Government & Politics

In New York, Dishonest Progressive Math: Not Charging Commuters As Much As Was Originally Proposed Saves Them Money

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

What is this? Gaslighting? Misdirection? Whatever it is, it’s unethical.

But typical.

“I always have and I always will fight to put more money in the pockets of everyday New Yorkers,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said, as she imposed a new 9 dollar commuter toll on New Yorkers who drive into the Manhattan business district. How is a new toll that will go into effect in January 2025 for the first tine saving New Yorkers money by putting more money in their pockets? It isn’t.

Follow closely, now. The original “NYC congestion plan” was supposed to cost $15 when it was proposed, but the plan was suspended by Hochul until after the election, because she was afraid it would cost her party votes. Now that the election is safely over in the state, she’s reinstating the plan, but at a lower cost. Nonetheless, lowering the cost of a new state expense being imposed on commuters isn’t putting more money in anyone’s pocket but the state’s. The new toll takes money away from commuters, just not as much money as was originally announced.

I’m not evaluating whether the toll is a responsible and fair policy; I don’t care. I do care about the apparently never-ending “It isn’t what it is” addiction of elected officials who try their damnedest to confuse and mislead the public. Hochul is literally saying to the public, “Be grateful that I’m not taking more of your money than I might. Why, it’s almost like I am giving you money!”

No, charging commuters more than nothing, which is what they had been paying to come into Manhattan, is taking money, not giving it. War is Peace, and the state taking your money is putting money in your pocket, because it could be taking even more.

Got it.

______________
Sources: NYT 1, 2, and 3.

An Arizona Judge Does The Right Thing And Recuses, But Not Until He Shows That Bias Has Made Him Stupid…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

What does it say about a judge’s competence and judicial temperament when he can’t restrain himself from posting attacks on conservatives while presiding over a politically-charged trial? It says, I think, “Time to retire!” In the case at hand, it also said; “Your recusal light is flashing.”

Maricopa County Judge Bruce Cohen, the judge overseeing Arizona’s case against allies of Once and Future President Donald Trump based on their alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, recused himself last week after it was revealed that he had emailed colleagues urging them to speak out against conservative attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 campaign.

In an email sent to fellow judicial officers on August 29, Cohen criticized those who labeled Harris a “DEI hire” and said he was “sickened” when Fox News host Jesse Watters said on air that if she were elected, she would “get paralyzed in the Situation Room while the generals have their way with her.”

“White men…must speak out,” he wrote in the email, which was obtained by state Rep. Travis Grantham (R) and reported by local news media. Based on the email, one of the defendants’ lawyers called for his dismissal. Based on that email I conclude that the call for the judge’s recusal was a proper response. Even if the message didn’t prove that he would be biased against the pro-Trump defendants, it definitely proves he is incapable of processing information, either because bias has made him stupid, age has crippled his faculties, or because he was dumb to begin with.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

[And with this, Frank Drebbin becomes the first star of an Ethics Alarms film clip to be featured in consecutive posts!]

Speaker Mike Johnson is saying he does not think the House Ethics report into the conduct of Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz should be released, even though Gaetz must face a Senate confirmation hearing. “I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report, because that is not the way we do things in the House,” Johnson said. “And I think that would be a terrible precedent to set.”

“The rules of the House have always been that a former member is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee,” Johnson said, when asked if the public has a right to see the report. “And so I don’t think that’s relevant.”

Of course the report is relevant. In fact, what the report contains is essential to determining whether President Trump has nominated a pedophile, criminal drug users and general slimeball as the nation’s top lawyer or not. “That is not the way we do things in the House” is no argument at all. How many times as a member of Congress been nominated for Attorney General with an ethics investigation pending? “Never”is the answer, so “how they do thing in the House” in this situation will be decided by the House. The House has a duty to the American people first, not to its members, or in Gaetz’s case, non-members. It wouldn’t be a terrible precedent—why does Johnson think that? For the House to willfully withhold relevant information from a Senate confirmation hearing for a key position in a President’s Cabinet would be the terrible precedent. Johnson’s position looks like part of a cover-up operation.

Now, if Gaetz were really a trustworthy and admirable nominee, he would publicly request that the Hose Ethics Committee release the results of their inquiry, since there wouldn’t be anything damning in it.

But he isn’t, so he won’t, because there is.

Why Doesn’t The New York Times Think Kamala Harris Paying For Al Sharpton and Oprah To Give Her Suck-Up Interviews Is “Fit To Print”?

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Apparently the lessons of the past election are not sinking in for many as quickly as some thought.

Since the election, it has been confirmed that the Harris campaign paid Oprah Winfrey’s production company Harpo a million dollars for the elaborate event including Winfrey’s fawning interview of Harris on stage, and that it paid Al Sharpton’s National Action Network a half-million dollars before Sharpton did his Harrs interview. This is unethical. It is cheating. To the extent that the interviews were  journalism ( Winfrey used to be a journalist and is still accorded the credibility and status of one, Sharpton pretends to be a journalist rather than what he is, a race-hustler, on MNBC) accepting such payments create a conflict of interest and a breach of journalism ethics. Even if they are not technically unethical journalism, the lack of transparency is.

Continue reading →

Three Arrogant Pundits, One Crippling Delusion

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

The delusion is that the American people are stupid.

I easily could have written “hundreds of pundits” instead of three, but these three, CNN’s Michael Smerconish, often said to be the most fair and objective of CNN’s talking heads, which tells you something, the New York Times’ David Brooks, once an arrogant, pseudo-intellectual neocon conservative and now a fully indoctrinated Stockholm Syndrome progressive rationalizer, and Times guest Trump-basher Roger Rosenblatt, a writer of some note.

I read about Smerconish last night, and his assertion irritated me the most of all. His theory about why Harris lost and Trump won was based on what he calls “The Boomerang Effect,” “I don’t want it all distilled into this one sound bite or conclusion, but at the top of my list, I’ll say it that way … It’s like a parenting lesson. The more that you tell people what they can’t do, what’s intolerable, you must not do this, you should not do this, the more they’re going to rebel,” Smerconish said. “Maybe they would have ultimately come to their own conclusion and rejected Donald Trump. I don’t know. But I think that the constant browbeating and the combination of the media influence and the four indictments, one conviction, and showing that god-awful joke from Madison Square Garden a week in advance of the election on a loop — and I felt it, and I said it.” He went on, “I can’t sit here, Aiden, telling you, well, this is the way I called the election, but I definitely felt the potential for a boomerang effect, and I think that came true. I really do.”

Translation: “The American people are like children, and we superior intellects in the news media must lead them in such a way that the poor, ignorant, foolish dears think they are coming to their own conclusions.”

I was immediately reminded of song from the musical “The Fantastiks,” in which two father muse about the complexities of parenting. It’s called “Don’t Say No.” Sample lyrics:

“Why did the kids put beans in their ears?
No one can hear with beans in their ears.
After a while the reason appears.
They did it cause we said no.”

It never occurred to Smerconish, or any of the myriad other pundits who bias has made so stupid that they are useless, that the public, or enough of them to prove Abe right again, voted after correctly evaluating the issues, the choices offered to them and alternative courses for the nation going forward. No, they only voted for Trump because the Axis propaganda was too aggressive. After all, voting for Hitler is like putting beans in your ears.

Next up we have David Brooks. I’m sick of reading Brooks, who masks a simplistic view of politics with psychobabble that some might take and complex analysis. I have to give Ann Althouse a pointer for flagging his column titled ““Why We Got It So Wrong.” Ann writes, “If you were “so wrong” before, why would I look to you for right answers now?” Heh. She says she just skimmed it. I read the whole thing.

Continue reading →

Dear Ashli: You Do Know That What You Are Advocating Is Pure Bigotry, Right?

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The self-indicting that is arising from the 2024 Election Freakout has nicely exposed the hypocrisy behind the progressive masks of decency and virtue. Let’s listen to Ashli, the lovely young thing above, who has enthusiastically embraced the South Korean “4B Movement.”  The name ‘4B’ comes from the Korean words for four ‘Nos’: no heterosexual sex, no marriage, no children, and no relationships, all starting with the letter ‘b.’ Her journey is described in a revealing piece in the Daily Mail.

The brutal murder of a woman in a subway station by a man who reportedly said he was ‘sick of being ignored by women.’ sparked the ptotest by many Korean women against all men. That seems fair and logical. No, in fact it makes no sense at all, but it does to Ashli.  “Out of this tragedy, a wave of female anger turned into action. Women took control of their lives,” she writes. I’ve come to the conclusion that men can be dangerous. That’s why, two years ago at the age of 34, I chose to disengage from men entirely.

She gives her reasons. “I knew so many women who were hurt by the men they loved and trusted. Men they vowed to love and who vowed to love them. Men they slept next to at night.” Then, “the overturning of Roe cemented everything I already knew. Five justices—four of them men—decided we didn’t deserve control over our own bodies. The new MAGA Republican Party, with its hyper-masculine, power-hungry grip, cheered it on.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Maori MP Protest

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Wow. Now THAT’s a protest!

New Zealand’s Parliament was temporarily suspended yesterday when Māori lawmakers suddenly launched into a haka, a traditional group dance. It was intended to demonstrated the nation’s Indigenous people’s community’s passionate objections to a bill that would reinterpret the country’s founding treaty with the Maoris.

When the proposal was read, and Māori lawmaker Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was asked how her party, Te Pāti Māori, would vote on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. The response was what you see above.

‘So, you’re not in favor of it, then?”

Other opposition members joined the performance on the floor, and onlooker is the gallery also started dancing. The chamber’s speaker, Gerry Brownlee, temporarily stopped the session. Maipi-Clarke was suspended over the protest.

I’m not going to get in the high weeds of the bill, but will only present…

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day, which is…

Was this an unethical demonstration—disrespectful, disruptive, and a breach of proper decorum—or an ethical one?

I am decidedly undecided on this one. I sure don’t want to give AOC any ideas. The routine was cool, though, and effective.

On the Other Hand (As Capt. Hook Liked to Say), There Are Columnists Like The Appropriately Named Sabrina Haake….

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

Once again, I find myself asking, how can an alleged opinion writer issue utter crap like this and live with herself? How can a newspaper justify publishing it, or pay someone so dishonest or rock-dumb to write it? How can anyone with two brain cells to rub together read it and say, “Duhh..yup! Sound’s right to me!“?

This fraudulent authority is a trial lawyer who claims to specialize in First Amendment cases, though her screed here tells us that she doesn’t get that free speech thingy. Sabrina is also a failed Democratic candidate for Congress. Her essay is called, “Trump didn’t win; disinformation did.” If I didn’t write an ethics blog, that headline alone would be sufficient for me to eschew the pleasure of reading it.

Just listen (well, metaphorically) to this woman…

Continue reading →

Fact: Matt Gaetz Really Is the Worst Nomination For Attorney General In U.S. History [Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

For once, the over-the-top criticism of a Trump decision is completely justified, and maybe even understated. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), just nominated by the President-Elect to be his Attorney General, has no legitimate qualifications for the job at all, which requires managing a 115,000-person agency. He has no management experience. He has no prosecutorial experience. He is a licensed lawyer, but has very little legal practice experience. No previous Attorney General, going back to Edmund Randolph, Washington’s first AG, had such a sparse legal resume. Randolph had been governor of Virginia.

I am more qualified to be the Attorney General than Matt Gaetz, and I can think of many personal friends and colleagues who are more qualified for the job than I am. If I threw a rock into a cocktail reception at the D.C. Bar, I would hit a more qualified lawyer.

Continue reading →

Two Stupid Questions and One Damning Answer

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

If there areany lingering doubt about why the news media has no credibility with the American people and its influence is diminishing like an ice cube left of the sidewalk on a hot summer’s day, ponder these two questions at yesterday’s White House press briefing.

#1. TIME’s correspondent Brian Bennett asked the President’s incompetent paid liar, “President Trump has promised to launch the largest deportation in American history when he becomes president. Are there steps that President Biden is taking in the next 70 days to try to protect certain populations in the United States from deportation? Does he want to extend parole or take other steps that would protect people from that deportation?”

Good one, Brian. “What steps is the President taking to prevent President Trump from enforcing laws that his administration has refused to enforce?” To members of our woke journalistic cabal, this makes perfect sense.

#2. Bloomberg’s Skylar Woodhouse asked, “President-elect Trump — there’s reports that Elon Musk is having a lot of sway in terms of his decisions, in terms of who President-elect Trump is, you know, having come into his administration, sitting in on meetings with — with foreign leaders, and Elon Musk has said, you know, there’s parts that he wants to sort of reshape maybe the government. Is President Biden concerned at all over Elon Musk’s influence over President-elect Trump and potentially what that could look like for our country?”

Continue reading →