U.S. Society

The WaPo’s Factchecker Suddenly Discovers That Joe Biden Lies A Lot

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Donald Trump, as the media kept reminding readers and listeners, engaged in a virtually non-stop stream of “lies,” and this became a theme of its Axis of Unethical Conduct duties of undermining the Trump Presidency. There was never any question about the fact that Donald Trump’s relationship with truth, facts, reality, history, promises, assertions, choices of words, opinions, and everything in between, has always been a matter of his mood, purpose and convenience. Sometimes he lies, sometimes he exaggerates, sometimes he forgets, sometimes he spins—it’s exhausting following him, really, and no question about it, public officials and figures who ask for and must have the public trust can’t communicate like that: it’s unethical, whether we are talking about competence, fairness, responsibility—it doesn’t matter. It’s wrong. However, the news media and Trump’s political opponents, once they realized the man’s habits and proclivities, decided it was advantageous to call anything Trump said that could be challenged or disagreed with a “lie.” The Washington Post, in particular, had a ball with this approach, and created a running database of all of Trump’s “lies.” Trump, of course, made their job easy because, vie Twitter, he made more statement, many of them off the cuff, than any five U.S. Presidents in our history combined.

Or maybe it’s three. Or seven. I was estimating. If Trump said that, the Washington Post would label it a lie.

Does President Biden lie as often as Trump did? I don’t know: it’s close, but you wouldn’t know that by reading and watching the mainstream media…or the Washington Post. Nobody set up a database of Biden’s lies. They were just “gaffes,” you see, because old Joe has always been confused. Or they were “mistakes.”

Continue reading →

15 Dawn’s Early Light Post-Election Ethics Notes

/ Jack Marshall / 60 Comments

Spuds woke me at 5:30 am, so I might as well get this up now….

1. The good news is that there’s not going to be any violence: the one scenario that makes civil unrest vanishingly unlikely occurred. There was no GOP “wave,” but the party still will get control of the House, albeit unimpressively, and can eke out a bare majority in the Senate, although we might not know for sure until December. Yay.

2. I watched Fox News and CNN track the election returns. Neither were overtly biased; both played it straight.

3. The unavoidable conclusion from the night’s proceedings is that the vast majority of voters will vote for inanimate carbon rods it they have the right party affiliation. This is not a healthy, competent or ethical way to behave in a democracy, and it plays into the hands of manipulative power-seekers.

4. The Stopped Clock Award: I hate to say this, but Mitch McConnell was right: his party shot itself in both knees by running too many sub-par, extreme or otherwise unqualified candidates.

5. Both #3 and #4 above are illustrated by John Fetterman’s victory. He is wildly unfit to serve and was irresponsible to stay in the race. Dr. Oz was a foolish, needlessly poor choice to oppose him.

Continue reading →

Just Think: There Are Thousands Of Supposedly Mentally Fit Citizens Who Are Going To Vote For This Idiot Today [Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I continue to be awash with remorse for not coming up with a list of 2022’s “Dirty Dozen” to highlight the most unethical and unfit candidates for office. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a New York Democrat representing the state’s 17th Congressional District, might even deserve to nudge out a member of The Squad. Well, probably not, but still: asked by an interviewer, “Hudson Valley residents are feeling pain at the pump and at grocery stores, what have you done, and what do you plan to do to help solve our inflation problem?” Maloney replied,

Yeah, well, I grew up in a family where, you know, if the gas price went up, the food budget went down. So by this time of the week, we’d be eating Chef Boyardee if that budget wasn’t gonna change. So that’s what families have to do.

Or they could try library paste, dog food, and maybe just eat the dog. Yup, that’s what families have to do when Pat’s party restricts pipelines, drilling leases and energy production while spending billions on specious climate change solutions for uncertain conditions that can’t be solved by U.S. policies anyway and at best might benefit Americans a hundred years from now. Or not. Whatever.

The Congressman’s answer isn’t just callous and demonstrative of voids in responsibility and analysis. It’s signature significance for an asshole of epic proportions. Fortunately, it looks as if Maloney is going to lose his seat, but it’s close.  How in the Wide Wide World of Sports could any sentient voter cast a ballot for such a jerk? Oh, right: to save democracy to be run by clueless morons. See, even Maloney is preferable to a Republican because, as Rob Reiner told MSNBC’s Joy Reid last week to no resistance at all, the members of that evil party

…are only interested in power. They are only interested, and they will do anything to get the power. And they are willing to kill, literally kill, to get the power.

And they probably don’t even like Chef Boyardee!

UPDATE: Somehow, I missed the fact that Maloney was also the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair….which tells you something about the party, and it isn’t good.

Election Day Ethics Warm-Up, 11/8/2022: Joys Of Democracy Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

That’s a screen shot from the video of a fight that broke out last week at a rally for New York Governor Kathy Hochul when some supporters of Republican Lee Zeldin showed up. That’s a white male Democrat with his hand on the neck of a black female Republican, but for some reason, the mainstream media has chosen to publicize it as they carry forward the message of Republicans being a threat to democracy….

Nevertheless, the flagship of the pro-Democratic Party bolstering media is apparently strictly heeding the talking points memos and going all the way with this narrative. Here was the New York Times’ editorial board’s explanation yesterday about “What’s at Stake in These Elections”:

Eight Republican senators and 139 Republican representatives sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election on the basis of spurious allegations of voter fraud and other irregularities. Many of them are likely to win re-election, and they may be joined by new members who also have expressed baseless doubts about the integrity of the 2020 election. Their presence in Congress poses a danger to democracy, one that should be on the mind of every voter casting a ballot this Election Day.

It will also be the first time that the U.S. electoral machinery will be tested in a national election after two years of lawsuits, conspiracy theories, election “audits” and all manner of interference by believers in Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election.

No, eight GOP Senators and 139 Representatives in fact voted to withhold certification of the 2020 Presidential election in a largely symbolic vote expressing doubts about the integrity of the vote and seeking further investigation, just as Democratic Senators and Representatives did so in 2000, 2004 and 2016. They did not “seek to overturn” the results—that’s not reporting or even honest punditry. It’s misleading spin from the Times editors, just like so much of their paper’s news reporting since 2015.

What voters really have an opportunity to do today is demonstrate the genius and vigor of the American system by signalling their bi-partisan disgust at the arrogance, ineptitude and undemocratic ways of Democratic governors and lawmakers, in their dictatorial pandemic response, their rejection of the rule of law, their embrace of race-based preferences, their climate change madness, and their attempt to demonize and criminalize political opposition. Not since the Great Depression has a political party so deserved to be shamed and ejected from power. (In fact, the Democrats deserve such a fate more than the post-’29 crash Republicans did, but that’s a discussion for another day.) One market research authority predicts the midterm loss for the Democrats will be 75 seats in the House of Representatives and 11 seats in the Senate, which would be glorious, and the stinging message the party has earned. Others prognosticators (like the Times) are being far more optimistic about the likely fate today of their allies. Either prediction could be the product of confirmation bias, wishful thinking, or missed signals.

We shall see. But up in Founding Father Heaven, I’m pretty sure who Tom, George, James, John (Abigail) and Ben are rooting for this time.

1. Integrity! The campaign of Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic candidate for the US Senate and poster boy for brain-damaged politicians, filed a federal lawsuit yesterday claiming that mail-in ballots with an incorrect or missing date should be counted despite the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling against them being included in the vote count, since doing so violates state law. The claim is that not counting the votes on the grounds of an issue with the date violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that election officials cannot deny someone the right to vote based on an error on the ballot that is “not material” to determining whether the individual is qualified to vote under state election law. Of course, there was very limited use of mail-in ballots in 1964; this is literally an effort to exploits a loophole in order to allow dubious votes to determine a close election.

The media has cast the GOP lawsuit that resulted in the ruling as an effort to infringe on voting rights. Yes, requiring voters to follow the minimal requirements of legal voting is so, so unreasonable—that’s the argument. It reminds me of the Democratic claim during the 2000 Florida recount that the pathetic voting attempt of an idiot who couldn’t figure out how to punch out a chad and wrote “I vote for Gore!” on the ballot should be counted. As I wrote at the time, “Why not just shouting out his choice near the polling place? How about tying a note to a rock and throwing it through a window?”

Continue reading →

Ick Or Unethical? OK, It’s Just Icky, But There’s Something Deeply Disturbing About…”Tattoo Harvesting”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Ew.

Cleveland-based company Save My Ink Forever offers  the opportunity for clients to have their tattoos preserved as artworks after they pass away. Yes, their skin. Two words: Ed Gein.

We are trying to do this in the most dignified manner possible. To people, some of these things really are pieces of art,” mortician Kyle Sherwood said. “It gives that family another option and instead of having just the remains or the burial, we can still do that, they have actually a piece of their loved one. They are pieces of art, and it is just amazing the tattoos we get.” The preservation requires  a complex process that takes roughly three or four months. Once it’s done, clients a have a parchment-like artwork that requires no maintenance at all. They can frame it and hang it in the living room! They can make a lampshade out of it!

Save My Ink Forever works with funeral homes around the US, sending them special kits and video tutorials on how to remove the tattoos. The strips of skin are then shipped to Cleveland. Where else? Cleveland was the home of two of America’s most infamous serial killers: The Cleveland Torso Murderer, also known as the Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Run, and  Anthony Edward Sowell, known as the Cleveland Strangler. Save My Ink Forever won’t preserve face and genital tattoos, and has refused to process the skin art into book covers.

That, after all, would be in bad taste.

Possession? Mona Charen Is Sounding Like Marion Barry!

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Charen is another one of those former conservative pundits, like George Will, Bill Kristol, Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin, who was so repulsed by Donald Trump that she flip-flopped on all her previously held principles and became a Democratic Party shill. But channeling the late, memorable D.C. Marion Barry, a lovable rogue, is something new.

In 1989, then-Mayor Barry told a luncheon audience at the National Press Club. ″Except for the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.″ In the midst of a drugs and murder crime explosion, Barry’s comment was mocked in the news media from end to end of the ideological spectrum, because, after all, it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. But those were still the days when journalism, though already corrupted, biased and crumbling, hadn’t completely rotted away. Today, however, almost all of the mockery has come from the Right, while the mainstream media pundits have been largely silent—after all, Mona is just trying to save democracy.

One notable exception is left-leaning Washington Post columnist Helaine Olen, who wrote in reaction to Charen’s tweet, “I can’t believe this still needs to be said but ‘crime is down except for murder’ is not a winning or persuasive argument.”

Ya think?

Continue reading →

Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 11/7/2022: Approaching Dread Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Speaking of threats to democracy: this is the anniversary of the day in 1944 that voters elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt to a fourth consecutive term. There is little question in my mind that had FDR been healthier, he was perfectly capable of deciding to run for fifth and sixth terms too; this was a looming American dictator who wasn’t hiding it, and Americans still blithely voted for him. Everything about Roosevelt made him the template for a democracy-busting, cult-of-personality Big Brother USA, including his ruthlessness. We were lucky: another of the many examples proving Bismarck right when he said, “There is providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.”

Oh, he probably didn’t say it, but I’ve taxed quote maven Tom Fuller enough for one week…

1. For my own mental health, I’m going to eschew reading the pre-election freak-outs by New York Times pundits showing up today with titles like “Republicans Have Made It Very Clear What They Want to Do if They Win Congress” and “Dancing Near the Edge of a Lost Democracy.” Still, I couldn’t resist starting to read “What Has Happened to My Country?” but quit when Margaret Renkl made me read, “…Right-wing politicians and media outlets have turned American democracy upside down through nothing more than a lie. They put forth Supreme Court candidates who assure Congress that they respect legal precedent but who vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade the instant they have a majority on the court….”

There is nothing inconsistent about respecting precedent while deciding that a particular case precedent is too misguided and destructive to uphold, Margaret.

“…They endorse political candidates who openly state that they will accept only poll results leading to their own election….”

No candidate has stated that, openly or otherwise, Margaret, you hack.

“They denounce calamities where no calamities exist…”

That was it! I quit. A mouthpiece for the party claiming that electing Republicans will destroy democracy, whose #3 ranking official in Congress compares the U.S. today to Germany in the 1930s when Hitler was on the rise [Pointer: Other Bill], that thinks “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is about to become reality because of the Dobbs decision, and that has gone all in on speculative climate change doomsday predictions does not get to say that about Republicans and be taken seriously.

2. Dangerous slippery slopes ahead….NBA superstar Kylie Irving shared a tweet that promoted the “Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America” documentary and book. Both are, by all reports, pretty vile, with familiar anti-Semitic tropes like Holocaust denial and claims of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy. There is nothing inappropriate about employers disciplining employees who put their organizations in unflattering light that might hurt reputations and profitability, nor with the Brooklyn Nets suspending Irving for “at least five games” without pay over the controversy. That’s reasonable, even a bit lenient. He responded with a publicist-drafted apology. Then Nike announced that it is suspending its relationship with Irving and will not release Irving’s highly anticipated new shoe, the Kyrie 8, which was scheduled to be released this month.

That’s also fair. A celebrity who represents a corporation and its products can’t engage in high profile prejudice and expect to keep the gig. The loss of the Nike deal will cost Irving many millions of dollars, and that’s what happens when you embarrass a business partner. However, now the Nets have given Irving an ultimatum of sorts: in order to rejoin the team and start collecting his salary, he must.fulfill six requirements:

  • Apologize and condemn the film he promoted
  • Make a $500,000 donation to anti-hate causes
  • Complete sensitivity training
  • Complete anti-semetism training
  • Meet with the ADL and Jewish leaders
  • Meet with team owner Joe Tsai to demonstrate an understanding of the situation

Continue reading →

I’m Guessing an 85% Chance That The 2022 Election Results Will Lead To Serious And Widespread Civil Unrest

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Why? Because six unethical years of Big Lies, fearmongering and deliberately divisive tactics have consequences.

There is one very unlikely scenario—but still possible—that would probably tamp down the threat of violence. That would be if the GOP narrowly wins control of the House but fails to improve its standing in the Senate, and none of the close Senate contests Republicans lose involve dubious vote-counting and suspicious shenanigans. This is, realistically, the best Democrats can hope for. Progressives won’t riot over such a result unless they have completely lost their collective mind. Will conservatives of the January 6 sub-species get violent over the same disappointing outcome? I don’t think so, but we’re talking about idiots now. Who knows?

And that’s the positive 15%. Yes, I’m adopting 538’s cowardly technique: state all predictions as percentages, so when your analysis is proven dead wrong, you can say, “I never said what was going to happen! I just gave the probabilities! This means that it doesn’t matter what splits you use: you can claim any result made you “right.”

Continue reading →

Andrew Sullivan Makes An Ethics Case For Throwing Out The Democrats

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Because he writes so well and because he is an accomplished critical thinker, iconic blogging pioneer Andrew Sullivan’s opinion pieces are always worth reading even when he’s completely wrong. True, bias sometimes makes Andrew stupid, which shows the awesome power of bias because he’s definitely not stupid. Sullivan’s devotion to gayness is one source of emotionalism for him; another is his blind hatred of Donald Trump, which to my eye seems to be of the George Will/Bill Kristol variety: Sullivan thinks Trump is an unmannerly low-life too vulgar for him to agree with. I think Sullivan may be terrified of cognitive dissonance self-destruction if he admits to agreeing with Trump on most substantive issues, which he does.

In his latest substack newsletter, Sullivan spins his topic a bit to avoid alienating his mostly left-leaning readership, calling it “Will Biden And The Dems Finally Get It? Their far-left record has made the far right more electable.” Oh, see? The real problem with the Biden policy fiascos is that they will let the evil far right gain power. Shame on you, Andrew. Have the guts and integrity to be clear about what you are really saying…which is this:

Continue reading →

Headline Ethics: Today’s Ethics Rot In A Few Well Chosen Words…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I decided on this format after being click-baited by a headline in the Times: The Dobbs Decision Revealed How Weak the Pro-Life Movement Really Is. In fact, the Dobbs decision itself revealed nothing about the pro-life movement whatsoever. The decision wasn’t a response to the anti-abortion activists; it was a down-the-line legal rebuke to an old SCOTUS decision that was as offensive to the Constitution as Dred Scott. The actual column was about how disappointing the response of pro-life legislators has been (in the author’s view) by not moving faster to ban abortion entirely. How can a decision “reveal” a reaction to it that only can occur after the decision is rendered? Moreover, it should be apparent that while many anti-abortion advocates do not believe there should be not an absolute right to end a human life in the womb, many, like, say, me, acknowledge that abortion is an ethically complex problem that cannot be resolved without careful balancing of interests. That’s not “weakness.” That’s “accepting reality.”

Here are some other headlines that signal ethical confusion:

Continue reading →