Beyond the admirable speech by Tyler Perry, I’m not devoting any whole posts to the Oscars, which are no longer culturally significant enough to compensate for their traditional lack of integrity. I will note in this preface to today’s ethics notes that the results yesterday proved the advantage of anonymous voting. Basically under a command to honor minority artists irrespective of merit, since the awards, and all awards, and all honors, benefits and advancement, must be based on “diversity and inclusion” above all else, the voters nonetheless voted for old white British guy Anthony Hopkins for Best Actor over Chadwick Boseman, who was considered the frontrunner for the award since he had the unbeatable qualities of being excellent in the role (of a rebel musician in “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,”) being black, and being dead. I think it may have been a tiny backlash against the Racialization of Everything. It’s too bad this was where that point was made, since Boseman was obviously a huge talent and would have been a worthy winner.
But I won’t be doing my annual tribute to the performers that the Oscars left off its “In Memoriam” segment this year, or ever again. Turner Movie Classics does one every year that’s less rushed, more interesting, and better. Who needs the Academy Awards version, especially since it has rebranded itself as an affirmative action organization? Nine of the 20 acting nominations went to minorities this year. Did their ethnic origins and skin shade help them get the nod? Like all the other kinds of bias that pollute the Oscars, the fact that there is even a question makes the the exercise unworthy of serious respect.
1. The irrational bias against police reaches the level of farce. I assumed even the most deranged, anti-cop, wokist heralds of presumed racism would back off from their accusations once they had the facts in the shooting of teenager Ma’Khia Bryant in Columbus right before she was able to stab another young woman. Former Reason writer now with the Washington Post, Radley Balko, was the exception, talking down his tweet critical of the cops and apologizing for his premature criticism. In contrast, shameless demagogues like Valerie Jarrett—this woman was Barack Obama’s prime advisor—think about that—wrote, “A Black teenage girl named Ma’Khia Bryant was killed because a police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times in order to break up a knife fight. Demand accountability.” No, he shot her to save the other black girl’s life. In order to make the wacked-out assessment made byof Jarrett and others, progressives are pushing the astounding narrative that knife fights are just part of growing up back. Even sillier are the amateur recommendations of how police could stop an imminent knife attack without resorting to gunfire. These include “long sticks,” “shouting ‘drop the weapon,” “tripping the assailant,” “rubber bullets,” “dogs,” trying to talk to the attacker,” and the ever-popular “winging her.”
Personally, I’m fond of the old Marty McFly trick of pointing and shouting, “What the hell is THAT??” as a distraction. It worked with Biff!
2. Boy, we could sure use a national organization that fought for free speech. Why doesn’t someone start one? Glenn Greenwald quite properly chastises the one-time champion of the First Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union, for avoiding the growing problem of on-line censorship. The reason is apparently money. Greenwald writes,
How is it possible that the ACLU is all but invisible on one of the central free speech debates of our time: namely, how much censorship should Silicon Valley tech monopolists be imposing on our political speech? As someone who intensively reports on these controversies, I can barely remember any time when the ACLU spoke up loudly on any of these censorship debates, let alone assumed the central role that any civil liberties group with any integrity would, by definition, assume on this growing controversy… They obviously cannot defend Facebook’s censorship — affirmatively defending the stifling of political speech is, at least for now, still a bridge too far for the group — but they are petrified of saying anything that might seem even remotely critical of, let alone adversarial to, BLM activists and organizations. That is because BLM is one of the most cherished left-liberal causes, and the ACLU now relies almost entirely on donations and grants from those who have standard left-liberal politics and want and expect the ACLU to advance that ideological and partisan agenda above its nonpartisan civil liberties principles. Criticizing BLM is a third rail in left-liberal political circles, which is where the ACLU now resides almost entirely, and thus it again cowers in silence as another online act of censorship which advances political liberalism emerges.
If the ACLU will not stand up against censorship in all of its forms and no matter what ideology it supports, then there is no ACLU…only an empty, conflicted, useless shell.
3. From the Double Standards files, cross-filed in “Methinks She doth protest too much”: Rachel Maddow—and incidentally, anyone who continues to watch this dishonest hack after her disgraceful coverage of the Russian collusion investigation is either too gullible for words or has never received news from any source by MSNBC—wrote this regarding the GOP audit of the 2.1 million ballots cast in Maricopa County, Arizona, two-thirds of the entire vote statewide: “This is a ridiculous story that will become very dangerous in the long run. It will become a lie that the craziest part of the pro-Trump conspiracy theory world will try to live on and build on for a long time to come.”
Democrats also went to court to try to stop the recount. Why? When newspaper reporters converged on Florida to check the 2000 election votes, the Republicans didn’t try to block it, and that was hardly a non-partisan group doing the counting. Everyone was positive that the hand-count then would prove that Bush “stole” the state and the election; in fact, it showed that the result was probably correct….so the media buried the story.
My guess is that the same result will occur this time, but without the burial: Arizona was correctly called for Biden. But if there was sufficient voter fraud or other irregularities to change the result, wouldn’t it be in the nation’s best interests to know that?
4. Meandering back to the beginning: “Oscars viewership was down over 50% off last year’s numbers, which were the worst ever.”
And the sad part is, Hollywood will have no idea why.