So…The Second Gentleman Running For First Gentleman Impregnated His Nanny During His First Marriage and Slapped a Date In the Face: Is That a Problem?

By the established standards of the news media and the rest of the Axis of Unethical Conduct, it should be, don’t you think? But apparently not.

Huh.

A throbbing example of wildly varying standards in the media depending on whether they are covering Donald Trump or Kamala Harris just raised its warty head. Did you see that Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris’s husband who was largely invisible until she pushed President Biden off the Democratic ticket, admitted he had an adulterous affair with his nanny and got her pregnant, leading to his divorce? That happened in August, after the slimy Daily Mail broke the scandal and Emhoff came clean to CNN. I missed it entirely, which means that, for example, the New York Times either ignored it or soft-peddled it because, well, you know. But the story burst on the social media scene this week after ex-Obama paid liar Jen Psaki, now a full-time Axis propagandist at MSNBC, interviewed Emhoff and gushed that he had “reshaped the perception of masculinity.” “Has that been an evolution for you and do you think that’s part of the role you might play as first gentleman?” Psaki continued. Yecchh. That was nauseating enough (no Vice-President’s spouse has the power, visibility or status to “reshape” anything), but Emhoff’s answer exploded heads from coast to coast.

Continue reading

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

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

Just a Few Ethics Notes On The V.P. Debate…

…because it isn’t worth more. As I assumed, nothing occurred in the debate that might be expected to change enough votes that matter, unless you believe that a Presidential nominee’s choice of Veep tells us something about the nominee’s judgment, management skills, responsibility, and priorities. It should, but historically, it doesn’t. I’m trying to think of whether anyone has been picked as a running mate on the grounds that the individual was the most qualified person to take over as POTUS. Harris wasn’t. Biden wasn’t. Pence wasn’t…I’m back to Grover Cleveland now. Nope!

Still…

Continue reading

Harris Is Losing the Meme Wars, So Naturally Democrats Want To Censor Memes

Who would have expected the AI metaphorical tidal wave to have an influence on the Presidential election? Memes are a breeze to make using artificial intelligence, and while I got heartily sick of my Facebook friends bombarding me with political ones, I have to admit that the technology has the silver lining of taking blunt and biased punditry out of the political cartoonist monopoly and letting some very witty people make satirical political statements.

So far, at least, it appears that conservatives have mastered meming before the Left has, and in this race for President, that is having impact, though how much and how significant is impossible to tell. However, it is clear that the Kamala-Harris-as-a-Communist memes are getting under the skin of some Democrats—one of my Trump-Deranged relatives was complaining about those just yesterday—and so now there are calls for “something to be done” about anti-Harris memes. On MSNBC’s “The Sunday Show,” NPR’s Maria Hinojosa was very upset about AI images of Harris presented in Maoist uniforms:

Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: The AARP

My mother, who resented aging and refused to “accept” it, constantly complained that younger people treated seniors like children or idiots. I would not expect the AARP to prove her point, but then, at a loss for bathroom reading material, I looked at the AARP’s “bulletin” tabloid. On the back page, I discovered, is a feature called “Wit and Wisdom.” Here is this month’s entire content of witty and wise repartee:

  • Ken: “I hear you quit your job digging wells. Ben: “Yeah, I got fed up with the hole business.’
  • Colin: “How would you describe a dry-erase board?” Caitlin: “Remarkable.”
  • John: “Are waterbeds bouncy?” Jan: “Yes, if you use spring water.”
  • Patient: “I need a cure for my paranoia.” Doctor: “We’ve been expecting you!”
  • Molly: “How do cats settle an argument?” Wally: “They hiss and make up.”
  • Customer: “I’d like a pizza delivered,. Will it be long?” Clerk: “No, it will be round.”
  • Student: “Do chemists tell dad jokes?” Professor: “Yes, periodically.”

There isn’t anything vaguely wise or witty in any of those moldy puns. When I was a cub scout,  I had a subscription to “Boy’s Life.” The back page had a feature called “Think and Grin,” and the jokes there were generally of a higher quality that that crap. There are so many legitimately clever jokes, one-liners and anecdotes out there, some of them true, that a little research and taste would uncover. Instead, the AARP infantalizes its member and view them as old geezers sitting around the radio cackling at “Lum and Abner” —which was also generally more clever than “No, round.” Heck, “Hee-Haw” had more wit and wisdom.

My dad, like me, had a sophomoric sense of humor. He also could quote Mark Twain, P.G. Wodehouse, S.J. Perelman, and Will Rogers—okay, also Henny Youngman— right up until the day I found him dead in his favorite chair. That AARP feature is disrespectful, lazy, and insulting.

Here’s Your Ethics Challenge: Argue Convincingly That It Would Have Been More Ethical For This Horrible Couple To Abort The Baby…

Early favorites for “Parents of the Year”!

Darien Urban, 21, and Shalene Ehlers, 20, decided to sell their baby to a stranger while they were at a camp ground. (No, they weren’t married: why would you even ask?) As Mom explained later, having to deal with a baby while taking care of three dogs was just too much. All they asked for was a six-pack of beer and a thousand bucks. What a deal!

“I, Darien Urban and Shalene Ehlers, are signing our rights over to [Cody Martin] of our baby for $1,000 on 9/21/24,” their contract read. Good: these things should be legal. “After signing this there will be no changing y’all two’s minds and to never contact again,” it concluded.

Continue reading

Pre-V.P. Debate “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Note…

From Politico, prognosticating about how tonight’s debate might go: “Both men struggle at times to hide their tempers, and with plenty of bad blood between the two of them — stemming in large part from Vance’s attacks on Walz’s military record and Walz’s crusade to label Vance as “weird” — don’t be surprised if things turn personal.”

That’s clever—biased, insidious, but clever.

Walz has been dishonest about his military record. That is a matter of record, and pointing it out to a public that knows nothing about Walz’s past and character isn’t “personal.” Calling an opponent “weird,” however, is pure ad hominem, and a personal attack by definition. (Interesting that the self-labelled “public school teacher” wields schoolyard-style insults. I thought teachers were supposed to explain why such jibes are wrong.)

So we have Politico, a Democratic propaganda news site, engaging in false equivalence to validate Walz’s cheap tactic (admittedly, one favored by Donald Trump) while minimizing Walz’s very real misrepresentation of his military record.

The news media deserves to be rejected, foiled, mocked and crushed by this election. Their efforts to rig it are so transparent. It is an ongoing assault on democracy and a betrayal of the public.

“Submitted For Your Approval…”

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

Observations on “Blizzard of Lies, Trump Edition”

I missed this when it came out in 2020…

Yesterday the video was brought to my attention by one of the jazz musicians who created it and who is recycling the thing again in anticipation of the 2024 election. I am long-time friends with a couple of the people involved in the video. They are kind, smart and rational about most things.

Observations:

Continue reading

On Pete Rose

Pete Rose died yesterday: he was 83. A documentary on Rose came out this year, but there was nothing new in it except some more interviews with Pete in which he proved, again, that he just didn’t have functioning ethics alarms. Honesty, integrity, responsibility, trustworthiness, fairness, and a lot more on the list of ethical values, baseball’s all time hit leader didn’t understand at all. If you had any doubts that Rose was a sociopath, his own words in that documentary should have banished them.

Rose was the subject of my second ethics essay online, at the old, finally gone forever, Ethics Scoreboard. Here, I wrote about Pete for the first time shortly after launching Ethics Alarms in 2010. The topic: the discovery that Rose had used a corked bat (that’s illegal in baseball) as a player. I wrote in part, beginning by dismissing the theory that corked bats don’t actually help batters so using one shouldn’t count as cheating…

Continue reading