45 Minutes Of Mainstream Media Morning Spin and Distortions

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

At 8:30 am EST I was up this morning. Spuds was snoring away on my bed, it was gray outside in Alexandria, and I began my morning routine of a light breakfast and a strong cup of coffee. By 8:45 I was sitting on my sofa (Boy, do I ever need to replace that!) and leaving the DirecTV “News Mix” on as background noise as I checked the EA comments (not much yet), looked over multiple news aggregator headlines, and periodically switched channels among CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.

CNN began a “report” ( a hit job, in fact) on “the rise of Christian nationalism,” interviewing some cherry-picked fanatic Christian families (one with nine kids) and focusing on a school that makes students pledge allegiance to a Christian flag “and indoctrinates students in the false belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.” CNN’s spin was that this is a scary cult “beginning to infiltrate all parts of American society and culture.”

It would have been nice if some objective historian had interjected that the 13 original colonies were indeed founded by Christians, but that the founding documents of the U.S. went to some lengths to avoid locking the U.S. into any religious faith. It was founded as a secular nation by a group of wise Christians who had learned that governments should keep their metaphorical noses out of religious beliefs and that organized religion should stay out of government.

CNN’s “report” was thinly veiled “conservatives are dangerous” propaganda. But this is CNN…

Pages: 1 2

Someone Is Actually Allowed On TV Who Vomits Junk Like This As “Commentary”…Wow.

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

True, the junk salesman is Lawrence O’Donnell, who is not only Trump Deranged but a serial killer of facts, fairness, objectivity and responsible news coverage who been running amuck on MSNBC, aka. MSNOW, for decades. But even partisan propagandists masquerading as journalists should have some standards enforced on them by their bosses, shouldn’t they? How can the network justify keeping someone employed who offers audiences junk like O’Donnell’s rant yesterday over Stephen Colbert being told by CBS that he had to abide by the FCC’s “Equal Time” regulations?

Here’s O’Donnell, ranting…I think I’ll intersperse my comments in red this time:

Pages: 1 2

On The Dorr Bros. J-Curve Video…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Ah, the J Curve! That’s what you see above, and it has many applications. Herman Kahn, the late futurist who was known as the smartest man in the world (is there anyone who holds that title today?) told me that the J Curve was especially valuable regarding new technologies that destroy previous concepts of what was possible. The microchip. The internet. Now, it’s AI.

Talk about fast! Just four days ago, a crude A.I. battle between Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt had Hollywood running for Xanax. Now the German Dor brothers said, “Hold our Augustiner-Bräu!” and produced this in a single day:

Soon Hollywood producers, directors and actors will be jumping off buildings like panicked stockbrokers on Black Tuesday, 1929. Or not. The smart ones will realize that they need to start making better movies. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the typical shock and awe special effects orgies like “2012” and “San Andreus” can be made by a bot. It’s crap made for morons, stoners and people who can’t sit though “On the Waterfront.”

Let me know when the J Curve produces AI that can evoke Paul Scofield, John Hurt, Colin Redgrave, Susannah York and Wendy Hiller in this favorite Ethics Alarms scene:

…or the rest of the movie, for that matter. Until then, if then ever comes, talented actors, writers and directors have nothing to worry about. Intelligence and talent have always been weakly correlated, if at all.

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s ‘Islamaphobic’ Quote”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

[Apologies to all: I was so eager to get Steve’s Comment of the Day up that I forgot to add the headline!]

The historically literate, unrestrained Ethics Alarms veteran commenter Steve-O-in NJ returns to the familiar (to him) Comment of the Day podium making the case that Rep. Fine was not being one bit unreasonable and certainly not “Islamophobic” when he responded to a New York City Muslim activists assertion that dogs should not be kept as pets in the Big Apple with the quip, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

In casual conversation about Fine’s line (not to be confused with “a fine line” ) I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn’t feel he got the better of the exchange. One lawyer friend, known for his combative courtroom style, opined that the woman’s ‘Islam is right that dogs are dirty’ remark was such a metaphorical hanging curve ball that it would have been unethical not to hit it out of the park.

Here is Steve-O-in-NJ’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s ‘Islamaphobic’ Quote”:

***

Islamic attitudes toward dogs vary. Some think of them as okay to use as working animals (herding, hunting etc.), but not pets. Judaism also for a time was anti-dog, and I think that ported over to Islam, same as the rule against pork.

I for one have never owned a dog, but I have known many, and I think they are useful in a number of ways, including as companion animals. They assist the disabled, protect and direct livestock, find people (or bodies), save those stranded on mountains, assist the emergency services, and even tow carts with Christmas trees or other evergreen decorations (the Bernese Mountain Dog is the usual breed for this). I’ll take a large gentle dog or an affectionate energetic dog (little yappy dogs are not my thing) over a hyper-religious neighbor who wants to tell me what to do any day. I’ve said a few times that Islam is not compatible with Western values, and this is just one other reason why it isn’t.

Pages: 1 2

On the Colbert “Equal Time” Nonsense…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Gee, what a surprise. Democrats don’t like the Federal Communications Commission “Equal Time” rule applying to non-news shows when hey try to influence elections.

The Communications Act of 1934, once aimed at radio, now mostly applied to television, includes a provision regarding coverage of political candidates. If a station gives airtime to one candidate, then the same station must offer comparable time to other candidates competing in an approaching primary or election.  Regarding campaign ads, a station selling airtime to one candidate also has to offer to sell the same amount of time to other candidates for the same office. Exceptions to this rule include newscasts, “bona fide” interview programs, and coverage of live events or documentaries. Candidates appearing in non-news, entertainment programming near to elections now trigger the provision.

As they should.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert, on the way out already from his all-Democratic-cheer-leading-all-the-time show, attacked his own network this week after he was stopped from airing an interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D), a U.S. Senate candidate, because of the FCC ’s equal-time rule.

“You know who is not one of my guests tonight?” Colbert asked his audience. “That’s Texas state representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.” On cue, his partisan studio audience booed.

“Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on,” Colbert continued. “And because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”

Boy, isn’t he funny? My sides ache from laughing! No wonder Colbert is regarded as a comic genius. Admit it, the guy is hilarious.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Month: Jill Foster in “The Telegraph”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

“Far from being isolated incidents, the two attacks are just the latest mass shootings involving trans-identified perpetrators in recent years. And they will doubtless reignite speculation among Republican figures in the US that transgender treatment is making people more likely to carry out such attacks.”

—-Freelance journalist and long-time UK editor and life-style reporter Jill Foster in “Are cross-sex drugs driving trans shooters to kill?”

I love this quote! It’s a “bias makes you stupid” all-time classic. It’s a self-awareness void all-time classic! It’s a “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts” all-time classic! It’s a “Yoo’s Rationalization,” or “It isn’t what it is” all-time classic!

What a perfect example of the Left’s woke delusions and amazing ability to see only what it wants to see. I want to frame that quote. I want to put it on T-shirts and coffee mugs.

Never mind pondering whether trans individuals are mentally ill: what does it say about progressives who can read that statement and react by shaking their heads, tut-tutting, and thinking, “How true, how true. Those hateful Republicans, and conservatives of course, will definitely speculate that because a tiny sliver of the population has been disproportionately engaging in mass murder, there might be a reason related to the radical treatment we good and rational people call “gender affirming care. What’s the matter with those bigots?”

Funny, I have been wondering, since so many individuals of dubious gender identity have been killing people lately while the news media, in its coverage that emphasizes the only their favorite anti-gun angle, never mentions the possibility that there may be a link between trans murderers snapping and their…what can I call it? Malady? No, that’s pejorative. Condition? Confusion? Delusion? Medical abuse?…if I’m the only one whose Holmesian instincts detect a possible cause and effect.

Now, thanks to Jill’s incisive reportage, I realize that my politically incorrect thoughts are simply attributable to the fact that I would rather have an orangutan rip my face off and eat it than vote for a Democrat in November.

I’m gradually viewing Jill’s matter of fact statement that only U.S. Republicans are capable of processing reality as excellent reporting. Far from being the unethical, biased, incredibly stupid assertion it appeared to be at first reading, I realize this is a factual assertion. Democrats will deny even an unavoidable conclusion if it in any way undermines their favored world view. If it is an inconvenient fact, they will made sure their captive propagandists in the media bury it or deny it, or better still, demonize those who dare to utter such Wrongthink out loud.

Thanks, Jill! You’ve given us a lot not to think about.

Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s “Islamaphobic” Quote

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

Oh, I find this fascinating, especially in light of the previous post.

Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a social media post that dog poop littered snowdrifts in the city proved that dogs should have no place in society as indoor pets because, she wrote, “like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”

Responding to this obnoxious assertion of foreign values and priorities over American ones, Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) replied, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

Naturally the Mad Left exploded with horror and indignation, with the usual calls for the insensitive Republican’s resignation and worse. But the truth is, if we are being honest about our own culture and priorities, if every Muslim in the United States joined in a mass ultimatum stating, “This is non-negotiable. Either the United States gives up its dogs as house pets, or we’re leaving!” the overwhelming majority of Americans—including me—would say, “Gee, that’s a shame. Well, bye! Good luck in your future endeavors!”

The Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was it unethical for Rep. Fine to say what he did?

Pages: 1 2

Dogs Are People Too, Sort Of, At Least When It Comes To Divorce, Says Pennsylvania.

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Pennsylvania looks poised to complete the passage of legislation requiring judges to consider the welfare of “companion animals”—you know, pets?— in divorce proceedings. House Bill 97, sponsored by dog-loving Rep. Anita Kulik, D-Allegheny, is heading to the statute book unless Governor Josh Shapiro has the guts to alienate a rather passionate voting bloc by vetoing it.

The bill amends the state’s Domestic Relations statute to add a special category for companion animals, recognizing them as sentient, “living beings that are generally regarded as cherished family members” and not property to be treated as such. As of now, pets in Pennsylvania divorces have the same status as furniture or appliances. Under the new law, judges would decide which member of the dissolving union should get custody of pets based on…

  • …whether the animal was acquired before or during the marriage.
  • …the pet’s basic daily needs, and who is best able to fulfill them
  • …which party was usually in charge of veterinary care and took care of the animals’ exercise and social interaction.
  • …which party is most likely to comply with compliance with state and local regulations regarding pets.
  • …who haa the greater financial ability to support the animal.

Reasonably, the legislation also presumes that a service animal should remain with the party who needs the service.

My late wife, an animal junkie who got far more upset over movies where a dog dies (as in “Turner and Hooch,” “Old Yeller,” “My Dog Skip”…actually, the dog usually dies in dog movies) than when, say, Ali MacGraw died in “Love Story,” would have loved that law. She never forgave Tom Cruise for treating his dog “like a piece of furniture” in “The Firm.”

Pages: 1 2

Jesse Jackson (1941-2026)

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

I chose that memorable Saturday Night Live bit above because it shows Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader who died today, at his best: smart, self-deprecating, charming and likeable. Jackson could slide into demagoguery (he was good at it), and he was frequently, even usually, a divisive presence on the national scene. Nonetheless, he was ultimately a catalyst for more good developments in American society, culture and politics than bad. But it’s a close call.

Civil rights was by no means achieved by the time Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968. The stain of Jim Crow was still strong in the South, and de facto segregation was rife everywhere else, as in my hometown of Boston where it often seemed like there were more black players on the field playing for the Red Sox than in the stands at Fenway Park. The school busing controversy was six years away in 1968.

With the eloquent and charismatic King martyred, the nation needed a new leader of the civil rights movement. Malcolm X was brilliant and charismatic but radical and racist. Rev. Ralph Abernathy was boring, a pale (no pun intended) successor to King. The other leaders of the civil rights movement resonated as grifters, determined to prove Eric Hoffer right when he argued that “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and turns into a racket.” As happens so often in American history, Jesse Jackson was the right leader to emerge when the nation needed him.

Pages: 1 2

Oh, You Didn’t Think I Would Forget Presidents Day, Did You? [Embarrassing Gaffe Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Well, to be truthful, I almost did. The contrived holiday seldom occurs this early. Nevertheless, I’m going to recognize Presidents Day with re-posts of two essays about U.S. Presidents, neither of which were originally written for the holiday.

The first is one of my favorite mysterious tales about any President, in this case George Washington, and the second, from 2015 and re-posted five years ago, is my favorite story about any President ever.

Here they are:

Pssst! Bill Maher! The “Saved By God” Belief Has Inspired Some of Our Greatest Presidents. Shut Up.

Atheists and agnostics in the public sphere don’t have to be obnoxious, but an awful lot of them are. Their explanation for where the universe came from is no more persuasive that that of the faithful (The Big Bang? Come on.) but they just can’t restrain themselves. HBO’s Bill Maher is a prime example: along with mocking committed relationships (he hates the concept of marriage), extolling drugs and debauchery, and generally keeping his Axis of Unethical Conduct membership current, he ridicules Christianity at every opportunity.

The fact is, and it is a fact, that the United States of America had a much healthier and ethical culture before organized religion had discredited itself so thoroughly, driving whole generations away. Moral codes are especially essential for those who don’t have the time or ability to puzzle through ethics, and believing in God is the best catalyst for an ethical society that there is….and it has always been thus.

Heck, just look at what a jerk Maher is. That’s what atheism can do to you. But I digress.

My target here is more narrow. On last week’s “Real Time,” Maher sneered at the belief that God saved Donald Trump from being assassinated as stupid and “dangerous.” “People see signs because they want to see them. It’s why stalkers think Taylor Swift is blinking ‘marry me’ to them in Morse Code,” he explained. “It gets dangerous when the signs make someone think God is on their side,” Maher continued.  “Republican Congressman Mike Collins said after the shooting, ‘God spared Ronald Reagan for a reason. God spared Donald Trump for a reason. God doesn’t miss.’ Really? Tell that to John Lennon, Lincoln, JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King. Look, the asshole who shot at Trump was cowardly, unpatriotic, selfish, vile, and weak, and he should rot in hell, but thinking that God protects your heroes but not mine? That isn’t cool either.”

How do you know, Bill, that God doesn’t protect your heroes for a very good reason? I can think of several good reasons for that, as well as for squashing you like a bug. Of course the certitude that God is responsible for anything is confirmation bias: my wife, the daughter of a Methodist minister, frequently expressed contempt for the faithful who simultaneously said that “God works in mysterious ways” and “there are no coincidences” while conveniently asserting that they had figured out those mysterious ways. But if Bill knew as much about American history, leadership and the Presidency as he should, he would know that the belief that God has saved them for a reason motivated many of America’s greatest leaders. It could have been dangerous, I suppose, but so far, that belief had been overwhelmingly beneficial to our nation. Perhaps even its salvation.

Leadership requires special character traits, the right formative experiences and a lot of luck. National leadership arises out of an individual’s conviction that they are uniquely qualified to do a better job than anyone else, accompanied by the passion, conviction and charisma necessary to convince others of their abilities. That’s why so many of our Presidents have been narcissists, true, but the anti-American trope that our leaders only seek power, wealth and personal benefits is, based on my lifelong study of history, garbage.

Pages: 1 2