Ethics Dunces

Sen. Britt’s Atrocious SOTU “Response” Was Even Worse (and More Unethical) Than I Thought…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

That’s not Sen. Britt in her immediately reviled “response” to President Biden’s faux State of the Union address. That’s Scarlett Johanssen as Britt in a subsequent Saturday Night Live “cold open” that practically wrote itself and was as richly deserved as any target of satire the 50 year-old show has ever taken on.

The principle is pretty basic: if the opposing party’s “response” to a SOTU is so bad that it distracts potential critics of the President’s speech, it’s a disaster. But Britt’s flame-out wasn’t just her speech’s “give Democrats a stick to beat Republicans with” kitchen setting, Britt’s creepy forced smile, and her community theater theatrics that marked her performance as a an embarrassment to the GOP and a gift to Democrats. It turns out that Britt was also lying her head off….and not even well.

Bill Clinton could make a fortune giving lessons.

Continue reading →

For the EA “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” Files: Iowa Lawyer David L. Leitner

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

My chosen profession of legal ethics has not been covering itself with glory lately.

The Iowa Supreme Court suspended 68-year-old lawyer David L. Leitner as explained in a discouraging story in the Iowa Capital Dispatch. He’s out of the practice of law for two years: I would have disbarred him. First, Leitner represented an Iowa seed dealer who was convicted of bankruptcy fraud in 2007 after the lawyer helped him hide assets. Leitner created a company for the seed dealer with himself the company’s manager , allowing the seed dealer to send part of his income to the company while hiding it from the government, which the dealer owed about $71,000. (Can’t help clients try to defraud the government. Can’t go into fake businesses with clients designed to cheat on taxes. Pretty basic legal ethics.)

Continue reading →

Regarding Sen. Britt’s Incompetent SOTU “Response”

/ Jack Marshall / 37 Comments

Ugh. Distinguished EA commenter valkygrrl gets the pointer and my gratitude for this one: she flagged Senator Britt’s performance in an email late last night, and I might never have seen it otherwise. Here, if you were fortunate enough not to see this thing without a trigger warning, it is…

I already said “Ugh,” now I’ll say, “Yecchh!”

To begin with, the whole concept of the opposition “response” is built on a lie. Although the speech is always presented as a reaction to what America just heard and saw, it is always (has there been an exception?) a pre-written and prepared speech often based on the transcript of the President’s speech released before he delivers it, but sometimes just based on what the opposing party assumes the President will say. So it is always fake: the speaker refers to the speech, but the speaker seldom (ever?) has the wit to go off script and comment on what just happened.

Britt definitely didn’t, and, presumably, couldn’t. Biden was shouting and acting like he was on speed. The State of the Union is supposed to be a Presidential address on the state of the nation itself, not a campaign speech. Biden made numerous false statements. He called illegal immigrants “illegals”—which they are—instead of the benign “migrants” the Axis uses to blur the issue. He mangled rape and murder victim Laken Riley’s name on the same day his party overwhelmingly voted against a House bill that established the outrageous requirement—in the democratic Party’s view— that illegal immigrants arrested for crimes should be detained by ICE. Surely the GOP must have some prominent party member quick and articulate enough to give a genuine response to a State of the Union based on what the speech performance really was. Ted Cruz could do it. Rand Paul. Heck, get a right wing radio talk-show host for the job.

Continue reading →

Searching For the Most Apt Analogy for George Santos Turning Up at the SOTU…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Is it Scarlet O’Hara, forced by Rhett Butler to play the seductive Woman in Red at Melanie Wilkes’ birthday party, after he discovers her flirtations with Melanie’s husband? Is it the proverbial skunk at the picnic? Or was the expelled GOP Rep. emulating Davey Crockett in the most recent film account of the Alamo (which, I note with shame, I barely acknowledged this year since my week was occupied with another more personal tragedy), defiantly staring down his foes after the battle was lost?

Or do you have a better analogy? Whatever George Santos was doing by showing up last night, it took gall, which we know the serial liar, fraudster and poseur has in abundance.

Continue reading →

When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring AND When Bias Makes You Stupid AND When You’re Not Too Bright to Begin With AND You Don’t Know Much About History AND You’re A DEI Hire Who’s Unqualified For Your Position…

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

This…

…triggers you to issue this:

One word: Unbelievable.

My beloved Grace was a World War II history fanatic. She died on the day this spectacularly offensive memo was released. If she had been in perfect health and read the swill above, it very well might have killed her.

Continue reading →

SCOTUS’s 9-0 Smackdown of Democratic State Lawfare to Stop Trump Exposes the Unethical Left for All to See

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

All to see, that is, except those whose eyes have been so jaundiced by hate, indoctrination and lies that they are blind.

A 9-0 decision by an ideologically fractured U.S. Supreme Court, rejecting a cherished partisan fantasy devised to hold on to power that one party has empathically shown that it is unfit to possess, should logically result in frank admissions of error, bias, foolishness and confusion by those who insisted that the tactic thus condemned was correct, legal and wise. But today’s progressives are not logical, nor are they self-aware or particularly smart. The reactions from pundits, left-warped lawyers and others (what are the creatures on “The View”?) really should be viewed as a gift. They are telling us what they are, admitting what they are. It’s ironic: the first post of the day was titled, “Will the Disastrous Results of The Great Stupid Result in Learning, So Behavior Changes, or Will the Fools Responsible Keep Trying To Govern On Dreams Rather Than Reality?,” but it wasn’t about the Trump-Deranged learning from their absurd and intellectually indefensible embrace of the 14 Amendment Trump disqualification plot. The SCOTUS decision hadn’t come down yet. Nevertheless, the headline is apt in the aftermath of the decision and the Axis’s embarrassing tantrums. They won’t learn because they can’t learn, even though refusing to admit their mistakes makes them ridiculous, untrustworthy and unpersuasive.

Here are the kinds of people who have been running our government, journalism, entertainment, law schools and universities:

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce (Again): Nikki Haley

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Nikki isn’t the usual brand of ethics dunce, selected based upon a single episode of throbbing ethical duncery. She’s the other kind: someone who had proven that as a general proposition such core ethical values as honesty, integrity, respect and responsibility have not sufficiently settled in her cognitive process, and likely never will. She is, in a word, untrustworthy. Or, in crude terms, as I have framed the diagnosis before here, Haley is a weasel.

She has flip-flopped repeatedly regarding whether she is a Trump supporter or a Trump condemner. She purports to be a loyal Republican, but the only Republican Presidential candidate in decades who has shattered Ronald Reagan’s so-called 11th Commandment (“Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”) more egregiously than Haley has been Donald Trump. Her ethical instincts are rotten: she was perplexed when a questioner insisted that she lay at least a portion of the blame for the Civil War on the question of slavery; she airily dismissed the principles of the First Amendment by advocating requirements for citizen use of social media. Haley can’t claim fair combat points, as she has been more uncivil than, again, any candidate since Trump. Of late she has been accomplishing nothing but bolstering the prospects of Joe Biden and the Democrats by launching attacks on Trump that could be turned into Biden ads by just changing the name on them.

She just had the audacity to crow about her sole primary victory, getting a majority of Republican votes among a pathetic showing of 2,000 in the District of Columbia. 2,000 is fewer than the population of charming Friday Harbor, Washington, which calls itself a town but is more accurately defined as a village.

Now, the former U.N. Ambassador says she no longer feels bound by a pledge made to the Republican National Committee that she would support the GOP presidential nominee. In an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Haley reversed what she had said in July, that she would support Trump if he were the nominee “because I’m not going to have a President Kamala Harris.” Even though she signed a mandatory pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee as a condition of being allowed to participate in primary debates, she told “Meet the Press” today that she would not, because “the RNC is not the same RNC”—it’s now “Trump’s” RNC.

Oh.

That is legal, ethical and logical nonsense. She signed a pledge with an organization that has the same structure and the same organizing articles now as the day she signed. Nothing has happened that permits Haley to renege on a pledge. If she were a lawyer, violating a signed pledge likethat would be grounds for suspension, even disbarment. Of course, maybe she’ll flip-flop again. That’s what she does.

Haley isn’t a lawyer, but she’s also not credible public servant. She’s hanging around the nomination race hoping Trump’s legal problems, the unethical result of the Democratic party’s totalitarian tactics to oppose him, will work.

The last GOP candidate who embraced such disgusting conduct and unethical rhetoric was…Donald Trump.

Talk about becoming the thing you most hate…

Ethics Tip (To the Biden Administration): You Can’t Resolve an Ethical Conflict By Taking Contradictory Actions Simultaneously

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I would think that would be obvious to mature, competent, experienced and responsible policy-makers. But perhaps that’s not relevant here…

I awoke today to the news that the United States has air-dropped “humanitarian aid” into Gaza. Three US C-130s dropped 66 palettes of food, 22 from each aircraft. Biden complained last week about the slow pace of assistance flowing into Gaza, the Israeli campaign against which the United States is supporting with its funds. Wars against enemies are designed to make the populace under attack less well-off, eventually to the point where their government says “Enough!” and surrenders. Aid to a population under attack is intended to make the population under attack better off. Simultaneously funding an attack on a region and sending aid to that region isn’t ethical. It is offensively cynical, not merely refusing to make a decision, but making contradictory decisions to appeal to groups with diametrically opposing interests. Sending aid of any kind to the enemy of the nation we are supporting in a war can accomplish little more than extending that war. The most ethical way to engage in the unethical practice of warfare is to end it as quickly as possible.

Continue reading →

Regarding THIS…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Apparently, as I have noted before, the Biden Administration doesn’t believe in firing anyone—well, anyone who doesn’t behave like this clown—which is itself a form of incompetence and avoidance of responsibility. A competent President who wasn’t more concerned with avoiding conflicts with the loosely-allied progressive tribes in his party than with upholding standards of conduct, ethics, and performance under his authority would fire everyone behind that screed above.

All right, he would do it immediately after giving Merrick Garland, Pete Buttigieg, Anthony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Dr. Miguel Cardona, Alejandro Mayorkas, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and Karine Jean-Pierre their well-earned pink slips.

No executive in any organization has to tolerate public dissent like this regarding his or her leadership. For a President, such open defiance is divisive, confusing to the public, disloyal and disrespectful. It also erodes trust. The proper way for any staff member in any pursuit at any level to express his or her disagreement with the organization’s policies and actions is to do so privately, through proper channels, or publicly after resigning. Those are the only ethical options, and the latter course has severe ethical limitations based on confidentiality and mutual trust.

Having a staff express disagreement with a President and his administration as the letter jaw-dropping above does is unprecedented, and it had better not become institutionalized, because no government—indeed, no organization—can function effectively and with the full confidence of its constituency and stake-holders that permits such rebellions.

Moreover, even if such grandstanding could be justified—there must be an exception out there somewhere—this surely wouldn’t be an acceptable precedent. The letter above absurdly supports an act of self-terrorism by a mentally-disturbed fool, thus aligning themselves with the radical agent of chaos who issued this tweet…

Brilliant. This New York-based writer and apologist for terrorism lumps protesting peacefully, dissent, marching and heckling politicians in the same category as suicide, rioting and law-breaking. Yet even he has a better grasp on reality than “the Staffers for Ceasefire.” In a related tweet, he suggests to these fools, “The best eulogy you can offer Bushnell is resigning en masse.”

Exactly. By all means, honor that pathetic would-be martyr.

Theirs isn’t even smart dissent, persuasive dissent, or patriotic dissent. The letter represents a group of people who are making policy recommendations above their pay-grade, literally, and displaying their biases and ignorance while doing so.

Biden should fire each and every one of them. That he doesn’t and won’t would be proof of his unfitness to lead and incompetence as a Chief Executive even if he could sing ” I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General General” backwards in 12 languages, including Urdu.

A Relatively Minor Incident That Explains Why Nobody Can Trust Anybody in Politics, and Shouldn’t.

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

A robo call supposedly featuring President Biden urging New Hampshire Democrats not to vote in the state’s presidential primary was immediately used by the news media to accuse Republicans of suppressing votes, because, you know, that’s what they do. The media reported that two Texas companies were the source of the calls: Life Corporation and Lingo Telecom, and that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had issued cease-and-desist letters to both companies. Texas companies—well, we all know what THAT means.

Surprise! The deep-fake recording was not the work of those racist Republicans, but of a Democratic consultant who worked for Democrat Dean Phillips’s quixotic Presidential campaign. Phillips has the ethical mission of giving his party’s voters the opportunity to show that they would prefer not to have a rapidly declining dementia sufferer carry the Democratic banner in November.

Paul Carpenter, a New Orleans magician—that’s him doing street magic above— came forward to admit that he was hired to use artificial intelligence to impersonate President Joe Biden for the robocalls. Carpenter explained that he was hired in January by veteran Democratic consultant Steve Kramer, who has been advising Phillips. “I created the audio used in the robocall. I did not distribute it,” Carpenter said. “I was in a situation where someone offered me some money to do something, and I did it. There was no malicious intent. I didn’t know how it was going to be distributed.” He says he was paid $150.

Continue reading →