Rueful Observations On A Trump Derangement Outburst…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

1. Nah, Trump Derangement is a myth!

2. If you want to see this orgy of hate and violence without the annoying commentary, here’s a link I couldn’t embed.

2. How does a mush-mouth like Topping have the gall to host a show of any kind? Jeeeez, whatever your first name is, get a coach! Learn to speak clearly. Slow the hell down. Not only are you hard to understand, your speech pattern is excruciating to listen to. This is malpractice.

Why hasn’t anyone told him?

3. Look at the hate on this crazy old bat’s face! What could possibly justify that?

4. There are several places on the web where one can purchase Trump pinatas. Here, for instance.

5. The onlookers cheering her on epitomize the description “angry mob.” The Axis of Unethical Conduct made them this way, hammering away at “Trump is a Nazi” and related slander and libel, day after day, for ten years. And it has caused brain damage. The remedy to speech is, we have decided as a nation, more speech, and “hate speech” is still protected speech. Inciting riots, however, is not protected speech. Nonetheless, inciting riots in slow motion, over long periods of time, by repeating demonizing and violence-triggering propaganda and rhetoric over and over again until it is embedded in weak minds, is legal. It is also unethical.

6. Do you think the crazy woman doing this while wearing a shirt that extols kindness on the front and the Golden Rule on the back recognizes the double standards she is embracing? It it intentional satire? Is she just an idiot?

7. Democrats cheer on this kind of lunacy while insisting that their “8647” rhetoric plays no part in the repeated assassination attempts. The only President I can find whose avatars were subjected to such vicarious and symbolic violence was Abraham Lincoln during protests like the draft riots in New York. (Confederate equivalents don’t count.) True, he wasn’t…

Oh. Right.

8. I react emotionally to people attacking and defiling images of the President of the United States. just as I do to flag burning. It is an attack on my nation, its institutions, its history and its values. The conduct shows civic disrespect that cannot be rationalized away.

______________

Pointer: Steve Witherspoon

In Trying To Show SCOTUS Was Wrong, NYT Proves SCOTUS Is Right

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Naturally the New York Times did its best to make the case that the 6-3 majority decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which I wrote about last week here, was an example of the political Right denying the reality that the United States remains a racist society requiring special protection (and privileges) for African American citizens. Its “best” was pathetic; indeed I’m amazed an editor didn’t 86 the piece because it was so self-refuting.

The headline is “Behind Voting Rights Case, a Clash Over the Reality of Racism” (Gift link!) The subhead reads, “The Supreme Court ruling said there must be proof that a racial group was “intentionally” disadvantaged. The dissent called it ‘well-nigh impossible.’” How anyone could objectively think the wan, confirmation bias argument Times reporter Richard Fausset puts forth could be persuasive to a reader who hadn’t already made up his or her mind that the decision was, as one of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends wrote, a disastrous blow to “legal provisions that for 60 years have helped ensure that you could not be denied political representation because of your race” is beyond me.

The mordantly amusing question Fausset poses to frame his analysis is “Has anti-Black racism eased, or has discrimination against African Americans simply become more subtle, disguised as a web of rules embedded in regular partisan politics?” It’s risible because he correctly describes the Southern racism that the 1965 Voting Rights laws thusly: “Senator James Eastland, a Democrat from Mississippi who wanted to kill the landmark legislation, once openly stated that Black people were an “an inferior race.” During his 1963 inauguration speech, Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama, a Democrat, infamously declared, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” In the early Sixties, black churches were burned and the KKK was still active in parts of the South. Three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi in 1964.

Pages: 1 2

Another Really Bad Trump Idea: “The National Garden of American Heroes,” Part III: The First “Hall of Fame”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Part 1 is here; Part 2 is here.

To put a final period on this fiasco, we should recall that Trump’s idea was tried before.

The Hall of Fame for Great Americans was established in 1901. It was the country’s first hall of fame, inspiring the Cooperstown baseball hall and all the rest. For a while, it was a tourist attraction. Located at the uptown campus of New York University (now Bronx Community College), there were bronze busts of Presidents, generals, scientists, artists and scholars. Then it fell out of date, new inductees were not inducted, and The Hall of Fame for Great Americans was ignored and forgotten, as were many of the names on the busts. Who, for example, was Sidney Lanier?

There are 98 busts in the Hall. How many can you idientify? (And yes, Robert E. Lee is among them…)

John Adams

John Quincy Adams

Jane Addams

Louis Agassiz

Susan B. Anthony

John James Audubon

George Bancroft

Clara Barton

Henry Ward Beecher

Alexander Graham Bell

Daniel Boone

Edwin Booth

Louis Brandeis

Phillips Brooks

William Cullen Bryant

Luther Burbank

Andrew Carnegie

George Washington Carver

William Ellery Channing

Rufus Choate

Henry Clay

Grover Cleveland

James Fenimore Cooper

Peter Cooper

Charlotte Cushman

James Buchanan Eads

Thomas Edison

Jonathan Edwards

Ralph Waldo Emerson

David Farragut

Stephen Foster

Benjamin Franklin

Robert Fulton

Josiah Willard Gibbs

William C. Gorgas

Ulysses S. Grant

Asa Gray

Alexander Hamilton

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Joseph Henry

Patrick Henry

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Mark Hopkins (educator)

Elias Howe

Washington Irving

Andrew Jackson

Stonewall Jackson

Thomas Jefferson

John Paul Jones

James Kent

Sidney Lanier

Robert E. Lee

Abraham Lincoln

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

James Russell Lowell

Mary Lyon

Edward MacDowell

Horace Mann

John Marshall

Matthew Fontaine Maury

Albert A. Michelson

Maria Mitchell

James Monroe

Samuel Morse

William T. G. Morton

John Lothrop Motley

Simon Newcomb

Thomas Paine

Alice Freeman Palmer

Francis Parkman

George Peabody

William Penn

Edgar Allan Poe

Walter Reed

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt

Augustus Saint-Gaudens

William Tecumseh Sherman

John Philip Sousa

Joseph Story

Harriet Beecher Stowe

Gilbert Stuart

Sylvanus Thayer

Henry David Thoreau     ]

Lillian Wald

Booker T. Washington

George Washington

Daniel Webster

George Westinghouse

James Abbott McNeill Whistler

Walt Whitman

Eli Whitney

John Greenleaf Whittier

***

I rate this selection, despite being 125 years old, as far better than the proposed members of Trump’s “Garden of Heroes.”




Another Really Bad Trump Idea: “The National Garden of American Heroes,” Part II.

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Part I is here, and you should read it first.

Warning: My head exploded several times while writing this part. Also: For some reason WordPress insists on listing the names weirdly. I tried to fix it once. I’ll keep trying. Sorry.

One of the stunning aspects of the proposed list of 250, other than its general incompetence, is that there was so much DEI pollution of the various categories. For example, there are very few, if any, respectable legal scholars who regard either Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Thurgood Marshall as belonging among our most admirable jurists. Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice, but that alone doesn’t make him a hero. Why is his trail-blazing credentials sufficient to get him a slot as one of the 250 “heroes,” but Ginsburg gets the nod over the first female Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor? What landmark ruling did Ginsberg produce.

This is a terrible list. I would hope (probably in vain) that a well-educated freshman at a state college could do better. Well, on with the critique…

4. Jurists: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Robert H. Jackson, Thurgood Marshall, William
Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia.

Comment: Ugh. In addition to the absurd inclusions (Rehnquist? Why?), the omissions are striking and unforgivable. John Marshall (no relation) is the most important and influential Chief Justice as well as the longest serving. Marbury v. Madison is the basis of the Supreme Court’s modern power. Where are the acknowledged giants of the Court: Benjamin Cardozo, Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black and both Harlans? Earl Warren was probably the second most influential and consequential Chief Justice, and the Warren Court, liberal as it was, still hold the record for transformative rulings. I’m not a big Oliver Wendell Holmes fan, but even his detractors (like Popehat’s Ken White) would concede that he was a major legal theorist who deserves to be listed among the greats. Moreover, nobody but a legal illiterate would believe that only SCOTUS members are great judges. Judge Learned Hand was dubbed “the Tenth Justice” and “the greatest judge never to be appointed to the Supreme Court.” His opinions and quotes are standard fare in law school. Judge Richard Posner, more recently, was an acclaimed legal thinker; so was Robert Bork, robbed of his place on the Supreme Court when the Democrats decided to violate a “democratic norm.”

Military Heroes and Patriots, defined as “Defenders of freedom who risked everything on the battlefield to preserve the Union and protect the innocent.”

1. Revolutionary & Early Era: Crispus Attucks, Joshua Chamberlain, David Farragut, Nathanael Greene, Nathan Hale, Henry Knox, Tadeusz Kościuszko, the Marquis de La Fayette, Paul Revere, Robert Gould Shaw.

Comment: I see Paul Revere turned up here. If he’s here, so too should William Dawes, who shared the task of alerting town a around Boston that “the British are coming!” Why is Crispus Attucks any more of a hero than the Samuel Gray, James Caldwell, Samuel Maverick, and Patrick Carr, who were also victims in the Boston Massacre? Oh, right, he was black. Got it. Race equals heroism. Similarly, why is Shaw on the list for losing an obscure battle with black union soldiers? Generals Sherman, Sheridan, and Hancock deserve the honor more. So, in fact, does George Armstrong Custer, as I explained here. Andrew Jackson won the most decisive military battle in U.S. history against crazy odds at the Battle of New Orleans. And what are non-Americans doing on the list, when deserving Americans are missing?

2. World War Leaders: William “Wild Bill” Donovan, Jimmy Doolittle, Gabby Gabreski, William Frederick “Bull” Halsey, Jr., Douglas MacArthur, GeorgeMarshall, George S. Patton, Jr., John J. Pershing, Matthew Ridgway, Hyman Rickover, Norman Schwarzkopf, Maxwell Taylor.

Comment: Where’s Admiral Raymond Spruance, who won the Battle of Midway? Where’s Dusty Kleiss another hero in the same battle, as the dive bomber who managed to hit the Japanese fleet with sub-par airplanes? Omar Bradley had far more to do with the U.S. victory than McArthur. Why are the officer heroes of D-Day omitted, like General Theodore Roosevelt Jr, and Gen. Norman Cota? Didn’t Trump watch “The Longest Day”?

2.Medal of Honor & Valor: Roy Benavidez, Desmond Doss, Audie Murphy, Alvin C. York

Comment: I get it, the only Medal of Honor recipients who count are the ones who have movies made about them.

3. Athletes and Competitors (Champions who demonstrated the American virtues of discipline, perseverance, and sportsmanship): Muhammad Ali, Herb Brooks, Kobe Bryant, Roberto Clemente, Lou Gehrig, Vince Lombardi, Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Jim Thorpe, Cy Young.

Pages: 1 2

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Res Ipsa Loquitur: Reuters’ Unethical Headline

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

“Spirit Airlines shuts down, industry’s first Iran war casualty”

Today I was a guest on The Steven Speirer Show, talking about ethics. In the final minutes, Steven, a California lawyer, asked me what I regarded as the greatest ethics issue facing the U.S. today. Without hesitation, I named the corruption of journalism and the collapse of ethics in the journalism profession. Readers here are familiar with that conclusion and why I am confident that it is correct. A republic cannot function with out an informed populace. “Advocacy journalism,” the elevation of the profit motive over integrity, responsibility and honesty, and the increasing intrusion of the techniques of “fake news” into reporting has transformed journalism into a toxic combination of propaganda and indoctrination.

“Professions earn that label by being trustworthy,” I told Steve. “Our news media today cannot be trusted, and those who do trust it are uninformed or misinformed.” My host said that he wished he could disagree, but in good conscience could not.

Then I checked my emails after the session, and saw the link to the Reuters headline above, re-posted on Yahoo! Finance. (Arthur in Maine gets the pointer for the link; my apologies for misidentifying the source in the original version of this post). It’s a classic, typical of how journalism operates today. A story about a company bankruptcy that was long in the works is framed as an indictment of the Iran War, and by extension President Trump.

Pages: 1 2

Another Really Bad Trump Idea: “The National Garden of American Heroes,” Part I. [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

President Trump’s method in some of his madness is to restore and reinforce the core American values that have been eroded, corrupted and in some cases denied by the ethics and cultural rot wreaked by the Far Left’s capture of our national institutions. The motives deserve applause, but his execution in many cases, like his “National Garden of American Heroes” obsession, is often hopelessly flawed. I’m being too nice: the theory that it is possible to create a fair and historically valid list of “American heroes” is, as Sidney Wang (Peter Sellers) so sagely remarks above, is stupid, and ultimately harmful.

The latest plans for the monstrosity include reflecting pools, dining facilities and an amphitheater alongside 250 life-size statues of notable Americans. It will require a significant redevelopment of West Potomac Park in D.C., and the statues alone could cost more than the $40 million approved for the project by Congress. But never mind all that: the fact is unavoidable that choosing just 250 Americans to be honored as “heroes” guarantees exorbitant praise for some prominent Americans and unjust exclusion for others. There are probably thousands of American lives that meet the Ethics Alarms criteria for the public to have a “duty to remember” them. Furthermore, perhaps reflecting President Trump’s limited public vocabulary, not all important and productive Americans qualify as heroes, and not all American heroes had much effect on the country and its history. Is the proposed “garden” intended to honor character, achievements, or both? Finally, the choices of who to honor in such a project will be distorted by bias and politics. In fact, that has already occurred.

The list of 250 that has been published confirms all of these fears; indeed, its even worse than I expected.  Here are the current proposed “heroes” by category; the list is introduced as being categorized by their primary contributions to our national story, representing “the tapestry of American greatness, men and women who, through faith, courage, and hard work, built the United States into a beacon of hope and industry.”

Right.

I’ll comment after each section.

Pages: 1 2

Why Do People Suddenly Snap And Start Shooting People? Things Like This:

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Further evidence that there is a conspiracy to drive me crazy…

Alex Renew, the Alexandria wastewater service, just sent me an emergency email beginning with “Your scheduled payment did not go through.” You can see the email above. I was directed to click on a “Pay Now” button. That took me to my invoice, which stated that my balance was “0.” See?

I called AlexRenew and finally reached a manager, who checked my account. She confirmed that I don’t owe anything. She confirmed that my last payment went through.

“So why did I get this alert?” I asked.

“Honestly, sir, I have no idea.” was the answer.

In Maine, the Graham Platner Fiasco

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

How did this happen?

Maine’s Democratic governor Janet Mills announced yesterday that she is dropping out of her campaign for the U.S. Senate. Now certifiable wacko Graham Platner is her party’s presumptive nominee for the U.S. Senate.

Mills had been regarded as having a good chance of unseating RINO Senator Susan Collins, a key piece of the Democrats’ quest to flip control of the U.S. Senate in November. Platner, in contrast, either is unelectable or should be. The RNC quickly crowed, “In November Susan Collins, a proven leader with an indisputable record of delivering for Maine, will face a Nazi sympathizing self-proclaimed communist with a record of hate-mongering and dishonesty.”

Well, the part about Platner is true, at least. He has said women who are raped are at fault. He said that blacks don’t tip. He has called called white, rural Maine dwellers stupid. He uses “fag” to describe gays. Platner praised Hamas, rationalized urinating on corpses, and has denigrated police officers. He once referred to Jesus as a “zombie” and the Virgin Mary as a “skank.” He also had a Nazi tattoo on his chest and defended it for years.

On the plus side, Platner approves of political violence, so at least in that sense he’s a mainstream 2026 Democrat.

Conservatives are confident that Platner will be an 800 lb. albatross around the necks of other Democratic candidates, as they will be placed in political zugzwang, with their choices being to condemn fellow Democrat or endorse sexism, misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, violence and blasphemy. Once again, as in 2016 when Donald Trump was running away with the Republican primaries, I don’t understand why a either political party cannot, in an extreme situation, announce that Candidate X does not represent that party’s values and therefore is rejected as a party candidate. Democrats and Republicans have an obligation to the Republic to place only competent, responsible Americans on the ballot. True, neither party is very good at doing that, but it still is an ongoing obligation.

The Democrats, to have any claim to competence and responsibly at all, should tell Platner that the party will not allow him to run as under the party banner. Let him sue, let him run as an independent, let him rant. At least they would demonstrate that the party has some standards, and cares about the public good.

Of course, we now know that today’s Democratic Party has no standards or principles, so this is a useless flight of fancy on my part.

Never mind.

In fact, it is not inconceivable that Platner can win. He was leading Mills in polling 2-1. And Trump Derangement among Democrats and progressives is so rampant that many would literally vote for Satan if they thought it would rid the nation of MAGA madness. After all, Bernie Sanders has endorsed this creep, who is, in addition to all I mentioned above, a Neo-communist like Bernie. As Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote last Fall,

“Andy O’Brien, a former Democratic state legislator and newspaper editor, told me that outsiders didn’t fully understand how radicalizing the second Trump presidency has been for ordinary Democrats. Even senior citizens, he said, were becoming “fire-breathing leftists. They’re just pissed off.” These voters understood that Platner had made mistakes, but they saw him as a fighter. “Five years ago, he would have been dead in the water, I think,” said O’Brien, who now works with the labor movement. “But this is such an unprecedented time. I think a lot of people really believe that we need somebody who can effectively fight against fascism.”

Yikes.

Friday Open Forum, God Save The King Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

As usual, a tour of the U.S. by a major head of state is causing a news stir and ethics issues. Perhaps nothing will ever top the uproar over Nikita Khrushchev’s visit during the Kennedy administration, when Nikita wanted to go to Disneyland and Walt wouldn’t let him in. President Trump has been on good behavior with King Charles and didn’t even slam the monarch on Truth Social after Charles delivered a number of subtle shots at Trump during his speech before Congress.

What is it about the royal family that makes so many Americans go all weak in the knees? My father strenuously objected to it, saying more than 50 years ago that the U.S. public should treat Great Britain’s kings, queens, princes and princes as what they are: embarrassing relics of a feudal system that we rejected and that should have died out in the 18th Century. He said he wouldn’t cross the road we lived on (Brunswick Road, Arlington—it had a “dead end” sign on each end) to greet any of them.

Dad would have probably approved of Mayor Mamdani’s brush off regarding King Charles, as when asked what he would say to the king if the two spoke, answered, “I would probably encourage him to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond.” That’s one of the crowns jewels.

Meanwhile, there is much to talk about in the Wide, Wide World of Ethics. So talk, already…

“You Know…Morons”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Seldom has that Ethics Alarm clip been more appropriate than in response to the video below:

Stipulated: I have no idea how many people were interviewed to compile that selection of angry protesters unable to articulate what they were angry about. In my experience, however, it wouldn’t have taken many. At least the guy who defaults to Trump’s penchant for putting his personal brand on things has a point, but if that’s the first thing that comes to mind, the required retort is “Seriously? That’s what you’re out here demonstrating against? The name on the Kennedy Center?”

I wish there were more answers to work with. At least they would form the foundation for discussion. As with the previous post about people who criticize Supreme Court decisions without reading them, I believe it is incontrovertible that if one is determined to protest in public, one must be capable of articulating what is such a substantial grievance that it justifies doing so.