Government & Politics

Ethics Dunce: Anyone Who Buys Karine Jean-Pierre’s Book [UPDATED!]

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

You would have to put a gun to my head to make me buy Ethics Villain Jake Tapper’s book about the Biden dementia cover-up, but at least Jake has a somewhat less despicable co-author and two-brain cells to rub together. What possible excuse is there for buying and reading the book Biden’s ex-paid liar, Karine Jean-Pierre announced yesterday: “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines”?

I can think of two: brain damage and excessive admiration of chutzpah.

In order to get some buzz yesterday, Jean-Pierre announced that she was leaving the Democratic Party to be an “independent.” “I think we need to stop thinking in boxes, and think outside of our boxes, and not be so partisan,”she said in an Instagram video. Her publisher risibly insists that Jean-Pierre’s book will offer “clear arguments and provocative evidence as an insider” about the importance of dismantling misinformation and will argue that it “can be worthwhile to carve a political space more loyal to personal beliefs than a party affiliation.”

Ethics estoppel doesn’t begin to describe how unethical it is for this fool to criticize “misinformation.” She was not only paid to lie for the apparently all-lies-all-the-time Biden administration, she was one of the most flagrant liars about Biden’s incapacity, including claiming that videos showing the President babbling, wandering off or freezing were all fake.

Every White House Press Secretary lies, but Karine was shockingly bad at it, and at talking, which would seem to be the minimum skill someone in that position should have mastered. How could she possibly offer “clear arguments and provocative evidence” about anything?

Continue reading →

“Never Mind!” The Axis Media Spreads Hamas Anti-Israel Propaganda, and There Are No Consequences

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The Washington Post last night retracted its story misrepresenting an incident in Gaza. The Post, like most of the news media, falsely claimed that Israel killed 30 Gazan civilians who were just trying to get some food (you know, the “Aww, poor Palestinians, still being persecuted by those evil Jews!” narrative).

The Post’s statement was posted on X rather than on its website, and announced that the paper had “deleted the post below because it and early versions of the article didn’t meet Post fairness standards.” That’s another lie, as it is pure deceit. The story had to be deleted because it was false and should not have been published in the first place. Yes, false news stories are unfair, but that’s a secondary problem.

Palestinian Arab sources had spread the claim that an Israeli strike near a humanitarian aid distribution center resulted in at least 30 deaths and numerous injuries. The international media outlets didn’t consider the source, and leaped to the conclusion that Israel was committing war crimes.

Later that same day, the IDF released the findings of its initial investigation into the incident. These findings indicated that the IDF did not fire at civilians while they were near or within the humanitarian aid distribution site, and that the reports being circulated as fact by media outlets were false. Yet even after the story had been discredited, CNN and MSNBC (among others) continued to stick with the original. anti-Israel spin. I saw this in real time: a Fox News guest told viewers that the report had been debunked, and at exactly the same time, the two Axis networks were repeating the original account.

The IDF again called on the media to be cautious with information published by the Hamas terrorist organization. Gee, ya think? But they aren’t careful and don’t want to be careful. They want to back the Democratic Party’s position that Israel is the villain for reacting to an unprovoked terrorist attack exactly as the United Sates would (and has): by crushing the attacker and ensuring that the actions could never be repeated.

Saying “Oopsie! Never mind!” does not undo the damage caused by the original false reporting. That the Post and other media outlets would accept without confirmation a Hamas narrative shows where their confirmation bias lies, and why they are no longer trustworthy.

“Harvard Derangement Syndrome?”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University and a conservative, which at Harvard is like being a Stegosaurus in the National Zoo, rose to defend his employers and colleagues with an op ed in the Times with the title above as its headline (but without the question mark). The theory is that since he’s not a typical campus leftist, his arguments should carry more weight when he takes the side of the people who issue his paycheck rather than the President who called the school “an Anti-Semitic, Far Left Institution,” a “Liberal mess” and a “threat to Democracy,” which has been “hiring almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots and ‘birdbrains’ who are only capable of teaching FAILURE to students and so-called future leaders.”

Actually, the op-ed is pretty funny. (That’s another gift link.) It brought to my mind two quotes: “Hitler did some good things too!” (From “Judgement at Nuremberg”) and “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” (Attributed to comedian Joey Adams.) Pinker lists a lot of the same problems (but far from all) at Harvard that I described and condemned long before Trump went after the school. Tellingly, he somehow neglects to mention the whole Claudine Gay fiasco, when Harvard selected a DEI-obsessed dean who had risen to a tenured place on the Harvard faculty with the help of academic plagiarism, then embarrassed the school testifying before Congress, and was initially defended by the Harvard brass even when it was revealed that her scholarly publications were so tainted that the equivalents would have gotten any student expelled. Funny how all that would slip his mind.

Pinker still makes a damning case against Harvard. He writes,

Continue reading →

How Many Other Government Workers Are Like This, I Wonder…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I presume that I have made it clear over the years that I regard James O’Keefe’s hidden camera “gotcha!” stings both unethical journalism and just flat-out unethical generally. This is “the ends justifies the means” exemplified; I don’t care how much corruption O’Keefe uncovers and what outrages he broadcasts. His methods are unjustifiable. A so-called investigative journalist who uses such tactics is untrustworthy.

Having said that, I don’t feel constrained to ignore the evidence his wrongful methods reveal when it is persuasive, for this isn’t the courtroom. His latest bust is an example. Deshaun Eli Mack (above), a Family Services Specialist with the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), was caught on one of O’Keefe’s hidden cameras admitting how he manipulates the system to offer extended emergency Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants, proudly boasting, “I get them emergency medical all the time… just because I want to.” Emergency Medicaid for illegals is supposed to be granted on a month-to-month basis and only for severe conditions. Mack said on camera, however, that he ignores the policy and the process.

“They’re supposed to apply every month,” he said, “so I just approve them for 12 months… because I can. I make it so. I bend the rules a lot….I will twist and turn our provisions to fit the way that I want them to be.”

Nice. The arrogance is as nauseating as it is unsurprising. Asked if he felt that he was subverting the law, Mack answered, “I do that a lot.”

O’Keefe’s group confronted Mack with the surreptitious recording, and he denied that what he was recorded saying was really true. “I say a lot of things that I don’t mean,” Mack said, adding “I lie all the time.” “None of those words I said were true,” he insisted.

It should be extremely easy to check that. But even if Mack was telling the truth when he said he was lying, can a government agency defend employing someone who “lies[s] all the time”?

__________________

Pointer: JutGory

Witness to “Pay to Play”

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I am not quite ready to write about the project I am currently involved in, but when I do, it will be a major story, and not just on Ethics Alarms. I found myself, mostly by happenstance, at Ground Zero in a massive scandal for the legal profession. Now I am working to expose it, make the public and the legal profession aware of it, and to both fix the problem and take measures in multiple sectors to ensure that it is permanently fixed. I’m not doing this alone; indeed I am focusing primarily on the ethical regulation front. However, the alliance is growing, and includes an insider whistle-blower, several public interest organizations, litigators, law firms, and at least one national association.

Regard the foregoing as a preview of coming attractions. This post is about a conversation I witnessed that continues to bother me, and will probably bother you as well. Some of the participants in the project were meeting with a prominent, well-connected D.C. attorney with a long history of legislative involvement. The topic was whether an Executive Order from the President would super-charge our effort. The lawyer said that he was close to an individual who “meets with the President every week” and that the contact was capable of carrying the EO request into the Oval Office.

“But it will cost you,” the lawyer said. “Access isn’t free.” “How much?” one of my delegation asked. “You give me a figure,” was the answer, “and I’ll let you know what would get it done.” The lawyer shook his head and smiled at $100,000, and kept giving a negative response until the number reached $100 million.” Now you’re talking,” he said. “That’s what this kind of thing takes.”

The group is confident that it could raise that kind of money—the scam we will expose and undo involves billions—but its ethics consultant, me, pointed out that our mission is to eliminate widespread and destructive unethical conduct. Using unethical means to accomplish that goal will taint the whole enterprise, corrupt it, and undermine trust in its motives and participants.

There will be no $100 million pay-to-play cash deals, at least as long as I am involved. However, the bland, “it’s always done this way”/”that’s just how Washington works” response we got from that prominent lawyer is by turns chilling, disillusioning, and discouraging.

Just the Facts, Ma’am: The Historian’s Responsibility

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Guest Post by AM Golden

[From your host: AM Golden has a second guest post this week, which is what happens when you send two excellent submissions that get lost in my email. This one is not only on a topic near and dear to my heart—the ethics rot in the ranks of American historians—but also on a specific historian and work that I had flagged for a potential Ethics Alarms post myself. How I love it when a participant in the ethics wars here not only saves me the time and toil of writing a post, but does such a superb job of it, which AM definitely does here. JM.]

Of the professions that have been disgracing themselves for the last 10 years or so, the betrayal of historians has cut me the deepest.

We all have biases.  Each of us has a responsibility to be aware of those biases in a professional setting and work to subdue them.  Prior to the 2016 campaign, I’d already learned to get a feel for an author’s premise before starting a book.  If an author likes Andrew Jackson, for example, he or she will likely rationalize unpleasant facts about his life.  If an author hates him; however, he or she will diminish Jackson’s triumphs.  This is unprofessional. It is also unethical. A historian should be devoted not only to fact, but also putting fact within its appropriate historical context.  Whether you like him or not, Jackson played a significant role in our country’s history.  A competent historian can produce a “Warts and All” portrayal without compromising the integrity of the subject.

Since 2016, a new practice has entered the history books:  gratuitous, sometimes barely relevant, statements about Donald Trump.  A recent book I will not name included two completely superfluous footnotes regarding secessionist states and how many of them voted for Trump.  In general, though, it’s included in the prologue or, more often, the epilogue to allow the author to tie the secessionists, the Dixiecrats or some other group of bigots (but never, for some reason, FDR’s State Department which deliberately slow-walked paperwork for desperate Jews in Europe) to Trump.

Continue reading →

It’s About Time: CNN Gets Called On Its “It Isn’t What It Is” Rhetorical Dishonesty and Bias

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

and…

Good.

All ethical and aware Americans should treat their Axis-supporting friends, relatives and colleagues similarly. What both Miller and Hamill did was to label propaganda what it really was, and not allow it to falsely present itself as “journalism.”

Stop Making Me Defend the Supreme Court!

/ Jack Marshall / 38 Comments

Almost a year ago, Ethics Alarms discussed the case of Liam Morrison (above), a seventh grader who was told that his “There are only two genders” T-shirt was inappropriate as school attire. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a District Court decision from 2023 that the Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts didn’t violate Liam’s First Amendment rights by telling him to change his shirt.

Chief Justice David Barron, writing for the Court, concluded that “the question here is not whether the t-shirts should have been barred. The question is who should decide whether to bar them – educators or federal judges.” He continued, “We cannot say that in this instance the Constitution assigns the sensitive (and potentially consequential) judgment about what would make ‘an environment conducive to learning’ at NMS to use rather than to the educators closest to the scene.”

I wrote, in a post agreeing with the decision both ethically and legally,

Continue reading →

“Welcome Summer!” Open Forum

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Last week on YouTube’s “The Morning Meeting,” Mark Halperin and Dan Turrentine appeared to acknowledge Ethics Alarms’ “Julie Principle.” They just didn’t know what it was called.

President Trump had delivered the commencement address at West Point while wearing a red MAGA cap (Oh NOOOO! He’s violating “norms” again!) and on Monday published a Memorial Day Truth Social post like some of his previous holiday wishes—you know, one of his “Merry Christmas, you filthy animal!” style shots. Halperin noted that many Democratic critics and pundits, right on cue, were freaking out.

“If you read [historian] Heather Cox Richardson or the emails and texts I get from my Democratic sources, as I said before, the Trump administration’s over. And it’s just a bankrupt, you know, corrupt mess and he’s already a failed president and he’s not getting anything done. That’s their point of view. They also are very taken with his wearing a MAGA hat … to give … a West Point graduation speech,” Halperin said. “They’re taken with his tweet, his Truth Social post, saying ‘Happy Memorial Day’ and criticizing Joe Biden. And they’re back to a Adam Schiffian and [biased and Trump Deranged historian] Heather Cox Richardson point of view, which is everything Trump does is an epic disaster and that the American people will turn on him and Republicans in the midterms because he’s impolite.”

Continue reading →

I’ve Been Looking For an Excuse to Note the Passing of Harrison Ruffin Tyler, and I Finally Found One…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Harrison Tyler was the grandson of John Tyler, our tenth President of “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” fame, who became President when William Henry Harrison died. When my late wife Grace and I were on our honeymoon, we met Harrison Tyler as we toured Sherwood Forest, the Tyler family home and plantation. He was still working as a chemical engineer at the time. I knew that Tyler had many offspring and was still spawning them in his 60s, but I found it astounding that his grandson was still among us. John Tyler was 63 when son Lyon Gardiner Tyler was born, and Lyon was 75 when Harrison was born.

The ethics connection popped up in Ann Althouse’s post about Harrison Tyler, who died on Memorial Day. She quoted from a biography of Tyler that called him a racist. One of Ann’s astute commenters criticized the label as injecting “a kind of modern commentary” into a biography of a 19th Century historical figure. Ann bristled at that, writing that the conduct so described was “out and proud racism” and asking, “You think that’s modern commentary”?

Another commenter slapped Ann down decisively. “The Oxford English Dictionary’s first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902,” the commenter wrote. “Yes, I think labeling the mindset of an 1840’s person using a word that wasn’t in their vocabulary is an author’s intrusion.” Yet another commenter wrote, “Racism was the water people swam in back then.”

Bingo. At a time when blacks were almost universally believed to be an inferior sub-species of human, “racism” as we now define it didn’t exist. Calling a President in the 1840s a racist is like saying that physicians who practiced bleeding in the 18th century engaged in medical malpractice. It’s presentism.

I’m surprised Althouse fell into that trap.