I nearly included this post’s sub-title in the headline, but it was too long: “Gee, wouldn’t it be great if the United States had a trustworthy, objective and competent journalistic establishment that we could rely on for critical facts?”

We don’t have such an establishment, however.

Gabbard, the former Democratic member of Congress from Hawaii who acquired more delegates in her run for the Presidency in 2020 than Kamala Harris [insert inappropriate cackle here], is roundly detested by her own party and the mainstream news media (but I repeat myself) for refusing to follow party talking points and false narratives on a variety of issues. The latest in her political muckraking is a two-minute video posted to her Twitter account, in which she stated that there are 25 to 30 American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine and called for an immediate ceasefire around them before an accident spreads dangerous pathogens.

Continue reading →

I didn’t foresee a this supplementary post being necessary after parts 1 and 2 a month ago. The evidence was overwhelming already that the Democratic Party was, with record-setting gall, accusing the Republicans in general and Donald Trump in particular of being an existential threat to democracy while their own party was deliberately undermining the Constitution. Part 2 listed 15 examples; it was far from complete. However, one of the more absurd examples, which I originally flagged in this earlier post, is apparently being seriously pursued.

Jonathan Turley caught us up in a column last week in The Hill.

Although the moldy oldie Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified by a sufficient number of states before the Congress-imposed deadline for doing so expired, Democrats want it to be declared the 28th Amendment to the Constitution anyway. Turley explains,

Continue reading →

This date in 1865 marked one of the great hypocrisies of all time. The Confederacy, back to the metaphorical wall and facing defeat, approved the use of black troops. Slaves were the last source of recruits left for the Confederacy, but forcing them to fight against their own interests was as cruel as it was illogical. One Southern politician asked, “What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?” Another pointed out, “If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong.” Ya think?

Focused only on military survival, General Robert E. Lee’s brutal contribution to the debate was “We must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves.” At least Lee asked that the black soldiers who fought for the Confederacy be ensured their freedom, but the Confederate Congress’s bill authorizing black soldiers on March 13, 1865, did not include that feature.

1. What is the ethical reply to a Facebook comment like this? An old friend and nice guy weighed in on a Facebook thread entirely occupied by tunnel-visioned, knee-jerk progressives (like him) and launched by a fatuous comment about what a great leader Zalinsky is and how the U.S. has no similarly admirable political leaders. My friend wrote, “Biden’s doing a good job!” I had to wrestle my fingers to the ground. By what possible perspective could anyone of any political persuasion say that Biden is doing a “good job”? My friend isn’t especially political; he’s not lying: he must really think that, and, of course, all of the knee-jerks “liked” that assessment. I ultimately decided to let his statement go, and instead wrote that bravely refusing to accept defeat during an invasion and inspiring your nation is a narrow band of admirable leadership in a very specific kind of situation, but it doesn’t, by itself, make someone a “great leader.” Before the Russian attack, nobody thought of Zalinsky as a great leader. He has guts and principles, but there is more to leadership than that.

Continue reading →

In Virginia, an unexpected chance to use Dean’s definitive rendition of this cheerful winter song for the last time (I assume) before “The Flowers That Bloom In The Spring (Tra-la!)” is more appropriate…

Dog-walking ethics reflections: one of these days, I am going to stop and admonish the dog owners I see walking their four-legged companions in any of the following ways:

• Dragging the dog on the leash at a breakneck pace and not allowing it to stop and sniff, which is roughly the equivalent of forcing a toddler to walk blindfolded.
• Walking the dog while engrossed in a bluetooth or cell phone conversation, not interacting with the dog at all.
• Walking far in front of the dog, without ever making eye contact or physically interacting with it.
• Riding a bicycle with a dog on a leash, forcing the dog to run along to keep up.

Dogs want to be close to their humans and be acknowledged. Spuds gets so excited about going out that he can barely contain himself. I talk to him on our walks, try to accommodate his whims and interact with him as much as possible. The practices I see with too many other dog owners come just short of animal cruelty. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but yesterday was especially bad, as I saw one neglectful walker after another.

Now I’m taking Spuds out. He loves to eat fresh snow.

1. This drives me crazy. The House voted last week to pass a multi-trillion-dollar “omnibus” spending bill that was more than 2,700 pages. Members of Congress received the 2,700+ page bill’s text in the early morning hours with the vote scheduled for the same afternoon.  Obviously, the vast majority of the House voted without reading the bill—-I’m pretty sure none of them read that fast. I have serious doubts about whether some of them can read at all.

Voting on mere summaries is irresponsible on the Members’ part, and not providing adequate time for Members to perform due diligence is unethical on the part of House leaders. Complains Brad Polumbo, “And, of course, if they voted against this bill, they will now be accused of opposing pay increases for soldiers and being obstructionists who shut down the government.”

Too bad: they still have an ethical obligation not to vote blindly. Each House Member should have to certify under oath that he or she has read any bill they vote for. If they are not given sufficient time, they should withhold their vote as a matter of responsible government. Continue reading →