Hello November Ethics Greetings, 11/1 &2/2022: Not Sorry

Oh, gee, I guess by using the old folk song “If I had a hammer” to suggest that the Democrats are wildly and absurdly exploiting a lunatic’s one-off hammer attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband as a life-preserver while a metaphoric drowning in a red sea next week looms, I have joined a “brutal mob.”

That’s the sentiment of The Atlantic, which bloviates, “Laughing over a hammer attack on an old man, the GOP has completed its transition from a political party to a brutal mob.” Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, mockery of the Democrats’ obsession with the attack as if it has any larger significance at all (the party hacks surely aren’t interested in the crime-ridden cesspool their policies have created in San Francisco, where mentally ill vagrants like Pelosi’s attacker roam and play like the deer and the antelope), means I am simpatico with Republicans “who conclude that, like Mr. Trump, they will pay no political price for attacks on their opponents, however meanspirited, inflammatory or false.”

Wow. That accusation takes a lot of chutzpah after six years of daily “meanspirited, inflammatory or false” attacks on Donald Trump, his wife, his children, his staff and his supporters, culminating in a “democratic norm” shattering prime-time TV speech by a Democratic President labeling Trump’s supporters as clear and present dangers to democracy,

“Inflammatory attack? What inflammatory attack?”

They can all bite me. I’m not accepting any part of such criticism from Democrats and their mainstream media mouthpieces for calling their framing of the weird Pelosi episode exactly what it is: cynical, dishonest, and frantic. That was the point, a fair and valid one, of my use of the song. (“Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” was runner-up), The Left’s silly game is to force everyone to express horror and condemnation over this episode, while thousands of attacks on Americans take place every day. They think such compelled groveling will symbolize acceptance of their ludicrous theory that harsh (but deserved) criticism of Pelosi’s wife caused the attack, so such criticism itself must cease. I see that my friend U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger felt he had to issue a statement toeing that line. Well, Tom works for Pelosi, I don’t, and I also don’t tolerate double standards and narratives that require me to hammer my own brain into submission. I’m on to this desperation ruse—not that it’s hard to figure out—and I refuse to treat it with respect when ridicule is what it warrants.

1. When in doubt, lie, I guess. I don’t get to vote in the newly drawn 7th Congressional District in Virginia, but if I were voting in the close race between incumbent Democratic U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger and her Republican challenger Yesli Vega, the most recent Spanberger attack ad would settle the issue. A spokesperson for Spanberger who says he is a veteran cop says he is disgusted that Vega has “defended criminals,” meaning the January 6 rioters, and goes on to say that 140 officers were injured in the riot—he gets a point or two for not saying “insurrection”—and “five died.” That statement is an outright lie, and one that has been debunked over and over again. No officers died during the riot. Five died in the days and months after the riot, but none of the deaths were connected with injuries sustained on January 6. This is a particularly egregious Big Lie, one that has been advanced in part by President Biden among others. The Democratic Party’s super-PAC, House Majority Pac, is responsible for the ad.

2. Oh, good.Warren deserves it. During the recent Supreme Court University of North Carolina Affirmative Action challenge oral argument, Justice Samuel Alito used a familiar example of affirmative action abuse while questioning Ryan Y. Park, North Carolina Solicitor General…

JUSTICE ALITO: Let me just ask one more related question, and that is the circumstance — and this is a real problem, and I’ve heard it described to me by people who face it, when can a student honestly claim to fall within one of these groups that is awarded a plus factor? So let’s say the student has one grandparent who falls within that class. Can the student claim to be a member of an underrepresented minority?

MR. PARK: Yes, we rely on — on self-reporting. And — and we don’t give any —

JUSTICE ALITO: All right. One great grandparent.

MR. PARK: If that person believes that that is the accurate expression of their identity, I don’t think there would be any —


MR. PARK: — problem.

JUSTICE ALITO: — great-great grandparent? Are you going to make me continue to go on?

MR. PARK: Right, right, right. I think that as we go on, I agree that it would seem less plausible that that person would feel that this is actually capturing my true racial identity but the same is true for any of the other diversity factors that we rely on.

JUSTICE ALITO: It’s family lore that we have an ancestor who was an American Indian.

MR. PARK: So I — I think in that particular circumstance, it would be not accurate for them to say based on —

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I identify as an American Indian because I’ve always been told that some ancestor back in the old days was an American — was an American Indian.

MR. PARK: Yes, so I think in that circumstance, it would be very unlikely that that person was telling the truth. And the same is true for — you know, we rely on self-reporting for all the — the demographic and other characteristics that we ask for. And there’s nothing special about the racial identification on that score, Your Honor.

The New York Times sniffed that Alito’s obvious reference to the affirmative action scam that got Sen. Elizabeth Warren faculty appointments at two universities was “gratuitous.” No, his point is valid, and Warren has neve faced appropriate consequences for her dishonesty. In addition, I can speak from personal experience in advising law school applicants that such anecdotal claims of minority status work. The schools can’t check the claims, and don’t. Affirmative action is license to cheat….just like Elizabeth Warren.

3. “You’re in a bubble, man!” Few news icons have fallen as far as “Meet the Press,” which I never missed when it was hosted by Tim Russert, a smart and fair Democrat who saw his duty as to perform. Current host Chuck Todd is both biased and none-too-bright, which made it especially satisfying when GOP New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu told him to his face that bias had made him stupid. Todd was pressing Sununu on what Democrats still want the public to believe is the urgent question of whether “election denialists” who question the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s election (tainted by the slanted news coverage of people like Chuck Todd) should be punished at the polls next week. Sununu reacted as if Todd’s question was deranged:

“Let me tell you, you’re in a bubble, man. I love you, Chuck, but you are in a bubble if you think anybody is talking about what happened in 2020, or talking about Mar-a-Lago and all that. I know the press loves to talk about it. People are talking about what is happening in their pocketbooks every single day when they have to buy groceries or fill up gas.”

Wait, what? Ordinary voters won’t decide who to vote for based on what a candidate thinks about teh fairness of the election two years ago? How could that be? Gobsmacked by Sununu’s shocking assertion, Chuck asked, following his assignment of pushing the Democratic Party “Republicans are threats to democracy” line, “You think this should be prioritized over election denialism?”

What an idiot.

Sununu then explained, though this should not have to be explained to a supposed political analyst:

“Of course. Oh, my gosh, Chuck, this is hitting people. They’re having trouble paying their mortgage. They’re having trouble making car payments because of bad policies out of Washington. Should they be? Look, the beauty of the American system is every voter has the right and almost the responsibility to be selfish with their vote — to vote in terms of what is best for their family, to have better choice for schools, better economic opportunity.”

Historians and political science scholars, looking back at the Democratic candidates massacre that will unfold soon, will scratch their heads trying to understand how the party convinced itself that it could campaign to continue in power based on abortion, a hated foe who wasn’t on any ballot (the Bad Orange Man), the claim that Republicans are fascists, the January 6, 2021 riot, and a nut case attacking Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer. There are third and fourth parties that have had stronger platforms than that.

The ethical values breached here are honesty, responsibility, and competence.

4. And speaking of election integrity: Undated or incorrectly dated ballots cannot and should not be counted according to yesterday’s the ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ordered that election officials shouldn’t count any mail-in or absentee ballots that are received with an undated or incorrectly dated outer envelope during the upcoming election. The ruling was prompted by a lawsuit filed by state and national Republicans. All the ruling does is follow a quite specific law regarding signatures and dating of the ballots:

The second, larger envelope is the mailing and declaration envelope. You must use it, even if you are dropping your ballot off at a drop box. Place your secrecy envelope (with your ballot inside) into the mailing and declaration envelope. You must seal it and sign and date the declaration before you can return your ballot.

But officials deliberately violated that law in 2020, and were prepared to do so again. And, some justifiably cynical pundits suggest, they just might anyway.

5. Herschel Walker is an unethical  candidate, but the guy’s he’s running against has serious ethics problems of his own. Georgia Democrat Senator Raphael Warnock’s campaign spent over $60,000 in donor campaign funds for “childcare,” according to Federal Election Commission filings. Of the 33 listed payments, only one of those was described as “childcare expenses (campaign related),” and the remainder were listed as only “childcare.” Yet election rules state that only candidate childcare expenses directly related to campaign events and activities can be paid for with campaign donations; the FEC regulations state that donor campaign funds cannot be used to pay for “any expense that would exist irrespective of their candidacy or duties as a federal officeholder.”And get this: the largest single disbursement, totaling $11,847.40  went directly to Senator Warnock.

What an awful choice for U.S. Senator Georgians have been given by the two irresponsible parties. I know I’m repeating myself, but the real “threat to democracy” on display in these elections are the low quality of leaders voters have to select from.

7 thoughts on “Hello November Ethics Greetings, 11/1 &2/2022: Not Sorry

  1. Re: 5. I think the awful choice may be given to the voters in Georgia and your ref. to Pennsylvania is a holdover from 4.?

    Re: 1. The whole 5 died thing has always baffled me. It is routine for a deceased police office to be given very large and very public funerals when dying in the line of duty. How many got such funerals?

  2. What an awful choice for U.S. Senator Pennsylvanians have been given by the two irresponsible parties. I know I’m repeating myself, but the real “threat to democracy” on display in these elections are the low quality of leaders voters have to select from.

    True, but in this case, I think you’re talking about Georgia.

  3. 4. And, some justifiably cynical pundits suggest, they just might anyway.

    Yes, they will. Counted votes cannot be undone, and if the old axiom “I’d rather ask for forgiveness than permission” were ever more appropriate, I can’t imagine where. “Oops, sorry, we didn’t mean to count them but [excuse here]. We just wanted every vote to count.”

    In fact, I think the Democrats are determined to ignore as many judicial rulings as possible in this election. In the end, the worst that can happen, based on history, is a contempt holding which could cost them (or more likely, the voters) a fine but for which there are many leftist apologist judges. They are counting on cover from that branch, and if we expect hard smackdowns of those who ignore edicts from the bench, may I humbly suggest some bottom land I have for sale?

    5. What an awful choice for U.S. Senator Pennsylvanians have been given by the two irresponsible parties.

    I think you mean Georgia, don’t you?

  4. Just two comments out of many possibilities.

    1. Re Pelosi: Thanks to Democrat mayors, thousands are attacked, shot, robbed at an alarmingly increasing rate in our cities. Why then should there Mr. Pelosi be granted special status as some kind of political victim? This is the Big Lie again (and again) by the Democrats — who are clearly desperate enough to use anything against Republicans. It stinks. Let’s count the Republicans who have been victims of violence and chalk up all those incidents to the Democrats.

    2. The Alito exchange was hilarious, and I have new respect for him. Question though: Where did Park get his legal training? Potential law school students: find out and then run away!

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 )

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.