Government & Politics

Ethics Quiz: The Problem of the Buried Video

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

"He stole my vote!"

The video is meaningless. It shows college student Barry Obama speaking at a 1991 rally for radical college professor Derek Bell. At one point, the future president hugs Bell. So what you say? No kidding. That doesn’t mean that the anti-Obama truth squad wouldn’t try to make something out of it; indeed, they are now. The video has surfaced as Andrew Breitbart’s farewell poke in the eye to Democrats, and it’s not much of a poke.

The only interesting aspect of the tape is that Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree said that he had the video and buried it during the 2008 campaign.  “I hid this during the 2008 campaign,” Ogletree said. “I don’t care if they find it now.”

Your Ethics Quiz: Is it unethical for an individual to hide theoretically damaging material relating to a presidential candidate he favors until after the election, if the material in fact contains nothing that would affect the vote of any individual with  intelligence superior to that of the average civic-minded horseshoe crab?

My answer: Definitely. I don’t care whether the information is extra-marital affairs, drug use, a DUI or appearing at a frat party in a tutu. No one has the right to withhold information, even stupid and useless information, from the media and electorate.  If the information is relevant, then the public has a right to know about it. If it isn’t, as this tape appears to be, then why hide it? If the tape was intentionally kept from the public, the conduct can’t be defended on the basis that it did no harm—the intent was to do harm. If one person would have changed his vote because he doesn’t want a President who ever hugged Derek Bell, even though that person is probably a fool, no one had no right to take away that vote through deception.

It’s all hypothetical, apparently, because Prof. Ogletree has explained that his “confession” was a joke, and was understood as such when he made it, if not reported that way. [Thanks to Barry Deutch for the link.]

So nobody hid anything, and those those horseshoe crabs who voted for Obama weren’t deceived after all.

Ethics Train Wreck Extra: the Lawyer, the Advisor, and the Kennedy

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

The faith-based institution mandate set the train on its fateful journey,  Rush Limbaugh sent a second locomotive into the stalled caboose after the first train jumped the track, and box cars are still tumbling in all directions:

  • Robert Kennedy, Jr., senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and co-host of the nationally syndicated weekly talk radio show “Ring of Fire”, picked now to tweet this, which rapidly went viral on the internet:

Didn’t we just hear the ladies of The View explain that a word is a word, and it didn’t matter which gender was on the delivering or receiving end of “slut”? Is anyone calling for Kennedy to apologize for using the same uncivil language that has Rush Limbaugh in hot water? In fact, Kennedy’s verbiage is distinguishable: it is directed at a Senator, not a law student; calling a man, especially a politician, a prostitute is not as provocative as using that term to describe a woman, no matter what Whoopi says; Kennedy is clearly using the term metaphorically (so was Limbaugh, but it was too close for comfort, since the topic was sex); and, as one conservative wag said, call girls are classier than sluts. All true, and yet the willingness of Kennedy to use similar terms of denigration in public while the Right is pointing to Bill Maher and shouting hypocrisy indicates one of two things, and maybe both: 1) Kennedy is so confident that a double standard is in play that he feels completely comfortable in rubbing everyone’s face in it, or 2) this is just further proof of the generational dilution of talent, intelligence and skill in the Kennedy clan. Yes, I think “both” is fair. Continue reading →

Leroy Fick, Meet the Honorary “Ms. Fick 2012.” On Second Thought, Don’t.

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Amanda Fick, er, Clayton

Following in the despicable footsteps of Leroy Fick, the  Michigan millionaire lottery winner who collects food stamps because of a loop-hole in the law (and whose name, “fick,” has made the Ethics Alarms glossary as the word for someone who is willfully, openly and shameless unethical), here comes a Ms. Fick, a.k.a Amanda Clayton. She says that she is entitled to food stamps despite having two homes and a million dollar lottery prize that will leave her with $500,000 in the bank. No need for me to be creative here; what went for the Original Fick goes for her as well:

“What ethical principle doesn’t his conduct violate? He’s not responsible; he’s not accountable; he’s not fair. He doesn’t respect his fellow citizens or their opinions. He’s not loyal to his state or his community. He’s not compassionate, and I wouldn’t trust him to walk my dog: he’d probably sell him.  Is he honest? Applying for food stamps is an act that declares that you need them to eat, because that’s the only reason they exist: Leroy Fick isn’t honest.”

Ditto the honorary Ms. Fick, 2012, Amanda Clayton. And if there are any eugenics practitioners out there, please try to keep these ficks from ever getting together. That’s all Michigan needs…a litter of little Ficks.

Thanks to tgt for the tip.

Ethics Train Wreck Chronicles: Villains, Victims, Hypocrites and Unlikely Heroes In the Contraception / Limbaugh / Fluke Debacle

/ Jack Marshall / 66 Comments

If this isn’t the Ethics Train Wreck of the Year, we have something truly horrible in store for us down the line. A no-so-brief brief re-cap:

  • The Obama Administration announces that church-run institutions like hospitals and universities will still be required to offer insurance coverage for abortions, sterilizations and other medical matters that might be in direct opposition to church beliefs. It’s a cynical move, designed to cater to the Democratic base at the expense of religious institutions. It is also irresponsible, since it jeopardizes the huge proportion of medical services performed by church institutions.
  • Conservatives scream that the measure is a breach of religious freedom. The is either ignorant or a lie. The Constitution has no provision requiring the government to make special accommodations for churches or church-operated institutions.
  • Caught by surprise by the intensity of the backlash, the Administration crafts a “compromise,” which is essentially deceitful sleight-of-hand, form over substance. The insurance companies now have to provide those services but the religious institutions don’t have to pay for it. But of course they will, through increased premiums elsewhere.
  • Flagging the deceit, Republican attacks on the measure continue. Democrats successfully frame the debate as a conservative attack on contraception, which it is a misrepresentation, and a “war on women,” which is ridiculous and unfair. The issue is churches being forced to provide or pay for services that violate their faith—which the government has every right to do.
  • The controversy activates GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who is a fringe extremist in sexual matters and toes the Roman Catholic line. He really thinks birth control is immoral. This position, which is unethical, is suddenly given exposure it doesn’t deserve in the 21st Century Continue reading →

Newt Gingrich’s Desperate, Dishonest, Irresponsible Pitch

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

In 1960 the better hair beat the better debater. Maybe Newt's basing his strategy on his hair.

I heard it again on a radio ad for Newt yesterday, and decided that it was unfair to slam him for it, because the sponsor was his Super Pac, and we all know that (cough!) Super Pacs have no contact with the candidates they support. Then, last night, Gingrich made the argument himself, and not for the first time. The reason Newt Gingrich should be the Republican nominee for President is that he is the one best equipped to trounce Barack Obama in the debates.

“Wouldn’t it be great if we had our smartest guy going head to head against their smartest guy in the debates?” the perky actress playing a Newt supporter ( a dumb Newt supporter) said in the ad. “ “Newt would win for sure!”

The ad, please note, said absolutely nothing about whether Gingrich had any skills actually relevant to being President of the United States, and never said what his policies would be or how he would govern. Newt himself has talked about these things, but in the end he too boils his pitch down to one asset: He’s a better debater than Barack Obama. And the proper responses to that are, in order,

Super Tuesday Confirmation Bias Lesson, Or Why We Can Never Trust Media Analysis

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Checking the Republican primary results as Super Tuesday neared an end, I got an unexpected demonstration of confirmation bias in the news media, so vivid that it could be used in an educational video.

On CNN, John King, Gloria Borgia and the gang were analyzing the razor-close contest in Ohio, widely regarded as a must-win for Rick Santorum, just as Mitt Romney seemed to be pulling ahead for good. Welcome news for Romney? Not so fast!

Gloria Borger, whose contempt for all things Republican is always writ large on her face and unmistakably expressed by her tones of disdain (Does she even attempt to appear objective? It doesn’t seem so, as her demeanor when discussing GOP politics always suggests to me that she thinks she is covering some kind of demeaning novelty event, like a four-poster bed race or a dwarf-bowling, that the audience knows as well as she does is a colossal waste of time), vigorously took the floor and emphasized that Romney was winning in the very communities where Democrats were strongest, and losing to Santorum where Republicans usually did well. This, she said, eyes rolling (“I can’t believe I’m here talking about Republicans when I could be home watching a repeat of ‘Big Bang Theory!'”) showed that Romney would be in likely trouble if he were the nominee in November, since his strength would be wasted in Democratic strongholds and he wouldn’t be getting the support of the blue-collar types that a Republican presidential hopeful couldn’t win Ohio without. “To illustrate Gloria’s point,” King interjected, and then produced a computer graphic showing Romney’s fatally flawed vote patterns. Everyone nodded sagely. Mitt’s victory in Ohio showed that he was a loser.

Meanwhile, over at Fox, they were discussing the exact same phenomenon. Local politics maven Michael Barone weighed in, and said that this could bode well for Romney in November. John McCain, though losing Ohio in 2008, still “cleaned up” in the blue color districts, noted Barone, so even though Santorum was beating Romney there tonight, they could be still counted upon to go Mitt’s way in 2012 when Obama was the opposition. Meanwhile, the well-educated, wealthier areas that gave Barack Obama the critical swing state’s electoral votes that year have in the past swung Republican, and Mitt’s showing with that group tonight just might indicate that he could seriously cut into Obama’s strength, taking the state red. And Michale Barone knows his stuff, the Fox-ites gushed. Continue reading →

Is Obama Ethically Obligated To Reject Bill Maher’s Million? Don’t Be Ridiculous!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Classy, Bill...but don't worry, your money's still good, even if you aren't.

Confirming the Ethics Train Wreck status of the church-run institutions/health care/ religious freedom/contraceptives coverage/Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke mess, the Weekly Standard and other conservative pundits are playing the hypocrisy card and arguing that if Limbaugh is so reprehensible, then the Obama super-pac should apply the same standards to serial misogynist Bill Maher and return his recent $1 million contribution.

Idiots. As long as campaign contributions aren’t the fruits of a crime, the whole concept of rejecting “dirty money” is silly beyond belief. Do Republicans really want to stand for the proposition that only contributions from the pure of heart and word can be accepted by those running for office? Jerks like Bill Maher have rights too; he should have the same opportunity to support political candidates of his choice no matter what offensive and crude things he says to his cheering lap dog audiences on HBO. Politicians are not accountable for the character, words, beliefs and misdeeds of his supporters, nor should they be. This is not a standard that Republicans, of all people, want to establish. Nor should any of us.

Absolutely: Democrats and feminists who are furious at Limbaugh’s despicable misogyny  show themselves as hypocrites by appearing on Maher’s show. But his money is as good as anybody’s, and he has not forfeited his right to support candidates of his choosing. Nobody should be trying to take that away from him.

Taking A Stand On Privacy, As Ethics Alarms Go Silent

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

"Oh, all right---as long as I get that job."

The cultural consensus on the boundaries of personal privacy are eroding more quickly than I imagined. There are a lot of reasons for this: the intrusions of technology, increased government intrusiveness as part of anti-terror measures, utilitarian calculations that conclude that privacy should be sacrificed for supposedly more worthy objectives, like preventing bullying, or discouraging sexism and anti-gay attitudes. Whatever the reasons, it is crucial that society puts the brakes on, hard, or George Orwell’s nightmare will arrive remarkably intact, just a few decades late.

A stunning report on the MSNBC blog Red Tape reveals that some state agencies are routinely requiring job applicants, as a condition of employment, to provide full access to their social networking accounts so their otherwise private communications can be monitored. Equally disturbing, college athletes at many colleges are being required to “friend” a coach or other university personnel, who can keep tabs on what the student is posting. From the University of North Carolina handbook: Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Sandra Fluke

/ Jack Marshall / 60 Comments

Made for each other.

Well, now the jig is up on Sandra Fluke. Yes, she was the victim of Rush Limbaugh’s gross verbal assault. But she rejected his apology, which was direct and unequivocal, saying…

“I don’t think that a statement like this issued, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything, and especially when that statement is issued when he’s under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support.”

So now we know who and what Rush’s adversary and momentary victim is. She is a steely-eyed activist who isn’t interested in mutual dialogue, fair play or civil discourse, only ideological victory. She thinks she has America’s most popular conservative pundit on the ropes, so she refuses to be gracious and to match an apology with acknowledgment and forgiveness. In this she reveals herself as no different from Limbaugh, who never gives a thought to fairness or courtesy to his perceived opponents. He sees his job as the destruction of “the bad guys.” So does she. Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: Slate’s J. Bryan Lowder

/ Jack Marshall / 41 Comments

“What’s more interesting is his complete refusal to recognize that the uproar around his statements isn’t just about name-calling, but rather his offensive misunderstanding of the importance and uses of birth control. As I wrote on Friday, Fluke’s own testimony was not about her sex life, but rather the painful experience of watching a friend who was forced to have an ovary removed because she couldn’t afford the pill, which, of course, has many medical uses aside from contraception. Many women depend on birth control, not for “social activities,” but for their basic health. And it is in light of his abject ignorance of female biology that Limbaugh’s willingness to demean a woman becomes truly outrageous. This apology only brings that ignorance into sharper relief”

—-Slate blogger J. Bryan Lowder, arguing that the outrage over Rush Limbaugh’s attack on law student Sandra Fluke was not just  because of his cruel and inappropriate denigration.

"Yeah, yeah, the name-calling wasn't cool, but what really ticks us off is that you don't acknowledge that we're right and you're wrong!"

Perhaps I ought to applaud Lowder for his candor, but if sincere, then this is an admission that some of the furious effort to punish and silence Limbaugh is motivated by his opposition to Fluke’s position—that contraception must be paid for in church-run institution health plans. Reminding readers that I a) wrote that the Administration was correct to require such institutions to obey the current laws like everyone else, and b) believe that Limbaugh crossed all lines of decency, fairness and civility in his attacks on Fluke, I find Lowder’s statement a blatant admission that he and his political allies aim to purge dissenting opinions from the media and the public square through intimidation, as well as a confession that the outrage over Rush’s insults was, at least by those who think like the blogger, a cover for the real objective: punishing someone for not bowing to progressive cant. Continue reading →