politics

Why Does Katie Zacharia Still Have Her Job? [Update: She Doesn’t!]

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

UPDATE: Literally minutes after I posted this, I saw reports that she is “transitioning” out of the White House Press Secretary role. Good.]

***

There’s no excuse for this.

The new details on the latest White House paid liar’s misrepresentation of herself as a “lawyer” or “attorney” make her (and the decision to appoint her) appear worse and worse; she’s either a fraud or an idiot. In either case, she has lost all credibility. A paid liar must have credibility, as strange as that sounds.

Katie Zacharia confirmed yesterday that she had never passed a bar exam or and has never been an “attorney.”Then she claimed that she had not misrepresented her legal career by saying she “is” a lawyer. As I have explained already, she’s not. If many members of the public—you know, morons—think that a JD or LLB degree means one is a lawyer, that doesn’t excuse the holder of a law degree thinking or saying that. “Lawyer” means one can act as a lawyer—Duh!—and a mere law school graduate cannot. It is against the law for such a person to practice law, which is what lawyers do—again duh.

In interviews with The New York Times and Real America’s Voice, Zacharia said she had consulted Pepperdine’s president and “others” about how to describe her qualifications before appearing on television, and was told she could use the term “lawyer,” but not “attorney” or “esquire.” Zacharia hasn’t said which “president of Pepperdine” advised her. She graduated from law school there in 2011. Andrew K. Benton was the university’s president at that time. In 2019, Jim Gash became the president told the Times that he was not the one who advised her, though he did call her “a young woman of high integrity.” You know, a a young woman of high integrity who represented herself a lawyer without having a law license. Gash’s representative said “he does not comment on private conversations,” but a statement from Gash said: “Pepperdine is proud to count Katie among our alumni, former colleagues and friends. As she takes on this significant responsibility, we pray that God will grant her wisdom and courage. We look forward to seeing her use her incredible gifts and extensive experience in service to our nation.”

Got it. A non-responsive answer. A law degree from Pepperdine isn’t worth the paper it is printed on, and the school’s presidents are cowards and suck-ups.

Pages: 1 2

Stop Hanging On!

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Guest Post By James Rogers

Why are we hanging onto a relationship for which we should be actively separating ourselves?

Is it ethical to cling to something you know is more than dead, when it is demonstrably existentially dangerous?

What is this relationship that is so toxic? The intact 50 states comprising the United States. My proposition is: We must separate from states, leaders and groups actively attempting to destroy the U.S. Constitution and American culture before there is no Constitution left to protect us and a culture seeking to exterminate us.

The states themselves are rather obvious: California, New Mexico, Illinois, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, Washington, Delaware, New Jersey, Minnesota, and distinct portions of other states like western Oregon, northern and eastern Virginia, eastern Pennsylvania, southern lower Michigan, southeastern Wisconsin, plus the District of Columbia.

The leaders can be broadly described as Democratic Socialists, so-called democracy advocates, cultural cancers such as the “gender affirming care” and abortion-on-demand advocates. The names on this list are long, but they all subscribe to the Obama-imagined fundamental transformation of the US against those clinging to the Constitution, God and guns.

They have proven via political violence, poisonous policies, and social canceling that we are their targets. COVID policies experimentally divided the country into individualists and collectivists. Obedience was the metric / the crux of COVID policy. Even now, after proof being provided of the malicious nature of government policies during the period, the true believers call out individualists as deniers. Similarly issues like DEI, puberty blockers, climate change, court packing, electoral college elimination, unfettered immigration, no voter ID, history rewrites, endless lawfare, judicial overreach and trans activism are alive and very well among the places and people described above. Nearly everything they believe is intentionally malicious, not real, or so grossly exaggerated it is ludicrous.

The United States is not united. To expect us to somehow become united again is a fantasy. And yet our traditional notion of America of 50 United States persists…as we fervently hope this will go away once people come to their senses. These people and policies are not rational, nor will they ever be. Stop the delusion.

The more we cling to the self-deception the more opportunity those seeking to unravel the culture have to do terrible things, endangering everything we believe to be right, valuable, and sustainable as a society.

In the original colonies the sentiment was join or die. Now we must separate ourselves to survive and begin to thrive again in a society worth keeping.

Not Surprisingly, “The Ethicist” Is Hoplophobic

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I have a like-hate relationship with Prof. Kwame Appiah, the current proprietor of the New York Times Magazine’s “The Ethicist” column. The most credentialed of the many individuals who have manned the column (one was female) has provided me with fodder for many EA posts, often critical ones, and I am properly grateful. However, his embedded New York Times Standard Progressive bias is a constant problem for him (and me, as an ethicist observing his conduct), and his latest column is a particularly annoying example.

A friend of a senior married couple [Aside: the Times illustrator draws them as an inter-racial pair, though there is nothing in the facts to suggest that. This is just one of the thousands of little ways our media tries to surreptitiously embed its priorities into the culture. I feel my arm being twisted. Don’t you?] writes,

“I have friends in their 70s who have taken in their adult son following his divorce. It is going on two years now, and he is making no progress at finding work or moving out. Granted he has mental-health issues, like panic disorder and depression, but he lives rent-free, has a dog he does not take care of and berates his parents on a regular basis. His parents won’t even ask him to help around the house because they are afraid of his volatility. He can become extremely angry, especially toward his father. He also owns a gun. This last bit scares the heck out of me. His father is going to retire in a couple of months, and they are planning to sell their home and move out of state. They have told their son that he is not coming with them, and the son is upset about this. His mother is trying to put together family counseling sessions but is having difficulty finding something they can afford. As the deadline of the move approaches, I truly worry the son will shoot himself or shoot his parents and then himself. I’ve known this family for 35 years. Do I call adult protective services? Do I alert the police that a mentally ill man owns a gun? I am truly concerned.“

Fine. Be concerned. Give them advice. However, there is literally nothing in the friend’s narrative—and she doesn’t live with the family—that suggests that the son is going to shoot himself or his parents except the single fact that he owns a gun, which he has every right to do. Hoplophobia is popularly known as gunphobia, and a lot of American have it, especially women and progressives as well as Democrats and members of the news media like “The Ethicist,” and, obviously, “Name Withheld,” who writes most of the questions that get published in Prof. Appiah’s column.

I find it incredible that The Ethicist’s advice in this case includes,

Pages: 1 2

Chuck Schumer’s Gary Condit Impression

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

In 2001 ABC’s Connie Chung interviewed Congressman Gary Condit about his relationship with Chandra Levy, his then missing intern with whom Condit was romantically linked. Condit was the prime suspect in her disappearance and murder, so he agreed to a TV interview to “clear the record.” To say he did not accomplish that objective is an understement. Every time Connie Chung asked him directly about their relationship, Condit repeated the mantra, “I’ve been married 34 years. I have not been a perfect man. I have made mistakes in my life. But out of respect for my family, out of a specific request by the Levy family, it is best that I not get into the details of the relationship.” This made him seem slimy, evasive, and guilty. It turned out that Levy had been murdered by a stranger, but Condit’s career was as dead as she was thanks to the image he conveyed in that interview.

Evading a question by repeating the same answer word for word every time it is asked is an unethical practice, and a damning one. It might as well be accompanied by two boldly lettered signs one reading, “I’m afraid to answer these questions, but I think if I keep evading them the public is too stupid to figure that out” and the other reading, “This statement is brought to you by my lawyer.” Yet Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the putative leader of the Democratic Party did a Gary Condit impression when he was asked four times about the apparent implosion of the Graham Platner campaign to be the Democratic nominee to unseat RINO Maine Senator Susan Collins.

Here is how it went :

Pages: 1 2

Smoking Gun Evidence That Democrats and Progressives Seek One-Party Rule, Not Democracy: The Virginia Special Election

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is another integrity test for your woke friends who claim that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.

Tomorrow, Virginians (like me) will go to polling places to decide whether to vote for a “proposed constitutional amendment.” Note that the proposed amendment isn’t included on the ballot. This is because Democrats, who dominate the state government cheat. There is no other way to explain this.

Constitutional amendments, which must be approved by Virginia voters, have to be on the ballot with a full explanation of the amendment available to the public at least 90 days before the election. Virginia Code 30-19.9 provides,

“The explanation shall contain the ballot question, the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment, and a statement of not more than 500 words on the proposed amendment. The explanation shall be presented in plain English, shall be limited to a neutral explanation, which may include a brief statement on the effect of a “yes” and “no” vote on the question but shall not include arguments submitted by either proponents or opponents of the proposal.”

How has it been “made available”? I don’t know: I hadn’t seen it, and I’m fairly informed on such matters. Maybe it was in something I thought was junk mail. Maybe Democrats think posting something on a website nobody is likely to visit is sufficient advance notice. The alleged required explanation of the current proposed amendment is here. In addition to the deceitful and misleading language on the ballot above, we see:

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “The Death of Raymond Zack”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Raymond Zack

Buck Best, a Northern Virginia firefighter and supervisor, weighs in with his expert perspective and nuanced insight regarding my post on the Alameda, Cal. incident involving a suicide by drowning. His wife Lianne had another Comment of the Day earlier this week; if this keeps up, I will have to call the feature “Best Comment of the Day.”

“As an 18 year veteran of the Fire Dept. and the last ten years as the Officer of a Technical Rescue team that would be responsible for just such a rescue, let me offer another perspective to this ethical question. The Fire service much like many other organizations in recent history are governed by politics and litigation. The management of the organizations are always looking to the risk analysis of any potential situation based of the money that is available. The risk analysis is not based as much on the physical risk as it is on the financial or political risk. Continue reading →

Wisconsin Wars: The Democrats’ Unethical Ethics Complaint

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Wisconsin Democrats have filed an ethics complaint against Governor Scott Walker.

The complaint, and the filing of it, are unethical. Really, really, really unethical. Here’s why. Continue reading →

CREW’s Top Ten Scandals of 2010

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The government ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has announced its list of the top ten ethics scandals of 2010. You can read about them here.

For the most part I like the list, though notable for its absence is the Charley Rangel matter,  the ommission of which reinforces my conviction that CREW is marred by a pro-Democratic bias.  Strangely, the list also fails to include the unfortunate incident where CREW’s former executive director, Melanie Sloan, jumped ship to take a lucrative job with a lobbying firm whose clients CREW had been vigorously supporting for months.

Go figure.

GlaxonSmithKline Inspires a Fun Game For Your Holiday Party: “Forcast That Ethics Scandal!”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Almost all ethics scandals and examples of outrageous unethical conduct are thoroughly predictable, whether they involve individual, organizations or institutions. The most obvious proof of this is in politics. Once we consider past patterns, current conditions, institutional habits and what we know about human nature, the question when a new political party takes over isn’t whether there will be instances of bribery, influence peddling, self-enrichment, and conflict of interest, but only which elected leaders will be caught at it. Sometimes even that part is easy: everyone should have been able to guess, long before they occurred, that Tom DeLay’s ethics-free philosophy of politics as warfare would lead him to commit serious misdeeds, just as the odds against former Florida Rep. Alan Grayson running a fair or civil campaign for re-election were prohibitively high. Similarly, sports scandals can usually be seen coming a long way off. Once New England Patriots coach Bill Belichik was caught making surreptitious videos of his team’s opponents’ practices, it was easy to guess that he wasn’t the only one, and that since both he and his team were so successful, it would be only a matter of time before a similar incident came to light. And it did, last week.

As I look through various Ethics Alarms posts, it is striking how many of them could have been written in advance, in fill-in-the-blank format. All you need to do is identify an industry with a history of ethics problems, a weak ethics culture, a trusting, under-informed audience, the potential for increased profit, power or influence, and a large population of corruptible, lazy, incompetent, venal, ambitious or cowardly allies. I’m sure a computer program could be developed, but for this holiday season, why not forecast next year’s ethics scandals as a party game? Challenge your guests: Which TV reality show will be shown to have completely manipulated “reality”? Which revered sports figure will be disgraced in a sex or drug scandal? Which Wall Street firm will be caught violating the “sacred principles” posted on its website? Which school will suspend or expel a student for violating the letter of an overly broad and horribly-written rule without actually doing anything wrong? Which universally accepted scientific research will turn out to be the result of manipulated data? Which embarrassments of the Obama Administration will only be reported by Fox News, and which outrages committed by Republicans will the same network ignore?

And, of course, where will TSA employees put their hands next?

This occurred to me as I read about the recent Big Pharma-manipulating-medical-practice scandal, involving drug giant GlaxonSmithKline, while slapping my forehead and shouting, “Of course! This was the logical next step!” Continue reading →

The Arizona Statute Injunction Ethics Verdict: Judge—Right; Arizona—Right; Federal Government—Unethical

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I was waiting at a long line in a local CVS, with no clerk in sight. It was late at night; a couple of my fellow customers actually shouted for assistance. We had been there with no service for more than ten minutes, and not a single employee was in evidence. Finally, I stepped out of line—past a police officer, who was also waiting, grabbed the microphone on the counter, turned it on, and announced in stentorian tones: “There is a long line at the check-out counter! Will a CVS employee please report to the front of the store? Thank you!”

The line of people applauded. The police officer smiled and gave me a thumbs up. The clerk, full of apologies, arrived and began taking our money.

Did I have a legal right to use the microphone? No, I did not. But I still did the right thing, and I would do it again.

This is, I believe, the proper way to think about the federal judge’s decision today to block the key provisions in the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law until further examination by the courts. Continue reading →