U.S. Society

On the Results of the “Special Election” in Virginia…

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

That deliberately misleading “proposed constitutional amendment” barely won yesterday, another in the mounting examples of how the Democratic Party will cheat and lie to gain power. I wrote about this unethical tactic here.

The stats show that the Northern Virginia suburbs, where the Deep State dwells, managed to vote so overwhelming for the antidemocratic provision that the rest of the state’s rejection wasn’t enough.

Observations and statements:

  • Gerrymandering is generally allowed if it isn’t based on race or other forms of discrimination. I disagree with that position that the courts have taken, but never mind: Virginians rejected that strategy, and properly so, when it made the tactic unconstitutional. 
  • If Virginians votes to allow the unethical practice again, that’s their prerogative. However, there is no way, in language or ethics, that what the Spanberger totalitarians are doing can be called “fair.”
  • The language that was on yesterday’s ballot was misleading and dishonest.
  • One of the lawsuits challenging the plot is based on the ballot language.
  • I offer my services as an ethics expert to submit documents and to testify that the wording above is misleading, and that by definition gerrymandering a state to disenfranchise members of a political party is not “fair.” It may be legal, but it cannot be fair. Defining “fair” is my business.
  • If the GOP does not include an ethicist, and it doesn’t have to be me, in its challenge to  this scheme, it is “incompetent.” It’s also my business to define that.
  • After voting for that unethical thing above, my Facebook lawyer friends are ethically estopped from lecturing about preventing “kings” and fascists, or protecting democracy. They voted to disenfranchise their supposed friends, and believe it is prudent to destroy democracy in order to save it.

I believe this election was illegal, and I believe the results will be overturned. I will believe it more if I am involved in the effort to genuinely be “fair.”

Schadenfreude Isn’t Unethical BUT…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

…It is often an indicator of malfunctioning ethics alarms.

My late wife, who loved all creatures great and small, would have openly rooted for the bull in a bullfight. Therefore the tragic result pictured above would not have upset her at all. I, on the other hand, blessed with a sophomoric sense of humor, a taste for slapstick, and an attraction to the macabre find value in that photo from different sources.

As Ethics Alarms frequently reminds readers, feelings, thoughts and motives do not make actions ethical or unethical, hence the verdict that “He meant well” is a rationalization. However feelings can have signature significance, or at least provide disquieting clues to an individuals priorities and character.

Relaying feelings also is conduct, and thus can be ethical or unethical. Nelson Muntz’s trademark…

…for example, would be cruel in the presence of the victim.

How do you react to de la Puebla’s misfortune? Would it be different if you were among the spectators?

And now…a song:

Gavin Newsom’s Book Trick

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

In November, California Gov. Gavin Newsom offered donors to his political donors a “free” copy of his forthcoming book: “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery.” “Make a contribution of ANY AMOUNT today and I will send you a copy,” he wrote.

67,000 supporters bit, and the book those donors received accounted for roughly two-thirds of the print copies of the memoir that have been sold so far. Federal records reveal that Newsom’s political action committee paid $1,561,875 to buy and distribute copies of his book through the donation program. Newsom gets no royalties from the book, avoiding the trap other politicians have fallen into. Meanwhile, the New York Times, which has, surprisingly, been alert to this long-standing slimy tactic, still listed Newsom’s book on its Best Seller list, even though the paper has elsewhere explained that the books were not “sold.”

Danielle Rhoades Ha, a Times spokeswoman, kind-of explained, “When The Times has reason to believe that sales of a book include a mix of organic and bulk sales, the book’s best-seller ranking is accompanied by a dagger. That’s what we did with the Newsom book.”

Oh. What?

Pages: 1 2

Oh No! Not The Redskins/Commanders “Racist Logo” Nonsense Again!

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I resent having to waste my time writing about this astoundingly stupid story. I have bills to pay, clients to satisfy and other much more interesting ethics stories to cover (like how the mainstream media can get away with ignoring the damning evidence that Trump’s first impeachment was a Deep State/Axis conspiracy to illicitly remove an elected President, as some of us <cough!> had figured out it was anyway).

But I’ve followed the political correctness, fake victim-mongering, Native American white guilt power play involving sports team names, mascots and logo too long not to take on this latest outbreak.

To summarize the past EA analyses of the contrived Washington Redskins controversies:

  • The team nickname was created to allude to both Boston baseball teams that hosted the first Boston NFL team, the Braves and the Red Sox. There was no intended derogatory homage to an Old West descriptive term for Native Americans, which some tribes used to refer to themselves.
  • The assault on team names, mascots and logos was a particularly silly side-effect of the outbreak of wokism and political correctness in the 90s. It wasn’t about the sports teams, but simply a means to the end of demonstrating the power of race-baiting and bending organizations and companies to the will of the Perpetually Offended.
  • The most annoying manifestation of this fraud was the “Would you accept a team called the Washington Negroes?” argument. Teams are named after people and things that the public views as admirable. Being referenced by a team nickname or mascot is a compliment, and nobody seriously considers such an association as “dehumanizing” unless there is a benefit to the imaginary victims in doing so.
  • Few of the teams under attack based on the contrived “racist” theory had the courage and fortitude to avoid capitulating, the Atlanta Braves being one worth saluting. (Ironic, because the Braves was the original name of the Redskins). Even Congressional Democrats (under Harry Reid, now roasting in Hell) tried to get into the act and force the D.C. team to ditch “Redskins,” because Democrats don’t believe in personal freedom and the First Amendment when either gets in the way of the party’s agenda.
  • Finally, a new owner changed the Redskins name to the bland “Commanders.” Many fans in D.C. still call them the Redskins anyway. 

That brings us up-to-date until this week, when the NFL team unveiled a new logo that alludes to the old Redskins name and legacy by shooting a graphic arrow (or a “native spear,” which is somehow more politically correct) through the generic “W” that has stood for “Washington Commanders.”

Demonstrating how petty and desperate for significance and publicity they are, some Native American activists crept out of their teepees to feign being offended again.

“The Washington Commanders’ decision to update their logo is disappointing and inappropriate to say the least,’’ the Association on American Indian Affairs said in a statement. “It is time to stop repeating this cycle and listen to Native Peoples who have been clear, consistent, and unwavering on this issue: We are not your mascot.’’

The association speaks with forked tongue, or, if you prefer, is lying. “Native Peoples” have repeatedly answered pollsters to the effect that they don’t care what the Washington NFL football team calls itself, and didn’t mind “Redskins” when it was still the team’s nickname. The “clear” message from the association is that the anti-Redskins activists do not speak for the people they claim to speak for, so that statement is flat-out false. I hold that nobody should respect, trust or pay attention to lying activists.

Becky Clayton-Anderson, president of the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA), says that her group’s members approve the new logo, and that NAGA “is pleased to see the Washington Commanders incorporate a Native spear into their new logo design. It’s encouraging to have a small piece of Native imagery represented again, honoring the deep connection between Native heritage and America’s sports traditions.’’

The result of the movement to erase all cultural references to Native Americans is to further alienate that rich part of U.S. cultural history from the rest. NAGA’s opposing activists will be considered successful when they expunge all Native American imagery and traditions from American life.

But wait, there’s more! There are “experts” to heed! Stephanie Fryberg, a social psychologist, suggested the new logo will cause harm.

Fryberg claimed in a statement, “Research has long shown that Native-themed mascots and symbols cause psychological harm, particularly to Native youth, by reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to the ongoing erasure of Native peoples in contemporary society.”

Yeah.

1. What research, Stephanie? We know: research created and manipulated to confirm the theory of the 10% of activists who were upset about “Redskins.” Please: show me. Show me a single individual who is tangibly “harmed” by the addition of an arrow or spear to the Commanders logo. Presumably that individual also was traumatized every time Steve Martin posed with that gag arrow through his head. If not, why not? Do Indian Head nickles also cause such victims distress?

2. Anyone who is truly harmed by the design of a logo for a local sports team has serious underlying emotional and intellectual problems that go far beyond that.

Friday Open Forum, “Hail, Hail, the Morons Are All Here!” Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Question: How does anyone who purports to support the Democratic Party not feel like an idiot these days? Observe:

Now, what Ramses witnessed in “The Ten Commandments”—burning hail…THAT might have been evidence of global warming…

This woman, arguably made stupid by progressive indoctrination and propaganda though she might have been born that way, is still arguably more astute than “The View’s” resident lawyer, Sunny Hostin, who claimed that earthquakes and eclipses were also evidence of climate change.

There’s a lot of crazy ethics stuff going on this week. Analyze it for us. Me, I’m going to bang my head against a wall for a while…

From The Ethics Alarms Archives: “One More Time, The Second Accuser Scenario, And Fairness For Justin Fairfax”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Yesterday, the horrifying news was that former Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, once considered a rising star in the Democratic Party (you know, like Jasmine Crockett and Eric Swalwell) whose career was derailed by sexual assault allegations, murdered his estranged wife and killed himself.

The knee-jerk defenders of Fairfax among Virginia Democrats were head-exploding in 2019, as this EA post from February of that year reminds us. I held at the time that two rape allegation from two different women was sufficient to mark Fairfax as untrustworthy and unfit for office considering the factors surrounding them. I would not have guessed that they portended a murder-suicide, but I must admit that Fairfax’s violent and tragic last act didn’t shock me either.

***

From the Washington Post today:

“A Maryland woman said Friday she was raped by Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) in a “premeditated and aggressive” assault in 2000, while they both were undergraduate students at Duke University. She is the second woman this week to make an accusation of sexual assault.

The woman, Meredith Watson, said Friday in a written statement through her attorney that she shared her account immediately after it happened with several classmates and friends. Watson did not speak publicly Friday and her lawyer did not make her available for an interview.

Watson was friends with Fairfax at Duke but they never dated or had any romantic relationship, the lawyer, Nancy Erika Smith, said.

“At this time, Ms. Watson is reluctantly coming forward out of a strong sense of civic duty and her belief that those seeking or serving in public office should be of the highest character,” Smith said in the statement . “She has no interest in becoming a media personality or reliving the trauma that has greatly affected her life. Similarly, she is not seeking any financial damages.”

Now what?

An unrelated accusation of conduct X does not mean that a previous unsubstantiated accusation of the same conduct is true. However…

  • In the case of habitual or characteristic misconduct—like being a sexual predator or a sexual harasser—the likelihood that there have been more, undisclosed episodes involving the individual accused is high.
  • Thus the absence of a credible second (or third, fourth, and onward) accuser in a matter like this is legitimate evidence arguing for the innocence of the accused. An example would be Clarence Thomas.
  • When subsequent allegations are substantially similar to the original accusation, they are especially damning. Bill Cosby is the poster case for this variation. Another exampole: Kevin Spacey.
  • When the second and additional allegations are suspiciously timed, as during an election or a political controversy, when they involve general misconduct only, lack named accusers or when they are sketchy in their facts and proof, they should be regarded with extreme skepticism. The add-on Kavanaugh accusations fit this description.
  • The fact that a court decision or an official investigation has not definitively determined that misconduct has taken place does not require individuals, groups and the public to discard commons sense, if they can eliminate bias from their decision-making. O.J. Simpson, it is fair to say,  is guilty of murder, and it is completely fair to regard him in that light. Barry Bonds used banned and illegal drugs to enhance his major league baseball career. Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator who traded professional advancement for sex. We don’t need admissions here to come to informed decisions.

Now what does all of this mean for Justin Fairfax, next in line to be Governor of Virginia if Governor Northam decides, as an honorable public servant should, that he has made such an irredeemable ass of himself by his obfuscations, double-back flips, and tap-dancing around the question of whether he had a photo of himself in blackface in his yearbook that no Virginian in his or her right mind could possibly feel secure trusting such a boob to handle the affairs of the Commonwealth? What is fair? Continue reading →

Some Ethics Comments on “Exit Taxes”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

1. Neither Tony nor Fox News had the wit or knowledge to point out what should be obvious. They are not reporting adequately by doing so, which requires they explain that…

2. …a tax on leaving a state is unequivocally, undeniably, spectacularly unconstitutional. There is no counter argument.

3. Why, then, are ten states reportedly considering such taxes, which infringe of the right to travel as well as the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Because they are all Democratic Party dominated states, and that party doesn’t believe in the Constitution or the Declaration of Interdependence.

4. I know I’m repeating myself, but this is the party that claimed to be protecting democracy in 2024. No party that really believes in democracy would ever even consider an “exit tax.” The Left unmasks itself with proposals like this.

Why can’t everyone see….

….the ugliness beneath?

Ethics Villains: Yes, The New York Times Again…And Its Biased, Ignorant, Pro-Terrorism Readers

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The gift link to the NYT article at issue is here.


I’m not going to quote it or summarize it. I will characterize it: the opinion piece, Gaza’s Rubble Is the Grave of Our Future, by Ghada Abdulfattah, “a writer who lives in Gaza,” is anti-Israel, pro-Hamas propaganda that the Times has handed a large amount of space to promote. This is a “poor Gazans being victims of genocide by those inhuman, cruel Jews” essay. The writer never comes right out and says that, but her chronicling of the devastation in Gaza since the Israeli assault began three years ago is definitely aimed at conveying that misleading message.

All right, I will offer a quote:

“It isn’t just the sadness of what was demolished. Seeing endless piles of concrete brings a second layer of violence — the violence of being forced to live with destruction. Rubble doesn’t just destroy the past; it erases the future. It forces your mind to stop imagining, to stop thinking, to stop dreaming about life after today.”

Gee, I guess launching a sneak terror attack on civilians in your neighboring state, killing over 1200 people, including infants, raping woman and taking 250 hostages isn’t such a good idea, eh? Huh. Who knew?

Pages: 1 2

Does Anyone Really Have To Ask This Question?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Ann Althouse, who for some strange reason is obsessed with AI in general and Grok in particular, asked her favorite bot, “Which U.S. First Ladies have received the cruelest treatment in the press (and in public conversation)? Especially which ones were disrespected as, essentially, whores?”

Anyone who doesn’t know the answer and the runner-up is both politically and historically ignorant. Obviously Grok informed Ann that Melania Trump is the “winner” and that it isn’t even close, telling the bloggress in part (my comments interspersed in bold),,

“Melania Trump stands out among actual U.S. First Ladies for receiving some of the most explicit, sexualized public disrespect in the modern era—being directly called a “hooker,” “whore,” or accused of having been a prostitute/escort. This came from tabloid stories, a New York Times reporter (who was reprimanded after a model publicly called out the comment), social media, and partisan commentary tied to her pre-White House modeling career and alleged links to escort services. She filed (and later settled or pursued) defamation suits, including a $150 million claim against the Daily Mail over “elite escort” allegations, which the paper retracted. Media and online discourse frequently framed her as ornamental, aloof, or unworthy in ways that veered into slut-shaming, far more personal and vicious than typical policy or style critiques faced by others. Some contemporary observers (across outlets) described her overall press treatment as among the worst for any modern First Lady.”
SOME? There’s no contest! Melania is first, second, third…American First Ladies have always, always, been treated with respect by the news media, though there have been partisan critics of some First Ladies like “Lemonade Lucy” Hayes, Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Nancy Reagan and Michelle Obama, but nothing close to the venom heaped on Malania. Back to Grok…
“No other serving First Lady matches this level of direct “whore/prostitute” framing in the historical record… The single most brutal sexual character assassination of a presidential spouse involved Rachel Jackson (wife of Andrew Jackson) during the 1828 campaign. Opponents dredged up her first marriage’s messy divorce and her subsequent union with Jackson, labeling her a bigamist, adulteress, “whore,” “harlot,” and woman of “open and notorious lewdness” in newspapers and pamphlets. She was devastated, withdrew from public life, and died of a heart attack shortly after the election (before inauguration). Andrew Jackson blamed the “slander” for her death and had “A being so gentle and so virtuous, slander might wound, but could never dishonor” inscribed on her tombstone. 
Note to Grok (and Ann): It wasn’t a “messy divorce,” it was a legally invalid divorce, so technically Rachel was a bigamist.
Pages: 1 2

Stop Making Me Defend Eric Swalwell!

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I don’t know why I was so dense when I posted this story that it didn’t occur to me what was going on, especially after Hakeem Jeffries weirdly tweeted that Swalwell, as near to the bottom of the ethics barrel as a House member can be (but not alone there) was too disgusting to be a Democratic Governor but not so horrible that he couldn’t stay in Congress. I believe it’s because my brain just won’t process how Machiavellian, corrupt and dishonest the Democratic Party of 2026 (actually 2008 through 2026) has become. Maybe I can’t grasp that because so, so many otherwise good people in my life still embrace this indefensibly organization and its anti-Democracy, anti-“Truth Justice and The American Way” proto-totalitarian drift. Maybe it’s that Cognitive Dissonance Scale. The damn thing is pulling the Democrats up from the depths they deserve because people I have high in positive territory for other reasons—love, trust, loyalty, respect—are chained to the party like a luxury cruise ship to an anchor.

Heck, I don’t know how I missed it, but I did. (Commenter James Flood didn’t, I know) So once again I ask rhetorically, “What’s going on here?” to answer: This…

Pages: 1 2