“Fick” is the Ethics Alarms term for a particularly repugnant variety of Ethics Villain, the kind that is not only unethical but who openly admits it and is proud of it as well.
Two days ago, I wrote about Boebert’s stunning violation of House rules by taking a snapshot during Hillary Clinton’s closed door testimony and sending it to a slimy social media “influencer” in “Incompetent, Unethical Elected Official of the Month Who Wasn’t Behaving Like An Ass At The SOTU: Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-Co)” As of now, the post hasn’t topped 50 views, which may be an Ethics Alarms record for disinterest. I don’t get it. Maybe this is an “echo chamber.”
On an ethics blog, the fact that any House member, regardless of party affiliation, is so unethical and unprofessional should not only incur interest but horror. An esteemed commenter explained on that post’s thread that the lack of interest was because stating that Boebert is disgrace is a “water is wet” analysis, in other words, a Julie Principle situation. Then why so much interest in members of the “Squad” acting like assholes during Trump’s SOTU address? Both displays were official misconduct that did harm to our institutions and the public trust. I’ll submit to the Julie Principle when, for example, Kamala Harris sounds like she’s speaking Erdu, because “fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly” and Kamala is an idiot. But Boebert drags all of us down with her antics. Attention should be paid. Americans should register their objections.
Well, let’s see if anyone cares about Boebert’s fick-y response to the criticism of her photo stunt. When asked by reporters as she left Hillary’s deposition in Chappaqua, New York about her leaking the photo, Boebert responded, “Why not?”
Oh, only because it’s against House rules, you scum.
Ethics Alarms 
I suppose my biggest question is what to do about Boebert. I would have zero objection, and would applaud, if she were expelled from Congress. Should I write Rep. Hageman with my outrage over this? Should I include Sen. Lummis and Sen. Barrasso? The problem with Boebert is that without a call to action, there’s little more to comment on. But Boebert is Coloradan, and while that’s next door, I don’t get to vote for or against her. At least, I don’t get to do so ethically or legally.
If I had a GOP Congressman, I’d write a letter. The problem with Democrats demanding her ouster is that it has no credibility given what their party tolerates. But I least I can publicize how disgusting she is…
I just wrote to Rep. Hageman. We’ll see if I get a reply or we see any action.
Bravo. Keep us posted.
We will see if Boebert is going to be censured. Expulsion would be a gift to the Democrats they do not deserve, also considering the small margins between the two parties. She ought to be primaried for November, if that is still possible.
Clearly we’re here for the bikini pictures. Less than 50 views means the three readers here have average-oogled that image at least 16 times in those two days.
This may not have been as disruptive as pulling a fire alarm, but is just as wrong.
Just curious, how do you know about the bikini pictures? How do you know that the 50 views are all from the regular commenters?
I will have to “plead the Fifth” or officially state “I do not recall” to that kind of questioning!
WallPhone…does this mean we know you well enough to call you “Wall”?
One plausible explanation for not getting comments on a post is that the commenters simply agree with the post, without having anything meaningful to add.
Let’s take as example Joe Fitzgibbon, which was posted on two days ago. The post has only two comments. Another reason for not commenting on this post is that nobody knows Joe Fitzgibbon. However people could have a discussion about the wider issue, namely how alcoholism affects ability to hold a job or an office.
I am looking at the previous post about the Clinton testimony during the Epstein trial. I see only one comment on that post which has been up for a couple hours by now. The Clintons are surely no favorites of the EA commenters. So if this post gets only few comments it is surely not related to EA becoming an echo chamber.
The Clintons may also be in Fick territory, as they are cheerfully, proudly, and unapologetically unethical. They are just a million times better at being unethical than that piece of trailer trash named Lauren Boebert. I have some trouble adding comments to both that are meaningful and insightful. And I surmise that many commenters are simply being sick and tired of the Epstein files and wished that this issue simply goes away.
The SOTU was the main political event of this week, that took all the oxygen out of the room. The reaction of the Democrats to the SOTU is an even bigger story than the SOTU. Every political influencer comments on the reaction of the Democrats. And so do the commenters at EA.
Why does Ilhan Omar attract more attention than Boebert? Because Omar represents the radicalization of the Democrats to a party with totalitarian tendencies that downplays the interests of the USA to other interests. This is not a mere ethics issue, it is ideological. Lauren Boebert’s ethical flaws do not represent a lot, except that the GOP is bit of a stupid party that has trouble attracting and vetting nominees for office.
Yes. Ilhan Omar and the Tlaib woman from Detroit are foreign moles in our second highest chamber of elected representatives. How do we have foreigners effectively representing hostile states IN OUR GOVERNMENT? What is wrong with our electoral system? Foreigners can turn a congressional district into their own ghetto and send a foreigner to congress? Something’s wrong here.
Dirtballs like Boebert and Mace are another problem. And then there’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And Adam Schiff, for that matter, who’s now in the Senate. Or Jamie Raskin. These are all villains, even if they’re Harvard Law graduates. I guess it’s just not that hard to win a house race if you are desperate enough to want to win one.
And maybe views are down because we have begun military operations to rid the Middle East and the world of the nefarious Iranian Islamist regime in an attempt to bring stability to that part of the world.
I believe there are several reasons for the lack of interest in the Boebert post.
Was it a good idea to keep women out of politics? I wonder what, oh, say, someone like Wilbur Mills or of his era would have to say about these women. And yes, there re slimy guys galore, but still…. I wonder sometimes whether women know how to negotiate, declare a winner, and move on. Interestingly, it seems, for women, it’s all combat all the time. Anyone? Beuhler?
Was it a good idea to keep women out of politics?
The answer is “No”. Margaret Thatcher was the greatest UK politician since Winston Churchill. Golda Meir was a beloved Israeli prime minister.
Who’s our Thatcher or Meir?
You explain it much better than I did.
Comment: Boebert should be ashamed and out…her violation cost the GOP and the Nation. Her flippancy makes it all worse. (Nothing valuable to add as you can see, but total agreement with you.)
Question: I can now (as of the last two months) see the bulk/all of your shorter posts in my email without visiting the site (which I do for the most part to read the rest of your longer posts and the comments from EA’s excellent commentator), but when I DO stay exclusively in my email inbox, are you able to count that as a view? Because I assure you I’m reading your sage and insightful words every day. I just don’t always have the time to read 100% of every post or the comment section. If it makes a difference, even just so that you know at least one more person is reading something I consider extremely valuable, I will visit the site for every post.
Comment: Boebert should be ashamed and out…her violation cost the GOP and the Nation. Her flippancy makes it all worse. (Nothing valuable to add as you can see, but total agreement with you.)
Question: I can now (as of the last two months) see the bulk/all of your shorter posts in my email without visiting the site (which I do for the most part to read the rest of your longer posts and the comments from EA’s excellent commentator), but when I DO stay exclusively in my email inbox, are you able to count that as a view? Because I assure you I’m reading your sage and insightful words every day. I just don’t always have the time to read 100% of every post or the comment section. If it makes a difference, even just so that you know at least one more person is reading something I consider extremely valuable, I will visit the site for every post.