1. How to expose a demagogue. Senator Elizabeth Warren is near the bottom of my ethics rankings of the various Democratic Presidential candidates, and not just because of the way she handled her crisis of color. She’s a pure demagogue, and a particularly dangerous one, as she is a stirring speaker and apparently shameless.
It takes clarity of thought and rhetoric to expose demagogues, especially Warren’s breed, which carry the trappings of authority—after all, she’s a Harvard professor, so she must be smart (or so those who did not attend Harvard seem to think.) The President’s favored tactic of name-calling is of limited value for this purpose, but Rep. Dan Crenshaw, the veteran mocked by Saturday Night Live because of his war wounds, is providing an ongoing seminar on how to expose Warren’s dishonesty.
When Warren tweeted this high-sounding sentiment…
Note also the gently mocking imitation of Warren’s flip use of “thing,” so much more rhetorically effective than calling her “Pocahontas.”
Here is how Crenshaw eviscerated another typical bit of Warren pandering…
Crenshaw pointed out exactly what was wrong with it…
Why, yes, that’s exactly what it is.
2. Censorship and keeping the truth from the public is not ethical, nor is it a legitimate way to address problems in a democracy.
Why do I even have to write this? One reason is that a political party—guess which one–is increasingly trying to inject the opposite view into American culture. For example, DeWayne Craddock murdered a dozen people when he opened fire at a Virginia Beach government office last week, but local officials in Virginia Beach have generally shielded his identity, calling him “the thirteenth man”—for the public’s own good, of course. The theory is that mass shooters are seeking fame, so if potential mass shooters realize that murder no longer guarantees widespread infamy, maybe they won’t start shooting.
That’s thin justification for deliberately keeping the public uninformed. The news media put us on this slippery slope when it began withholding the names of rape accusers in high profile cases, while publicizing the names of the accused. Beware when law enforcement and the government embrace censorship as a solution to any problem. If it works, they will want to see what other social problems it can fix.
3. Just checking! Everybody knows that Rep. Gerald Nadler is going to have Democrats in the House vote to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt for resisting an illegal subpoena and insisting on following the law regarding grand jury testimony, right?
And that the exact material that Nadler is demanding is already available to any House member who wants to see it, under special security conditions, but they aren’t bothering to look?
Good. I thought so.
Do try to enlighten your ignorant social media pals, and your relatives too, of course, on this crucial point.
4. This week’s unconscionable New York Times “resistance” column. Once again, pure, partisan, extreme Leftist pundit Michelle Goldberg has been allowed to publish one of her dishonest, mouth-foaming screeds in the op-ed pages of the Times. The ethics corruption of Times readers—columnists like Goldberg are ethics corrupters—begins with the headline, “Democratic Voters Want Impeachment. The House Dawdles.”
Even if a majority of Democratic voters want impeachment, the duty of the House of Representatives is to do what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole, not march to the arrhythmic beat of hyperpartisan drums. In a fashion typical of her columns, Goldberg pronounces the President as lawless without presenting a a single example of what law it is she thinks he has violated. She writes complete fantasy like,
“The actual contents of the Mueller report should have been devastating for Trump. Instead, thanks to Bill Barr, an attorney general who acts more like a Fox News pundit, the administration has managed to obscure Mueller’s findings, and then go on the offense against the investigation itself.”
The Mueller report never asserts that the President committed a single crime. In the either willfully or genuinely ignorant analysis of Goldberg and “the resistance,” a President should be impeached if he says things, in private, like “I’m completely fucked!” What Goldberg is telling us is that the mentality of Democrats hasn’t evolved one mini-degree since the President defeated poor, corrupt, incompetent Hillary Clinton: the President should be impeached because they don’t like him.
If the nation ever accepts that standard for impeachment, the current Constitutional structure of our democracy is finished. That is probably what Goldberg wants, and all those Democrats who want impeachment—what do you think is the percentage of them who could define the standards for “high crimes and misdemeanors” or cite a valid example of one that Trump has committed?—have no idea what the actual issues are beyond “Orange Man Bad.” I recently reviewed the alleged grounds that the Democrats think they have here, and to call them lame and contrived is generous.
Goldberg also parrots what is apparently the DNC’s most recent approved pro-impeachment talking point, that the percentage of American favoring impeachment, while not a majority, is still higher than it was before the Watergate hearings. I explained the blatant apples and oranges feature of this comparison last week.
Goldberg’s column isn’t analysis or punditry. It’s anti-Trump propaganda, and the New York Times published it because it has become an anti-Trump propaganda organ.
5. An unusually unethical Trump tweet. This one is not just stupid, like, say, his recent attack on Bette Midler. Midler had tweeted a well-debunked phony Trump quote that said, “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.” (Shut up and sing, Bette!) When it was pointed out to her that the quote was fabricated, she tweeted, “I apologize; turns out to be a fake from way back in ’15-16.’ Don’t know how I missed it, but it sounds SO much like him that I believed it was true!”
That’s a lousy and snotty apology, but most of her fans won’t care, and all it shows is that she’s a partisan jerk, which anyone paying attention knew anyway. It wasn’t necessary, wise or presidential for the President to slap down at her, but of course he couldn’t resist, tweeting, “Washed up psycho @BetteMidler was forced to apologize for a statement she attributed to me that turned out to be totally fabricated by her in order to make “your great president” look really bad. She got caught, just like the Fake News Media gets caught. A sick scammer!”
Twitter would be doing him and the nation a favor by suspending Trump’s account.
That tweet was stupid, but this one..
….is sinister. If people choose to stop trusting and watching CNN (as I largely have) because of the network’s bias, sloppy journalism, incompetent and unethical anchors and contributors, and generally miserable journalism, that’s their choice. If you don’t like it, don’t watch. Any effort, however, to force CNN into altering its reporting is an attack on the First Amendment, and for the President to even hint that a public boycott of CNN’s parent company would be justified, responsible or ethical is an abuse of power and position.
This is stupid and unethical, and I consider it closer to a “high crime and misdemeanor” than any of the contrived offenses the “resistance” has claimed.