Monday, December 28, 2009

Heckuva job, Janet


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano just gave Americans the best reason to distrust their government since Bush’s “Heckuva job, Brownie.” Jack Marshall has an excellent analysis of her egregious misstatement about the attempted destruction of the Northwest airliner (“The system worked.”)  on his EthicsAlarms blog, at http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/28/napolitano-ethics-heck-of-a-job-janet/comment-page-1/#comment-602
Napolitano later, when correcting herself, said that she had been quoted out of context. Marshall’s article demonstrates that this is another untruth.
It’s the depths of unethical behavior to lie from a position of trust. It’ll take a lot to get people to trust Napolitano again. Worse, her egregious misstatement will confirm for millions their justification for distrusting all government.

11 comments:

Judith Ellis said...

Bob - I am absolutely appalled by your post. Is it rewarding to sit from a lofty position of ethical judge and call someone else a liar when it appears very clear that you and those with political agendas have taken Secretary Napolitano's comment out of context? In reference to Napolitano you said "it’s the depths of unethical behavior to lie from a position of trust." What are you talking about? She did not lie. But your "righteous" post could engender mistrust that should not exist or inflame based on a reading and not reality. Your simplistic reading hinges on three words ("the system worked") that you have taken out of context.

President Obama explained Napolitano's comment perfectly and in context. (Should we also mistrust him? Should we consider him a liar too? Should we distrust government based on his comment?) Napolitano's comment was clearly in response to what occurred AFTER the event and not BEFORE. She spoke of the crew's response. She spoke of the passengers' response. She spoke of alerting flights in the air. Her comment was meant to instill confidence and not what you have described here. She governs in security concerns and we do not. Americans were in the air, flying on one of the busiest times on the calendar. There was nothing unethical about her statement on CNN. It's your reading that is skewed. And, when has calling someone a liar based one someone's reading ethical?

Bob said...

No, Judith, her remarks were NOT taken out of context. Faced with a system failure that only by dumb luck didn't lead to 300 deaths, Napolitano attempted to put the incident in a favorable light. She was trying to deceive the American people. Because of the magnitude of the attempted deception I called it a lie. No apology.

The President didn't attempt to deceive. His statements have been honest and forthright, and he deserves praise for them. It would have been even more praiseworthy had he fired napolitano.

Judith Ellis said...

"Napolitano attempted to put the incident in a favorable light."

Bob - Your saying "no" does not make it so. Does your comment above mean that Secretary Napolitano lied? Absolutely not! You are talking and standing as ethical judge. She has a responsibility to not interject extreme fear in the hearts of millions of Americans traveling on one of the busiest weekend of the year where the economy is already in tatters. President Obama explained her comment well. You have failed in doing so. I think it is downright shameful for you to say that "she was trying to deceive the American people." What gives you the right to play heart reader? What gives you the right to discern hearts? You CANNOT say that without a shadow of a doubt that she has lied. This is simply your opinion. It is your reading. I took it exactly the opposite. Am I lying? Am I trying to deceive? Can you discern my heart?

There is no doubt, as President Obama said, "the system failed." But to use your words she was trying to put "the incident in a favorable light." This is not tantamount to deception. Your sniffing out bad ethics here has a bad scent. She was trying to look on the bright side, not that things were obviously not being done to correct the failure. I disagree with your post and its premise wholeheartedly and think all of you ethical judges out there would probably do best to concentrate on your own ethics. Your view as judge here is unjust and narrow.

There is no disrespect intended by any of my words at all, Bob. Please know this. I don't think, for example, that you are speaking from a disgraceful partisan place as some others, playing with our security. I also do not think that you are being dishonest in your assessment. I appreciate you, but disagree with you here. I must also say that I am a generally a bit annoyed by those who forever sit in judgement of others, for in such cases the prowl begins in search of dishonesty and unethical acts that could lead to all sorts of shameful self-righteousness and dishonesty itself.

Judith Ellis said...

"It would have been even more praiseworthy had he fired napolitano."

This statement is ridiculous. But what will be shameful is if the likes of such comments actually bring about the firing of Napolitano for political reasons. Are you also the one who praised Bernanke? I don't think Napolitano failed. Besides the many ethical questions, Bernanke HAS actually failed BIG! He should be fired.

Glenn Logan said...

Judith, it is unfortunate that cognitive dissonance has allowed you to come to this pass.

It is obvious to anyone that Napolitano dissembled. She may have done so with the best of intentions, but good intentions do not make unethical actions ethical.

I'll avoid making the judgment that she was a liar, but she clearly intended to make a comment she knew was wrong. It's hard to criticize someone for coming to the conclusion that was a lie, but even if we conclude that she had a pure motive in the deception, it was just as inaccurate. Even if we conclude that she did not fully inform herself, that is just as much an ethical failing in her position as a deliberate lie.

In other words, there is no rational way to excuse her comments. You may excuse her motives by assuming the best, but her comments stand by themselves, and her motivations do not remove the taint of deliberate deception or, alternatively, incompetence.

Both are unethical, and her position makes them doubly so.

In the future, I suggest that before you accuse others of partisan motivations, you cast out the log in your own eye.

Judith Ellis said...

"In the future, I suggest that before you accuse others of partisan motivations, you cast out the log in your own eye."

Oh, Glenn, thou name is holy. :-)

"In other words, there is no rational way to excuse her comments. You may excuse her motives by assuming the best, but her comments stand by themselves, and her motivations do not remove the taint of deliberate deception or, alternatively, incompetence."

The problem with many such blogs is that the holiest among us come out and call others liars and deceivers and the spin with which is applied is from positions of holiness and righteousness. Such positions leave no room for the interpretation of others even though what is said is all opinion. And, just because there are many on one side does inherently make that side just. Many were on the side of the Iraq war. Was that a just war? Don't answer that please. I don't think I have the energy to go there this morning.

With regards to Secretary Napolitano's comment, you have given your opinion of her words. I have given mine. Your "cognitive dissonance" quote is silly. Where you no using cognitive reasoning? It was simply in favor of the post. What I am indeed looking at here are her words that came before and after those infamous three words. With regards to cognitive reasoning, this is precisely what is lacking in this debate generally as well as a lot of self-righteous partisan fervor.

Glenn Logan said...

Judith:

Heh. I can't find Glenn anywhere as Holy Writ. Darn. :-)

Quoth you:
"The problem with many such blogs is that the holiest among us come out and call others liars and deceivers and the spin with which is applied is from positions of holiness and righteousness. Such positions leave no room for the interpretation of others even though what is said is all opinion."

True. And you are "appalled" by Bob's opinion ... why? Because he dares have one that conflicts with yours?

You know, judging what people say is a part of the human condition, a vital part. How can we tell deception from truth if not by judging the words and deeds of others, particularly those given the charge of protecting our safety?

No holiness is required, or self-righteousness. Nobody has claimed to be a better person than Napolitano, or claimed never to have behaved unethically.

She did wrong. Most likely, it wasn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last. That is also likely true for you, me and Bob as well.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take note of what a rational person would judge as a serious breach of ethics.

Judith Ellis said...

"And you are "appalled" by Bob's opinion ... why? Because he dares have one that conflicts with yours?"

Glenn - I am the youngest of 12 children raised by a single mother. We are professionals with Fortune 100 companies and entrepreneurs. We are college graduates, artists, Republicans and Democrats. We all have licenses in ministry and all have studied comparative religion. This was required of all of us before college. We are pastors, missionaries and chaplains. I have spent time abroad in the poorest countries serving the people there with love. We are all opinionated and holidays at our house are ALWAYS lively indeed. I mention this to assure you that differences of opinions are welcomed and I am very much accustomed to this. We talk weekly about matters that we deem important from politics to religion to sports. Sometimes the discussion is heated and other times not. There is NEVER any love lost. We are a very close bunch. One of my issues here is that Secretary Napolitano was called a liar when in my opinion and according to what she actually said as I have explained above, the label was unjust. Also, I am always very concerned about hyping this terrorism thing up. Yes, it is indeed a constant threat, but wisdom dictates that we handle enemies, not according to our ego but to what will work best. It is clear that there was a system failure. The young man got on the plane with an explosive for goodness sake.

What also concerns me is the terrorists' desire to destroy us economically. The 911 targets mad this clear. Had Napolitano hyped the language many people that were booked to travel Christmas day and over the weekend may not have and caused a real hysterical situation. I think what Bush and Cheney largely did with all of their aggressive rhetoric was not to our benefit. Why the excessive hype. The FBI and CIA are obviously doing what they deem important. Consider the drones in Yemen that just didn’t start recently. Hyped language is a sign of weakness and not strength. It is also playing right into the hands of the terrorists. Dick Cheney’s comments today are shameful! He, in my opinion, is becoming a real disgrace to this country. I have tried for such a long time to be respectful, but he does not make it easy. With regards to your point earlier about the beam in my eye, there are three Republican congressmen who have just today sent out fundraising letters using this thwarted terrorist catastrophe to their advantage. They are raising money with the backdrop of what could have been disastrous for many Americans and their families on the very day of Christmas. This is very disturbing. It shows a greater love for self than country.

Bob said...

Yes, Cheney's disgustingly over the top again. I found it interesting and admirable that Jack Marshall's EthicsAlarms blog (ethicsalarms.com) named G.W.Bush an ethics award winner because of the way he's behaved toward our new President. Would that Cheney shared Bush's grace.

Judith, while we disagree about napolitano (that is, unless you've suddenly seen the light), I'm fortunate to have you as a reader and frequent critic. happy New Year, and keep coming back at me in 2010.

Judith Ellis said...

Regarding President Bush, I totally agree. Bravo and blessings to him and his. I have always like Laura Bush. Regarding Napolitano, uh...I have seen the light, but perhaps not the glow that you might imagine. :-) She is rather inarticulate and perhaps not the best person for this job.

Happy New Year to you too, Bob! All the very best this year and the many years thereafter. I think you're super! Happy to have found you.

Bob said...

Thanks. The same goes for me.