Government & Politics

Not Exactly An Ethics Hero (Recovering Ethics Dunce, Maybe?): Comedy Central’s The Daily Show

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Look! The Daily Show is finally choosing to mercilessly mock not just absurd Democrats, but even absurd Democrats of color! See?

Well paint me blue and call me Smurphy! True, it only took almost four years, and a Republican with such rhetorical handicaps and brain fog would have been skewered weekly, indeed daily, by all of the Axis-allied comedy shows. Think of Dan Quayle, or David Letterman’s nightly mockery of George W. Bush, and Trump, of course. Late night TV has left a lot of big laughs on the metaphorical table, but it was worth it, the writers and comics concluded—“it” being to divide the nation, insult half of all potential viewers, and abandon their supposed mission of being as funny as possible without playing favorites, and politics be damned—to “get Trump” and make the world safe for Woke Fascism.

Continue reading →

Nikki Haley, 2024 Weasel of the Year [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Honestly, I don’t know how this woman can look at herself in the mirror.

Much of the American public is fed up and disgusted with what I call the Four W’s: the woke, the weak, weenies, and weasels. All are labels for ethical voids. The woke are incompetent and irresponsible. The weak lack the “enabling virtues,” the character traits that permit one to be ethical: courage, fortitude, valor, sacrifice, honor, humility and forgiveness. Weenies lack integrity, and weasels, in some ways the worst of the bunch, are dishonest and untrustworthy, as well as operating under the unethical delusion that the ends justify the means. If one wants to objectively comprehend why so many people support Donald Trump for President, despite his dazzling array of disqualifying character traits, look no further than the Four W’s. For a current day politician, he is remarkably free of those crippling characteristics, not entirely and not in all cases, but substantially, and impressively in comparison to almost any other public figure.

Yesterday, Nikki Haley said she would be voting for Trump in the upcoming election. Let’s see [This is a corrected version of what I first posted: I missed some twists and turns]…first she was Trump’s U.S. Ambassador, and apparently a booster. She resigned in 2018 for mysterious reasons, then, after serving on the Boeing board just long enough for that to register as a black mark, she initially defended Trump after the rioters hit the Capitol in January of 2021 (saying it was not “his best” moment—you know how I hate that rationalization). Then, just bit later in the same month, told an interviewer, “We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

What is “we can’t let that ever happen again” supposed to mean, if not “Don’t support this man”?

Then, as Biden’s slow-moving car crash proceeded and it looked like Donald Trump wasn’t finished as a political force yet, Haley started trying to edge back into his good graces…until she thought she saw an opportunity to be the GOP nominee herself. Then she was again condemning Trump, insulting him relentlessly, questioning his mental fitness, saying that he is, like Biden, “too old,” and calling Trump and Biden “equally bad.” She accused him of having disrespect for the military, indicating that “he’s not qualified to be the president of the United States, because I don’t trust him to protect them.” After signing the required GOP pledge to support whoever was nominated by the party to run in November as a condition predicate to participating in the debates (and criticizing Trump for not signing the pledge and boycotting the debates himself), Haley then reneged on that pledge once it was clear that nobody would stop Trump. She argued that she wasn’t bound by it (au contraire: lawyers are ethically obligated to be true to their pledges) because the party she thought she was supporting wasn’t what the Republican Party now is in its embrace of Donald Trump, or something.

Why all the flip-flopping, back-tracking, reversals, double-talk and hypocrisy? She makes John Kerry look like Sir Thomas More. She makes Bill Clinton look like George Washington, and if Bill was asked who chopped down the cherry tree, he would say, “It depends what you mean by ‘chopped’.” But Haley now thinks she has a shot at being chosen as Trump’s running mate: after all, she never shot her dog. Nikki Haley has made it clear that she will say anything at that she thinks will benefit her ambition and quest for power. No one should ever believe her, trust her or rely on her, ever.

She would have been the perfect running mate for Trump, about five reversals ago. Trump has a flat learning curve, but he was betrayed by so many so often since 2016 that he would no more tie his fates to Nikki Haley than shoot a nail gun into his skull.

Nikki Haley is indisputably a weasel. I can’t imagine a worse one.

“Justice-Impacted Individuals”? Seriously?

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Even a bracing cup of Italian Roast in the morning can’t quite get your juices flowing and your mind ready for the day like a good old-fashioned head explosion! This is what triggered mine today:

Item: “Illinois is moving forward with a bill that would reclassify some “offenders” as “justice-impacted individuals“…House Bill 4409 changes the word ‘offender’ to ‘justice-impacted individuals.'”

The bill has passed both state houses, and awaits Democratic Gov. Pritzker’s signature. Don’t worry, though: he’s such a sober, rational, reasonable elected official that I’m sure he’ll veto this nonsense…

…right?

Continue reading →

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

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

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 →

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

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

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

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

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

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

“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

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

…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 →

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

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

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 →

I Wonder: Does the New York Times Know That Carol Moseley Braun Isn’t A Persuasive Argument For The Intrinsic Diversity Value of Black Female Senators?

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Or does it know but doesn’t want its readers to know?

The Times headline must have been labored over intensely to come up with a phrasing that didn’t read immediately as racially biased, since what is being described is racial bias, if standard “good” racial bias : “Democrats Aim for a Breakthrough for Black Women in the Senate.” The “breakthrough” is electing black women rather than white women or men, meaning that the party is declaring a preference for candidates based on gender and color. Funny, that was called bigotry when I was a lad. But black women are better than white women or any kind of man. Or they deserve success and power more. Or something: I better read my DEI manual again.

But never mind: it was the beginning of the article that struck me like a John Wayne punch in the jaw:

Carol Moseley Braun, one of only two Black women to have been elected to the Senate in U.S. history, was in Paris on Wednesday when she was informed that another Black woman, Angela Alsobrooks, had won the Democratic nomination for an open Senate seat in Maryland.

“Praise the Lord,” she said with relief and surprise. “That’s wonderful.”

…“It’s been a long time coming,” said Ms. Moseley Braun, who became the first Black female senator when she was elected from Illinois in 1992 and now serves as chairwoman of the United States African Development Foundation. The second, from California, is now the vice president, Kamala Harris. A third, Laphonza Butler, Democrat of California, was appointed to fill a vacant seat, but is not running for re-election.

Ah, Carol Moseley Braun! (That’s her above.)The first, “historic” black female Senator was, not to beat around the bush, a serial crook, protected by the corrupt Democratic establishment under Bill Clinton, and now by the New York Times, because anything that undermines the DEI, “good discrimination” narrative isn’t news “fit to print,” or in this instance, history fit to print.

Continue reading →