|
|
Easy Calls
Quick Takes
on Current Events
- What’s going on here? There is a sudden plague of
high-profile, rude, self-centered, unethical boors:
Rep. Joe Wilson, who shouted “You lie!” during President
Obama’s speech to Congress. He apologized to the President, but
not to the institution he shamed, Congress. Do all those who applaud
this disrespectful, uncivil act not comprehend that traditions and institutions
have meaning, and that maintaining decorum and formal manners during
the rituals of democracy are essential? I don’t want to hear how
Wilson was “right” that Obama was shading the truth; it’s
irrelevant to the ethical issue at hand. Wilson was wrong—as wrong
as a lawyer who calls the judge a fool in open court (he goes to jail)
or the baseball player who screams at the umpire that he’s blind
(he gets tossed out of the game.) There is no defense for Rep. Wilson’s
lack of respect for democratic institutions. He is unethical.
Serena Williams, tennis champion, who in reaction to a line judge
calling her for a foot-fault, approached the judge menacingly and shouted,
"I’ll stuff this fucking racket down your fucking throat!"
For that gracious little moment of pique, she forfeited the final point
of the match and was fined a paltry (for her) $10,500. It took Williams
more than a day to issue an apology. Her initial comments questioned
why she was being called for a foot-fault in that match, when, she implied,
she usually gets away with it. Serena would normally warrant a pass
for a bad moment under stress, but her attitude is troubling: she labors
under a delusion that she is above the rules that other players must
obey. Some commentators, incredibly, argued that Serena was the victim
of a YouTube culture, that in an earlier time her antics would have
been barely noticed. Well, good for YouTube. Serena Williams’ nastiness
and lack of sportsmanship should be exposed and condemned, not ignored.
Perhaps she’ll learn.
Kanye West, rapper and incorrigible egomaniac, who leapt onstage
during the MTV Music Video Awards to hijack the acceptance speech of
country singer Taylor Swift for best Female Music Video. Incredibly,
West proceeded to tell the audience that Beyonce Knowles, not Swift,
deserved the award. West also apologized later, but he is a serial boor:
he has done this sort of thing before. Later, the equally undisciplined
pseudo-comic Russell Brand, who hosted the show, resorted to the pathetic
“he didn’t kill anyone” rationalization to excuse West,
but this, like Wilson’s breach of decorum, is an easy call. West
can’t be trusted to behave like a civilized adult. He should be
banned from the show.
Finally, there is Michael Jordan, who used his acceptance speech
at the Pro Basketball Hall of Fame to settle scores with every coach,
executive or player who didn’t bow down and worship his greatness.
It was a petty, mean-spirited display of ego, arrogance and insecurity
at a moment when tradition and common sense dictate that humility and
graciousness should reign. Again, Jordan’s bad conduct had defenders.
Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon argued that the speech typified
Jordan’s competitive fire. One wonders if he would make the same
argument for Joe Wilson. For not being able to control one’s passions
is a failure of civility and responsibility, and those who want to minimize
the significance of this social deficit, like the clueless defenders
of Wilson, Williams, West and Jordan, are choosing chaos over civilization.
- Here is the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
displaying her concept of fair and ethical conduct in an interview on
Bloomberg News: "I don’t like using words like ‘villains,’ but
people call me a villain all the time, so I figure it’s probably okay
to use it back." This shouldn’t surprise anyone who has observed
the conduct through the years of Pelosi, or for that matter most of
those we call our elected leaders in Washington. But it is still an
expression of what The Blog of the Weekly Standard accurately calls,
“the moral reasoning of a 5-year-old.” And the really sad
part is that most Americans probably see nothing wrong with that reasoning.
[08/09/2009]
- A relatively unknown college kid engineered a smashing
two-handed dunk over Cleveland’s NBA superstar LeBron James
at the latter’s very own summer basketball camp. That’s cool…this
is what the camp is for: giving aspiring players a chance to learn from
and test themselves against the best. But James was caught napping,
and apparently was embarrassed. So his staff and representatives of
Nike confiscated a video of the event, on the theory that it would diminish
his reputation as the best basketball player on earth, hurting his commercial
value. What childish, dishonest, cowardly nonsense! The tale of the
dunk has been sports media fodder for days; not only is the “destroy
the evidence” approach unfair to the public, the media and the
kid, it is also pointless. Naturally, a copy of the tape has leaked
out. Ethics tip for LeBron: it’s unethical to try to obliterate
the past, and also futile. Remember the “Terminator” movies.
[08/09/2009]
- Too bad the senators couldnt ask Judge Sotomayor
about this one. According to various celebrity news sources (because
this is even too stupid for the AP), the square-jawed actor who played
James Bond only once, living trivia answer George Lazenby, is
suing his more famous, more successful ex-wife, former tennis star Pam
Shriver, to have their pre-nup cancelled and to require her to pay him
$16,133 a month in spousal support. His reason? His house is so much
smaller than hers, and she is so much richer, that his children look
on him with distain and he is embarrassed. True, hes a millionaire
too, but wealth is relative, you know, and Shriver (a member of the
Kennedy clan) is reportedly 30X better off. This ridiculous suit isnt
even a cry for help; its a cry that says, Im so completely warped
by the values of U.S. celebrity culture that I no longer understand
what the word fairness means.
- Marion Barry, ex-D.C. “Mayor for Life,”
ex-prison inmate, current City Council Member, tax scofflaw, and general
embarrassment to the national Capital, except for the loyal voters in
his ethically-creative ward, was arrested yet again. This time, it was
for stalking his erstwhile girlfriend, who, it comes out, had been given
a taxpayer-funded job by Barry as part of his courtship. As reported
by The Washington Post, Barry hired Ms. Watts-Brighthaupt as a consultant
in "poverty reduction strategies" (Whose poverty? Why hers,
natch!) two months after the start of his relationship with her. "She
met the criteria for the job and the qualifications for the job,"
Mr. Barry’s spokeswoman said in defense of the move. She also said that
the object of Barry’s lust and affection was in dire financial
straits, as if bailing out friends and lovers was a legitimate use of
public funds. Of course all of this is unethical; Barry’s entire
political and public career has proved that the only laws or principles
he respects are the ones that benefit him at the moment. The fascinating
thing is that he remains one of D.C.’s “leaders,” after
all these years, proving that the city still doesn’t really put
honesty, integrity or fairness very high on its priority list.[7/13/2009]
- There can be few defenders of Levi Johnson,
the ex-fiancé of Bristol Palin, whose multiple goals in life
now appear to be 1) cashing in on the celebrity and/or infamy he achieved
by being the unwed father of Palin’s oldest daughter’s baby;
2) attacking the family that at one time was willing to accept him as
one of their own, despite his role in embarrassing the Governor of Alaska,
his mother-in-law to be, at a rather critical point in her career, and
3) delivering as many unflattering and critical anecdotes and opinions
about the former Governor as his eager interviewers will sit still for.
Someone should tell him that America already knows he is irresponsible
and feckless (the little matters of the baby, getting his state’s
chief executive’s daughter pregnant…), and from his very first
televised interview, neither articulate, well-educated, discrete, nor
especially quick on the uptake. With each new shot he takes at Sarah
Palin, Johnson also reveals himself as petty, nasty, vindictive, and
mean. If he can’t understand that shutting up and keeping his opinions
to himself is the right thing to do, maybe someone can explain to him
that it is the smart thing to do. At worst he’s only an annoyance
to Palin, and there are too many smarter, more credible critics of the
ex-Governor for there to be any market for a callow, semi-literate ingrate.
Levi Johnson didn’t ask to be thrust into the national spotlight,
it’s true, but he should have the sense to realize that it isn’t
flattering, and his best course now is to leave it. [7/13/2009]
- It’s easy to make fun of the excesses PETA
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and the group’s
recent reprimand of Pres. Obama for killing a fly seems typically over
the top. But human beings are the most powerful creatures on earth,
and do have a tendency to exercise that power reflexively to destroy
whatever weaker, non-human annoyance gets in our way. If all PETA’s
admonition does is make us think a second longer before taking life,
whether the life belongs to a deer, a fish, a pig, a mouse, a humble
fly, or perhaps a human embryo, that’s a second well used. [6/26/2009]
- In an essay, on the Politico website ,about conservative
columnist Charles Krauthammer, Time political commentator Joe Klein
(the author of the popular Clinton roman a clef, “Primary Colors”),
is quoted as discounting Krauthammer’s analysis by referring to
his wheelchair-bound status as a paraplegic, saying, “His work
would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he’s
writing about.” Ethics foul, and a particularly foul one. Attempting
to marginalize an adversary by using his or her age, gender, race, religion
or physical characteristics as a measure of ability is not only offensive,
it is an insidious, dirty tactic. Nobody accused Franklin Roosevelt
of having limited perspective because of his handicap. Scientist Stephen
Hawking, virtually a prisoner of his own body due to the ravages of
Lou Gehrig’s Disease, has managed to unlock the mysteries of the
cosmos with his mind alone. Klein, a supposed liberal, is proclaiming
analytical superiority to Krauthammer because of Krauthammer’s
physical handicap. If a conservative made a comment like this, he would
be pilloried, and rightly so. Klein’s below-the-belt assault shows
that his own handicaps are intellectual and ethical.[6/26/2009]
-
The Scoreboard has covered this issue before. Switching
parties mid-term is the unmistakable act of an opportunist and a fraud,
and Sen. Arlen Specter’s convenient transformation, just
as polls showed him unlikely to prevail in the approaching Pennsylvania
Republican Primary for renomination, is a classic. His party spent
its funds to elect him, the voters who cast ballots for him were over-whelmingly
Republican, and he solicited campaign funds from citizens and organization
that thought they were giving to a Republican. If Specter really believes
his party has changed so dramatically since his election in 2004 (it
hasn’t) that he can’t fulfill his obligations to those who
elected him and funded his campaign, his honorable course would be
to change his affiliation and resign. This is how former Texas Senator
Phil Gramm switched parties when he was a Congressman: he announced
that he was becoming a Republican, resigned his seat, and then ran
for it again under his new banner. (He won.) But despite what his
self-serving announcement claimed, Specter didn’t switch out
of principle. He chose the cynical route of selling his allegiance
to the Senate Democrats, who are seeking a filibuster-proof majority
(oddly, no politician ever switches “on principle” from
a majority party to a minority one), in hopes of keeping his job.
This, despite recently denying the possibility of such a maneuver
because he said he believed it was important to have checks and balances
on the majority party in the Senate. Specter has demonstrated that
he can’t be trusted. The Democrats better watch their backs.
[05/04/2009]
- Norm Coleman’s refusal to concede defeat in his
Senate campaign at the hands of comedian/ liberal gadfly Al Franken
is now squarely in the category of selfish irresponsibility. His determination
to challenge the results of the official state recount, which turned
an apparent super-narrow Coleman win into an equally slim (less than
800 votes) Franken victory is robbing his state of representation in
the U.S. senate during a critical time, and is setting new standards
in gracelessness and civic recklessness. Any statistician…indeed,
any one who lived through the excruciating Florida recount that gave
George Bush the presidency in 2000…could tell Coleman that when
there is such a small margin among millions of votes cast, arriving
at the "right" vote totals is virtually impossible. It is
a statistical tie, and one candidate, the one unlucky enough to be at
the short end of the official count, has a duty to concede, shake hands,
and respect the democratic process. This is what Richard Nixon did in
1960, when many were urging him to challenge the razor-thin margins
in Texas and Illinois that made Jack Kennedy president. And it is what
Al Gore refused to do in 2000, creating bitterness that handicapped
the Bush administration for a full eight years. Coleman has one final
opportunity to do the right thing. It doesn’t look like he will take
it, and Minnesota voters should remember that if he ever seeks office
in the state again. [4/14/09]
- There’s not much enlightening to say about
David G. Friehling, Bernard Madoff’s complicit accountant who,
it appears, not only falsely certified Madoff’s financial scam
as on the up-and-up, but who also reaped large profits from the scheme.
But it is a good time to reiterate that the clients of accountants are
not the businesses or individuals who pay their salaries and fees, but
you and I, the public. The duty of accountants is to tell the public
the truth, and because they are often hired by exactly the people who
might benefit from hiding, misrepresenting, or otherwise distorting
the truth, accountants must be individuals with courage, integrity,
and professional pride. An accountant with none of these qualities is
may become the equivalent of a fireman who assists an arsonist, or a
police officer who drives a robber’s getaway car. Without the help
of accountants like David Friehling, swindlers like Bernie Madoff couldn’t
exist. [03/28/09]
-
Heres
the easiest of Easy Calls, but judging from the comments about the
story on the web, even easy ethical calls are too hard for many. Not
one but two Bountiful Junior High School teachers
in Bountiful, Utah (no jokes, please) have been accused of having
sexual relations with the same male 13-year-old student, after
their separate relationships with him progressed from personal conversations
to sexual text messages to phone sex, and ultimately real sex. The
unquestionably unethical parties: 1) the two middle-aged teachers,
who violated their ethical, professional, and legal obligations to
keep their relationship with this and any other student that of authority
figure and child, not lover and sex object; 2.) the school, which
failed its duty to screen, train and oversee the teachers entrusted
with the social, moral and educational instruction of children. But
among the jaw-dropping comments quoted in various newspaper articles
were those of Holly Ruhr, parent of a seventh-grade girl who attends
the school, who said she was not worried by the charges because
she has been "impressed in every way" by Bountiful Junior
High. "This is just a case of one or two teachers. Not a bad
school." Uh, Holly? By definition, a school that employs two
teachers who sexually assault a student is doing a bad job.
And how do you know its only two teachers? Clearly, the ethical culture
at Bountiful (I said no jokes!) is seriously deficient. It isnt as
if these two women were running their own sex ring—neither knew
of the others illicit relationship. How can any responsible parents
continue to allow their children to go to a school with this abysmal
record? Still, the web is filled with commenters who blame the student
(Outrageous. If an adult teacher cant resist the flirtatious overtures
of any 13-year old, even one with the sexual charisma of Elvis, the
looks of Brad Pitt and the moves of Casanova, she is in the wrong
profession), think the student was lucky ( such an opinion marks
an individual as ethically and logically hopeless, as well as someone
who should have a restraining order against him or her to make certain
a teenager never gets within 50 yards), or thinks everything depends
on how mature the boy was. (The previous comment applies.) There
have been enough of these teacher-student sexual liaisons in recent
years that every school has a duty to treat every teacher as a potential
statutory rapist, requiring training, policies, background checks
and regular oversight. One Mary Kay LaTourneau may slip through. But
a school that has two is doing something very wrong.
[3/27/08]
- TMZ, the gossip, spying, snark and embarrassing
photo website, probably couldn’t spell ethics, much less operate
with them. But a new low may have been established with an item on pop
star Jewel, who is a contestant on ABC’s “Dancing With the
Stars.” Announcing that Jewel was “cheating” by using
steroids to help her in the competition, the site said sternly, “It
is unknown what ABC’s policy is on performance-enhancing drugs in reality
dance competition.” This was accompanied by a poll asking TMZ readers
if using steroids to succeed in the dance competition was cheating.
But Jewel isn’t using “performance-enhancing drugs.”
She’s getting cortisone shots for arthritis in her knee. Later,
TMZ acknowledged this, saying that the item was “tongue-in-cheek.”
No, the item was misleading and false, and anytime a celebrity is reported
to be using a substance to look better, lose weight or dance well, lots
of celebrity-worshipping kids—exactly the people who read this vile
site—are sure to follow. So TMZ falsely accuses a woman of using illegal
drugs, and glamorizes dangerous conduct in the process. You would think
TMZ could find plenty of celebrities who are using illegal drugs without
having to falsely accuse one who isn’t. Slow news day, I guess.
[03/04/09]
- Donald Fehr, the head of baseball’s player
union, has set some kind of record for intellectual dishonesty. The
current furor over steroids was caused by the release of Alex Rodriquez’s
name as one of 104 players who tested positive for banned steroids in
a voluntary test run by the union in 2003. (The supposedly confidential
results were seized by the Feds for their BALCO prosecution, and A-Rod’s
name was leaked.) Because Rodriguez had been proclaimed the unquestionably
“clean” superstar who would wipe Steroid King Barry Bonds’
soiled career home run records off the books—and had asserted as much
himself in an interview with Katie Couric—many fans and writers have
been saying that if a player like Rodriguez was a steroid user, all
major league players are under suspicion until the remaining 103 names
are released. Fehr’s “You baseball fans will swallow anything
I say” comment on this: "If that’s the judgment, it seems
to me that is entirely wrong. We know what happened in 2003. The number
of positives we had was slightly over 5 percent. That means that slightly
over 94 percent was negative." So let’s get this straight:
since only 5% of the players taking the test tested positive (and remember,
that’s 5% of the players who voluntarily took a test for steroids,
meaning that 1) the 5% are just the incredibly dumb ones and 2) those
who chose not to be tested might have refused because they were riddled
with drugs), Fehr thinks it’s unreasonable to be suspicious of
all players as long as 103 names remain unknown? If Fehr is in a house
with 20 strangers, and knows that one of them is a serial killer, he
really believes that it wouldn’t be fair, not to mention logical,
to be wary of all twenty until the madman is identified? Fehr’s
public statement goes a long way in explaining why much of the public
does not trust lawyers, union officials, or Major League Baseball. [03/04/09]
-
I know The Scoreboard has mentioned this before. I know
it isn’t on the same unethical plane of outrage as Bernard Madoff
or the couplet mother. But I am going to keep pointing it out until
it stops: the way the American Idol judges, obviously under instructions
from the producers, gleefully torture the desperate, and in some cases,
emotionally unstable contestants is unconscionable, and if the contestants
hadn’t implicitly waived their legal rights, their conduct would
make for a good law suit for the tort of intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Here are the hopeful singers, exhausted, anxious,
wondering whether they will be given a shot at stardom, fame and a
lucrative career, herded into a room and made to wait hours while
the cameras record their every twitch. Then finally, the three American
Idol judges, minus Simon Cowell, walk in with sad faces to deliver
the verdict. (Cowell annually misses this part. Does he refuse to
participate because it would involve him in the human equivalent of
pulling the wings off of flies? If so, he is more ethically sensitive
than he gets credit for.) They ( Randy Jackson, Paula Abdul, and Kara
DioGuardi) make a series of excuses and apologies for the fact that
“everyone can’t win,” pronounce their empathy for the
young competitors who “worked their hearts out” but sometimes
“it just wasn’t good, dawg”), and generally make sounds
and faces as if the people in the room are about to be gassed. While
they are doing this, their victims are burying their heads in their
hands, sobbing, shaking, and generally falling to pieces. Right about
the time some members of the group look like they are about to begin
vomiting, the judges’ frown turn to expressions of joy and one
of them shouts, “You made it!” This isn’t funny, entertaining
or suspenseful. It is just plain cruel: disrespectful to the human
dignity of the contestants, unfair, and an abuse of power. [02/15/09]
-
Rush Limbaugh, as is often the case, leads the
way, but he has much company in the conservative talk show ranks,
from Sean Hannity to Right Wing performance artist Ann Coulter. The
message: Barack Obama is a fraud, and theyre going to cheer when
he proves them right by falling on his face. Well, shame on them,
and any member of the public that agrees with or encourages them.
The President of the United States represents and leads the entire
country. Though recent presidents have often forgotten the fact, the
presidency is not primarily a partisan position. All Americans owe
whomever occupies the office, Republican or Democrat, their respect,
allegiance, support and good will until they have demonstrated, in
office, that he or she is unworthy of it. To do otherwise is not merely
bad citizenship, but also self-destructive. Limbaugh, et al. will
argue that they are only treating the Democratic president the way
the Democrats treated Bush. And it is true that some vocal Democrats,
for example, wanted the Iraq War to fail, were disappointed when the
surge actually worked, and take glee in the Bush Administrations
travails on other fronts. To quote one of the best known (and most
correct) ethical axioms of all, two wrongs dont make a right. The
Democrats who behaved this way were being bad citizens, and Republicans
who emulate them are just as bad. (The Scoreboard gives conservatives
ethics brownie points for not fleeing the country when their candidate
did not prevail, as too many feckless liberals did in 2004.) Any American
who does not want President Obama to succeed is, quite simply, a bad
American. And an appallingly stupid one, too. [01/24/09]
- Daniel Lawrence Whitney is a Nebraska-born comic who
has become rich and famous as “Larry the Cable Guy,”
a Southern red-neck character with a thick Dixie accent catch phrases
like “Get ‘er done!” The celebrity-stalking website TMZ
recently crowed about catching Whitney on tape talking on his cell phone
like the Nebraska boy he really is. This, to TMZ, was a scoop: “Larry
the Cable Guy” was a fraud! His accent was a fake! Note to TMZ
from the Ethics Scoreboard: acting is not the same as lying. Harpo Marx
really could speak very well; Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe were
not dumb (or blonde!). John Wayne’s accent was made up too. There
is nothing unethical or dishonest about creating a character for entertainment
purposes. [01/09/2008]
- When a politician says, "I am not guilty of any
criminal wrongdoing," as Illinois Governor Blagojevich did
at his first press conference since his arrest on corruption charges,
you know that he has to go. The statement means, in essence, “I
may be dishonest, I may be corrupt, but I can beat this rap!” Well,
it doesn’t matter whether he can avoid conviction in a court of
law or not. The public doesn’t trust him, as is only rational considering
that he was recorded on tape discussing how he would sell the appointment
to Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. If
he can’t be trusted, then he can’t hold a public office, a
public trust. The Governor has an obligation to resign, immediately.
Not doing so only compounds his misconduct and further sullies what
is left of his reputation. The fact that his venal scheme was discovered
before he could finish it may well keep him out of jail, because he
may not have completed a crime. But on the tapes Blagojevich demonstrated,
unless he was engaged in some kind of bizarre performance art, that
he is a dirty politician with an integrity vacuum. That’s all the
public needs to know.[12/21/2008]
- The now infamous fatal shopper stampede at a Long
Island Walmart should be the easiest of calls ethically. Risking
human life and the property of others in pursuit of bargain merchandise
cannot be excused or justified, though some misguided commentators wee
willing to try. This, some said, showed the desperation of ordinary
citizens in difficult financial times. No. The Walmart tragedy shows
how people whose priorities and values are badly aligned to begin with
can degenerate into a cruel, insensitive, self-centered mob. Nobody
should be so “desperate” for a flat-screened TV or an X-Box
game system that they cause a death, injury, pain or even insult to
another human being. Those who do can’t blame the economy. They
should blame their malfunctioning ethical compass. [12/9/2008]
- It isn’t only Democrats who refuse to honorably
and respectfully accept the results of presidential elections. From
the Republican camp comes attorney Philip Berg, who is pushing the urban
legend that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and thus isn’t eligible
for the office we (yes, WE, you sore losers out there) just elected
him to. He’s filing briefs, petitioning the Supreme Court, and
getting poor soon-to-be-Colmesless Sean Hannity all excited. This is
a marshmallow sundae for the worst of the nutty right, and the blogs
and talk shows are buzzing, humming and drooling. But representing a
legitimate election as some kind of fraud because you wish another candidate
had won is unethical indeed: dishonest, unfair, and bad citizenship,
plain and simple. Most conservatives with brains and consciences have
rejected Berg and his followers, and that is the right thing to do.
Stop trying to undermine our new president before he even takes office.
It is bad for everyone, as the refusal of diehard Democrats to concede
that Bush won the 2000 election legitimately proved over the last 8
years. [11/30/2008]
- Poetic justice isn’t the same thing as fairness. Yes,
the supporters of Barack Obama certainly have been quick on the trigger
to manufacture accusations of racism against campaign opponents when
they were engaging in nothing of the kind (example: Geraldine Ferraro).
And yes, the Obama campaign has not been above making excessive political
hay out of a careless campaign moment (example: John McCain’s uncertainty
about his homes). So there is a certain degree of satisfaction watching
their candidate squirm as Republicans accuse him of sexist invective
because of his "lipstick on a pig" gaffe. Nonetheless,
the accusation is unfair and cynical. "Lipstick on a pig"
has been used in political discourse for decades, and it would have
been a diabolical play on words indeed to turn the phrase around to
mock Sarah Palin following her pitbull and lipstick joke. But anyone
clever enough to use the cliché in that way would be also be
smart enough to realize it would backfire badly. Obama is that smart…what
he obviously isn’t is experienced enough in the gender wars and campaign
rhetoric to avoid handing his opposition a stick to beat him with. It
would be an ethical break-though if both candidates and parties could
agree to give a pass to each other on the inevitable misstatements that
lie ahead, and to concentrate instead on things they really mean to
say. That will happen, I suspect, when pigs, with lipstick or not, fly.
[9/11/2008]
- The most cowardly and dishonest of moral/ethics waffles,
and one especially embraced by Catholic politicians who want to get
credit for two diametrically opposed positions simultaneously, is the
infamous Mario Cuomo/John Kerry position on abortion: “I personally
believe that life begins at conception, but I have no right to impose
that view on others.” For the politicians who usually attempt this blatantly
dishonest dodge, the unspoken follow-up is “therefore I will aggressively
support legislation and court decisions that favor a practice that I
personally believe is taking a human life, a.k.a. “murder.” As the Scoreboard
has stated before, this position is the mark of an unprincipled political
prostitute, and ought to disqualify the coward/con artist/ hypocrite/
idiot (pick one) for any elected office whatsoever. Fine: support abortion
by maintaining that a fetus isn’t a life, or support it by maintaining
that it is a life, but a lesser one in a trade-off with the
mother’s needs or desires, or oppose abortion by holding that an unborn
child of any age is a human life with human rights. But a lawmaker saying
that he personally believes a practice constitutes the taking of
a life but feels he can’t impose his will on others to oppose
it
how can anyone, of any political persuasion, seriously accept
that? Lawmakers are ready, willing and eager to impose all sorts of
other personal convictions involving taxes, property, life-styles, marriage,
war, security and privacy on citizens who believe otherwise, but it’s
wrong to “impose” a genuine belief about a human life? Why is that,
exactly? Because the politician either doesn’t have the guts to state
his true beliefs, or doesn’t have the integrity to stand by them. Oh
almost
forgot to identify the latest “statesman” to proudly stand up and say
that he’d never dream of stopping others from doing what he believes
is not just morally wrong, but the taking of a life. It’s Senator
Joe Biden. “I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that
life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment,” Biden
said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “For me to impose that judgment on everyone
else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me
is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.” [9/11/2008]
- Elsewhere on the Scoreboard is a discussion of what is
judged an unethical theme of the upcoming presidential campaign: that
only racism or cheating can defeat Barack Obama. Those skeptical of
this analysis should visit http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/,
where Slate columnist Jacob Weisberg, shortly after the Scoreboard piece
was written, proved our point. Yes, according to Weisberg, the only
possible reason anyone would vote against Barack Obama is his skin color
and
that means you and me. If appealing to white guilt doesnt intimidate
enough people to actually win the election for this completely untested
and virtually uncredentialed aspiring world leader, we can expect more
of Weisbergs argument following Obamas defeat, except that it will
be more divisive, more bitter and more damaging to America. Avoiding
this is almost enough by itself to make someone want to vote
for Obama
which is, of course, the whole reason why were being warned
now. The Easy Call for this tactic: wrong to the bone, and absolutely
despicable. [8/27/2008]
- Kwami Kilpatrick
has just been given jail time for leaving the country in violation of
his bond, stemming from the multiple counts of perjury against him for
lying about his illicit affair that cost the city of Detroit millions
of dollars. He is also charged, in another matter, with assault. This
habitual liar, felon and law-breaker is the mayor of Detroit, in case
his name didn’t ring a bell. Why? How can an elected official and leader
of a city (one with a terrible crime rate, coincidentally) continue
to serve in that role, when he has violated his pledge to serve the
laws and the city’s interests above all else? Can his failure to resign
be justified by any ethical principle? He cannot be trusted: his perjury
charges stem from lying under oath in a lawsuit claiming (accurately,
the jury found) that he dismissed his city security detail when they
uncovered his illicit relationship. He does not respect the law: he
willfully left the country in defiance of a court bail order, citing
his official duties. But that’s the point: a man battling felony charges
can’t do his official duties, and shouldn’t be allowed to try. Kilpatrick’s
sole argument for staying in office is that he is the city’s savior
(well, he also has argued that his troubles are the result of racist
enemies, but that is right out of the Corrupt African-American Elected
Official Playbook, co-authored by Marion Barry, William Jefferson and
Mel Reynolds), which explains a lot: the man is so convinced of his
superiority and infallibility that he makes John Edwards look like a
realist. If Kilpatrick had an ethical impulse still twitching in his
ego-swollen body, and cared about the welfare of the city’s residents
one-tenth as much as he admires himself, he would have resigned months
ago. Detroit doesn’t need a self-proclaimed savior as much as it needs
a mayor who respects the law, who knows the difference between right
and wrong , and who regards the values of accountability and integrity
as more important than power. [8/16/2008]
- So why did the Associated Press feel that a man being
arrested for openly stealing money from a charity was newsworthy? Not
because of how much was stolen, but because of how little: just forty-two
cents. The subtext of the AP story was clearly that the arrest was
an oddball example of law enforcement gone wild. 43-year-old Laslo Mujzer
was arrested for taking change out a public fountain in Naples, Florida.
A sign at the fountain said that all coins would be donated to Habitat
for Humanity. Well, the AP is wrong. Theft is theft. Property is property.
Forty-two cents is still something of worth, and the mindset that little
ethical and legal violations dont count is a lifetime pass to the dreaded
Slippery Slope. The ethical violation isnt dependent on how much
one steals, but that one steals at all. Punishment is another matter:
a night in jail for stealing $ 0.42 is tough punishment, but you cant
usually fine someone who is stealing spare change, and the Paris Hilton/Nicole
Ritchie/Lindsay Lohan twenty minute jail sentences are a joke. If society
doesnt treat stealing small amounts as a crime, then it is saying that
it will be tolerated—and thats perilously close to saying that its
acceptable. It isnt, and good for the Naples police for making sure
everyone knows it. [7/27/2008]
- A cartoon cover of The New Yorker, titled "The
Politics of Fear" (drawn by Barry Blitt) depicts Barack Obama wearing
traditional Muslim garb, including robe and turban, and his wife, Michelle
dressed in camouflage and combat boots with an assault rifle strapped
over her shoulder. They are standing in the Oval Office, doing a tapping
fists as an American flag burns merrily in the fireplace. A portrait
of Osama bin Laden hangs over the mantle. Unfair? It is obviously a
tongue in cheek image: anyone who takes it seriously is the kind of
person the cartoon is really lampooning. Tasteless? It depends on your
taste in satire. Presumable the Northeast sophisticates who appreciate
The New Yorker will get it; at least the magazines editors think so.
Offensive? Well, sure: satire has to offend somebody. But was
it wrong to print it? Absolutely, 100% not! The now-indignant
protectors of Barack Obama doubtlessly chuckled at portrayals of George
W. Bush as a drooling moron on Saturday Night Live, reveled in absurd
caricatures of Hillary Clinton as a power-mad, compulsive liar, enjoyed
exaggerations of Dick Cheney as a gun-crazed loony, and even received
guilty pleasure from cartoons and satiric representations of Bill Clinton
as a hyper-sexed, hillbilly glutton. For them now to declare that a
cartoon ridiculing the smears of right-wing talk radio against Obama
crosses some ethical line scales the heights of hypocrisy. It also makes
one dread that these same people will try to use Obamas race to shield
him from the routine and traditional ravages of cartoonists, satirists,
impressionists and political opponents, using the bizarre argument that
it is somehow acceptable to present the President of the United States
as a blithering idiot but improper to bring down similar indignities
on a mere candidate for the job. Lets be clear: seriously asserting
that Obama is a Muslim, terrorist-lover and traitor-in-disguise is simple
slander, ignorant and dishonest. But for satire that lampoons him as
anything from a Muslim to a moron to a marmoset, he is fair game
just
like anyone else.[7/26/2008]
- No doubt about it: T. Boone Pickens
can choose integrity or an extra million dollars. And he appears—surprise!—to
have chosen the latter. Last November Pickens issued the imprudent promise
that he would give a cool mil to anyone who came forth with proof that
any of the claims of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth in their vendetta
against John Kerry were false. Later, when Sen. Kerry confronted him
on the pledge, Boone narrowed it to include only those claims made by
the group in the series of TV attack ads funded by Pickens during the
2004 presidential campaign. Now ten Viet Nam veterans have come forward
with eye-witness testimony undermining the Swiftboaters’ charges that
Kerry’s war medals were based on fraud and misrepresentation. These
allegations were always the weakest, nastiest and most unfair of the
group’s attacks; others, such as their assertion that Kerry’s G.I bashing
while testifying before Congress and his unsubstantiated accusations
of routine brutality by U.S. forces in Viet Nam harmed the troops, especially
those in enemy hands, were both well-founded and thoroughly deserved.
But Pickens said “any” of the claims, and the records and documentation
support Kerry. Nevertheless, he refuses to pay up. The Scoreboard pronounces
him ethically reprehensible, and is sure T. Boone will cry all the way
to the bank
[7/6/2008]
- At the trial of art student Kristina Caban,
her attorney, James Friedman, said, “She’s a good kid, despite the picture
painted of her, who exercised poor judgment and got herself into a bad
situation. She is not the monster the prosecution made her out to be.”
Caban was convicted of enlisting the help of two friends to taser and
immobilize a former one-night-stand sex partner, and then branding his
torso with the letter “R” in retribution for his not calling her afterwards.
Once again, the Scoreboard must reiterate its position that certain
acts, especially when they have been carefully planned and pre-meditated
like this one was, demonstrate a sufficiently flawed ethical system
that the adjective “good” can not reasonably be applied to the person
responsible. Can we agree that using hot metal to brand and scar a human
being is in this category? Yes, we can. [6/22/2008]
- Pronouncing a mob moll like Victoria Gotti
(daughter of deceased Gambino family head John Gotti and former wife
of mobster Carmine Agnello) an “ethics dunce” is pointless; still, her
ethics void goes deeper than most. She had accepted a $70,000 advance
from Harper Row Publishing to produce a book and never bothered to write
it. Then she cancelled the agreement with her publishers, without giving
the money back. Her literary agent reportedly says that Gotti will pay
back the money when she finds another publishing deal. Analogy: you
are paid $500 up front to paint a house, and then decide you don’t want
to do the work. You tell the former customer that you’ll return the
money when you get another job. Uhhhh, no. Ms. Gotti’s father
would have taught her that people who tried that game with him would
end up on a meat hook
an over-reaction, no doubt, but one that represents
a correct verdict on the conduct as unethical. Keep your promises, Victoria.
And don’t accept money for work you’re not going to do. That leaves
only one question: why would any rational company trust someone like
Victoria Gotti with a cash advance? [6/9/2008]
- The efforts of Minnesota Republicans to discredit
Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful (and former satirist in print, on TV,
and on the airwaves) Al Franken echoes
the despicable attempt of former Virginia Senator George Allen to discredit
his ultimately-victorious opponent Jim Webb, using steamy sex scenes
from Webb’s justly acclaimed novels. Republicans would have screamed
to high heaven in 1980 if President Jimmy Carter’s campaign had used
film clips of Ronald Reagan playing a vicious villain and slapping Angie
Dickenson around in "The Killers," and justifiably so. Well,
the GOP’s trumpeting the fact that Franken wrote a sexually-provocative
humor piece for Playboy eight years ago is equally unfair, and also
100% irrelevant to what kind of senator Franken would make. His obviously
satirical story tells us nothing of his character or policy inclinations.
All it tells us is that, like 97% of all males who went to college in
the late 1960s, Franken does not regard Playboy as the personification
of evil or sex as a moral stain on mankind, and that like 99.9% of all
humorists having to make a living, he would write what a particular
magazine’s readers were likely to read in order to sell an article.
It is understandable that Franken would see no stigma in writing for
Playboy, since while he was reading the magazine as a Harvard student,
it published essays and stories by the likes of Truman Capote, Lawrence
Durrell, James T. Farrell, Allen Ginsberg, Le Roi Jones, Norman Thomas,
Arthur Miller, Norman Podhoretz, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas,
Georges Simenon, Isaac Bashevis Singer, William Styron, Marshall McLuhan,
Eric Hoffer, and John Updike, as well as humorous pieces by Jean Shepherd
(of "A Christmas Story" fame), Robert Morley, and P.G. Wodehouse.
When Republicans do things like this, they insult voters by assuming
that they are narrow-minded and illiterate, celebrate humorlessness,
and willfully blur the difference between entertainment and public policy.
It was an ethical outrage when Allen tried this tactic on Webb, and
he deserved to lose for doing it. If Franken’s opponent, Republican
Norm Coleman, permits the same ridiculous attacks to be used on him,
it will tell voters far more about his character than any silly article
in Playboy tells us about Al Franken. [Full disclosure: I went to
the same college as Franken during the same years, though I never met
him. Politically, stylistically and personally, I don’t especially agree
with or like the guy and what he stands for. I respect and have enjoyed
much of his work as an actor and writer.] [6/1/08]
- Actress Sharon Stone’s crack that the deadly
earthquake in China was "karma" places her squarely in the
deplorable group also occupied by Jeremiah Wright and Pat Robertson:
people whose response to catastrophes that befall those with whom they
disagree is to say, "Well, they had it coming." This betrays
a lack of empathy, charity, respect and kindness, not to mention common
sense. This is a free country, and prominent figures are allowed to
say such mean-spirited and hurtful things, just as the rest of us are
entitled to make some judgements about their ethical instincts and IQ’s
when they shoot off their mouths in such an offensive manner. [6/1/08]
- Is there anything that can be said in support of
Port St. Lucie, Fla. kindergarten teacher Wendy Portillo, who
humiliated a disruptive special-needs five-year old by conducting a
vote among his classmates as to whether he should be allowed to remain
in class? That she was "frustrated," perhaps, by the difficulty
of dealing with a child who had symptoms of autism? Well, would you
say that being frustrated would mitigate her offense if she kicked the
boy in the gut? That probably would have been less devastating, in the
long run. The abused child, whose one friend in the class was reportedly
pressured to declare him unfit to remain there, now is traumatized at
the prospect of returning to school. And all parents may be traumatized
at the prospect of entrusting their children to a profession that seems
to be increasingly populated by badly-trained, unprofessional teachers
who have serious, and dangerous, deficits in judgment. Perhaps it has
always been thus in the public schools, with more abuse, cruelty and
incompetence that we suspected. Or perhaps Portillo is an extreme and
rare aberration. In either event, she has injured the reputation of
her profession as well as the innocent child, and made home-schooling
seem more attractive than ever. [6/1/08]
- The Scoreboard is loathe to agree with Star
Jones on anything, but
there is no conceivable excuse for anyone,
no matter how desperately the public wants to know about their exciting
life, exposing private secrets involving lovers and friends in an autobiography.
Unless former Senator and, as we now know thanks to Barbara’s new book,
former Barbara Walters adulterous paramour Ed Brooke actually gave her
permission to spill the beans, it was a despicable, venal, and unethical
thing to do. Just like Star Jones said. If there’s one thing Star Jones
knows about, it’s unethical conduct. [5/19/2008]
- Setting the standard for trivial scandals is undoubtedly
Casserolegate, in which a list of his wife’s "family recipes"
on Senator John McCain’s campaign website turned out to contain nothing
but copyrighted recipes lifted from the web. The media laughed it off
and McCain’s spokespeople laughed it off, saying that Cindy McCain had
no idea that these recipes were listed under her seal of approval. So,
in other words, the entire page was a lie: Cindy didn’t really have
"family recipes" to pass on; this was just a way to pander
to homemakers, entrusted to a low level staffer, and a dim-wit at that.
Silly as this is, it doesn’t speak well for the campaign’s ethics or
Cindy McCain’s sense of accountability. Message to McCain’s team: Don’t
lie about trivial things, because it can become a habit that leads to
lying about important things. Message to Cindy McCain and everyone else:
If you put your name on something, you’re accountable for it. Even if
it’s just a collection of phony recipes. [4/24/2008]
- It’s a silly issue, but not as silly as you might think:
Senator Obama’s flag pin. Obama made a point of not wearing the
popular lapel decoration earlier in his campaign, stating that it had
become "a substitute for real patriotism," which was, in his
case, speaking out against the Iraq conflict. Fine: legitimate symbolism,
a courageous stand, and certainly preferable to playing the "I
support the troops but I don’t support what the troops are doing"
double-talk favored by too many of his colleagues. But Obama’s lack
of a flag pin became a lightning rod for right-wing columnists and talk-show
hosts, who used it to raise questions about Obama’s patriotism and "real
feelings about America," especially after his wife’s ill-considered
comment about being proud of America "for the first time,"
and Obama’s strange twenty-year passiveness in the faces of his pastor’s
racist America-bashing. So now he’s wearing a flag pin. The problem
is that once you have said an action is an empty substitute for the
real thing, you can’t suddenly embrace the conduct when you come under
criticism without making the implicit statement that you are doing something
you don’t really believe in just to quiet the storm. Taking a bold contrarian
stand like "I don’t need no stinkin’ flag pin" to prove my
patriotism is an assertion of integrity, courage honesty and ethical
character. So what is it when one puts the pin back on as soon as the
going gets a little tougher? A small compromise and a minor concession
to political realities, or a telling symptom of another politician whose
integrity is only as reliable as the next poll results? We shall see.
[4/24/2008]
- The Case of the Hirsute Steak: We usually
associate the professional duty of trust with such professionals as
accountants, lawyers and doctors, but the fact is that we put a great
deal of trust in less celebrated professionals whom we deal with on
a regular basis. Cooks, for example. Ryan Kropp, a cook at a Texas Roadhouse,
got annoyed at a patron who complained that his steak was over-done,
and stuffed his own hair into the new steak he prepared to take its
place. Yuk! He is currently facing felony charges, though that won’t
make it much easier for his victim to regain trust in the culinary profession.
It also demonstrates that some minimal character requirements need to
be applied even when the job isn’t as high-paying and consequential
as lawyer or doctor. Kropp had been arrested before, though not for
stuffing steak with hair, A Code of Ethics for short-order cooks? It
might be time. [4/13/2008]
- Sometimes the law becomes necessary to enforce ethical
habits. Actor Nicholas Cage (most recently starring in the "National
Treasure" movies and the "Ghost Rider" lark: Cage has
settled into his "What the hell, it’s a paycheck!" stage…)
just successfully sued Kathleen Turner (a once-terrific actress
just trying to stay solvent and famous) for claiming in her memoir,
"Send Yourself Roses," that Cage had twice been arrested for
drunken driving and had stolen a dog. It should be obvious, but apparently
not: spicing up your published recollections with made up stuff is bad
enough, but making up stories that impugn a colleague’s character and
conduct is a major ethics violation that involves not merely breaking
the Golden Rule but complete ignorance of it. Even if Turner erroneously
believed what she wrote, she had an obligation to check her facts before
labeling Cage a dog-stealer and a drunk driver. Turner, like just about
every other movie star, has complained about vicious lies and rumors
printed in the tabloids; how can she justify doing the same to Cage?
Well, she couldn’t. Turner admitted there was no truth in the stories,
Cage is getting unspecified damages (which he will forward to charity)
and the book will be corrected. And just maybe an ethical lesson will
be learned. [4/13/2008]
- The problem with single-minded zealots is that they can
lose the ability to empathize with others who do not share their passions,
and do needless harm to those who are completely irrelevant to their
objectives. And so it was that a hoard of pro-life protestors
disrupted the Hollywood premiere of “Horton Hears a Who!” Some genius
figured out that the movie’s core message of “A person’s a person, no
matter how small” (courtesy of Theodore Geisel, a.k.a. Dr. Seuss) could
be applied to the anti-abortion cause. That’s swell, but the children
who were looking forward to seeing an uninterrupted performance of a
kids movie don’t have a dog in this hunt, and shouldn’t have been made
the victims of a protest that was ill-timed, unfair, irresponsible and
pointlessly obnoxious. A protest has to be able to justify the harm
it does to bystanders with sufficiently significant and positive results,
and this one didn’t, except perhaps to spawn a new slogan, “An inconsiderate
jerk’s a jerk, no matter how well-intentioned.”[4/13/2008]
- Big story, huge implications, but ethically, a
very Easy Call. The Los Angeles Times, which has been running
through editors like Kleenex tissues as it tries to cut expenses at
the apparent cost of competence and credibility, ran a sensational story
about the death of rapper Tupak Shakur that was based on fake documents.
Once again it was the website "The Smoking Gun" that set the
record straight: the documents appear to have been the work of an imprisoned
con-man with a lifetime habit of fraud and audacious lying. Newspapers
are supposed to check and double check such things, but like weekly
news magazines and TV network news shows, they are media dinosaurs trying
to do anything to avoid extinction. So they cut corners, eliminate jobs
and checkpoints, and what is the result? "60 Minutes" attacks
a President based on a forged document that was never authenticated.
The New York Times runs a barely-sourced front-page sex-scandal story
about what some of John McCain’s aides "were worried about."
The New Republic publishes stories of callous conduct by American soldiers
in Iraq by an anonymous "diarist," who turns out to be 1)
the husband of a staffer and 2) making things up. These and other embarrassments
by the mainstream media shows what happens when a powerful non-ethical
considerations like staying competitive in a changing business cause
an organization to put professional ethics on the back-burner. Once
it is there, other non-ethical and even unethical influences like political
biases, ambition and cultural prejudice can run amuck. The lesson of
this dismaying series of mainstream media betrayals of the public trust
is this: there are no newspapers, network news shows, or periodicals
that are any more trustworthy than the internet sources that drove them
all to desperation. There are undoubtedly some of them that have maintained
high ethical standards, but we cannot know what they are, and worse,
we cannot assume that they won’t abandon those standards tomorrow. [3/27/2008]
- Here is what Bill Clinton, speaking to a group
of veterans in Charlotte, N.C. on behalf of his wife’s candidacy,
said: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election
year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted
to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves
who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always
seems to intrude itself on our politics." Now, some supporters
of Sen. Barack Obama are accusing the former president and charter member
of the Ethics Scoreboard “Liar of the Month” Hall of Fame
of insinuating, ever so cleverly and deceitfully, that his wife’s
opponent isn’t a person who loves and is devoted to the interest
of this country. “Horrors!! Bill Clinton suggest something like
that? How can anyone think such a thing?” has been the response
of Team Clinton. This Easy Call is too easy: of course that’s what
Clinton was insinuating, and yes, it is unfair, dishonest and unethical.
It is classic deceit: there is nothing wrong with the sentiment or the
words, for everyone thinks that would “be a great thing.”
But since the comment was made in the context of arguing that his wife
is the better candidate to face unquestioned patriot John McCain, there
is only one possible interpretation of Clinton’s intent, which
was to make those in doubt think, “Hmmmm…what do I really
know about that guy who was born a Muslim and whose middle name is Hussein?
And didn’t I read somewhere that his mentor and advisor said, ‘God
damn America’?” Nobody knows how to make words tap-dance better
than Mr. “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
Fortunately, people are finally beginning to recognize his handiwork
for what it is. [3/26/2008]
- It is all but certain that neither Michigan nor
Florida will give its Democrats a "do-over" so that
delegates from those states can be chosen in a fair primary. Now there
is only one ethical answer to the burning question of whether Hillary
Clinton’s victories in the two rogue primaries that were held against
the rules of the Democratic National Committee should provide her with
the additional delegates from those states she so desperately needs:
no. The candidates did not campaign in those states and she alone allowed
her name to appear on the ballot in Michigan. The fact that thousands
of people voted? Irrelevant. The fact that they are major states with
a major stake in a battle for the Democratic nomination that is, as
Dan Rather liked to say, "as tight as a too-small bathing suit
on a too-long ride home from the beach" ? Beside the point. The
Democratic Party declared that those primaries wouldn’t count before
they took place. All the candidates knew it, and pledged to abide by
the ruling. Senator Clinton’s advocates, well-trained in "ends
justify the means" theology, have been floating all manner of arguments
to try to validate the voting results retroactively. That’s called changing
the rules after the game has been played, a.k.a. "cheating."
The Party has endorsed this tactic before, notably when it tried to
change the definition of what counted as a valid ballot in Florida back
in 2000, so it can’t get too high up on its horse. But giving Mrs. Clinton
delegates that Senator Obama did not compete for is still unfair and
wrong. [3/21/2008]
- In the wake of Eliot Spitzer’s resignation as governor
of New York, there has been the predictable flurry of published opinions
that prostitution, as a "victimless crime," should
not be a crime at all. It is an irresponsible and willfully ignorant
position. Victimless? Look at video footage of the stricken face of
Spitzer’s wife as she heard her husband admit his prostitution habit.
Check the horrendous public health record of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted
diseases acquired or spread through the practice of prostitution. Listen
to interviews of the desperate, abused women in "the life,"
and hear how it traps runaways, the poor and the abandoned in an existence
based upon exploitation and degradation by men with money and power.
Prostitution has wrecked lives and families for centuries, and making
it legal would not stop that one bit. Legalization would, however, make
a societal statement that it is okay…a statement that usually leads
to more of the conduct involved. Well, nothing about prostitution and
its effects are "okay." The fact that laws have not eliminated
it does not mean that we should eliminate the laws. And calling a crime
"victimless" that harms so many is indistinguishable from
a lie. [3/17/2008]
- The Scoreboard is going to be moderate in its praise
of Sen. John McCain’s habitual ethical decency, lest
he show up too regularly in the Ethics Hero category and threaten the
Scoreboard’s claim to non-partisanship. But it’s an Easy Call to praise
McCain for repudiating the remarks of Ohio talk-show fire-breather Bill
Cunningham, an uncivil, shrill and mean-spirited man even by the abysmal
standards of conservative talk radio, who warmed up McCain’s crowd in
Cincinnati with anti-Obama vitriol, including the slimy tactic, lately
a favorite of the Angry Right, of calling the Illinois Senator by his
unfortunate middle name, Hussein. Yes slimy, because the clear objective
is to associate Obama, an American and a patriot, with radical Muslims
in the minds of those members of the American public who are bigoted,
ignorant, racist, or terrified—a very large group, unfortunately.
Cunningham has disingenuously protested that there can be nothing wrong
with calling someone by his legal name, but he knows what he is doing,
and McCain wasn’t about to buy into his juvenile tricks. So after his
campaign rally, Senator McCain immediately gave a press conference in
which he said: “It’s my understanding that before I came in here
a person who was on the program before I spoke made some disparaging
remarks about my two colleagues in the Senate, Senator Obama and Senator
Clinton. I have repeatedly stated my respect for Senator Obama and Senator
Clinton, that I will treat them with respect. I will call them ‘Senator.’
We will have a respectful debate, as I have said on hundreds of occasions.
I regret any comments that may have been made about these two individuals
who are honorable Americans
Whatever suggestion that was made that was
any way disparaging to the integrity, character, honesty of either Senator
Obama or Senator Clinton was wrong. I condemn it, and if I have any
responsibility, I will take the responsibility, and I apologize for
it.” McCain emphasized that it was not appropriate to invoke Mr.
Obama’s middle name in the course of the campaign, saying, “I absolutely
repudiate such comments. It will never happen again.” Cunningham was
furious, and later said that he would switch his support to Hillary
Clinton. I’m sure she will be thrilled. [3/2/2008]
Return
to Home Page
|
|
|
|
Read
"Easy Calls" from previous months
|
|
|