Character

Lies, Delusions And Hypocrisy

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Rep. George Santos (R-Atlantis) is fortunate that he is surrounded by so many liars, hypocrites and fabulists that it is difficult to give him the attention and contempt that he deserves. The Clintons have been mercifully quiet lately, but George has still been fortunate in the culture that surrounds him.

For example, today President Biden (well, whoever he has authorized to tweet for him) once again invoked the oath “my word as a Biden,” declaring on Twitter, “My word as a Biden: I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future than I am today.” Maybe Joe is really optimistic: he is, after all, a dolt. However, as that meme above by Newsmax’s Greg Kelly illustrates, the word of the Biden swearing that mighty oath has the credibility of Jon Lovitz’s Tommy Flanagan. (I have many more recent Biden lies archived at Ethics Alarms, notably his claim that he has never discussed Hunter’s business dealings with his son.) The biggest lie in that tweet is that there is any reason to trust this President.

Then there is the hypocrisy of retired tycoon Bill Gates, who now flies around the world telling ordinary people to lower their carbon footprints. Here’s a clip from a recent “60 Minutes””:” highlighted on “The Rubin Report,” whatever that is:

I don’t see Gates as particularly angry, just ridiculous. Not is he the worst climate change hypocrite: as one wag noted, if the elite who just met in Switzerland to discuss saving the world were serious, they would have held their conclave via Zoom and, I’d add, not have hired a biased, disgraced fool like Brian Stelter as a panel moderator. Gates is still a fine representative of this arrogant, obnoxious and unethical club.

Back to Lyingland from a short side trip to Hypocrisy Heights: Rep. Ilhan Omar visited CNN Sunday morning to claim that the anti-Semitic comments she has made, cited by House Speaker McCarthy as the main reason she has been booted from the House Foreign Affairs committee, were innocent and accidental. Continue reading →

Serious Ethics Question: How Can The New York Times Defend Employing Mara Gay?

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I guess there’s an easy answer: she’s female, she’s black, and the fact that she’s an anti-white, race-baiting bigot who isn’t very bright isn’t outweighed by those things because diversity. If that’s the best excuse the Times has, then we should all agree that its claim to being a responsible news source, never mind the creme de la creme it purports to be, if it was ever true, is no longer.

Gay regularly bloviates on MSNBC, where the standards for fairness, objectivity and accuracy are irrelevant, like a laser-pointer is to a snail. There her manifest bias and cognitive flaws don’t matter much: anyone who watches that network doesn’t want information, but partisan, emotional, red-meat hate, and Facts Don’t Matter.  Still, a Times writer introduced as a Times writer is representing the Times in public. How can the paper allow her to make the “Gray Lady” appear to be a den of hacks?

I guess because that’s what it is now.

I’ve only used the Mara Gay tag twice. but she’s shown up in many posts, never well. Check them out: it’s either funny or depressing. I liked the time in 2020 when Mara ridiculed how much money Micheal Bloomberg reportedly spent on campaign ads when he was trying to take the Democratic Presidential nomination. “Somebody tweeted recently that actually with the money that he spent, he could have given every American a million dollars,” Gay said on MSNBC (or course). “I’ve got it. Let’s put it on the screen,” said bone-headed  anchor Brian Williams. Williams then read the tweet: “Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. Population, 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and have had lunch money left over.”  Morons. 500 million dollars divided by 327 million people is about a dollar and 56 cents. Williams, at least, has been sacked by the network despite its loose standards of professionalism. But the Times still employs Gay.

With Mara, stupid is always in a race with racist. In 2021, the Times even defended this rant on “Morning Joe”:

“You know, the reality is here that we have a large percentage of the American population — I don’t know how big it is, but we have tens of millions of Trump voters who continue to believe that their rights as citizens are under threat by simple virtue of having to share the democracy with others. I think as long as they see Americanness as the same as one with whiteness, this is going to continue. We have to figure out how to get every American a place at the table in this democracy, but how to separate Americanness, America, from whiteness. Until we can confront that and talk about that, this is really going to continue. I was on Long Island this weekend, visiting a really dear friend. And I was really disturbed. I saw, you know, dozens and dozens of pickup trucks with you know, expletives against Joe Biden on the back of them, Trump flags, and in some cases, just dozens of American flags, which you know is also just disturbing, because essentially the message was clear, this is my country. This is not your country. I own this. And so until we’re ready to have that conversation, this is going to continue…Because, you know, the Trump voters who are not going to get onboard with democracy, they’re a minority. You can marginalize them, long-term. But if we don’t take the threat seriously, then I think we’re all in really bad shape.“

This is typical of Gay, not an anomaly. When Colin Kaepernick quoted part of a Frederick Douglass speech as his defense for declaring the Betsy Ross flag a symbol of racism—an opinion Gay obviously agrees with— Senator Ted  Cruz replied to the Kneeler-in Chief by  linking to Douglass’s whole speech, which proved that the cherry-picked quote didn’t mean what Kaepernick was claiming. Mara Gay tweeted to Cruz,   “Frederick Douglass is an American hero, and his name has no business in your mouth.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Jack Phillips (of Masterpiece Cakeshop):

/ Jack Marshall / 44 Comments

It is a basic life skill: quit while you’re ahead.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted in the grip of anti-religious bias when it enforced an anti-discrimination law against baker Jack Phillips. He had famously refused to bake a wedding cake celebrating the wedding of same sex couple Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins in 2012. But that was just a technical victory for Baker; SCOTUS chose not to rule did not rule on the macro-controversies over whether a business can invoke religious objections to deny service to LGBTQ people, whether a cake is art or just a product offered by a public accommodation, or whether forcing a baker to create a cake for a gay wedding is compelled speech.

Sadly, annoyingly, unethically and stupidly, neither Baker nor the activists who are determined to bend him to their will had the sense to declare a truce.

Continue reading →

I Don’t Know Exactly What This Story Signifies, But I’m Going To Write About It Anyway…

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Actress Jamie Lee Curtis posted about her chairs on Instagram for some strange reason, and in so doing, revealed the creepy photograph she has hanging in her home. Conservatives, who have been in an art critic mood thanks to “The Embrace” were triggered. “Why does Jamie Lee Curtis have a picture of a naked child stuffed inside a suitcase on her wall,” said rightish broadcaster Stew Peters. “Strong Epstein vibes.” Right-wing activist Rogan O’Handley tweeted in part, “Hollywood has-been Jamie Lee Curtis posted …an extremely disturbing picture she has in her home of a child stuffed in a suitcase. We have serious questions.”

Curtis then took down the post and photo, explaining,

What’s going on here?

Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Philadelphia Flyers’ Ivan Provorov…And Introducing “The Bite Me”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

NHL player Ivan Provorov, a Philadelphia Flyers defenseman, has declined to wear a “Pride”-themed warmup jersey as mandated by the team and the league, which has been pandering hard to the LGBTQ mob.

 “I respect everybody’s choices. My choice is to stay to true to myself and my religion.” Provorov says. He is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, which holds a traditional position on gender and sexuality. Flyers coach John Tortorella has defended Provorov’s position.

He should. The “Pride” jersey is a political statement, and no American—or Russian!—should be required to make any political statement against his or her will. The NHL is out of line, unethical, and wildly so.

Naturally, wokism being what it is (totalitarian), Provorov is being attacked by activists and members of the media, because so many people are weenies and will fold like an origami swan if anyone criticizes them. NHL Network’s E.J. Hradek said that if the player will not “assimilate” —that is, knuckle under to the mob– he should instead go fight for Russia in Ukraine. “If it bothers you that much, there’s always a chance to leave, go back to where you feel more comfortable,” said Hradek. “I understand there’s a conflict of sorts going on over there, maybe get involved.”

Proverov is a better American than Hradek. Continue reading →

Why Our Culture Needs Old Movies

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Typical of the free-association manner in which my brain works, a fatuous essay by a New York Times pundit about a subject he doesn’t understand (but I do)–performing—excavated an ethics memory from my childhood that hadn’t sparked a neuron in decades.

Frank Bruni, for some reason, felt it was necessary to re-hash the ancient debate over whether a movie star is really a skilled “actor,” and can be deserving of an Oscar over “real” actors. Naturally, his target was Tom Cruise and his performance in “Top Gun: Maverick,” the most popular and successful movie of the year. I don’t feel like arguing with Bruni over this; I’ve had the debate too many times. (No, Cruise isn’t going to get an Oscar for this sequel, but he has given Oscar-worthy performances before, because nobody can play Tom Cruise as well as he can). I’ll just give the short version: if an actor plays a part better than any other actor could, it is irrelevant that he can’t play any other part. As a director, I’ll cast a charismatic one-trick pony who is perfect for a particular role over a brilliant, versatile artist who could play Hamlet to cheers every time.

But that is neither here nor there. Here is there: Bruni’s discourse made me think of Spencer Tracy, a movie star and superb actor who had a wonderfully dismissive view of his own field, and then “Edison the Man,” the 1940 biopic, starring Tracy, about Thomas Edison. It was a black and white film that my father made a point of having me see. That film sparked my early interest in Edison, American inventors, technology and extraordinary people through history.

One scene in the movie, however, made a special impression. Edison and his research lab have been laboring on the creation of a practical incandescent light bulb day and night for months. Finally they think they have the right design, and the tungsten filament bulb to be tested is carefully assembled. The new bulb is handed to Jimmy, a teen who does odd jobs at the laboratory, and he dashes across the facility to give it to Edison. In his excitement, Jimmy trips and falls, smashing the precious bulb. Edison’s crew is furious; Edison reproaches the lad. Jimmy is devastated and inconsolable. When Edison’s men finally craft a replacement bulb, Edison calls for Jimmy and give him custody of the bulb, and asks him again to carry it to its destination on the other side of the building. Jimmy, striding carefully and slowly this time, completes his historic task.

Continue reading →

No, Mr. Speaker, “Look, The Voter’s Decide” Is Not A Responsible Response Regarding Rep. Santos [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

That the Republican have not yet forced Rep. George Santos to resign from office is an ethics disgrace, and one that the party cannot afford. Yeah, yeah, I know: the GOP has a very narrow edge in the House, and it’s crucial that the Democrats, who proven themselves unfit to govern over  the past six years (at least), not have control of both the White House and Congress. However, allowing a sociopath and compulsive liar like Santos to remain in Congress doesn’t even meet generous utilitarian standards. That means can’t be justified by any end. McCarthy brands himself as a weak and unprincipled leader by tolerating Santos. His party’s message becomes that it will embrace the scum of the universe it it allows them to hold power. Santos inspires more and, if possible even greater rotters to run for office. Nobody lied this much to get elected before because nobody thought they could get away with it. Now, it’s clear that voters are more gullible than ever. Having a villain like Santos in Congress makes Congress look bad. It makes democracy look bad. Continue reading →

2022 Worst of Ethics Awards: Most Unethical Mayor And Unethical Rationalization Of The Year

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

That video that I saw today on the Federalist site clinched two 2022 Worst of Ethics Awards for me, not that either was a tough call.

Unethical Rationalization of the Year: #64. Yoo’s Rationalization or “It isn’t what it is”

Frankly,Rationalization #64 would won this award in each of the past three years, which is pretty amazing for such a late addition to the list.

The reason, I think, is that the American public either has behaved so gullible and stpudly, or the political class and journalists have concluded that it is so gullible and stupid that the strategy of calling night day, day  night,good bad, bad good and failure success has become too attractive to resist. 2022 was the zenith of this revolting development so far, but there is no reason to think 2023 won’t be worse. We’re hardly started, and there is Karine Jean-Pierre telling reporters that the White House is being transparent about Joe’s confidential documents stash while she refuses to answer questions about it. Last year, the administration line about the chaos at the border was that the border was secure. LGBTQ+ activists looked us right in our eyes and told us that a man became a woman simply by deciding he was, and sports leaders announced that biological men who were now trans women had no advantage over natural-born women in athletic competitions while it was obvious that they did. Meanwhile runaway inflation wasn’t runaway inflation, Twitter’s partisan censorship wasn’t partisan censorship. John Fetterman was not cognitively impaired by his stroke. The January 6 House inquiry was unbiased and fair, with no partisan objectives. And when Joe Biden gave his Reichstag, he sounded and looked like a Nazi while accusing Republicans of being Nazis. There’s lots more. I’ve never seen anything like it. Continue reading →

Bitter Harry: Famous Grandchildren Ethics #2

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Part I is here.

A London pub has announced that it will be selling a ‘Harry’s Bitter’ beer in response to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s tell-all Netflix documentary, “Harry and Meghan” as well as Prince Harry’s family dirty laundry opus, “Spare.” Well-played. For Diana and Charles’ youngest offspring is indeed Bitter Harry, and a weak and rotten Royal to boot.

Because the U.S. is in the throes of The Great Stupid, in part a hangover from the George Floyd Freakout, Harry and his gold-digger spouse Meghan are more popular here than in the UK. Some Americans just enjot seeing the Royal Family shat-upon; some are suckers for those who play the racism victim card, Meghan’s specialty (with Harry’s dog-like assistance), and some were so absurdly smitten with the late Princess Diana, herself often an unseemly publicity addict, that her sons can do no wrong in their eyes. Nonetheless, Harry’s exploitation of his family’s misplaced trust for cash and cheap celebrity is the mark of a royal asshole as well as one whose bitterness has rendered his ethics alarms useless.

What kind of person deliberately reveals—often with dark shading borne of dark agendas—private conversations and family secrets in a manner guaranteed to embarrass, insult and infuriate named relatives and stain the reputation of those who have expired? The answer is… a petty, untrustworthy person. Harry doesn’t need the money, but apparently he needs something else: revenge, probably. He evidently has adopted his late mother’s attitude toward the Royal Family, blames them for her demise, and is doing everything he and his wife can think of to cause them pain.

This is ironic, because the only reason anyone cares a twig for either Harry or his C-list actress wife is his membership in that family. Harry is the epitome of a celebrity who is famous without having done anything constructive, admirable, or praiseworthy. He doesn’t have to work; he was born with the metaphorical silver spoon, and nothing short of treason or murder could remove it—indeed, if British history is any guide, not even those things.

However, he has been relatively cut off, and his wife, at least, wants to make sure they have a bright future ahead of interviews with Jimmy Kimmel, guest spots on sitcoms and starring roles as infomercial pitch-nobles. Thus the plan is to tar King Charles, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, Prince William and the rest as racists and creeps, even if it makes Harry and Meghan look creepy too. Creepy celebrities do quite well here.

Maureen Dowd, amusingly snarky with a drop of illumination as usual, writes,

Continue reading →

The Navy Joan Saga: Famous Grandchildren Ethics #1

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Forget about the laptop and the influence peddling for the nonce, and let us all focus on Hunter Biden’s latest display of character, or rather the lack of it. Lunden Roberts, the mother of Hunter Biden’s 4-year-old love child (or one of them; you never know with this creep) wants to change  her daughter’s last name to Biden. Hunter has tried to avoid paying child support for her daughter—who is also his—after earlier denying paternity until he was forced by court order to submit his DNA for testing. He has reportedly never bothered to meet her. Yet the Black Sheep Biden is opposing the name change in court on the theory that it is not “in her best interests.”

Admittedly, the mother’s claim that the name “Biden” is “ synonymous with being well educated, successful, financially acute, and politically powerful” is subject to debate. Biden DNA automatically makes one a legitimate suspect for inherited idiocy. However, Hunter’s assertion is if she carries the Biden name she will never have a “peaceful existence.” I have some sympathy for that argument: as I noted in the item about Lisa Marie Presley’s oppressive life of unsought celebrity [#3], many children of famous people suffer terribly by living under the shadow of notoriety. However, I knew Elvis, Elvis was a freind of mine, and Hunter Biden is no Elvis. If my last name were Biden I’d be tempted to hide my head under a bag. Still, Turley, who is really disgusted by this latest Hunter story, is probably right when he writes that the child “is clearly better off with the Biden surname, particularly in establishing the very connection that Hunter, Joe, and Jill Biden seem committed to conceal or ignore.  Navy Joan is the grandchild of the 47th President of the United States. That alone makes the change beneficial. Navy Joan will be able to benefit from the cache of that connection in applying to college, seeking employment, and other pursuits. It also establishes (despite the efforts of the Bidens) that she is part of the family’s legacy.”

Continue reading →