leader Harry Reid’s funeral.

Harry Reid was asked about his repeated lie during the 2012 Presidential campaign that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had not paid any taxes over the previous decade.  Reid even made that allegation from the floor of the Senate.

Reid’s accusation was an outright, brazen lie. Romney released his tax returns for those years. In 2011, Romney paid $1.9 million in taxes; in 2010, he paid slightly more than $3 million in taxes. The Washington Post Fact Checker, a reliable defender of unethical conduct by Democrats, gave Reid Four Pinocchios for his “no taxes” claim. Another inveterate left-biased factchecking group, PolitiFact, gave the claim a “Pants on Fire” rating.

Reid’s answer to the query became infamous: he responded, “Romney didn’t win, did he?” Later, he insisted  that the lie was “the best thing he ever did.” Continue reading →

A “Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right” Episode For The Ages: Trans Female Swimmer Lia Thomas Is Finally Beaten…by a Trans Male Swimmer…Competing As A Female

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

What ethical principles are we supposed to glean from this crazy story?

Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who has transitioned to female, has been unfairly crushing all female collegiate competition while being allowed to compete as a transgender athlete. Ethics Alarms has covered the story in more than one post. Lia herself is unapologetic, and her Machiavellian coach is reportedly thrilled. Thomas’s teammates and opponents are not so thrilled, but so far have lacked the courage to take any meaningful action to preserve the integrity of their sport, fearing to end up like J.K. Rowling but without all the money.

So was ex-man Thomas unbeatable as a current woman? No! Yale female swim team star Iszac Henig defeated her in the women’s 100-meter freestyle with a time of 49.57 seconds. In fact, Thomas finished fifth with a time of 52.84 seconds. (How did THAT happen? Sounds like she “took a dive” to me, no pun intended…) In the 400-freestyle relay, Henig completed her leg in 50.45 seconds versus Thomas’ 51.94.

There is a catch, however. Henig is also a trans competitor, except that she is in the process of transitioning from female to male. In order to illustrate this with a dramatic gesture, the 20-year-old pulled down the top of his swimsuit to reveal the absence of breasts, which she-soon-to-be-he has had removed. A UPenn parent remarked, “I wasn’t prepared for that. Everything is messed up. I can’t wrap my head around this.”

Continue reading →

Introduction: Will The Audacious “It Isn’t What it is” Propaganda Assault By The American Left Succeed?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Yoo’s Rationalization, or “It isn’t what it is,” was a relatively late addition to the Ethics Alarms Rationalizations List, arriving in November of 2016; indeed, it is numbered at #64. Because “It isn’t what it is” has become perhaps the most employed rationalization of all in political discourse in the weeks and months since then, it is remarkable that it took me, as a fanatic collector of rationalizations (or the lies we tell ourselves to make us feel ethical when we are not) to realize the importance of this one. It is also noteworthy when that fact dawned on me, for November 2016 was the month that Donald Trump was elected President, and the American Left decided to abandon its principles as well as “democratic norms”—irony there!—in order to destroy him, and, if possible, get him out of office without the bother of an election. That assault continues to this day, though now the focus had shifted to keeping him from being elected again, and, if possible putting him in prison.

Because putting political adversaries in prison is what democracies do...huh?

For convenience, allow me to re-publish the entirety of the entry for Rationalization #64:

64. Yoo’s Rationalization or “It isn’t what it is”

Named after John Yoo, the Bush Justice Department lawyer who wrote the infamous memo declaring waterboarding an “enhanced interrogation technique,” and not technically torture,  #64 is one of the most effective self-deceptions there is, a handy-dandy way to avoid logic, conscience, accountability and reality.

Examples of this are everywhere. Paul Krugman, the progressive economist and Times columnist, began a column like this:

“Remember all the news reports suggesting, without evidence, that the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising created conflicts of interest?”

The Clinton Foundation’s fundraising created a conflict of interest, by definition. For a non-profit organization, with family connections to either a current Secretary of State or a Presidential candidate, to accept money from any country, company or individual who has or might have interests that the Secretary or potential President can advance is a conflict. It’s indisputable. No further ‘evidence” is needed.”

How does Krugman deal with this problem? Simple: he convinces himself that screaming conflicts aren’t what they are without “evidence,” by which he means “proof of a quid pro quo.” But a quid pro quo is bribery, not a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest might lead to bribery, but a conflict is created as soon as there is a tangible reason for an official’s loyalties to be divided.

Yoo’s Rationalization or “It isn’t what it is” turns up everywhere, and has since time began. A mother swears that her serial killer son “is a good boy,” so she doesn’t have to face that fact that he’s not. It is denial, it is lying, but it is lying to convince oneself, because the truth is unbearable, or inconvenient.  It is asserting that the obvious is the opposite of what it is, hoping that enough people will be deluded, confused or corrupted to follow a fraudulent argument while convincing yourself as well. The Rationalization includes euphemisms, lawyerisms, and the logic of the con artist. Illegal immigration is just immigration. Oral sex isn’t sex, and so it’s not adultery, either. I didn’t steal the money from the treasury! I was just borrowing it!

And waterboarding isn’t torture.

#64  also could be named after Orwell’s “1984,” and called “Big Brother’s Rationalization” in homage to “War is Peace,” etc. But John Yoo deserves it.

In the article that announced the addition of #64, I cited another example:

I saw a prime example of it this morning, in former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s op-ed about the “Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals Program,” a euphemism for “amnesty for illegal immigrants who arrived as kids with their parents, so they can grow up and vote Democratic.”

She writes,

“This narrative about an initiative that has given temporary haven and work authorization to more than 700,000 undocumented minors, the so-called Dreamers, still has critics howling about presidential overreach, about brazen nose-thumbing at the rule of law and about encouraging others to breach the borders of the United States. But there’s a problem with this take on the program. It is dead wrong.”

What the program really is, she explains, is “prosecutorial discretion,” like the case by case discretion prosecutors have to use to avoid misusing resources.  This is Rationalization #64. Continue reading →

From The “Bias Makes You Stupid” Files, “Vegans” Section…

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

In a memorable “Seinfeld” episode, George secretly adds lobster meat to eggs he cooks for a group breakfast at a vacation cottage gathering. His goal: to get his revenge on a female Jewish guest who embarrassed him, and whose faith forbids her from eating shellfish. Luckily for George, she wasn’t allergic to shellfish.

Now we are learning about a real life episode in which a woman’s new roommate, a vegan, decided to do “something nice” and switched the woman’s typical breakfast food with vegan alternatives. The roomie, Erin, presented pancakes, bacon strips, and hash browns for her new friend, who unbeknownst to her had  severe food allergies. The woman asked Erin what was in the food, and was told “it was regular bacon. Not that it was fake bacon or that it had soy.”

After the woman took a few bites, Erin  revealed the switch, smiling. “At this point, she does a ‘Ta-da,’ and smugly told us ‘I bet it tastes exactly like meat,'” Erin’s victim wrote. She is highly allergic to soy, and began going into anaphylactic shock. An ambulance had to rush her to the hospital, where she remained for two days. Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Reflections, 1/7/22: Two-Day Jan. 6 Hangover Edition”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I don’t know if it’s necessary to de-bunk the absurd claim by Kamala Harris and others that the January 6, 2021 riot was an existential threat to the nation and on par in historical significance to the bombing of the Twin Towers and the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less the claim by the Huffington Post’s White House correspondent that it was “1000 times worse.” Regarding that astounding assertion, I asked, “How can anyone justify or explain that, except as uncontrolled Trump Derangement or deliberate false narrative building?”

But Steve-O-in-NJ decided to explain in detail just how bats this fake narrative is, and I deem it a worthy Comment of the Day for several reasons. First, there may be some readers here who believe the nonsense. Second, I am habitually shocked at just what garbage even intelligent people will accept as true, so I am inclined not to assume that even this self-evident crap won’t pollute some minds. Third, I’m feeling sick today, and should probably be in bed, so I was hoping for a COTD-worthy piece. Fourth, almost no one is commenting today, even fewer than usual on a Saturday, so maybe Steve’s passion will draw fire where I have failed.

Finally, Steve-O was unfairly attacked over the past few days by a nasty bridge-level troll here unearthed by the “echo chamber” survey, and I allowed the jerk to run amuck far too long before banning him/it and sending his worthless comments to Spam Hell.

So here is Steve-O’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Reflections, 1/7/22: Two-Day Jan. 6 Hangover Edition.” Abbondanza!

***

9/11 – the Twin Towers destroyed, the Pentagon badly damaged, 2,977 people killed, including 343 firemen, 72 law enforcement officers, 8 medics, 55 members of the military, 8 children. Victims and first responders alike are still dying of related illnesses. Result: the War on Terror.

Pearl Harbor – 188 military aircraft destroyed on the ground or shot down, five battleships sunk or disabled, three others damaged, 8 other vessels damaged. 2,403 people killed, including 2,008 sailors (1,177 of those on the USS Arizona), 218 soldiers and airmen, 109 marines, and 9 Honolulu firemen who came in to help. Result: American entrance into WW2.

Fort Sumter, April 1861 – no one was killed, but the result was the opening of the Civil War, 600,000, Americans all, killed, and a wound opened which apparently still hasn’t healed, although a lot of us thought it had.

Assault on Washington, August 1814 – unknown number killed, the destruction of much of the public buildings, including the gutting of the White House and severe damage to the Capitol.

Assault on Hampden, ME, September 1814 – only one killed and a few others wounded, two American towns burned to the ground by UK Captain Robert Barrie, who said that he’d have been within his rights to massacre the inhabitants.

Manhattan Draft Riots, July, 1863 – 120 killed, riots crushed.

Bonus Army, July, 1932 – 2, possibly more killed, demonstration dispersed.

Occupy Movement, 2011 – 32 killed, achieved nothing.

Kent State – 4 killed.

George Floyd Riots – 58 people dead (I think), billions in property damage.

Compare this to one rioter shot dead by a police officer and no major damage done last year.

Now we can also talk about occupations – the 2011 attempted takeover of the Wisconsin State Capitol in opposition to a budget repair bill that Governor Scott Walker pushed, which was crushed with no concessions, the Occupy movement, which accomplished nothing except maybe getting a lot of millennials to move out of their parents’ basements (hopefully mom and dad immediately changed the locks), and oh yes, the assaults on both the Senate and the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings. Funny…each of those times the media sided with the protestors, not the authorities. After all, those times it was all oppression of their good buddies in the Democratic Party and the professional protest community getting stepped on. This time it was a bunch of brainless, fat, toothless (ever notice how conservatives are always supposed to have bad teeth?) yahoos attacking the Capitol and putting their pals in the Squad in danger. It never once struck them as ironic that this time they were strongly against the same behavior their pink pussy hat wearing friends had committed not even four years earlier. Continue reading →

“Ethics? What’s Ethics?” Mayor Adams Takes The Reins…[Updated!]

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Next time a New York Democrat complains about an elected government official’s ethics when he or she identifies as Republican, breaking out into uncontrollable laughter would be appropriate.

New New York City Eric Adams, elected as the “anti-de Blasio,” almost immediately proved that he has at least one thing in common with New York’s “Worst Mayor Ever.” Just a few days ago, Ethics Alarms noted that the former mayor had defiantly continued to ask corporate contractors for the city to contribute to a de Blasio slush fund, in a time honored unethical shakedown ploy known as “pay to play,” even though he had been formally warned to cut it out by the city’s ethics board. Now the new improved mayor is also signalling that he isn’t very concerned about ethics, the appearance of impropriety, or conflicts of interest.

Adams appointed as his sole male deputy mayor (the other five are female) Philip Banks III, who comes with some interesting baggage. (That’s Banks above on the right, the new mayor is on the left.)

Continue reading →

Farewell And Thanks To “Advice Goddess” Amy Alkon’s Blog

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Tart, smart, funny and not wedded to any party or ideology, author and speaker Amy Alkon produced a blog that was a reliable source for commentary on ethics-related issues that I would otherwise have missed. Her method involved a few comments of her own sparked by long, long excerpts from articles by others that she quoted; I have an ethical problem with that technique, but I’ve adopted it occasionally myself.

Alkon announced that her January 1 post would be her last due to a packed schedule, which is great for her. I’ll miss Amy’s varied selection of issues and commentary, however, and the excellent links she provided.

Thanks, Amy.

You helped, and Ethics Alarms is grateful.

Ethics Reflections, 1/7/22: Two-Day Jan. 6 Hangover Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I don’t know about you, but I found Jan. 6’s orgy of hype and hate by Democrats and the news media in their effort to make a year-old event that had little significance into a permanent threat to the nation stunningly transparent. In many ways, it was also more damaging to the nation and its political culture than what it was supposedly condemning.

It amazes me that the same party that has been flogging the imaginary “destroying democratic norms” accusation against Donald Trump would have its own party’s President smash a critical norm so cynically by attacking a previous President and potential re-election opponent like Biden did yesterday. It was desperate, it was hypocritical, it was unwarranted, and it was flagrantly divisive. It also came from a POTUS who entered office pledging his determination to be a unifying force. Harris, meanwhile, managed to be even more nauseating than Joe by comparing the Capitol riots to the 9/11 bombings and Pearl Harbor. Is she that stupid? Meanwhile, the President’s whose party—and Vice-President—cheered on the BLM rioters ended his remarks with “We’re a nation of laws, of order, not chaos. Of peace, not violence.”

How much of the public is completely unable to see such hypocrisy? Democrats better hope it’s a lot. but as H. L. Mencken observed, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people…

1. From the archives: Res Ipsa Loquitur…

2. And nobody could possibly go broke underestimating the stupidity and shamelessness of journalists…S.V. Dáte, the Huffington Post’s White House correspondent, tweeted that the January 6 riot was “1000 times worse” than 9/11.

How can anyone justify or explain that, except as uncontrolled Trump Derangement or deliberate false narrative building?

3. The Federalist did a nice job recalling  episodes of leftist mobs violently invading government buildings, none of which have been noted in mainstream media accounts of the 1/6 riot—all the better to prevent their readers from having necessary perspective. One took place as recently as October 14, 2021, when climate activists breached the Interior Department, and  demonstrators outside struggled with law enforcement officers as the mob tried to force its way in the building, shouting “Go inside! Go inside!” Some  pinned police against a wall, and there were a number of injuries, with one police officer being transported to the hospital. In 2011, thousands of progressives opposed to Republican Gov. Scott Walker invaded the Wisconsin state Capitol.  Then there was the George Floyd mob’s attack on the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon in July 2020. They began setting fires inside the fence protecting the courthouse and launching projectiles over it while trying to take it down. Several rioters got over the fence, as the mob aimed projectiles and flashed lasers at the federal police officers who tried to protect the building.

Of course, all of the incidents recalled by the Federalist are materially different: they couldn’t be connected to support for Donald Trump, or used by the media and Democrats to undermine it. Continue reading →

The Trailblazer: Sidney Poitier,1927-2022 [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Sidney Poitier was as much a trailblazer for black actors in Hollywood as Jackie Robinson was for black athletes in baseball. I fear, however, that his memory will not be burnished and maintained as Robinson’s has. That will be an injustice. Ethics Alarms, as regular readers here know, is dedicated to the duty to remember, for remembrance is crucial to maintaining our culture and values.

Poitier was already fading from our cultural memory before he died, which he did today at the age of 94. He had only been intermittently active since the Seventies; his last major role in a film was in “Sneakers,” in 1992, and he only made two movies in the Eighties. Yet Poitier, almost single handed, demolished the cultural stereotype perpetuated by Hollywood of blacks as under-educated, poor, inarticulate athletes, musicians, lackeys, clowns or criminals. Doing so took persistence, courage, determination, sacrifice, and, obviously some impressive gifts. He was startlingly handsome, physically imposing, had a wonderful voice and projected strength, likeability and intelligence.

Continue reading →

Responsibility For The January 6 Capitol Riot, Part 2

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

So far, our list of those responsible for the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol includes Donald Trump, his staff and advisors, the Capitol Police and other authorities, and the rioters themselves. Before we return to those who share responsibility for the riot, there are some who have been widely accused of triggering it who did not.

Prime among the them are the Republican Senators and Representatives who had stated that they would vote against certification. This was not the first time that members of Congress had opposed certification of a Presidential election; notably, Democratic members of Congress did so after both the 2000 and 2004 elections. In both cases, as with Republicans in 2021, the stance represented a symbolic objection to aspects of the election that the members felt were problematic and needed to be addressed. No riots were triggered when the Democrats engaged in the move, and there was no reason for Republicans to hesitate to do the same. Nor is there any reason to believe that the yo-yos who rushed the Capitol would not have done so absent the announcements of the 150 GOP members who said they would withhold their approval. As with much of the over-heated accusations against Trump, the claim that the objections of the GOP Senators and House members fueled an “insurrection” is a deliberate distortion by Democrats and the left-biased media as a political strategy

Another group being fingered in the concerted effort to use the riot to further several partisan agendas, the primary one being to somehow allow Democrats to hold power, is that opinion-wielding pundits, blogger and podcasters pushed a “big lie” that the election results were fraudulent, inflaming pro-Trump fanatics. A Times piece pushing this position began by stating,

Weeks before the 2020 presidential election, the conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck outlined his prediction for how Election Day would unfold: President Donald J. Trump would be winning that night, but his lead would erode as dubious mail-in ballots arrived, giving Joseph R. Biden Jr. an unlikely edge.

“No one will believe the outcome because they’ve changed the way we’re electing a president this time,” he said.

None of the predictions of widespread voter fraud came true. But podcasters frequently advanced the false belief that the election was illegitimate, first as a trickle before the election and then as a tsunami in the weeks leading up to the violent attack at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to new research.

Wait a minute: Beck was exactly right! Mail-in ballots were dubious, and remain so. Nobody knows, still, how much voter fraud there was, only that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate it. And the opinion that the election was “illegitimate” is exactly that: an opinion, and one that many predicted would be rampant if the fearmongering over the pandemic prompted legislatures and governors to allow a voting method that did not have and could not have the integrity of in-person voting.

The study the Times piece was based on “analyzed nearly 1,500 episodes, showing the extent to which podcasts pushed misinformation about voter fraud.” The definition of “misinformation” the study employed was that of the self-identified liberal think-tank, The Bookings Institute, which is on the mailing list of Democratic Party mouthpieces just like the Times is. The remedy for this proliferation of “misinformation,” according to Brookings and the Times? Can’t you guess?

The new research underscores the extent to which podcasts have spread misinformation using platforms operated by Apple, Google, Spotify and others, often with little content moderation. While social media companies have been widely criticized for their role in spreading misinformation about the election and Covid-19 vaccines, they have cracked down on both in the last year. Podcasts and the companies distributing them have been spared similar scrutiny, researchers say, in large part because podcasts are harder to analyze and review.

Continue reading →