2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck

Wait, I’m Sorry, I’m Getting All Confused: WHICH Is the Party That Is An Existential Threat To Democracy?

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Yesterday, Ethics Alarms noted [Item #6] that Democrats in Pennsylvania had voted in favor of counting mail-in ballots that were ruled invalid by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and will be counting those disqualified ballots to try to overturn the apparent victory of GOP Senator-elect Dave McCormick over incumbent Sen. Bob Casey in the upcoming recount. The Associated Press called the race for McCormick on November 7, and he is now leading Casey by over 17,000 votes.

This fondness for counting void votes is, of course, passing strange conduct from the party whose captive journalists keep saying that President-Elect Trump’s four years of claims that the 2020 Presidential election was “stolen” from him are “completely groundless.” Pennsylvania’s electoral college votes are among those the incoming President felt were stolen. Call me crazy and paint me puce, but I’d say deliberately and openly counting votes the state Supreme Court says are invalid is prima facie evidence that this a party not above cheating to hold onto power.

Now, after the Republican National Committee sued last week after several counties decided to openly cheat by counting ballots with incorrect dates, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today reiterated its decision from November 5. Justice David Wecht wrote in his concurring statement that it is “critical to the rule of law that individual counties and municipalities and their elected and appointed officials, like any other parties, obey orders of this Court.” Justice Kevin Brobson likewise wrote that local election officials do not “have the authority to ignore Election Code provisions that they believe are unconstitutional.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed on November 1 that requiring mail-in ballots to have handwritten dates is constitutional.

Continue reading →

It’s Time To Accept Reality: We Can’t Trust Science Writers, So We Can’t Trust What We Read About Science

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

The ethics rot of “Scientific American” came to a climax last week with the firing of longtime editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth after she went on a social media tirade against Trump voters and tried to blame it on the demon Pazuzu (well, not explicitly, but that was what her “apology” amounted to). During her tenure she had politicized the once respected science magazine, using it to advance her own social justice agenda which dovetailed nicely with that of the extreme progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Weaponizing science for political advantage is more totalitarianism on the hoof, and one might think that Helmuth’s demise might slow down or even begin to terminate this dangerous trend, once rampant on the Reactionary Right, now characteristic of the Doctrinaire Left. Nope.

Based on the latest from esteemed (not by me, but still…) science writer John Horgan, who modestly calls himself “The Science Writer”—he’s a science writer—the political roots of the field’s ethics rot is already embedded too deeply to extract. Horgan has strong credentials, as he’d be the first to tell you. He’s been writing for Scientific American since 1986 with an eight year break in the middle, and also authors pieces on science issues for The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, National Geographic, Washington Post, Time and Newsweek. He has written several books; he’s has been interviewed on PBS, MSNBC, NPR, AP, BBC, and other broadcast media. He’s  lectured at Harvard, Yale, MIT, Caltech, Princeton, McGill and the London School of Economics, among other institutions.

Yet Horgan still thinks that scientists are correct to be driven by political bias and to let it affect their work. His recent essay in the wake of Hormuth’s oh-so-well-deserved demise is a flashing neon warning that science, as an objective, fact-driven, intellectual pursuit for the good of mankind (aka “a profession”) is as dead as Darwin, or mighty close to it. Horgan’s website piece is titled, “Scientific American Loses Its Bold Leader.” “Bold” is a terrific ambiguous cover word. In the case of Hormuth, it means courageous and reckless to the point of subverting her duties. From there, The Science Writer argues,

Continue reading →

The Most Deranged Anti-Trump Lie of All, And Other Election Day Morning Ethics Musings…

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

I realized, as I woke up with a bang this morning earlier than I wanted to, that I am far more emotionally, intellectually and patriotically, never mind ethically, invested in the Presidential election result in 2024 than in any previous election.

The reasons, I hope, have been made reasonably clear here, not just over the course of the campaign, but over the past eight years, ever since the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck chugged out of the metaphorical station. I also am, alternately, furious and amused by the ridiculous reality that the candidate I feel so strongly has to win today for the good of the nation is probably the worst Presidential candidate one of the two major parties has ever offered to the American public on Election Day, at least since the Civil War, with the exception of Woodrow Wilson, Trump himself and Hillary in 2016, and Joe Biden in 2020. I also am more anxious about what the Post 2024 Election Ethics Train Wreck will bring.

I am certain that if Trump wins, the Left will riot, and as the rioting will occur during a dead-in-the-water Democratic Administration, it will not be controlled and may even be encouraged. Make no mistake, this will be 100% the fault of the Axis of Unethical Conduct and the Harris campaign. They have used fear and hate as primary weapons against Donald Trump when they weren’t trying to impeach him or lock him up, and raised the intensity of this unethical—I could say “evil”—strategy to previously unimaginable levels when they realized that they had nothing positive—well, unless you consider aborting more babies positive—to justify another Democratic Presidency.

The party and its unethical news media useful idiots deserve to be punished, though I am not sure how. Both may have damaged themselves sufficiently to qualify as condign justice, but I doubt it. They have divided, wounded, scarred and imperiled the United States of America. There has to be accountability; there have to be consequences.

The first penalty needs to be a defeat today.

Other related ethics observations:

Continue reading →

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Hilarity of the Day: The New York Times Gets It Backward Trying To Cover For Harris And Vilifying Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments

Here’s another one: I have yet to ban a commenter for doing no more than saying the mainstream media isn’t flamingly, ostentatiously, democratically and destructively biased in favor of progressives and Democrats, but the day is coming, and it’s coming fast. Ridiculous smoking guns like this one, from the New York Times, will seal the deal. The Times’ apparent standard, based on the story: If Harris says something happened with no evidence to back it up, it’s true. If Donald Trump questions the claim, he’s lying.

Got it. The sickening display of bias reminds me of the line circulating on Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit lately: “No matter how much you hate the mainstream media, it’s not enough.”

Back in August, Ethics Alarms noted that it was becoming increasingly likely that Kamala Harris’s oft-repeated claim that she worked at McDonald’s like the typical middle-class kid she claims to have been was, like so many other Harris claims, a load of hooey. I wrote in part,

Continue reading →

First Friday Open Forum of September!

/ Jack Marshall / 46 Comments

Last week, because of my training schedule, the Friday Forum was on a Thursday, so theoretically there ought to be more pent up ethics issues that Ethics Alarms has missed than usual. I bet there are more than usual for other reasons: as I predicted would happen as the Election to Save Democracy gets closer, EA has been set upon by single-purpose commenters whose objective is to discredit me and the site, usually by sealioning a single rebuttal to an essay critical of Harris, telling the truth about the rotting ethics of the Democratic Party, or defending Donald Trump against Axis smear attempts.

Typical was the exchange with a commenter on this post, who was determined to prove that Trump or his campaign using some video that was taken at an Arlington National Cemetery ceremony that he was invited to attend violated an “Army Rule.” When I told him that he needed to move on to another topic, as genuine and good faith commenters here do, he vanished, after wasting not just my time, but that of many commenters here as well.

No, I don’t believe that these are paid operatives; Ethics Alarms doesn’t have enough distribution or influence to be worth paying someone to do what the Trump-Deranged and knee-jerk progressives will do anyway for free.

I almost feel like I should apologize for the blog taking an obvious turn to substantially more political commentary this year, even more than in 2016 and 2020. Almost. I regard this as an unusually important ethics tipping point for the culture and the election. Trump is almost irrelevant (my opinion of the man, his character and his trustworthiness have only slightly improved since 2015): if the Axis strategy since Trump’s election in 2016 doesn’t finally result in the crushing rejection it deserves, all of those dire predictions about the fate of the U.S.A. will not be so hyperbolic after all.

But see if you can discuss something else….

J.D. Vance Demonstrates the Ethical Remedy For Partisan Media Bias

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

J. D. Vance made the rounds of the Sunday morning TV shows, and neatly demonstrated why he will be an asset to the Republican ticket in the exchange above with CNN’s biased dim bulb Dana Bash.

Continue reading →

Stop Making Me Defend the Hypocritical, Lying, Crypto-Totalitarian Democrats!

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This post is very close in objective and perspective to this one, but the principle bears emphasizing. There was nothing unconstitutional about President Biden being persuaded, forced, extorted or threatened into taking himself off of the top of the Democratic ticket for the November election. The conservative media persists in saying otherwise, calling it a coup, which is ridiculous, so much so that it undermines the credibility of the pundits making the charge. As I wrote in the post just three days ago,

“That’s politics. Nobody complained that Richard Nixon being persuaded to resign rather than fight through an impeachment was unconstitutional, because it wasn’t. For leaders of the GOP to meet with Nixon and say, “Step down now, for the good of the party, the nation and yourself,” was responsible, and the only course available in a terrible situation. The same was true for Biden.”

Continue reading →

Great: Trump Makes Another Stupidly Phrased Comment That The News Media Will Use To Dishonestly Claim He’s Planning On Being a Dictator

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Boy, I’m sick of Trump being so reckless in his ad-libs and of the mainstream media’s deceit and disgusting double standards. The second I read Trump’s quote to a gathering of religious conservatives at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative group Turning Point Action in West Palm Beach —“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians!”—I knew exactly how the Axis would spin it, and I was right. Harris pounced, the Times pounced (then they changed the heading to provide the context after the initial story ran), CNN pounced, they all pounced. See? There will never be another election if Trump wins! He just admitted it!

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations on the President’s Zoom Outburst

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

“Tell me who enlarged NATO. Tell me who did the Pacific basin. Tell me who did something that you’ve never done with your Bronze Star — and your — like my son — and, you know — proud of your leadership. But guess what? Well, what’s happening? We got Korea and Japan working together.”

Yikes. That was Joe Biden on a Zoom call July 13th with a group of “concerned” Democratic House members. (“concerned” is the consensus word adopted by the mainstream news media to mean “panicked that the public now knows what their party —and we—knew all along and deliberately hid from the American people.” )

The President was addressing Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a retired Army Ranger who was awarded a Bronze Star. This alarming quote was just revealed to the Washington Post by one of the participants on the call, which was recorded. It was presumably released now, almost a week later, because Biden hasn’t yet yielded to pressure and entreaties from the party to announce his withdrawal as a candidate for re-election in November. The Post’s headline for its report on the call and its significance: “Behind the scenes as Joe Biden lost control of the Democratic Party.”

[That meme above is from today’s unusually funny collection of headlines, memes and cartoons in Power Line’s weekly collection. The “sloped roof” gags are especially good.]

Observations:

Continue reading →

Ethics Reflections On The Trump Assassination Attempt Prelude and Aftermath

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

There are so many stunning examples of the apparently irrepressible Trump hate and anti-Trump bias in the news media that it would take an over-long post to thoroughly document it. I decided that the one above was the blue ribbon winner; I can’t even imagine the degree of ugly bias in a news room that would permit a headline like that to reach publication. Then there was CNN’s characteristically disgusting fake news spin:

Anyone looking at the video could see that Trump didn’t “fall;” he ducked down after feeling a bullet hit his ear and hearing gunshots. In its front page photo, the New York Times carefully cropped out the American flag over Trump’s head, making the spectacular composition of the original photo…

…look ugly: this was obvious cognitive dissonance scale manipulation. Mustn’t have any positive imagery linked to that monster Trump! Quickly after the incident, as EA already noted, a CNN talking head criticized him for saying “Fight!” minutes after he was shot, as blood dripped down his face. As I also noted, some found it an appropriate time to suggest that Trump’s upraised fist was another fascist “dog whistle.”

This was a confirmation bias classic: commenter Joel Mundt sent me these photos, none of which inspired a similar interpretation.

Gee, I wonder why? There was also a lot of triumphal fist-raising yesterday at Wimbledon too, but then we all know that pro tennis is a hotbed of fascism.

Continue reading →