Month: October 2024

A Day in the Life of An Ethicist…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I planned this Tuesday around the 10 am. funeral service for my boss, mentor, advisor and friend Tom Donohue, the recently deceased long-time president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I even prepared something to say if there was an opportunity; I owe this man more than I can express and he was very important in my life.

The venue was St, Matthew’s, a wonderful church in downtown D.C. I moved all of my appointments and work to other days, as I expected to be a basket case after the service and reception. Got up early, which is hard because I haven’t had a good night’s sleep since Grace died, got all dressed up, shaved my head (which I hate and which takes forever) and braved the morning rush hour traffic, planning on arriving early because I always get lost, pretty much when I drive anywhere I have never been before.

I arrived about 15 minutes early, and found the place empty. As the whale thinks in “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” finding himself plummeting to earth after being suddenly transformed from his previous existence as a planet-destroying missile, “Not again!” This kind of thing—arriving at a meeting, event, appointment or social engagement and finding nobody there or that it was something completely different than I expected—has happened to me eight times this year. The score is 6 times when it was not my fault (once when the person responsible should spend eternity on her head in a lake of acid), and twice when I have no one to blame but myself. This was one of those, but it took a while to figure it out.

Continue reading →

The Desperation Continues: The New York Times Printed This Full-Page “Hate Trump” Ad

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Well.

Of all of the lawfare attacks on Trump, one involving a disputed “he said/she said” incident that had far exceeded the statute of limitations ( extended by the New York legislature in part to “get” Trump), then funded by a liberal, Trump-hating billionaire, is a particular thin reed on which to try to hang this kind of hysteria. But it is especially shameless coming in support of the party that has repeatedly celebrated serial sexual predator Bill Clinton, embraced his wife who enabled him, ignored the current President’s documented sexual assaults on women and young girls, and whose icons, like all three Kennedy brothers, have as frightening histories as abusers as any American politicians in history. And who can forget Hillary pal Harvey Weinstein, and Bill Clinton buddy Jeffrey Epstein, two of the most prolific sexual predators who ever roamed the earth…and both Democrats. Or Andrew Cuomo, who secretly recruited the head of “Time’s Up” to help him discredit one of his “survivors.”

Meanwhile, the news media is embargoing any coverage of aspiring “First Gentleman” Doug Emhoff’s sexual exploitation of an employee and alleged incidents of abusing female companions.

Trump’s presence in the White House, however, would send the message that sexual violence is acceptable. This ad is epic chutzpah.

But the Democrats sense that Harris is losing, so anything, even flaming double standards and hypocrisy, goes now. I can’t imagine what they’ll try next week.

Boy, It’s a Tough Call Which of the “Get Trump!” Lawfare Prosecutions Stinks the Worst, But Fulton County’s Is a Strong Contender…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

When we last left unethical Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis, lover Nathan Wade had been kicked off her case and the prosecution was probably dead in the metaphorical water, in part thanks to Willis creating the appearance of impropriety, a conflict of interest, and proving herself to be grossly incompetent as well a contemptuous of prosecutorial ethics standards. She did all these by bringing her boy friend on as a member of her team and going on vacations with him. Trump’s appeal to have Willis removed from the case is still pending.

Wade and her honeybug faced an inquiry into their alleged conflict of interest, and both claimed their romantic relationship began in early 2022, after the grand jury investigation into Trump’s alleged misdeeds was already underway. Evidence that came out during the inquiry suggested, however, that both were lying.

Nathan Wade told the House Judiciary Committee last week during a closed-door deposition that Willis was preparing to prosecute Trump even before she took office in January 2021. That Willis approached Wade to mobilize the prosecution of Trump means the Fulton DA was targeting Trump while he was still in office and challenges to the 2020 election were ongoing.

More interestingly, the Committee grilled Wade about the meetings he had in President Joe Biden’s White House, with members of the Star Chamber J-6 Committee, and probably Justice Department attorneys. Wade billed his time for the meeting to Willis’s prosecution. His meetings were uncovered in court filings this year, but Wade claimed that the details regarding who participated in the meetings, what they were about and what was said just, you know, flew out of his head. “I do not recall,” Wade said when asked about the meetings. In fact, he said it repeatedly, as you can see in the transcript.

The Washington Examiner coyly writes in part, “Wade’s talks with the federal government has invited speculation that allies of Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were politically motivated to assist Wade with bringing charges against Trump…”

Gee, ya think?

Comment of the Day: “Is This the Level of Critical Thinking Devoted To Pro-Abortion Advocacy?”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Sarah B.’s excellent Comment of the Day on the post, “Is This the Level of Critical Thinking Devoted To Pro-Abortion Advocacy?” stands on its own and makes any introduction from me supoerflous beyond, “Here it is.”

Here it is…

***

I believe that the reasons many women want abortion to be legal are, when delving down deeply: fear and guilt. Please note that my argument is not meant to absolve anyone of responsibility, especially as I am dang near an anti-abortion absolutist, but instead what motives I have seen in my argumentation with pro-abortion (they hate that label because “we aren’t for abortion, we’re for women having the right to choose what is best”) advocates before the argument degenerates into some form of the above as their “knock down, undeniable” argument to shut me up. (Tearing it apart just turns into accusations of me being brainwashed and the conversation devolving into at least one side calling names, though my temper has occasionally dropped me to their level.)

I’m going to start with guilt, because it is the easiest to explain. Many women know someone who has had an abortion. My cousin had one for reasons that are at least sympathetic – the child was diagnosed with a genetic mutation that is always fatal if the diagnosis was correct (many are not) – even if I think she was completely in the wrong. She is hardly the only person in my circle that has had an abortion or helped someone obtain one. Most people who do this recognize somewhere that this may have been a “choice,” but it was the wrong choice. Many people are nearly eaten-up with guilt about the child they know they killed. I know people who have broken down in tears in private over this, even though they are pro-abortion in public.

They have pro-abortion stances that seem to cover up the guilt. They often act as though they believe that if everyone supports abortion and allows it up to birth or beyond, they will finally not feel guilty because the only reason they feel guilty is the societal pressure to accept that abortion killed a baby.

Fear, however, is the primary reason so many women want abortions to be legal. Men, since time immemorial, have gotten away with consequence-free sex, while women bear most of the negative consequences. Men don’t get pregnant. When it comes to STDs, women are far more susceptible then men, being the penetrated rather than the penetrator. Frankly, men (as a whole) desire sex more than women. It is a generality, but one that I have found to be true, as iin the saying, “Men trade love for sex and women trade sex for love.” This puts an unequal spin on the consequences.

Men, again generally speaking, desire sex more. Women bear a higher cost for sex than men. This lack of equality is a breeding ground for fear. Women who have regular sex will get eventually face pregnancy, contraceptives or no, if it continues over a long enough time span, assuming they do not have fertility issues,

There are many fears that women can have regarding pregnancy, and today’s society has bred even more. Men have the advnantage of consequence-free or at least consequence-reduced sex. See “The Scarlet Letter” or any dead-beat dad to prove my point. Women can fear that the trials of parenthood, and there are many, will leave them holding the bag when the man responsible bolts. This is exacerbated in today’s society when many of the Y-chromosomed fail to grow out of acting like boys and never develop into men.

Another fear is that having a baby ties you down to marriage to a man whom you should not be with. A girl’s crush on the wrong boy whom she then decides to sleep with so she can keep him can suddenly become horrible marriage, bound together with children when she becomes pregnant even when he actually does take responsibility. Sure, you can get divorced if things are too bad, but you are back to being a single mom, maybe with child support. The system also has a number of loopholes that can wreck any chance of acquiring a decent amount of money to help with the kids. Again, if you get pregnant and have a baby, the odds seem stacked against you.

There is also the fear of what kids will do to your education and career. If you have to pay for a babysitter, it hurts your chances of being able to afford college, and feeding two mouths while paying off student loans is harder than just feeding yourself. Of course, having to be up at night with a teething child rather than studying or sleeping before a test is its own struggle. How can you make it? And all those career women? If that is what you want out of life, you will struggle when you have to take time off because the kid is throwing up or has a fever, something that happens all the time when kids are little. Even when they are older, is your presence at their piano recital or sporting event more important than your presence working the hours needed to get that big promotion? A child makes achieving your goals harder.

What about all the things and experiences you want out of life? Society is pushing so many different concepts now of what happiness is, but very few of them work with children. You can’t reasonably take small children to many concerts. Sporting events are expensive and now you have to buy not one, but two tickets, or pay for a babysitter who costs a decent fraction of those tickets? The money that you spend on diapers, wipes, formula, clothes, medical care and the rest could have gone towards you having fun and enjoying life. Or maybe you are a minimalist and for you good times are possible living with the bare minimum. Well, that bare minimum is now cluttered with toys, covered in spit-up, and smelling like pooped diapers. There go your dreams.

Then there are the fears surrounding pregnancy itself. Honestly, maternal mortality rates aren’t that bad, if you ignore those who didn’t receive prenatal care, weren’t able to give birth with medical care at least nearby if not in the hospital, and who haven’t already had an abortion (which increases the chances of life-threatening complications in future pregnancies). However, women do die when pregnant, even in the best of circumstances. Therefore pregnancy is an elevated risk. What about complications? What if you really need an abortion to survive?

Adoption has its own fears. Assuming I do go the adoption route, what if the child has anything other than the perfect childhood? What about if they end up in foster care? What happens if they or, assuming I keep the child, we end up in poverty? All of that misery is avoidable with abortion.

There are other fears. There is the fear of rape. If you get raped, you could get pregnant. Surely you can’t be expected to have the baby of your attacker. What about the fear of disabled children who may or may not live as long as you want or fear? Birth defects happen, incest or not, but that fear is especially true if you were raped by a relative. What happens if you fall in love with this baby and it dies? Then you are left with heartbreak.

What happens if you have a special needs child? That could mean you have to care for that child all of its life and yours; you can never retire and might die in poverty. How about any horror story you hear about on social media that may or may not be the full truth? We NEED abortion to deal with this! If we can’t decide to end a pregnancy when something is wrong, we are not equal to men.

Again, these are not my beliefs, merely a summary of the beliefs I have heard whenever I speak with a pro-abortion believer. I can think of responses to most if not all of these. However, the response this post was based off of is essentially about getting rid of some of the fears. Usually I see that response coupled with a guarantee that men will no longer rape women, that medical care will be so advanced that women never have a problem with pregnancy, and that no woman will ever have to have a job she doesn’t want or is beneath her. The fears that drive women’s desire for abortion make for some illogical outcomes and arguments.

That being said, I am ashamed of my sex for our illogical outbursts that demand the deaths of our own children. The demand that started this post is just one of many of those illogical outbursts, and I apologize for my sex for their saying it.

For Harris, a Double October Surprise That Would Sink a Normal Presidential Candidate—That is, One Running on Something More Than “I’m Not Trump!”

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Ace of Spades, the merciless conservative assassin, posted a devastating discussion of not one but two new and damning revelations about Kamala Harris. I’ll send you over to Ace for the details, but here’s a sample of his analysis…

“Surprise! Kamala Harris Took Advantage of an Affirmative Action Program for “Disadvantaged Children” Despite Being the Daughter of Two Well-Off Professors. She is the worst example of DEI anti-meritocracy. She got into a very meh law school named Hastings. And she didn’t even get in on her own merits…. Further evidence she’s a DEI hire? She’s a plagiarist…. there are new charges that she plagiarized almost the entire speech of an attorney general. One part she didn’t plagiarize, though: she took a fictitious example of a sex crime, changed the city the imaginary incident occurred in, and presented it a real. That part, presenting a fake “for example” scenario as real? That was Pure Kamala…. Ekdahl says she’s lazy. Trump says she’s dumb. Both are right. I would point out, though, that Kamala’s problems — not being able to do her own work, constantly demanding that others “position her for success,” not reading report her staff writes for her and then screaming at them when she’s embarrassed due to her own ignorance — are also signs of being 1., a coddled, protected DEI incompetent, and 2., a day-drinking drunk.”

Ouch.

Now over to Ace…

Now read the rest of the story…

Comment of the Day: “’Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!’ Hilarity of the Day: The New York Times Gets It Backward Trying To Cover For Harris And Vilifying Trump”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I love this Comment of the Day. It is as perfect an example as we will ever see of a thoughtful, careful, articulate, and civil rebuttal of a post or position here. This COTD, by EA veteran Zanshin, focused on my disgust regarding the New York Times’ self-indicting and desperate attempt to cover for Kamala Harris’s claim that she worked for McDonald’s as a student (you know, part of that humble middle class upbringing) by criticizing Donald Trump for not accepting her word as Discovered Truth. Harris asserting that anything happened is not evidence, based on her well-documented proclivities. In particular, I pointed out that a Kamala Harris résumé that didn’t list her supposed stint as a burgermeister was deceitfully employed by the Times to imply that her claim is true.

I apologize for getting this up a bit late; I didn’t not expect subsequent events, like Trump’s master-trolling of Harris (and the Times) by doing a campaign stunt having him acting like a McDonald’s employee, the absurd tantrum thrown by the Axis over it, Tim Walz whining on “The View” that the stunt was “disrespectful” to Mickey D employees (How?), and still, neither the company nor the Harris campaign has produced any evidence that Kamala’s tale isn’t in the same category as Walz’s claim that he was in combat and Joe Biden’s claim (among others) that his uncle was eaten by cannibals.

The Times appears to be unfamiliar with the concept of “burden of proof.”

I love the comment and admire it, but as I stated in the thread, I don’t agree with it, though it is a “lucid, intelligent, well thought out” argument.

Here is Zanshin’s Comment of the Day on the post, “’Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!’ Hilarity of the Day: The New York Times Gets It Backward Trying To Cover For Harris And Vilifying Trump.”

***

Bite me!

That was my first thought when I read Jack’s statement (promise? warning?threat?) “I have yet to ban a commenter for doing no more than saying the mainstream media isn’t flamingly, ostentatiously, democratically and destructively biased in favor of progressives and Democrats, but the day is coming, and it’s coming fast.”

But the part in above statement regarding Jack’s judgement about the mainstream media is rather broad and at some places even vague. (note 1) And therefore very hard to prove or disprove

So, I decided to set myself a smaller task. Can I find an example in this blogpost where Jack writes negatively about mainstream media while not warranted by the facts. An example that even might suggest that Jack is a little bit biased against the mainstream media.

I think I have found such an example. Bear with me. The example I want to discuss is the one where Jack discusses the text in the Times regarding Ms. Harris having worked at McDonalds or not.

He uses a Times quote that begins with:

Continue reading →

Another Mainstream Media Bias Whistle-Blower

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

A staff writer for The New Yorker, Jay Caspian Kang, authored a piece called, “How Biased Is the Media, Really?” As far as that goes, it seems to be like asking, “How wet is water, really?” but never mind. He was prompted by the recent Gallup poll showing that Americans’ trust in news media continues to fall, which means that American are finally paying attention, and that media bias and news manipulation has become so flagrant that even the average dolt is likely to figure it out.

Continue reading →

“Any Harris Voter Who Tolerates Her Escalating Contempt For Democracy is a Totalitarian Stooge-In-Waiting,” Part 2: The Fracking Flip-Flops

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

To summarize the previous post on the same general topic: how can any Americans maintain any self-respect who tolerate such obvious lack of integrity from a Presidential candidate?

Harris’s brazen flip-flopping on fracking, or “FFF” as Ethics Alarms will henceforward call it, is so dishonest, so brazen, such pure pandering of the most revolting kind that it defies analogy. Harris on this topic makes John Kerry’s “I was against the Iraq War before I was for it” dodge look like the epitome of statesmanship.

Her cynical machinations on her position on fracking are so convoluted now I’m not sure I can describe it. Let’s see:

1. While running for the Democratic nomination for President in 2019, then-Senator Kamala Harris said there was “no question” that she was in favor of banning fracking.

2. When she purloined the nomination for President in 2024 after winning exactly no votes from citizens who wanted her in that position, she suddenly changed her FFF policies as part of what Bernie Sanders has explained as justifiable tactics (lying) to defeat the Hitler/Bond super-villain/convicted felon Donald Trump—you know, to save democracy. Then, in her debate with Trump, she was asked why she had claimed a month earlier she would not ban fracking. She pointed to the fact that the Inflation Reduction Act (that had nothing to do with reducing inflation) Harris pushed into law with her tie-breaking vote “opened new leases for fracking.” She then said her “values have not changed.” Harris’s values haven’t changed, it’s true: she believes in saying what ever is most likely to advance her career at any moment in time.

Continue reading →

Is This the Level of Critical Thinking Devoted To Pro-Abortion Advocacy?

/ Jack Marshall / 50 Comments

If so, it explains a lot.

I saw this on Facebook, posted by a good freind who is also a public school teacher (and, of course, a Harris voter). I then found it again elsewhere on the platform; both posts wee smothered with likes and loves. It is beyond moronic.

I’m not even quite sure what point the writer (my friend didn’t write it) is trying to make. Of course “its” about babies: abortion involves eliminating the life of a baby/developing baby/”going to be a baby if you don’t kill it” living human being. I guess it depends on what the meaning of “about” is about.

Is the idea (I’m being generous applying that term to whatever this is) that the people who oppose abortions really don’t care that it is the taking of a human life—that is what creates the ethics conflict, after all—because if they really cared about that, they would also want to spend trillions of dollars making the child-rearing process mostly free and burden tax-payers and the government with footing the bill? If so, this is social justice “thinking” reduced to a “time to pull the plug” level of brain power. If we’re not ready to pay for all aspects of the lives of all children, that means we are hypocritical to not embrace killing them.

Got it. No, actually I don’t.

I could spin out some amusing analogies to the logic in that statement, but I’ve got another funeral to go to, I’m pressed for time, I understand the value of life, and I don’t want to rob you of your fun.

What is bothering me right now is that this may be an accurate indication of the kinds of people we rely on to teach our children who manage to get out of wombs alive.

Any Harris Voter Who Tolerates Her Escalating Contempt For Democracy is a Totalitarian Stooge-In-Waiting

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The headline is a bit harsh, you think? It is, but to hell with it.

I find this behavior by Kamala Harris and her cabal incredible, though less so after watching Harris make gaffe after blunder after botch in recent days.

Has-been news anchor but still-kicking Kennedy Maria Shriver  hosted a town hall event promoting Kamala Harris in Royal Oak, Michigan. When a woman in the audience rose to ask, “Are we going to be able to ask a question?,” Shriver replied, “You’re not, unfortunately! We have some predetermined questions. And hopefully I’ll be able to ask some of the questions that might be in your head, I hope so.”

What? At this point, any audience member with any self-respect and respect for the democratic process should have walked out, with some bold soul—I would have done it—announcing “That’s a disgrace. All of you are a disgrace, especially you, Vice-President Harris. Come on, everyone, let’s let these people ask each other scripted questions. We’re out of here.”

This was a Confederacy of Ethics Dunces, beginning with the audience of weenies who don’t have the guts or gumption to reject an obvious insult. Then we have…

….Shriver, who said she agreed to moderate the event as a “concerned citizen” but also as a journalist. If she were really a concerned citizen, she’d be concerned that the Democratic Presidential candidate has refused to explain her policy positions or even to specify how she would be different from President Biden. As a journalist, she had an obligation not to be complicit in yet another Harris incompetence cover-up operation. Shriver proved that she is neither a concerned citizen nor a journalist. She is just a partisan hack, and fully complicit in her party’s efforts to bypass democratic norms to stay in power.

I’m almost glad Arnold cheated on her.

…Liz Cheney, who was backing Harris at the phony town meeting (I’ve been to real town meetings in the real town, the largest in the U.S., of Arlington, Massachusetts. They let you ask your own questions in real town meetings. Presumably I don’t have to explain how unethical Cheney is.

…and, of course, Kamala Harris, coward, liar, phony.

Today I saw another Harris-Walz sign, this one particularly obnoxious as it read, “Harris Walz. Obviously.” Really? Obviously? How can anyone with self-respect leave that thing on their lawn after…

  • ….”60 Minutes” had to fake an interview answer for Harris to save her from her own gibberish?
  • …she stiffed Catholics by ducking out of the Al Smith dinner?
  • …she insulted Christians at a rally by telling them they were in the wrong place?
  • …and now this, still hiding from tough questions and refusing to respect voters’ right to know what the hell they are voting for?

I don’t understand these people. The very least we should demand of our elected officials is that they respect us.