Incompetent Elected Officials

Ethics Quiz: Fairness to AOC

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

Ethics Alarms only covers a fraction of the statements by prominent people that prompt the response, “What, if anything, were they thinking?” For example, I was torn today whether to mention Kamala Harris saying in a recent interview (with Axis journalist Kara Swisher, whom I have been calling out for her hackery for 30 years) on her book tour (What were they thinking to send Kamala out on a book tour?), that “some have said” that she was “the most qualified candidate ever to run for President.” Because Swisher is such a hack, she didn’t have the integrity to burst out laughing and tell Harris, “Oh, Kamala, you are so funny!” Yeah, and some have said, “I am the Lizard King!” and “Of course dogs can talk, they just don’t have anything to say!” Maybe, MAYBE, and I am giving her the benefit of the doubt here, Harris was only the second least qualified Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history. But I digress.

In last night’s predictably horrifying town hall meeting on CNN featuring American communist Bernie Sanders and Dunning-Kruger victim Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), AOC went for the Gold and may have said the stupidest thing that not only she has ever said in public but perhaps the stupidest thing any elected official has said in public, though Rep. Hank Johnson expressing a fear that so much U.S. military personnel and equipment on the island of Guam might cause it to “tip over” creates a daunting challenge.

Ranting in her usual pop-eyed hysterical style about how evil corporations were polluting the nation and that “rivers were on fire” because they were “pouring chemicals” into waterways and killing people, AOC was quick to name the first corporate villain to pop into what she audaciously calls her “mind.” Was it Monsanto, mayhap? Dow Chemical? Dupont? LyondellBasell Industries, the largest U.S. chemical company? Oh no. The Congresswoman, regarded by many pundits as the rising leader of the Democratic Party, has bigger game in her sights, and she immediately, without hesitation, named the vile polluter.

“Deloitte.”

Yes, the accounting firm. I’ve been trying to think of a company that she could have named that would be less guilty of pollution. The Boston Red Sox? I dunno, the team flies a lot. Hey, but anyone can make a mistake. Right? It was just a “speako.” It isn’t really evidence that Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about half the time, is it?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is it unfair to hold such an obvious brain fart against AOC?

Continue reading →

State Rep. Had an Outrageous Conflict of Interest Regarding Sexual Materials in Schools Vote! He Should Have Recused Himself…

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Cecil Brockman, 41, representing Guilford County (N.C.) in the state legislature, was arrested today on two charges of statutory rape and two charges of taking indecent liberties with a child. He was first elected in 2014; in Brockman’s most recent reelection bid, he secured about 63% of the vote.

Good choice. The North Carolina Democratic Party is calling for Brockman to resign. But here’s the fun part: Brockman had voted against the North Carolina parental rights bill to keep sexually provocative materials out of school libraries. The bill also required teachers and school administrators to inform parents when their children wanted to change their gender.

I could not determine whether the bill also required teachers to tell parents if a student wanted to have sex with a state legislator.

Brockman also had a Youth Academic Center named in his honor by the Housing Authority, presumably because he was so intimate with the Center’s membership.

Democrats are having one heck of a month, aren’t they?

Yes, the country’s in the very best of hands….

(The latest entry into the Ethics Alarms Hollywood Clip Archive...)

Late Wednesday Ethics Notes

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

1. Ethics Dunce: The New York Daily News, which joined my Rogues Gallery of websites that use unethical tactics to force readers to tolerate ads or pay to subscribe. This was a new one, though: I disabled my ad-blocker, and was returned to the Daily News home page. But now the link I had opened was no longer available. I searched for it: the piece, an editorial, was gone, at least for me. Assholes. If they think I’m going back to that site again or ever link to it here, they can bite me.

2. Damn ethics alarm: I was in a tight time frame this afternoon and had to deposit a check and mail a letter (returning a jury questionnaire saying I was willing to do my civic duty even though getting stuck in a trial is the last thing I need) then get back to the office and handle a problem. I mailed the letter and was rushing to my car when I saw a young black man painfully crossing the parking lot using a walker, with both hands holding plastic grocery bags. So I had to ask him if I could help—I had been stuck using a walker not that long ago—and he demurred…but also wanted to talk. He was so grateful that I, anyone, had cared enough to ask. He wanted to share the horrible sequence of events that had but him in his current state of limited mobility, his bad medical advice, his work interruption, the burden on his family. So I listened. I wasn’t going to walk away saying, “I’m sorry, but I have things to do.” This was a pure Golden Rule situation, Ethics 101, non-ethical considerations vs. the ethical values of kindness, compassion, empathy and respect. Once upon a time, before Ethics Alarms, before I began teaching ethics, I would have ignored that ethics alarm, if it rang at all. The man’s name was Kevin, incidentally.

Continue reading →

James Comey Is Indicted. I’d Love to Say “Good,” But I Can’t

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

There is evidence that former FBI director James Comey leaked information to a third party to ensure that it reached the news media—a legal breach—and lied to Congress. Is it strong enough to meet a beyond a reasonable doubt threshold? Maybe not.

He is still an ethics villain. Comey managed to make hash out of the 2016 election, first refusing to charge Hillary Clinton for a crime that he—falsely—claimed other, lesser officials had never been charged with, and then tried to make up for handing Hillary a “Get out of the negative headlines free” card by opening a new investigation even closer to the election sparked by the appearance of some of Hillary’s emails on her assistant’s boyfriend’s computer. Comey was the epitome of the “Deep State” embedded foe of President Trump—you will recall that he recently approved of the legend 8647, as in “Kill President Trump,” in a social media post. A a fan of ethical government and democracy, I am not sorry to see some adverse consequences coming Comey’s way. As a legal ethicist, I am dubious about the indictment.

Continue reading →

It’s Come to This: a Majority of House Democrats Chose To Avoid Angering Their Radical Trump-Deranged Base Over Appealing To Sane Americans

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

To be fair, Republican had Democrats in a metaphorical head-lock and the assassination of Charlie Kirk gave the Elephants a perfect “gotcha!” Then again, the Democrats and the rest of the Axis of Unethical conduct were begging for their just desserts and are getting it good and hard.

Well, good. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving party.

House Speaker Mike Johnson introduced House Resolution 719 this week and with over 100 co-sponsors, all Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass., and Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (D- Cal.) all sucked it up and supported the resolution, which, with a sane party, should have been easy. The relevant text read,

Resolved, That the House of Representatives

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;

(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;

(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and

(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.

Only ninety-five Democrats had the sense to back the resolution even though the vast majority of Americans wouldn’t read the text and would just see it as a routine rejection of political violence and an expression of regret over the death of a murder victim. Thirty-eight Democrats voted “present,” 58 voted against the resolution, and 22 did not vote at all. That’s 117 who objected to the existence of Charlie Kirk so much that they were unwilling to support a resolution condemning political violence.

In June, the House unanimously passed a resolution honoring Minnesota House Democrat Leader Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark after they were murdered, while also condemning political violence. There were no Republican dissenters. But the Hortmans hadn’t played a part in defeating a grand scheme to remake the nation, the government and its culture like Charlie Kirk had. The Mad Left hated him and hates him still, hence today’s vote. Res ipsa loquitur.

Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week, Ethics Dunce, Incompetent Elected Official, “It Isn’t What It Is” Lie of the Year, and General All-Around Asshole: Rep Jamie Raskin, D-Md.

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

“There’s a free speech crisis in America today. But there’s no free speech crisis in Britain.”

 —Maryland Democratic Rep. Jaime Raskin, proving for all time that he is a shameless partisan whom Marylanders should hang their heads in shame for inflicting on Congress and their fellow Americans.

Raskin really said that. No, I’m not kidding, he really did. He did! I’m not making it up!

The rapid government attack on free speech in Great Britain, where it has never been particularly strong, has been the subject of great concern among civil libertarians in the UK and here, for very good reasons. As Matt Taibbi, the red-pilled former Rolling Stone pundit recently wrote, “The arrest of Graham Linehan for his tweets is one of many examples that show [Great Britain] should not be treated as a free one.” (You can read about the Linehan scandal here.) Indeed. British citizens are being punished for peacefully protesting, for petitioning the government, for critical social media posts, and even for displaying the British flag. Yet Raskin says that there is no free speech crisis. His idea of a free speech crisis is CBS being forced to pay the piper after engaging in election interference to try to get an idiot elected President of the United States. Meanwhile, here in the good ‘ol USA, thanks to Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the gradual exposure of censorious Leftist colleges and universities, and the demise of Biden’s proto- fascist Justice Department, free speech is healthier than it has been in quite a while.

After Raskin made his fatuous statement in the House hearing titled “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” was held to discuss EU and U.K. censorship, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) quickly made the obvious rebuttal: “The gentleman alleges there’s no free speech in America under Donald Trump while his staff member holds up countless articles criticizing the Trump administration.”

Ethics Verdict On President Trump and the Silly Cracker Barrel Episode

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Verdict: President Trump abused his position, power and influence by weighing in on a private company’s choice of logo and continuing to make declarations about it as if it is any of his business or a proper matter of concern for the President of the United States.

Continue reading →

Wow…Not For the First Time, President Trump Doesn’t Know What the Hell He’s Talking About…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

The topic, fortunately, is baseball, not the economy, foreign policy, or making America great again. Still, it is not a good sign when the leader of the free world spouts off like an ignorant fool professing absolute certainty without any genuine expertise whatsoever. If he does this about baseball…well, you can complete that sentence.

President Trump now demands that Roger Clemens be admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame despite enough evidence that he used banned steroids late in his career to put him in the Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa et al. Rogues Gallery of cheaters with great stats who fail the Hall’s character requirements. In a post on Truth Social today, Trump said that he had just played golf with the 11-time All-Star pitcher, and apparently this makes him an authority on The Rocket’s dubious past.

Continue reading →

Observations on the Cincinnati Beatdown

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

While languishing in the hospital, this was the story that I felt most frustrated about not being able to post. Not that I could get a single, clear, spin-free account of what happened. In the aftermath of some Cincinnati event or festival or something, a black man and a white one got into a verbal altercation. The white guy seems to have uttered a racial slur, precipitating a brawl that was quickly joined by a mob of black youths who beat up the white guy and then turned their anger on a white woman who tried to intervene, knocking her unconscious and kicking her as she lay helpless on the ground. An estimated hundred bystanders, most or all of them black, stood by taking videos, laughing, and cheering the mob violence on. There was only one call to 911.

1. Almost all of the national coverage of this incident has been on Fox News. The New York Times, interestingly, hasn’t reported the story at all. The natural question has been raised: If a black man and woman had been attacked and beaten by a mob of young whites as 100 white bystanders cheered them on, there would be protests in the streets and calls for “justice.” Why the double standard?

Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Perez, a 37-year-old auto shop owner, second-term congresswoman and co-chair of the center-leaning Blue Dog Coalition, horrified colleagues on both sides of the aisle by offering an amendment to the “Legislative Appropriations Act”, H.R. 4249. Her addition would have required Congress to create basic guidelines in Congress to ensure that members were able to serve the public “unimpeded by significant irreversible cognitive impairment.” The amendment was unanimously rejected, but she is not giving up. In a poll of the 230,000 people who subscribe to her newsletter, more than 90% supported the proposal. Perez says her constituents raise the issue frequently, and their belief that elected officials are frequently too impaired by age to be effective is causing spreading distrust of our government.

Gee, I can’t imagine why they would feel that way…

…but I digress.

Rep. Perez noted that she found it disturbing that among the oil paintings of the past chairs of the powerful Appropriations Committee is a large portrait of Kay Granger, the former Republican congresswoman from Texas who suffered from mental decline for years when a conservative news outlet found her, at the age of 81, living in an assisted living facility that included a memory care unit while she still held office.

There are now more members of Congress age 70 and above than ever before, while the second oldest President ever to serve is in the White House. Perez insists that there should be standards that prevent members from serving past the point where they no longer have the capacity to cast votes and do business on behalf of their constituents.“It’s a question of whether the elected member is making the decisions,” Rep. Perez said. “It’s really not about a single member; it’s about a systemic failure.”

Bingo.