1. Here’s an 1995 ethics movie to while away the time while waiting for more voter fraud theories: “Crimson Tide.” It has long been a favorite in the Marshall household because of the nuclear submarine captain’s (Gene Hackman) Jack Russell Terrier. Sometimes focusing on a film’s ethics lessons makes it new again, and that was the case when we revisited the film after several years.
The plot involves an ethics conflict with bite: should the sub’s Ex-O submit to his captain’s call that a previous order to launch nuclear missiles at Russia must be followed even though an incomplete message that may be a retraction of the order is in hand? The anti-war second-in-command, played by Denzel Washington, believes that the non-launch scenario must be the default assumption. Different ethics systems and military principles point to different choices, and in the end, all we have is moral luck. If the Russian rebel commander has launched missiles at the US, as he has promised to do, before the sub’s preemptive attack can take them out, Washington’s values have killed a million Americans. If the order was retracted and Hackman launches as the original orders directed, he’s started World War III in error.
One criticism that doesn’t give away the ending: I do not like Hackman’s final reaction on the sub when the truth is revealed. It’s petty, and less than I expected from his character.
2. And now, the rest of the story. The mess we discussed here over San Francisco’s planned memorial to poet Maya Angelou ended this week with the original design being re-approved, after some judicious playing of the Race Card.
3. California stupid. California’s voters will overwhelmingly be the cause of President Trump winning re-election without winning the popular vote, if he does win, which is very much in doubt. Here is one of the reasons I don’t really care what Californians think, since they reside in a parallel and unethical reality.
Store managers in California are telling their employees to not interfere with looters—because we all know if the President wins, the riots and looting will follow— for fear of being branded as racists on social media. Thus businesses are shutting down permanently, like the latest Walgreen’s to give up. The reason: shoplifting killed it. The Golden State decriminalized the crime and retailers who stop petty thieves can be sued. A customer of the exiting Walgreens in San Francisco—the seventh to close in 2020 after its shelves were cleared by looters— told the San Francisco Chronicle, “I feel sorry for the clerks; they are regularly being verbally assaulted,” he said. “The clerks say there is nothing they can do. They say Walgreens’ policy is to not get involved. They don’t want anyone getting injured or getting sued, so the guys just keep coming in and taking whatever they want.”
This all started with the passage of Proposition 47, in which voters decided that stealing less than $950 worth of goods should be only a misdemeanor, entailing a small fine that often was less than the value of the merchandise stolen.
Morons. Their similarly deft analysis of national policy issues couldn’t interest me less.
4. Stay classy—and accountable!—Nate! Here was 538’s Nate Silver’s response to a podcaster’s question about the widespread criticism of the polls and prognosticators regarding the election. “If they’re coming after FiveThirtyEight, then the answer is fuck you, we did a good job!”
It’s bad enough not to own up to the fact that you failed, but adding “fuck you” to the response is signature significance for an arrogant asshole.
5. This is what awaits, and why. Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who has consistently distinguished himself by “calling tripe when tripe is served” for this entire four-year train wreck—regarding the Mueller debacle, the Flynn prosecution, the FISA fiasco and more—has provided an excellent analysis of what is going on in Pennsylvania. A sample,
To be clear, the Pennsylvania court’s post–November 3 ballot-counting ukase has not been validated. If the election is close, and those ballots could affect the outcome, there will be bitterly contested litigation — bank on it…. As champions of “ground-up democracy,” the political Left maintains that every vote counts. Sounds noble . . . except they mean everyone should vote, no matter how uninformed people may be regarding civics and policy issues — because in identity politics, voters are just numbers, members of the herd who will vote that way provided you can just get them to fill out ballots.
More significant for present purposes, by “every vote counts,” the Left means each vote must be tallied regardless of whether the voter is lawfully qualified to vote, and regardless of whether the vote was cast within the properly enacted rules of the election. This is why Democrats fight tooth-and-nail against every proposal to require voter identification, to match signatures, to outlaw vote “harvesting,” etc. Just as the Left takes umbrage at the term “illegal alien” on the nonsensical ground that “no person is illegal” (as if there were not patent differences between legal immigration status and human dignity), they would have you accept, on a “social justice” rationale, that there can be no illegal votes in a “true democracy.” For Democrats, the task of courts is not to follow state law but to tweak it as necessary to enable voting outside the state legislature’s rules.
And of course, the only things progressives may prefer to pliant courts is unelected, “expert,” “apolitical” bureaucracies — such as election boards dominated by Democrats, which presume to alter state law under the guise of administering it. In stark contrast, the Right wants the Constitution and state laws followed. We acknowledge that every qualified voter has a right to vote within the rules established for doing so, and we would not obstruct such voters. But frankly, we are not at all bothered if ill-informed citizens who are not committed to our constitutional order choose not to vote. More to the point, we believe that if the vote tally includes ballots from voters who are not legally qualified, or ballots that are not legally cast, this unlawfully disenfranchises voters who are qualified and who follow the rules.…
But here is the rub: The political Right, particularly its Republican Party representatives, is intimidated by the Democrats’ media megaphone. Conservatives fear being seen as opposed to the nostrum that “every vote counts.” That is, the hostile media filter has convinced them that, though it is perfectly obvious that every vote should not count, they cannot make that case unscathed. “Every vote counts” is yet another semantic battle the Left has won before the right even realized it was on. And winning the semantic battle usually means winning the policy battle.Of course, it is not suppression to oppose the counting of votes that should not count because they are not lawful. Yet Democrats succeed in putting Republicans on the defensive because Republicans do not want to be smeared as vote suppressors . . . especially when, inevitably, Democrats and the media will intimate that any effort to enforce election law as written is suppression driven by racial animus….
Read it all.
Source (Item #3): The Blaze