I was going to post a poll asking how many readers had watched the “Concussion Bowl.” Last night, right after the game commenced, I went to the local Harris Teeter was one of three customers in the whole store. I’m pretty sure everyone else wasn’t reading Ethics Alarms. I’m curious how many have the requisite integrity and cultural responsibility to reject the showcase of the NFL and its corporate enablers in light of pro football’s continuing profit from inducing brain damage and its nauseating pandering to Black Lives Matter.
But I couldn’t post the poll. Once again, WordPress had changed the ground rules. Now I was informed that I had exceeded my quota of “signals” in the previous polls posted here, and would have to pay a monthly fee to add any more. I had to explain to a nice WordPress agent I “chatted” with online what a “bait and switch” was. “Polls” used to be right on my “dashboard” like every other WordPress feature. No limits were mentioned, until today, when I was told, in essence, “Glad you like our polls, now you have to pay to keep using them.”
It’s not a lot of money, but the nickels and dimes add up. I wrote WordPress explaining that their conduct was unethical, and got an admission that “we should have been clearer.” That’s what all con artists and swindlers say.
1. If starting your day off with a head explosion is your thing, read this LA Times Op-Ed. I won’t comment on it because once I start, I might never stop. Just discussing the Orwellian use of the term “responsible” might take 5000 words. This is why I barely interact with anyone on Facebook now. When someone speaks like this deranged fool, and many do, revealing a distorted view of reality the equivalent of doing LSD in Oz and a comprehension of the Constitution on par with AOC’s, arguing with them is like debating Caligula or a toddler. Sure, it’s a breeze winning on points, but where does it get you?
2. But facts don’t matter…according to the analysis by John Droz Jr, the oft-stated assertion that the lawsuits regarding the 2020 election have overwhelmingly been rejected by the courts is more anti-Trump propaganda. Droz and his team examined court filings to track down 81 lawsuits that were filed in connection with the Presidential election and created a publicly available spreadsheet. The tally: Of the 81 cases, 11 were withdrawn or consolidated. 23 were dismissed for lack of standing or on other grounds. Those should not be considered wins or losses for either side, Droz argues, because they “have nothing to do with the merits of the case.”
I disagree. If a lawsuit is thrown out for any reason, that’s a win for the defendant. His argument is like saying that a team that wins a game by default because the opposing team didn’t show up isn’t really the winner.
Anyway, of 47 remaining cases 22 were ruled upon after the court heard arguments and considered evidence. Trump or Republicans prevailed in 15 of these and lost 7, according to the analysis. 25 lawsuits still have not been settled, including three before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Druz asks rhetorically in a statement. “Is that what the mainstream media is reporting?”
3. Some observations on the last item:
- If the President’s lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani, had not so absurdly (and unethically) over-hyped their suits and the evidence, the impression the public received might have been closer to reality.
- As with the TIME revelations, it is important that there be something approaching transparency and public education regarding the shenanigans in the voting process and vote-counting, even though the election will not be reversed, over-turned, or altered at this late date.
- The AUC narrative that the election was as pure as the driven snow is both dishonest and dangerous, and if the next election is to be fairer—fair is too much to hope for—the irregularities must be vetted and revealed.
4. Go ahead, you idiots: cut your own throats. I have been trying to explain to my performing artist friends that streaming plays and Zooming readings may give them something to do, but they are exactly the wrong approach if the long-term goal is to preserve an audience for live performing. Plays on screen is essentially TV. Nothing of the live theater experience survives. Most Americans don’t see any reason to attend live performances, and if the theater community accepts—worse than accepts, promotes— the idea that a broadcast or a video recording is an acceptable substitute, it is plotting its own doom.
In the same vein, orchestras are streaming their concerts. Astounding incompetence. You know what a streamed classical concert is? A CD with worse sound reproduction. Brilliant. Not only does this misrepresent the quality of the product, it increases the likelihood that audiences will condition themselves to accept a cheaper, lower quality but more convenient alternative.
I face the same problem with my currently Zoomed ethics seminars (some with live musical performances). I make a point of beginning them with a disclaimer that the remote version is a pitiful substitute for a live, interactive session, which it is.