You might well ask why spending a second of one’s relatively short time on earth considering, much less listening to, the idiotic ladies of ABC’s (that’s Disney, remember: this is something else to blame Disney for) “The View” is anything but self-abuse. I forced myself to watch the outpouring of stupid punditry regarding the SCOTUS decision on the Axis disqualification plot, and have been sitting on a post since because I can’t muster a definitive answer. But right now I need something else to think about before I start another day of trying to put my head, heart, house, business and life back together, so let’s look at this mess, and come back to why at the end.
Easily the most brain-popping comment of the stupidity orgy came from Whoopi, who once was obviously the smartest person on “The View” panel, was when she said the unanimous Court had given Donald Trump “a rubber to put on and walk through the poo.” I’m not sure what that even means, but it’s a disgusting image, and all the ladies nodded with approval. Later she said that in ruling as it did, the current Court resembled “the pro-segregationist Supreme Court I grew up with.”
How in the world does that compute? The issue of how the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-related insurrectionist provision relates to Donald Trump has about as much relevance to segregation as the dewpoint of feldspar has to writing out the Major General’s song in Cheez Whiz. Moreover, the Supreme Court that Whoopie “grew up with” was hardly “segregationist”: SCOTUS handed down Brown v. Bd. of Education in 1954, a year before Goldberg was born.
This is a production of the ABC news division. Think about that.
In another outburst that should have cued a brigade of white-coated mental health professionals with butterfly nets, Whoopi responded to a complaint by Ana Navarro, an alleged lawyer, about the SCOTUS nominee confirmation process by saying that “when it was all men voting for all men, we ended up with the Grand Wizard, you know, we ended up with all kinds of people on the bench.” Wait, I’m supposed to know who “the Grand Wizard” on the Supreme Court was? Who the hell is she referring to?
Navarro then lamely (but everything she says is lame) tried to give Whoopie some competition for the day’s “most ignorant and idiotic excuse for pundity” award with this gibberish:
Something that’s really troubling me though. Look, we have spent days and the last few weeks watching Fani Willis be on a witness stand and going through the fact that she was having an affair with a guy she hired to prosecute this case. It’s a conflict of interest case.
It bothers me tremendously that we have now had this case where Clarence Thomas has sat there and we have another case, the immunity case where Clarence Thomas apparently plans to sit there. Despite the fact that, in my view, and I think in a lot of Americans’ view, he has a conflict of interest. Because if Fani Willis sleeping with that guy you think was a conflict of interest, what do you think of Clarence Thomas being married to a woman who was actually trying to overturn the elections?
And that is something that continues to be unaddressed and I must say this: both Clarence and Ginni Thomas have denied any wrongdoing.
Again: Navarro is a lawyer. That’s her grasp of what “a conflict of interest” means? Legal analysis is built on analogies: if it was on a law school exam, “Explain how a SCOTUS Justice’s relationship with his wife as he considers the legal import of a Constitutional amendment on a state’s ability to knock candidates off the ballot for national office is analogous to a district attorney hiring her lover to handle a prosecution while seemingly financially benefiting from the arrangement” would send smoke billowing out of the ears of every exam-taker, like when Captain Kirk would talk a computer into self-destruction.
In the company of gibberish like that, the group’s inexplicable complaint that the unanimous decision was “partisan” seemed positively Aristotelian, though Mr. Montoya has raised his hand…
So back to the original issue: Why is this offal worth paying attention to in any way?
I’ll offer these hypotheses without confidence that any of them are sufficient justifications:
- It’s revealing. A horrifying percentage of the population has no better grasp of critical thinking than the ladies of “The View,” and probably worse, if that’s possible.
- It is vivid evidence of just how stupid bias can make one, especially if one wasn’t all that sharp to begin with.
- When the “misinformation” narrative begins flying around, it is instructive to recall that what “The View” was inflicting on eager, gullible eyeballs and ears arrived with the support and endorsement of a major network, a news organization, and the Disney Corporation.
- The very existence of “The View” would be impossible if the American education system even approached doing its job in the areas of civic literacy, logic, ethics, and critical thinking.
What else?
________________
Source: Newsbusters
Ethics Alarms 
This is what happens when you mix news with entertainment.
You get neither.
Once again, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on. Drum the lie on every channel, so that when someone finally does pipe up with the truth, he can be dismissed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
The ladies on the “The View” know they have an audience, and they will continue to spew whatever garbage they can to ensure their audience receives the appropriate message. Worse, they know that their audience will never question them, so whatever they say will be imbibed as the Gospel truth. More, the more outrage they can engender, the more likely the audience will be motivated to vote appropriately at the polls, share the talking point with their friends, and alienate everyone who doesn’t agree with them.
My wife and I were going to reply to Michael R’s comment a few days about the progressive mentality that is deliberately destroying everything that works so that everyone must be addicted to government services, and thus relying on this cabal of elites for everything. So, apologies to Michael R for not saying this before, but we effectively took his comment to mean this. Hanlon’s razor is getting very worn when applied to all these progressive causes. I think we’re past the point that we can attribute stupidity to what we’re seeing, even on the View. The conclusion is that this is deliberate and malicious.
Ryan Harkins wrote, “Hanlon’s razor is getting very worn when applied to all these progressive causes. I think we’re past the point that we can attribute stupidity to what we’re seeing, even on the View. The conclusion is that this is deliberate and malicious.”
It’s intentionally deliberate and intentionally malicious.
How did we get here?
Consider this…
We got here due to a cult-like mass anti-Conservative brainwashing via pure and constant unadulterated persecution based propaganda. Think mass media controlled tunnel vision via Pravda-USA, plus the promotion of anti-Conservative propaganda on social media.
Anti-Conservative malice is promoted and rewarded by the political left, their lapdog Pravda-USA media, and social media outlets.
Stop referring to these creatures as “ladies”. My mother would roll over in her grave. That used to be a word with meaning. Since their bunch, can’t even decide what a “woman” is, some random identifier is more appropriate…”things, objects”, maybe? “Beasts” may be inaccurate, as that implies things with brains, so maybe “creatures” is out, too. “Organisms”?
It’s revealing. A horrifying percentage of the population has no better grasp of critical thinking than the ladies of “The View,” and probably worse, if that’s possible.
For the value of “population” equal to Affluent White Female Liberals.
Jack wrote:
<i>Later she said that in ruling as it did, the current Court resembled “the pro-segregationist Supreme Court I grew up with.”</i>
I guess this falls under the “say anything at all as long as it’s anti-Trump, the crazier and more incomprehensible, the better!” How long will it be before people like Whoopi are calling for Trump’s assassination? It can’t be far.
What is the limiting principle for this sort of ignorant speech produced by a major * ahem * news network? Is it, “Anything goes as long as it’s anti-Trump?”
I’ve given up wondering how any legitimate organization, particularly a company purporting to bring us the news of the day, can allow such obviously risible, false, and defamatory commentary. Claiming Thomas has a conflict of interest in Trump’s case is defamatory in every way – either knowingly or recklessly false. Only the fig leaf of opinion (and one must laugh at <i>that</i> characterization) prevents them from being liable.
Not only are they unashamed of their flagrant ignorance, they seem proud of it.
And yet, not the stupidest pundit takes on the 9-0:
I wish I had a way to snip the image of the proposed community notes, they’ve restored my faith in the internet:
“Keith is implying that he pees from his eyes and has piss on his own face. This is not possible.”
“No mammals urinate from their eyes. Lobsters do have urine-release nozzles right under their eyes. They urinate in each other’s faces as a way of communicating, either when fighting or mating. Humans work differently.”
“Tears are not made of urine. Tears are made of water, salt, fatty oils, and several different types of proteins.”
The question is, can KO still credibly claim to be a pundit?
Maybe he just plays one on TV every now and again?
Keith’s putting that Ivee League education from Cornell to good use!!
Funniest thing about that there Ivee League education, Joel; I’ll toss it over to Ann Coulter for the highfreakin’larious particulars:
Olbermann’s Plastic Ivy
PWS
Paul, yeah, that piece might be the funniest thing Coulter has penned. On several occasions when KO has blown a gasket, I have gone back and read it.
It’s cathartic in a bizarre way.
From Ann Coulter’s piece:
Fortunately, we have Keith Olbermann to point out that Rush Limbaugh did not accurately quote the preamble to the Constitution in his CPAC speech last weekend. I’m not sure what scam Olbermann imagined Rush was trying to put over on the American people by saying conservatives believed in the “preamble to the Constitution” and then quoting words from the Declaration of Independence — but Olbermann put an end to that cruel deception!
The Joke is on Ann: Conservatives (and some constitutional law) views the Declaration of Independence as being, literally, the Constitution’s preamble. The Constitution exists to implement the DoI’s principles.