Politifact Lies About the “Lie of the Year”But Everyone Knows What the Real “Lie of the Year” Was

Wouldn’t you think an alleged ”’factchecking” organization would understand what a lie is? Well, the organization is Politifact, so it’s a trick question. It’s a Democratic Party/progressive propaganda outfit and facts are the last thing it cares about: that group of hacks is easily the most dishonest and unethical of all of these thing, much less trustworthy than second in line from the bottom, which might be Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post’s intermittently fair “The Factchecker” feature. And so it was that as the end of 2024 approaches, Politifact announced that this was its “Lie of the Year,”what Trump said on September 10:

“‘In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs.The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.”

“With this claim, amplified before 67 million television viewers in his debate against Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump took his anti-migrant, the U.S. border-is-out-of-control campaign agenda to a new level,” Politifact moaned.

But even if the “Their eating pets and wildlife from the parks!” story had been a deliberate lie, it obviously was neither the “Lie of the Year” in either of the two categories relevant to the choice: it wasn’t the most destructive lie, and it wasn’t the most indefensible lie. This was: Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: Baltimore Ravens Wide Receiver Diontae Johnson

It is sad but probably to be expected that so many professional athletes don’t get the ethics thingy. The latest incident: Diontae Johnson, a wide reciever for the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens, for refused when his coach ordered him to take the field late in the team’s Week 13 game against the Philadelphia Eagles. The Ravens are still trying to make the play-offs, but it wouldn’t matter if the game had no importance to the Ravens’ fortunes at all. Johnson is a member of the team; he draws a salary. Apparently he was angry and frustrated over his lack of playing time since the Ravens acquired him, and had been complaining to teammates for weeks. “Tough noogies,” as they used to say when I was a kid in Arlington, Mass. (An alternative was “tough bunnies.” I never understood that, any more than I knew what a “hosey” was.)

Johnson was immediately suspended.

Wait…why was this a difficult decision? It was an obvious decision. This week the Ravens announced that Johnson was told to stay away from the team as a likely disruptive influence. There was some question why the Ravens didn’t just release him, but apparently that is because they don’t want any other teams strengthening themselves during the play-off run portion of the season.

Continue reading

A Federal Judge Gets Benchslapped For An Unethical Times Column

On May 24, 2024, while Supreme Court Justice Jackson was dreaming of playing “Medea,” The New York Times published an op-ed entitled, “A Federal Judge Wonders: How Could Alito Have Been So Foolish?” by Senior Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Judge Ponsor addressed the flying of an upside-down American flag and the “Appeal to Heaven” flags outside homes owned by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a controversy covered thoroughly on Ethics Alarms.

The ethics verdict here was that the controversy was contrived, and that the attack on Alito was politically motivated, biased, and wrong. Judge Ponsor, however, opined that “any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have” recognized that the flag displays were improper because they could be perceived as “a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court.”

Let me inject here, “Sure, by an idiot!” “The appearance of impropriety is a reason-based standard. “Hey, this SCOTUS judge’s wife flew the same flag that began the HBO John Adams series: that must mean that her husband is in the bag for President Trump!” is not a reasonable perception.

Continue reading

Introducing Rationalization #19 D: Willie’s Equivocation, or “Maybe I Did Something Wrong”

I decided to give you all a new rationalization to ponder under your Christmas tree, so say hello to “Willie’s Equivocation,” #19D on the list. I realized that this was a sneaky rationalization—by the definition that it is lie someone tells themselves to relieve them of guilt for wrongdoing—when I heard one of Kamala Harris’s campaign consultants say that “maybe they made some mistakes” that may have cost her the election. Maybe? In the run-up to election day, I remember hearing several Democrats say that Harris had run a “perfect” campaign, which is only slightly more ridiculous than saying that “maybe” there were some serious mistakes. Ya think? Nominating Harris was a mistake.

Willie is country music icon Willie Nelson, and his most famous song, “You Were Always on My Mind” says it all. I always found the song irritating, the credo of an asshole. “I was a crummy, selfish, inattentive and self-involved lover, but I was always thinking about you while I neglected you.” Great. 19D is grouped with other sub-rationalization under #19, “Nobody’s Perfect”: 19A, “I Never Said I Was Perfect,” 19B, “It Wasn’t The Best Choice,” and 19C, “It Was a Difficult Decision.” “Maybe I Did Something Wrong” might be the worst of the batch, ducking accountability by blurring the facts with doubt. Equivocation is the use of ambiguous language to conceal or avoid the truth: using “maybe” about unethical conduct when there are “no buts about it” is both cowardly and dishonest.

On the ABC $16 Million Libel Settlement

ABC News agreed last week to pay $16 million to settle Donald Trump’s libel case over George Stephanopoulos’s “This Week” broadcast in March, in which he repeatedly said, while interviewing Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, that Donald Trump had been “found liable for rape.” He had, in fact, been found liable for sexual assault but not rape, and this had been well-publicized at the time.

Trump sued ABC, and I assumed it was a nuisance suit made for effect rather than in expectation of winning. In fact, I regarded it as this close to being frivolous. That it wasn’t was proven by the settlement.

News media fans (I am not one) and journalism advocates are apoplectic over the settlement, believing that it weakens the “power of the press” to distort, lie and manipulate public opinion as the news media has been doing increasingly and shamelessly in one direction on the ideological scale for more than two decades. Good. The news media is careless, reckless, arrogant and unprofessional, as well as unaccountable. If the ABC defeat makes them a little bit more wary and careful to be sure of their facts, it is to everyone’s benefit, including journalists.

It couldn’t have happened to a better target than Stephanopoulos. He is a partisan hack, and never should have been allowed to pretend to be a journalist after serving as one of Bill Clinton’s henchmen. The Times v. Sullivan case requires that a journalist must demonstrate actual malice toward a public figure before a defamation suit gets past the First Amendment, and in most cases miscreants like George are saved by their own incompetence. I was certain that he would be saved this time— ah, rape, sexual assault, tomato-tomahto, who cares, what’s the difference. Of course, everyone knows except maybe Ethics Alarms vigilante press defender “A Friend” that Stephanopoulos and about 90% of his colleagues are hostile to Donald Trump, but general antipathy is usually not enough to show malice.

Continue reading

Justice Jackson’s Broadway Adventure: Double Ethics Standards…Again

“Here come de judge!”

Above are some examples of SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson making a spectacle of herself in her Broadway turn last weekend in the musical “& Juliet,” a LGBTQ adaptation of William Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet.” Jackson portrayed Queen Mab, described as a “she/her” character on a production poster, in two scenes written especially for her. “I just also think it’s very important to remind people that justices are human beings, that we have dreams, and that we are public servants,” Jackson told“CBS Mornings” prior to the performance. One of her dreams was apparently to be an actress, long ago. (She made the right choice going into law.)

Except that judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, don’t have the option of doing whatever they feel like or dream about, as least if they are conservative justices. All of the criticism of the Roberts Court in the past few years has been over alleged ethical violations by the Justices making up the 6-3 conservative majority. The Justices appointed by Democrats Obama and Biden are, of course, as pure as Ivory Soap. And yet…

Continue reading

Week Before Christmas Ethics Sugarplums, 12/17/24

Just when I thought my holidays couldn’t get any more depressing than they already are, I lost my wallet yesterday and I have no idea how or where. I’m currently without a driver’s license, my credit cards, my insurance cards, and other stuff I need but can’t remember I’m sure. I feel like George Bailey when he goes to Martini’s bar on Christmas Eve to try to pull himself out of his panic and depression and a stranger punches him in the mouth after he begs God to help him find the path out of his dilemma.

On the bright side, nobody has punched me in the mouth. Yet.

The 1992 miniseries Turner Movie Classics produced about MGM has several ethically-inspiring stories. I recently saw it again, and an anecdote that slipped right by me before I started my ethics business impressed me this time. (If you don’t have a hammer, sometimes even a nail won’t look like a nail.) The studio was being torn in the late Forties by an ideological battle between founder and CEO Louie B. Mayer and Dore Schary, who was the head of production. Schary was pushing films with political messages, while Mayer believed that MGM should avoid politics and stick to pure entertainment. (Sound familiar?). Schary had greenlighted a big budget anti-war film, an adaptation of Stephen Crane’s “The Red Badge of Courage,” which Mayer vehemently opposed. The film’s director, John Huston, went to Mayer and said that while he believed in the film, he would pull out if Mayer insisted.

According to Huston, Mayer excoriated him for his willingness to quit a creative endeavor because of anyone’s opposition to it. “I’m ashamed of you,” he supposedly said. “In this business, you have to be willing to fight for what you believe in. I don’t want us to do the picture, but if you believe in it, then fight for it.”

So Huston left the meeting and gathered a mob of actors and writers and tried to take over the executive offices.

Okay, I made that last part up….

In other news…

Continue reading

Vanity Plate Ethics, 2024 Edition

It looks like this is going to be one of those topics that I have to revisit every couple of years or so. In 2018, Ethics Alarms challenged the ethics of a state denying permission for drivers to have whatever vanity plates on their cars that their egos, senses of humor, or general sophomorishness dictated. Then I wrote,

“Utah, for examples, bans vanity plates with profanity, “derogatory language,”  drug references,  sex talk, references to bodily functions, “hate speech,” targeting a particular group, or advocating violence advocates, as well as alcohol references and the number combo “69.” Ethics verdict: None of their business. These are words and numbers, and the state is declaring content and intent impermissible. When I see a car with an obnoxious vanity plate, I’m grateful. This is useful information. Racist or vulgar plates translate into ‘I am an asshole, and want you to know it!'”

The issue came up again in 2022. Illinois, in its infinite wisdom, had banned plates reading HATER, COVID, BYOB, and, perhaps on the theory that it meant “drooling basket case,” BIDEN. This time, it is that bastion of free speech repression (one way or another), California, that has decided certain combinations of numbers and letters should be censored as too painful for human beings to bear. The plate was issued and read LOLOCT7. I’ll give you a minute to figure out what the alleged offense was…

Continue reading

Unethical (and Stupid) Quote of the Week: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, aka. “The Knucklehead”

“How in the world did we lose to a billionaire or a venture capitalist, when we were making the case of a country attorney and a high school teacher?”

—-Failed Democratic VP candidate Tim Walz in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio.  Jeez, somebody tell him…

Thus does the Gov. of Minnesota and the most embarrassing major party Vice-Presidential nominee in recent history (yes, even worse than Kamala and Joe Biden) demonstrate the fealty to group identification and bias over substance, ability, and merit as the basis for success in our society.

Will somebody try to explain to Walz, who might look in the mirror if he wants to understand “how in the world” the Democratic ticket lost, that in the United Sates of America it is what people do, say, accomplish and believe that matters, not whether their occupations and labels are the “right” ones. Do include in the probably hopeless attempt that being a “country lawyer” ( Is that what Kamala Harris is?) and a high school teacher suggest no likely acumen at leading a nation. I do give Walz some credit for picking “billionaire” as his label for Trump rather than “convicted felon” or “adjudicated rapist,” the labels that his party worked so hard to slap on Trump using a politicized, unethically manipulated justice system, or the ever-popular “reality TV star.” (The appropriate description was “former President of the United States.”)

“I thought it was a real flex when the Wall Street Journal pointed out that I might have been the least wealthy person to ever run for Vice President,” Walz told MPR News. You did? Then you’re an idiot.

Suzannah Van Rooy’s Self-Righteous Bigotry Not Only Makes Her A Bad Bar Employee, It Makes Her A Bad American

Suzannah Van Rooy, a server at Beuchert’s Saloon on Capitol Hill in D.C., told “The Washingtonian,” “I personally would refuse to serve any person in office who I know of as being a sex trafficker or trying to deport millions of people.” “It’s not, ‘Oh, we hate Republicans,’” she explained. “It’s that this person has moral convictions that are strongly opposed to mine, and I don’t feel comfortable serving them.” “People were a lot more motivated the first time around to do those kinds of shows of passion. This time around, there is kind of a sense of defeat and acceptance,” Van Rooy added. “But I hope that people still do stand up to this administration and tell them their thoughts on their misbehavior.” Van Rooy also felt it was appropriate to make similar comments on the restaurant’s social media accounts.

Ms. Van Rooy was promptly fired for her misbehavior. Good. In announcing her canning on its Facebook page, the restaurant said in part, “[A]s a restaurant we are simply horrified to be associated with base prejudice. None of us saw this coming….we would welcome any opportunity to clarify that Ms. Van Rooy is not a manager at our restaurant but instead a part time server and that she had no authority or permission to act as spokesperson or hijack our social media accounts. We beg you all not to condemn the group of hardworking folks who have made Beuchert’s Saloon a neighborhood mainstay for a over dozen years. We are still the same restaurant known for its warm service and friendly staff, and hope you will all visit us soon. We look forward to serving you. All of you.”

Continue reading