Congress

Bad Jack’s New Gig

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Would you trust this man?

My NPR segment was live, and predictably shorter than the star of the day, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was there, also predictably, to talk about ethics. Isn’t it interesting that when businessmen, lawyers, investment gurus and politicians get caught and go to jail, they always manage to have very profitable epiphanies that make them ethics experts just in time to give them a book or speaking tour deal, since their original lines of work are no longer an option?

Do I believe these changes of heart and values are real? Not for a second. Continue reading →

Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (But At Least She Has An Excuse.)

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Be sure not to miss this very special episode of "Congress: A Study in Courage That Does The Country No Good Whatsoever"

ABC’s Diane Sawyer will soon air her interview with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the first since the Arizona Congresswoman was shot in the head during Jarod Loughner’s Tuscon rampage in January. Giffords looks alert and upbeat, if understandably frail, and answers Sawyer’s questions with short, often single word responses. She has clearly made remarkable progress in her rehabilitation. She also obviously has a long way to go, and her prospects of working at a high level again, much less working on the nation’s problems, are speculative at best. Why then is she still filling a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives?

She is doing so because, of course, she is courageous. Because her recovery is inspiring, and it would be heartless and cruel to take her job away because of a madman’s bullet. She is doing so because it would be unfair and mean to rush heroic Gaby, and because Americans care. None of which has any relevance to the tiny, apparently trivial issue of governing America. Continue reading →

Attorney General Holder, Fast and Furious, and Congressional Perjury

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

"Oh, NOW I see where the confusion is...AG Holder thought the Congressman was asking about when he saw the MOVIE called 'The Fast and Furious.' It's an honest mistake. The Attorney General loves his Netflix!"

It is looking increasingly likely that Attorney General Holder lied to Congress on May 2, 2011, when he was asked by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa about when he knew about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Fast and Furious gun-running fiasco. In this he is following a grand tradition among U.S. Attorney Generals: the last one, Bush crony Alberto Gonzalez, almost certainly lied under oath to Congress too.

Fast and Furious was a botched gunrunning enforcement operation in which illegal guns that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives intentionally allowed to be smuggled into Mexico ended up being used to kill an Immigration Customs Enforcement agent and a U.S. border patrol guard.  Holder was called before Issa’s committee in a typical “what did the top guy know and when did he know it?” inquiry. In response to the latter part of that question, Holder told the Committee that he was “not sure of the exact date, but I probably learned about Fast and Furious over the last few weeks.”

CBS and Fox News have uncovered a series of e-mails and memos that show unequivocally that this was not true. Continue reading →

Another Inherently Misleading Statistic

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“Ok, I’ve put on some weight, but that hippo must weigh a ton!”

Ethics Alarms readers know that  certain statistics reporters and pundits like to cite are guaranteed to set my head spinning around like Linda Blair in The Exorcist. One of them, that 50% of marriages end in divorce, is unethical because it’s imaginary. Another, the “women earn 75 cents for every dollar earned by men” line, is intentionally misleading as well as out of date. Lately, my head has been doing a 180 because of the popularity of citing Congress’s unpopularity, as measured by polls. In this case, the number is probably accurate and the implication of it is clear: the public doesn’t have much admiration for Congress. What is unethical is the misleading way it is typically used by journalists, to contrast with the President’s increasingly miserable poll numbers. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day #3 on “Ethics Dunces: The Senate and House Leadership”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Come back, Ross! We need your charts!

The third Comment of the Day on this “Comment of the Day Friday” is an epic from Michael, expanding on the theme of my original post.

“I hate the fact that no one is talking facts, only ideology. In such an atmosphere, these selections make sense. The S&P statement said our downgrade was because we failed to tacked long-term indebtedness especially the main drivers of long-term debt: Medicare and SS, but no one really wants to deal with that. To talk facts, you really need some tables, figures, and analysis. I’m not just talking about politicians, here. Isn’t this the reason we tolerate the media? Aren’t they supposed to keep us informed of about things like this so we can then get outraged by such a stupid selection of people to ‘fix’ our problem.

“Why can’t we find a news outlet that will break things down like this?” Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

A symptom and a cause

“You name it, they’re there to diminish it, destroy it.”

—-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), quoted in the Washington Post today, describing the Republican Party.

If you listen to talk radio, as I, unfortunately, must, you hear statements like Pelosi’s all the time. Conservative talk show host Mark Levin, for example, will say, every day, usually more than once, loudly, that liberals/Democrats/ Obama “want to destroy America.” (Then he plugs his book. Or says, “Just like identity thieves want to destroy your credit!” and does an ad for “Lifelock.”)  It is irresponsible, hateful and ignorant for Levine (and Rush, and Monica Crowley, and lots of others) to make this and similar statements, though in Levine’s case, at least, not insincere, for he clearly believes every bit of it.

These are just talk show hosts, however. They are at least 50% entertainers, and 100% partisans, though they still have ethical duties of honesty, fairness, civility and responsibility which they regularly toss to the winds in the interest of ratings. They don’t meet their profession’s ethical standards, even though those standards are  low.

Pelosi’s are much, much higher, for she is an elected official of the United States of America. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “CNN, Burying the News to Protect Its Own”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

And since you brought it up...

In the Comment of the Day, Dwayne N. Zechman expands usefully on the Ethics Alarms post about CNN ignoring the developing story about its own talk show host, Piers Morgan.

  So I’ll return the favor and expand on his comment.

For every post on Ethics Alarms regarding unethical journalism or media bias, I could write ten. Believe it or not, I try hard to keep the topic to a minimum number of posts; it is a close second to politics among the daily temptations I have to resist in fulfilling the blog’s mission as a broad and eclectic, rather that narrow, examination of U.S. ethical issues and controversies.

Fresh distortions of the news by the media and its often jaw-dropping deceitfulness in reporting stories create potential topics for me every  day, and usually many times a day. Here’s an example from yesterday: I was shocked to find out that the FAA funding, which was held up in limbo while FAA workers missed paychecks, was stuck in the Democratic-controlled Senate, having been duly passed by the Republican-controlled House. The previous day, both President Obama and scores of news stories and TV news features had harshly criticized “Congress” for leaving D.C. for vacations while Federal workers were being stiffed. I assumed, as almost everyone presumed, based on the “hostage” rhetoric being used by pundits and columnists and the just-completed debt-ceiling deal, that it was the GOP-controlled House of Representatives that was causing the problem. And that, unquestionably, is exactly what the White House wanted the public to believe, as well as what the media went out its way to make certain the public did believe, by what its reporters and pundits didn’t report and didn’t clarify. Continue reading →

Fick* of the Month: Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

 

Rep. Walsh says that President Obama has no shame. He should know: having no shame is something of a specialty of Walsh's.

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill) is a vocal Tea Party champion dedicated to fiscal responsibility, meeting obligations, protecting the future for our children, and living within our means. How does he reconcile these values with the fact that he owes $117,437 in child support to his ex-wife and three children?

He can’t. It’s impossible. Walsh is the epitome of a political hypocrite, and because he is shameless about his despicable failure to meet his family obligations, he is also a fick. In fact, he is the Ethics Alarms Fick of the Month.

To be fair, Walsh disputes the amount that his wife claims he owes her in the suit she recently filed. You know what? It doesn’t matter how much he owes. Ethically, he is just as much of a fraud and a fick whether he owes $100,000, $25,000, or $500. For this is the self-righteous freshman Congressman who says,  in a video speech lecturing President Obama on fiscal responsibility, “I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” ”Have you no shame, sir?” he asks. Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Hillary said something unethical? I'm shocked! Shocked!

“But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.”

—–Obama Administration Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, responding in a press conference to Congressional objections that the U.S. continued participation in attacks on Libya violates the War Powers Resolution—which it undoubtedly does.

Most of the objections to Sec. Clinton’s comments focus on her apparent hypocrisy; after all, this is the same woman who as a U.S. Senator in 2003 objected to “are you with us or against us” rhetoric from the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq war by saying,  “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” But this isn’t necessarily hypocrisy: Hillary has a right to change her mind. What is unethical about her statement on Libya is that it is manipulative, unfair and dishonest. Continue reading →

Sorrell v. IMS Health: Legal, Ethical, and Unjust

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The case of Sorrell v. IMS Health, which the Supreme Court decided yesterday, sharply focuses the philosophical disagreement over the role of the courts in public policy. The legal question was rather straightforward; the ethical issues are complex. Is it the Court’s duty to make bad—but constitutional— laws work, or is its duty to follow the laws, and leave it to the legislature to fix their flaws?

This was a case about incompetent  lawmaking. Gladys Mensing and Julie Demahy had sued Pliva and other generic drug manufacturers in  Louisiana and Minnesota over the labels for metoclopramide, the generic version of Reglan. The drug, used to treat acid reflux, had caused them to develop a neurological movement disorder called tardive dyskinesia. None of the generic drug’s manufacturers and distributors included warnings on the labels about the danger of extended use of the medication, even though the risk was known to them. Neither did the manufacturers of the brand-name drug. The problem was that the state statutes required generic drug manufacturers to included warnings about dangerous side effects, while federal regulations required generic drugs to carry the exact same label information as their brand name equivalent.  Continue reading →