Ethics Quotes

Ethics Quote of the Month: Blogger-Criminal Defense Lawyer Scott Greenfield

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

“If Hamas is not destroyed, or at least its capacity to attack Israel eliminated, then it will attack again. Hamas has made clear that it intends to do so, over and over. Until Hamas is destroyed, there can be no peace as Hamas has no interest in peace. There can be no “two-state solution” with one state controlled by terrorists bent on destroying the other state. For those anti-colonialists whose solution is the eradication of Israel, they will be surprised to learn that Israel is not inclined to commit suicide and disappear.”

—-Scott Greenfield, explaining in no uncertain terms why the progressive Left’s support for Gaza and condemnation of Israel is based on its determination to refuse to face facts

There are so many articles, grandstanding declarations and bad punditry bemoaning the fate of the Palestinians in Gaza—Jonathan Glazer’s fatuous speech at the Oscars being the most obnoxious recent example—that when an intelligent voice from the Left points out that the “Give Peace a Chance” whining is utter bunk, attention must be paid. I highlighted Hillary Clinton’s spot on and clear explanation of reality for the cement-headed ladies of “The View,” and now criminal defense lawyer and eloquent blogger Scott Greenfield has performed the same service in print. Bravo. Having read Greenfield for many years, I regard him as a traditional liberal but stubbornly unwoke. Like Althouse, bias seldom makes him stupid.

In an essay beginning with Biden’s foolish “red line” comment (what is it about Democratic Presidents that they think they can assert “red lines” when they have no intention of doing anything should their bluff be called?), Greenfield, like the good Democrat he almost surely is, briefly tries to mitigate President Biden’s cowardly and cynical attempts to mollify his anti-Semite base while still insisting that he supports Israel, recently highlighted as he ordered aid to Gaza while the US supports the Israeli attacks that make the aid necessary. But Greenfield still writes,

Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week (and a KABOOM!): President Biden

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I gave the President a Julie Principle pass last week by not highlighting his hilarious open mic comment calling for Israel to have a “come to Jesus moment,” but I can’t let this one pass:

“I shouldn’t have used ‘illegal.’ It’s undocumented. When I spoke about the difference between Trump and me, one of the things I talked about in the border was his, the way he talks about vermin, the way he talks about these people polluting the blood. I’m not going to treat any of these people with disrespect. Look, they built the country. The reason our economy’s growing.”

The statement is by turns incompetent, irresponsible, and dishonest; in non ethical terms, cowardly, offensive and idiotic.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Holly Mathnerd

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

“Dishonesty is so normalized that this kind of performative fragmentation—signaling that one believes certain things while acting as if one believes other things—may eventually be recognized as a marker of intelligence and proper preparation for class climbing (or class maintenance, if one starts off in that class).”

—Substacker “Holly Mathnerd,” reviewing a book I haven’t read (“Troubled”) by a writer I never heard of (Rob Henderson), but gleaning from it wisdom that sorely temps me change both conditions.

It is pure coincidence that so soon after this post and this one —and even this one—another dishonesty and hypocrisy assessment presented itself. Something is in the air.

This is a phenomenon that Ethics Alarms has discussed frequently. The “elite classes,” like those who sent my college classmates to a series of prestigious schools, pushed for the legalization and cultural approval of regular pot use which they insisted was harmless. The resulting new social norm has devastated the lower socio-economic reaches that are more likely to abuse the privilege without the means to cope with the results. Support for “illegals”—Joe’s accurate word—via sanctuary cities and bleeding heart rhetoric was adamant until the progressive virtue-signalers in “sanctuary cities” had to deal with the real consequences of an open border policy.

More from Holly:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Nate Silver

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“You don’t demonstrate your seriousness that Trump is an existential threat to democracy by going through the motions to renominate an 81-year-old with a 38% approval rating who 75% of voters think is too old without giving anyone a choice because that’s just how things are done.”

—-538 founder Nate Silver on Twitter/X, reacting to the Democratic Party attempting to keep RFK Jr. off state ballots

Silver has proven himself to be generally left-biased, but he’s not stupid, and he’s not corrupt. He can see the clear hypocrisy in the party’s conduct and rhetoric, and doesn’t even have to reference its other totalitarian moves, like weaponizing the justice system to try to stop voters from choosing its most feared adversary.

Oh…Nate’s observation was just two days ago, and 75% is already out of date. The first post Hur report and Biden old man rant poll shows 86% of the public convinced that the President has passed his metaphorical pull date.

Ethics Quote of the Month: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

“It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity…We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting former President Donald Trump’s bonkers claim that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office.

The ruling is here.

Seldom has any court appeal in a high profile case had a more obvious and virtually assured resolution. The ethics alarms analysis of this issue was discussed in “Ethics Zugzwang In Trump’s Immunity Appeal,” and in this subsequent post. I hope it’s unnecessary to say that I agree with the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.

I wonder if Trump considered that if he won the appeal, President Biden could order that he and his MAGA supporters could be summarily shot as “clear and present dangers to democracy.” He could order the execution of the Republican contingent in the House, too, to forestall an impeachment.

What a great theory.

It was unethical for Trump and his lawyers to make the argument. If I had been his attorney—and before all the dust settles, Trump might eventually have to retain lawyers as inexperienced in litigation I am, and maybe even me—I would have withdrawn before I’d file such an irresponsible appeal.

Ethics Dunce: National Public Radio

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

…or maybe I’m the Ethics Dunce: I assume that NPR’s management cares whether half the country sees it as progressive cant parrot and a water-carrier for the Democratic Party. Maybe they don’t; maybe they have assumed deplorables don’t listen to “Marketplace” and “Fresh Air,” and certainly don’t contribute much during radiothons. I know I don’t touch the local NPR stations (there are two of them) ever since the “Car Talk” guys ended up in the garage for good and after I was dumped as NPR’s ethics guy because I was insufficiently critical of Donald Trump.

Where was I? Oh, right….National Public Radio appointed a new CEO, Katherine Maher, who had to hustle to scrub her social media record after the announcement because she periodically issued intemperate woke garbage in the past. Among the gems tracked down by reporter Shannon Thaler at the New York Post,

  • “Trump is a racist.”
  • “I mean, sure, looting is counter-productive. But it is hard to be mad about protests not prioritizing the private property of a system of oppression founded on treating people’s ancestors as private property”
  • “white silence is complicity”
  • “I grew up feeling superior (hah, how white of me) because I was from New England and my part of the country didn’t have slaves, or so I’d been taught.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Fox News Comic Greg Gutfeld

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

“Everyone understands how bad the world would be without journalists because we haven’t had any for decades.”

—Fox News court jester Greg Gutfeld, justly mocking the whines of the Washington Post’s ridiculous Taylor Lorenz about the lay-offs in her profession, if it can be called that any more.

The rest of his rant is amusing and well-deserved, but that single sentence is enough to accurately describe the failure of Lorenz’s colleagues and peers, and the total lack of self-awareness displayed by this inexplicably employed hack, who, in a typical outburst last month, proclaimed that “Anyone who’s worked as a journalist at the [New York Times] knows that journalists there are absolutely allowed to loudly espouse political opinions, you just have to espouse the *right* political opinions. Right wing opinions are fine, left wing opinions are not.”

Unethical Quotes of the Month: The University of North Carolina’s Faculty Council

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is not an encouraging situation.

Last week, the University of North Carolina’s Faculty Council met to consider, among other matters, a resolution condemning anti-Semitism on school’s campus. An on-campus event in November included a speaker who said, referring to the barbaric terrorist attack on Israeli civilians, that “October 7 was for many of us from the region a beautiful day.” No one at the event did or said anything to reject that sentiment. The proposed resolution stated, “We strongly condemn the antisemitic statements made during a Unity roundtable event No Peace Without Justice held on November 28, 2023.”

That wouldn’t seem too difficult to agree with or too controversial, would it? Yet the resolution failed to pass. The Faculty Council voted 32-29, with six abstentions, to table the resolution for the foreseeable future. Here are some of the most striking comments made by those who objected to the resolution:

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations on Vivek Ramaswamy’s “Rant”

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Quixotic GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is an entertaining and occasionally thought-provoking feature of the primary season because, whatever you may think of his positions, he’s unusually articulate and adept at spontaneous responses. His outburst in Scott County, Iowa, when a Washington Post reporter asked him to “condemn white supremacy and white nationalism” is a classic.

He was asked the “gotcha!” question following the endorsement of his candidacy by former Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King, who was punished by the party after repeatedly appearing to embrace white supremacists and their rhetoric. Ramaswamy took off like Harold Hill telling the crowd about the dangers of a pool table in River City:

Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Month and Ethics Dunce: Ex-Harvard President Claudine Gay

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

I was prepared to write a sympathetic and generous post in response to the resignation of Claudine Gay from the presidency of Harvard University. It must be a crushing blow for her, both personally and professionally. At this moment, I can’t think of a fair analogy from the past in any field: the closest I can come is Richard Nixon’s forced resignation from the American Presidency. She was celebrated as a great trailblazer as the first black and first black female president of the world’s most famous university only a few months ago. Her fall was rapid and ugly.

I an not sympathetic any more, however. Her Unethical Quote of the Month is her resignation letter, which you can read here. It is disgraceful. She never alludes to her failure to adequately address the anti-Semitic and pro-terrorism demonstrations on the Harvard campus. She never mentions her plagiarism in multiple scholarly papers, without which she probably could have survived the criticism arising from her inept testimony in Congress. What she says, in the midst of empty rhetoric about her aspirations and how much she cares about Harvard, is this:

“[I]t has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor — two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am — and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.”

Continue reading →