History

On President Biden’s Unethical Apology

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Barack Obama was the all-time champion of cynical, politically motivated Presidential “apologies.” It’s election time, though: the Democrats are in trouble, and clearly some bright propagandist assisting those faceless apparatchiks pulling poor Joe’s strings suggested that what the hell, it couldn’t hurt to have Biden grovelling to Native Americans right now.

It was a loud and angry grovel: Joe was shouting into the mic for some reason, telling the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona in part,

“The federal government has never, never formally apologized for what happened, until today. I formally apologize as president of the United States of America for what we did. I formally apologize. I have a solemn responsibility to be the first president to formally apologize to the Native people. It’s long, long, long overdue. Quite frankly, there’s no excuse this apology took 50 years to make….One of the most horrific chapters of the American history. We should be ashamed. The vast majority of Americans don’t know about it.” 

Bite me. Biden probably didn’t know about it until he was told that he was making the speech. This was his first diplomatic visit to a tribal nation in his four-year term. Gee, what a coinkydink that it came right before an election! He should be ashamed to engage in such obvious pandering, but the shame threshold of his party is at an all-time high right now. Have you noticed?

Let’s look at everything wrong with this “apology”:

Continue reading →

Link Misinformation and Deceit

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

In the previous post, a link on “ludicrous and incompetent campaign” will take readers to an excellent Manhattan Contrarian essay documenting how Kamala Harris’s deliberately non-substantive campaign is the most “unserious” Presidential run in American history. That means that it is an honest link, doing what a link to another source is supposed to do: provide reference and authority.

This morning, I was reading Nate Silver’s Bulletin on substack. Nate, who is unalterably left-biased but tries really hard to pretend he’s not, was musing about Trump being too old to be running for President (he’s right about that) and gives us this sentence, with a link: “Considering the long history of old presidents seeking to hold onto power when they were clearly diminished — there were many such cases before Trump and Joe Biden — we should probably just have a Constitutional amendment that says a president can’t be older than 75 on Inauguration Day.”

“Really?” I thought. I think I’m a reasonably thorough and informed student of the American Presidency, and I’m not aware of “many such cases” before Biden. In fact, I can think of just one: FDR, who unforgivably ran for a fourth term in 1944 knowing that he was dying of heart failure. Roosevelt wasn’t particularly old, either: he was 63 when he died.

Seeking enlightenment from Silver on this fascinating topic, I clicked on the link. The link (to another Silver essay) does not show us “many cases” of “old” and “clearly diminished” Presidents seeking to hold on to office. It doesn’t give any examples other than Woodrow Wilson (he doesn’t mention FDR), and Silver’s evidence that Wilson was “seeking” to “hold onto office” before his stroke is like Obama once musing about how nice it would be to have a third term. Wilson told someone he thought he could win another term (he couldn’t). Silver also mentions Truman, who was neither decrepit nor diminished when he left office at 69. Until the Great Depression and World War II allowed Roosevelt—who would have kept running for more terms until he dropped, a true American dictator— to break the unwritten rule against more than two terms set by George Washington’s precedent, officially seeking a third elected term was taboo.

So Silver’s link falsely informed readers that there was authority for the statement it was linked to, and there was not. I should have written about the misleading link practice before, because it is increasingly common and it is unethical. I see it in the New York Times and the Washington Post; I see it on other blogs and substacks. Oh, the links don’t always go to sources that don’t fit the link description, that’s why the deceptive practice works.

False-linkers know that most people don’t click on links; they want to read one post, not two or five. So when they see Nate’s link on “many such cases,” they assume, reasonably enough, that the link will show them many such cases, and that’s all they want to know: Nate isn’t making this up. See, there’s a link to his source!

But he was making it up, and the link doesn’t support his assertion in the the post containing the link.

Link deceit is just an internet version of an earlier version of the practice that still is common: footnotes in scholarly works and case sites in legal documents that are not really what a reader will assume they are. I have a book right here on my desk, a historical tome, that has over 700 footnotes, many of them with nothing more than a book or published paper title and an author. I assume, with such footnotes, that they indicate there is authority for what the book author has written, but I won’t usually check the source footnoted. Almost nobody will. However, in the past, when writing my own scholarly articles, I have checked footnoted references, and sometime discovered that they were like Silver’s link—not what they were represented as supporting by the author. I am told by litigators that it is shocking how many cases cited in the memos and briefs they read contain cites that don’t stand for what the cite’s placement suggests, or in some instances, cites to cases that don’t exist.

Scholars do this at some risk: you never know when a Christoper Rufo might be checking on you. Lawyers doing it risk serious ethics sanctions. The journalists, bloggers and pundits who use this deceit, however, figure that the risks are minimal: if they are caught, they just say “Oopsie! I made a mistake!” and move on to the next article…and more misleading links.

Unethical (And Stupid) Columbus Day Quote of the Decade: Kamala Harris

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

“European explorers ushered in a wave of devastation, violence, stealing land, and widespread disease.”

—Kamala Harris in 2021, pandering to the “America is a blight on the Earth and the world would have been better without it” bloc in the Democratic Party  in a Columbus Day address.

Boy, what an idiot.

But to be fair to Kamala, I’m sure she would now say that she loves Columbus, and grew up in a middle class neighborhood.

What the European explorers ushered in was discovery, freedom from religious oppression, innovation, progress, and let’s just to cut to the chase, civilization. Had there been no United States, Harris and her relatives would probably be grease spots or serving as Nazi slaves today. But never mind, why should a basic comprehension of history, science and anthropology get it the way of a candidate for President of the United States vilifying the nation she aspires to lead? When does her campaign start handing out the “Make America Primitive Again” caps?

Glenn Reynolds wrote today in part,

“I recommend Samuel Eliot Morison’s Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus which takes a somewhat different position. Here’s an excerpt:

“At the end of 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. . . .Yet, even as the chroniclers of Nuremberg were correcting their proofs from Koberger’s press, a Spanish caravel named Nina scudded before a winter gale into Lisbon with news of a discovery that was to give old Europe another chance. In a few years we find the mental picture completely changed. Strong monarchs are stamping out privy conspiracy and rebellion; the Church, purged and chastened by the Protestant Reformation, puts her house in order; new ideas flare up throughout Italy, France, Germany and the northern nations; faith in God revives and the human spirit is renewed. The change is complete and startling: A new envisagement of the world has begun, and men are no longer sighing after the imaginary golden age that lay in the distant past, but speculating as to the golden age that might possibly lie in the oncoming future.

“Christopher Columbus belonged to an age that was past, yet he became the sign and symbol of this new age of hope, glory and accomplishment. His medieval faith impelled him to a modern solution: Expansion.”

Morison’s book is superb, and I recommend it highly as an antidote to the simplistic anti-occidental prejudice of today…”

Kamala Harris is an embarrassment.

On the Bight Side, at Least the Coach Didn’t Order Them To Jump Out a Window…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I guess I understand how this could happen, but I don’t want to.

Student cheerleaders at Evans Middle School in Lubbock, Texas displeased their cheerleading coach by doing the “wrong cheer,” whatever than means, and she disciplined them by ordering the girls to do “bear crawls” and “crab walks” for miles on an outdoor track when in was nearly 100 degrees in Lubbock and the temperature on the track was well over a hundred. Some of the girls became sick under the sun, all of the cheerleaders ended up with first and second degree burns on their hands and knees, and at least one had to go to a burn center.

When they complained that the track was painful, the coach reportedly said that she didn’t care, and to keep crawling. Parents are furious, naturally, and the evil teacher has been placed on leave (she should be prosecuted—Special query for Humble Talent: Would it be unethical for me to add, “and should be shot”?), but what bothers me is that none of the girls had the sense, character and courage to refuse to accept the cruel punishment, and when the coach said that those who didn’t “crab walk” on the hot track would jeopardize their “cheer careers” (Remember, this is Texas, aka. Bizarro World), at least one girl—we would call her a “leader”—didn’t say, “Well take this cheer and shove it, I’m out of here!,” stop crawling, and walk away on her feet. Movie fans of the original “Carrie” will recall that the protagonist’s chief foe refused to do push-ups as her gym teacher’s punishment for mocking her vulnerable classmate in the shower. That character is a jerk, but she is a gutsy jerk.

Continue reading →

This Will Not End Well…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I know I have written about this general phenomenon before, but my sense of urgency is increasing.

Today, while walking Spuds on a gorgeous, sunny, breezy Northern Virginia day, I saw two young boys sitting near a field under a tree, They looked to be 10 or 11, maybe older. I watched them for almost 20 minutes: I was fascinated. They were within a foot of each other, and never said a word or looked up…from their smart phones.

The internet is the most stunning example of a technological development having unanticipated and in many ways devastating effects on society and culture at least since radio, yes, I think even more television. A close second, however, is the cell phone.

I remember as a kid the constant refrain from my parents was that it was a beautiful day and that I should go outside and “play” instead of watching TV. I’m pretty sure I watched more TV than most kids then, but I also did a lot of stuff outside with my friends. And we talked to each other—about our parents and siblings, our neighbors, cool things we had read, yes, TV episodes, movies, the Red Sox, girls, school, and our dreams. We even talked about politics. It is amazing how many groups of children and especially teenagers I see hanging out but not saying a word to each other, because they are texting, or following social media, or staring at little screens for other reasons.

I was trying to imagine “Stand by Me” with cell phones. All of those adventures, intimate conversations, fanciful exchanges and the rest wouldn’t happen today. Gordy and his pals would just stare at their “devices” and never get to know each other at all. They would have shallow friendships, shalllow experiences, and grow up to be shallow adults.

One of the half-completed posts that has been sitting stalled on the EA metaphorical runway for years has been an essay on life competencies. No doubt about it: mastering new technology is one of those crucial life skills, but so is learning to communicate verbally, recognize a person’s moods and body language, and to learn to function and thrive “unplugged.” For all their many advantages, the cell phones that dominate our children’s attention—and ours, but that’s another set of issues—are crippling them. They are growing up lacking the ability to reason with each other, argue, inspire, learn, flirt—so much more.

I would advocate parents forcing their kids to surrender phones when they leave the house “to play,” but modern parents are terrified that a phoneless child will be preyed upon by the evils that lurk outside. I would advocate limiting smartphone time, or making minors settle for actual phones and not wield mini-computers, but that horse has left the barn too.

This is a social pathogen, and one would think it could be flagged as such and dealt with. I have no idea how we can do that now. One of the Ethics Alarms mottoes is “Fix the problem!” What the consequences will be if we don’t, I am incapable of prognosticating.

But they won’t be good.

All The Unethical Journalist’s Gossip: Bob Woodward’s October Surprise

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Ever since Bob Woodward became an icon of investigative journalism with “All the President’s Men” ( and was able to have himself portrayed by Robert Redford in the movie), he has periodically issued another “inside information” hit job on other administrations and institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, for the first time close enough to a tight election to be legitimately be called election interference, the ancient ex-Washington Post reporter has produced “War,” and D.C. is “buzzing.” Woodward’s book was advanced to The New York Times and other news outlets on yesterday, though the book won’t be released until next week. Sayeth the Times, it “adds additional, inside-the-room details to… previous accounts,” previously unreported conversations and more involving President Biden, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris and other officials.

Continue reading →

More VP Debate Ethics: Oh-Oh! Tim Walz Doesn’t Get That First Amendment Thingy…

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Does this bother you? It should: It bothers me. And Walz has been saying the same illiterate crap about free speech for years. I don’t want Presidents who don’t understand the First Amendment. It means they are incompetent at least, and dangerous at worst. If I don’t want a President with these deficits, I don’t want a Vice President with them either.

I was late to this particular party because I can only find one transcript of the debate online, CBS’s, and the site demands that I dump my ad-blocker to read it. Bite me. This is public information, and CBS shouldn’t have a monopoly on it: that’s unethical. Journalism has no public interest at heart at all, at least not the outlets I usually deal with.

When J.D. Vance pointed out that Walz had said there is no First Amendment right to misinformation,” Walz interjected “or threatening, or hate speech.”  Why do woke fools like Walz keep saying this? While “True threats”—meaning threats that are accompanied by the means and circumstances to carry them out—aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Misinformation that falls short of fraud or defamation definitely is, indeed outright lies are protected.

“Hate speech” also has full First Amendment protection. Walz, a high ranking member of the Democratic Party, the pro-censorship party, naturally is in favor of gutting free speech, or he doesn’t know what it is. I’m guessing both.

That’s particularly troubling in someone who taught school.

Continue reading →

“Submitted For Your Approval…”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

While searching for Pete Rose posts in preparation for this one, I ran across an ethics multi-issue post from February 11, 2020, shortly before the Wuhan virus messed with our economy, our democracy, our laws, our health, our social interactions, our culture, our health and our sanity (but it was racist to blame it on China. Don’t get me started….). I don’t remember writing it at all, so I was fascinated to read this:

Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: President Joe Biden

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

“Some things are more important than staying in power.”

—-President Biden at the U.N., stumbling through his speech on world affairs even with the assistance of his teleprompter.

Even though our President is demented, deluded, habitually dishonest and without shame, I am still astounded that he would have the gall to say that at the United Nations. I guess he thinks the delegates are as stupid and gullible as his party evidently thinks the U.S. public is.

No, the context of that head-exploding statement doesn’t make it less nauseating:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Georgetown’s Qatar Conference”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

American Antisemitism Sunday continues with one of Steve-O-in NJ’s trademark historical commentaries in response to today’s post, “Ethics Quiz: Georgetown’s Qatar Conference.”

And here it is!

[I also could have justifiably credited Steve with an Ethics Quote of the Week, which you will find below: “[E]thical leaders of any cause owe those they lead a duty to realize when the conflict has become unwinnable and then seek an end to the conflict.”]

***

I don’t know about unethical, but it’s surely tone-deaf, in bad taste, and divisive in light of the current situation and in light of what this symposium seems to cover. A discussion about the now almost 80-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict is certainly possible, assuming it were a balanced one. A discussion of terrorism through the last two centuries which would include the difference between political (in support of a political goal) and millennial terrorism (where the violence is the goal), changes in viability with technology, counter-terror tactics and their evolution, and so on could be very interesting. However, this sounds like a pity party for Palestine and a hate-fest for Israel. It’s allowable, just barely, under free speech and academic freedom, as long as it sticks to discussion, although I think it’s going to generate a lot of heat and very little light. If it’s going to be a seeding place for violent demonstrations, forget it.

Truth be told, trying to nail down any kind of ethical framework around terrorism is like trying to staple water to a wall. Some deliberately try to separate the two by saying things like “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Frankly that’s the lazy way out, although it IS true that our biases are going to color how we view one cause vs. another cause and what kind of tactics we can justify. Rebellions of one kind or another have been around almost as long as mankind has organized itself into this group vs. that group, and certainly since the days when mankind had empires. The Romans were often able to stymie that by making the conquered peoples into junior partners, but some peoples, like the Jews, the Britons, and so on, wanted no part of that kind of arrangement, and had to be essentially destroyed to the point where organized resistance was no longer viable. In a time when both sides had essentially the same weapons, it was all about numbers. Certain tactics like ambushes and targeted eliminations, proto-terrorism if you will, worked to some degree, but usually couldn’t win. If the rebel side had insufficient numbers or was dispersed to the point where it couldn’t get sufficient numbers together, violent resistance wasn’t viable. Rebels or bandits could give the other side a very hard time (Hereward the Wake, the Knights of St. John at Rhodes), but in the end causes like that were usually either doomed, or only went anywhere when they COULD amass numbers enough to wage something like a real civil war.

Continue reading →