Worse Than A Mere “Unethical Quote,” Lawrence O’Donnell’s Rationalization For Theft Marks Him As An Ethics Corrupter

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has all sorts of red flags in his resume. He went to Harvard for one thing, and describes himself as a “European socialist.” At Harvard you can’t major in journalism: you work on the daily paper, The Crimson. O’Donnell didn’t do that: he wrote for the fake news satirical student publication, the Lampoon. O’Donnell became an openly biased and agenda-driven MSNBC news anchor by making TV contacts while writing scripts for TV’s imaginary leftist nirvana White House fantasy, “The West Wing.” Later he was Keith Olberman’s stand-in on MSNBC, which should tell you all you need to know.

And yet…much as I fart in his general direction, as he personifies just how vile MSNBC is and just how self-lobotomizing anyone is who uses it to get their “news,” I am shocked at the degraded character and shame-free embrace of ethical relativism O’Donnell displayed yesterday.

The big news coming out of the “Get Trump!” fiasco in Manhattan was that the prosecution’s star witness Michael Cohen, already a disbarred lawyer and a convicted perjurer, further enhanced his credibility by admitting that he had stolen $30,000 from his employer and client, Donald Trump. Here is how O’Donnell described it:

Continue reading

When Does “Correcting” a Presidential Speech Transcript Become Unethical?

Mediaite, a political website that has an interesting approach to bias—about 80% of its writers are mouth-foaming progressive, Trump-loathing propagandists, but it mixes in a few neutral and conservative reporters for contrast—revealed that the White House made an unusual number of significant alterations to the official transcript of President Biden’s recent speech to the NAACP.

At the very beginning of the speech, Biden said that President Obama had sent him to Detroit during the “pandemic.” (“When I was Vice President, things were kinda bad during the pandemic…”) ““Pandemic” was changed to “recession” in the White House transcript. Biden then told the NAACP he was “humbled to receive this organization.” No, he hadn’t been given the whole organization, just an award from it. The White House crossed out “organization” in the transcript and corrected it with “award.”

Biden said, “We’re cracking down on corporate landlords who keep rents down,” which was the opposite of what he intended to say, or so we are told. “We’re cracking down on corporate landlords to keep rents down” the White House changed the transcript to state as Biden’s message. Biden also called those who took part in the Capitol rioting “erectionists” which was changed to “insurrectionists.”

Continue reading

When Ethics Alarms Ring Too Late…

Ugh. On a truly awful day, waking up from a nap I couldn’t take time for but was unavoidable because I was non-functional, I suddenly realized, almost four hours too late, what was the ethical reaction to a situation I encountered earlier.

Today was another day of the sort I have had too often since Grace died: pressured from the opening gun, discovering a festering problem, being trapped in automated phone, consumer assistance, oppressive technology Hell, falling further behind on essential deadlines I cannot afford to fall behind on, and in the midst of it all, dealing with a needy dog. When I reached lunch late (after skipping breakfast), I just couldn’t bear the thought of another serving of left-overs or another tuna sandwich. I decided that I would indulge myself and splurge on an extravagance, or what counts as one in this humiliating chapter of what I laughingly call my life: I would get a “yummy”—sort of— fast food lunch. Not any place good, mind you, like Wendy’s, KFC or Grace’s favorite, Popeyes. Definitely not McDonald’s…but I could still get a few crispy tacos for under 10 bucks at Taco Bell. It was after the lunch rush, too, so even though it was a 10-15 minute drive to the place, it wouldn’t be too much wasted productive time: my “lunch hour” would take just 45 minutes, only a little but more than I typically allow myself.

I pulled into the short line at “the Bell”‘s drive-thru, got one car, then another, then another behind me, and the line just stopped. When I reached the speaker, a woman started to take my order, then said, “I’m sorry, please wait!” and disappeared for 10 minutes. Then she came back, said “I’m sorry!” again, and disappeared again. Finally I put in my order, noticing that the price for the three lousy tacos was now over ten dollars but it was impossible to back out.

It took almost 30 minutes more to get my food. Under different circumstances I would have just left, but I was starving, and I was also trapped in line; the cars behind me were honking. When I got up to the window, I was unrestrained in my annoyance, beginning, “Wait, was I mistaken? Isn’t this “fast food?” An obviously distessed woman in some kind of Islamic attire said, “I’m so sorry, I’m so sorry! I’m the only one here, and I’m serving the counter, taking the orders on the mic and handling the carry-out! I’m sorry!”

I finally got my (overpriced )lunch, resolving I would not have this “treat” again, and paid her saying, “They need to pay you more!” and pulled over to eat before the tacos got cold. By the time I returned home, my carefully planned 45 minute lunch hour had taken an hour and a half. The whole experience made me feel stupid, inefficient, and broke. I tried to do something productive, but the bed beckoned.

When I woke up, I immediately realized that I should have given that poor woman a ten buck tip. I almost drove back, but it was getting to rush hour, and the way my days have been going, she would probably have ended her shift.

Failure all around. Crap.

“Stop Making Me Defend Justice Alito!”—The Stupid Sequel

I can’t believe the Axis is still running with the ridiculous attack on Justice Alito because his house had an upside-down flag flying after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. I’m this close to resigning from the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers because so many members—about 75% of the organization is Trump-Deranged—are trying to support the claim that the episode represents “an appearance of impropriety” requiring the Justice to recuse from cases involving the election, trump, or future elections.

Ann Althouse somehow dredged up this follow up by a silly substacker named Chris Geidner who claims to be an “award-winning journalist.’ People actually pay to read what this idiot writes? Clearly, I’m doing something wrong….

Continue reading

Florida’s Unethical Ban on Under 21-Year-Old Strippers

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed HB 7063 which raises the age limit for performers and other employees of adult entertainment establishments—you know, strip clubs— from 18 to 21. DeSantis claims this legislation will “combat human trafficking.” Baloney. It is pure grandstanding, pandering to his supporters who object to sex shows generally on moral grounds, and more to the point, it is unethical age discrimination.

The issue is simple: are 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds adult citizens with all the rights of adult citizens, or aren’t they? (Hint: they are.) Since they are, there is no justification for a state telling them that there are activities, occupations and modes of expression that they cannot engage in until they are 21.

Continue reading

Unethical Quote of the Week: NBC’s “Meet the Press” Host Kristen Welker

“Will you accept the election results no matter what happens?”

—Kristin Welker, “Meet the Press’s” latest star in an interview of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla), demonstrating that she’s not much of an improvement over her Democratic Party operative predecessor, Chuck Todd.

“Will you accept the election results no matter what happens?” If Welker were brilliant, which she is obviously not, I would give her credit for a masterful “when did you stop beating your wife” “gotcha!” question. As it is, I’ll credit her for giving us an invaluable example of how much the mainstream media is committed to enabling an undemocratic Democratic Party.

Continue reading

In Case You Were Wondering: Yes, the Washington Post Is, In Its Panic, Even More Openly Pimping For Biden Than The New York Times

…which, you have to admit, is quite an achievement. It also is terrified of democracy and the just desserts its proper functioning portends, like the rest of the Axis of Unethical Conduct. For example, I am stunned that the Axis (“the resistance”/Democrats/ the mainstream media) is stooping to try to use a four year-old completely ambiguous incident involving the flying of the distress signal (and upside down U.S. flag) over the Alito home to argue for the Justice’s recusal from any of the Trump cases that may come the Supreme Court’s way. Senator Durbin, among the more shameless Senators, is beating that DOA metaphorical horse; depressingly, some of my Trump-Deranged colleagues in the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers are arguing that the complaint against Alito is valid, even though his wife flew the flag, and if she didn’t nobody can prove otherwise.

Nothing approaches, however, the Washington Post editorial on May 8th in which the paper directly stated in black-and-white that the threat of Donald Trump being elected was so dire that it justifies Machiavellian measures. “So trim your principles, Democrats, and pander away,” the Post concludes. ” Just remember: The only thing worse than playing Machiavelli for a good cause is playing Machiavelli for a good cause and losing.” This monstrosity actually appears to argue that its okay if Biden’s tactics to win the election ends up killing some blacks, as long as Trump is defeated. Collateral damage, I guess.

Continue reading

Ultra-NYT Partisan Propagandist Provides A Terrific Example of the Ravages of Bias, Denial, and Bubble Dwelling

I find this article incredible, even from Ezra Klein, one of the most openly and proudly biased partisan hacks in captivity. How could he write this swill? Is he really that delusional? How could the Times publish it? Do the editors not see how foolish it makes the paper look?

Read this thing. I have a pay wall free link here, though I almost feel like it’s an insulting gift for you. The headline is “Seven Theories for Why Biden Is Losing (and What He Should Do About It).” Theories for why Biden is losing? Who needs to search for theories unless their heads are so burrowed into their nether regions that they can lick their intestines. Theories? Here are facts:

Continue reading

Round and Round and Round the Cultural Destruction of Basic Concepts of Justice Goes, and Where It Stops, Nobody Knows

Increasingly, Americans no longer agree on what justice and the rule of law mean. This is a very important societal problem, and gee, it would be nice if we had two, or even one, Presidential candidate who could articulate the elements of the crisis well and persuasively enough to make a sufficient proportion of the public aware that this trend must be addressed and reversed.

But we don’t, do we?

The most recent story that brings this into focus comes from Arizona, one of many states with a fracturing, incoherent culture these days. Melody Felicano Johnson, 39, attempted to murder her husband, putting bleach in his coffee at least twice. The woman’s husband, a US airman, began suspecting that something was amiss in March of 2023 when he was stationed in Germany; his wife’s coffee was never very good, but for weeks it had been especially foul.

Continue reading

“The Ethicist” Gets A Genuinely Hard Question…And I Don’t Like His Answer

This time, I’d like to concentrate on the answer “The Ethicist” gave to a question more than the question itself. Prof. Appiah was asked by a woman (or man) who had been sexually molested by his (or her) father whether it was time to finally inform family members about the abuse, now that this son or daughter has decided to cease contact with the father for other reasons as well as the obvious one. He or she says the mother and siblings think the decision to cut off Dad is cruel, and that the father should have a chance to make amends—but they don’t know the whole story.

“If I were to share these details with my mother, I’d risk destroying a decades-long marriage in a single conversation,” the inquirer writes. “If I were to tell my siblings, I’d do irrevocable damage to their relationship with our father. Should I continue my silence to protect the rest of my family from emotional harm? Or do I owe it to them to tell them the truth? As I write this, I’m also painfully aware that if I break my silence, he will try to manipulate them into believing that none of this is true, that I’m delusional — he has done it successfully before.”

I’m not a nuanced kind of person regarding situations like this. My reaction: The truth shall set you free. Would I want to know if my spouse or father was a monster? Absolutely. That the information would be painful doesn’t mean I’d rather live in contrived ignorance. The writer has no obligation to protect his father, and it’s not protecting the mother or siblings to enable a lie.

Here’s the philosophy professor’s answer, in a few bite-size chunks:

“Now, an immediate issue is whether your father could be in a position to repeat his crimes with other children — that there aren’t others suffering in silence. If that’s the case, staying silent isn’t an option. You don’t raise this as a concern, but you need to be confident that it isn’t one.” 

And how exactly could that confidence be justified? It can’t be. The writer has already stated that this man has managed to fool his entire family for decades. The rest of “The Ethicist’s” answer is superflous: “staying silent isn’t an option.” A man who molested his own child isn’t trustworthy, and never can be.

Suppose you told him that you’ll keep quiet if he tells the family that he accepts that you don’t want to see him owing to a serious wrong he did to you. The problem is that questions would arise about the nature of that wrong, and that he may not be willing to deal with them. Nor is it obvious that keeping the details vague would leave your parents’ relationship intact. Besides, your father doesn’t sound like the sort of person who could be talked into taking responsibility.

Never mind that: bargaining with the damaging information comes to close to extortion for my ethics alarms.

Even if you reveal the truth, he may be confident, rightly or wrongly, that he can get people to believe you’re not to be trusted.

So what? Don’t be a weenie. Tell the truth, and if the family chooses to believe the abuser, that’s their problem, and their tragedy.

Whatever you decide, though, you shouldn’t be motivated by the thought that you owe this truth to anyone. It’s not that there isn’t reason to care that they know the truth. Many people in your family have relationships predicated on ignorance. They might even feel, were it to come out, that you should have told them before, precisely because we want to live a life in which our important relationships are not based on a failure to understand what our intimates are like.

Yet these reasons to disclose what happened don’t impose a duty on you of doing so. You may judge that they are outweighed by the fact that sharing the truth will cause pain and disruption to many lives without doing enough compensating good. Nor are you obliged to subject yourself to the pain and disruption that your father’s manipulations may bring you.

I disagree completely. There is no duty owed to the father to keep the ugly truth from the family, but the family has a right to know.

“Which brings me to my final thought: Taking measures to protect your well-being isn’t selfish when you are, objectively, the wronged and wounded party. Will your well-being be best protected by your admittedly painful policy of steering clear of both your father and the tumult of disclosure?…”

“It’s OK to be a coward if that’s the easiest path for you.” Again, I disagree.

The last point I have to make is that I doubt very much that the mother doesn’t know about the abuse. Spouses of child-abusing parents almost always either know or are in denial.