I’m cramming for a legal ethics presentation for a federal agency that must remain nameless, so posts are going to be delayed a bit. I have time, almost, to post a few quick items, as well as this one that has nothing to do with the election: We’re finally having a memorial event in Arlington, Virginia for Grace, my wife of 43 years, best friend, business partner and mots reliable ally, on October 12. A good freind is organizing it for me; I’m going to have a tough time even attending. Commenting on the laborious process of letting friends, clients and distant relatives know about it, my friend said, “You can pretend to care, but you can’t pretend to come.”
Meanwhile:
- That list of corporate donors to the two campaigns is interesting, isn’t it? News organizations typically do not make campaign contribution because it carries the stench of bias, although, frankly, at this point they might as well. Who are they fooling ? (Note that Disney, which owns ABC, the network that rigged the debate to boost Harris, is a Harris donor, and at an amount that would have it second on Trump’s list, though it is last on Harris’s.) But should the same principle apply to the Big Tech companies? Conservative analysts are claiming Google’s algorithm is rigged to boost Democrats and bury news that might harm Harris’s prospects. True, correlation isn’t causation [Pointer: Steve Witherspoon], but Google being—by far—the largest contributor to the Harris campaign certainly raises “the appearance of impropriety.”
- Conservative pundits are also suggesting that Harris isn’t really a gun owner as she assured Oprah. It didn’t help that a Harris mouthpiece humina-ed when she told an interviewer over the weekend that Harris “does” own a gun and it came out as “doesn’t,” but her meaning was clear in context. I assume that Harris owes a gun: being able to say that is simply good politics, because it may confused people who don’t realize how hostile she has been (and is) to the Second Amendment. The interesting questions would be 1) Has she ever shot it? 2) Loaded it? 3) Does she know what its model and make is? 4) Has she even held the thing?
- Oh great, Trump is leading in a “cookie poll” that has predicted all but one Presidential election since 1984. Why does the news media always report these stupid things, which are even more meaningless and unreliable than the real polls?
- Why do polls show that only 54% of the public trusts Trump to do a better job controlling illegal immigration than Harris? I assume it’s because so many voters have been brainwashed by almost a decade relentless anti-Trump media propaganda to believe the GOP candidate is a Hitler/Darth Vader/Racist/Liar monster determined to end the U.S. as we know it that they can’t trust him regarding anything. Let’s hear some applause for the Axis of Unethical Conduct. Nice job!
- It finally happened: among the Pro-Harris, Trump-Deranged hoard of aspiring commenters than I have had to ding because their opening salvo breached EA comment rules, I finally got one from someone who thinks Trump faked the last assassination attempt. Biased, Trump-Deranged and pet rock-dumb is no way to get on Ethics Alarms, son….
- I continue to think that Harris’s pushing for another debate and Trump’s refusal should make the proto-totalitarians nervous. Even with allied debate moderators, any time Harris has to speak unscripted is a major risk for her, but it is always the candidate trailing who wants to debate. Trump isn’t the debater he thinks he is, but if he has reason to believe a debate isn’t necessary for him to win, he’s smart enough to say “No.” It’s also telling that Harris won’t, even in desperation, agree to a debate on Fox News, where she knows she wouldn’t have co-debating allies among the moderators.
- Finally, this depressing story: I had occasion to visit the Facebook page of an old but still cherished former love of yore. She was always wise, thoughtful, practical and perceptive (and beautiful, loving and sexy). Yet there, in print, were multiple posts about how wonderful Tim Waltz is and, maybe even worse, Harris’s silly husband. There was nothing of substance regarding the Democratic ticket, which she obviously supports; not surprising, as she was apolitical when I knew her. Now her peer groups and social media friends are all woke as woke can be (she’s an actress and singer, making progressive groupthink hard to avoid.) Bias makes you stupid.
Sigh…
Ethics Alarms 
I’d want to ask whether Harris has ever had any competent instruction on how to use her gun and even rudimentary gun safety instruction.
An apt line from an Althouse commenter: “Both Biden and Harris appear to be constructs and not real people. NYT might as well be talking about President Jack Ryan. The opinions and deeds of both Biden and Harris are imaginary.”
In short, it doesn’t matter whether anything Harris says or purports to be is true. Trying to get to the bottom of any of these assertions is pointless. Whether she actually has a gun or not is irrelevant. She’s a construct. She’s not an actual person with a past or even a present. When the Dems say, “four more years,” they mean four more years of “Weekend at Bernie’s.” Same script, different Bernie.
It is quite possible that given the level of deceit that Harris is famous for, that she does actually own a gun albeit a toy gun. Perhaps a squirt gun she trains her cat with. She’s known to be a bit slippery this one.
Have a nice day and don’t forget to be grateful for all the goodness in your life…đź¤
I saw that headline about a cookie poll. It says the thing was only wrong in 2020. Well, if it can wrong once, it can be wrong again. And it’s a stupid poll anyway.
Do we also notice that Google’s donation absolutely dwarfs Trump’s #1 donor amount by a huge degree? That is some significant moolah. I wonder what Google will want in return?
I don’t see why it matters if she owns a gun or not. The fact that the master owns a gun does not mean that the slaves will be allowed to have them.
Indeed. I’ve seen some speculate on the now-struck-down roster of allowed handgun imports to California, and if rules for she were bent to obtain a model not on the roster as was done for other government entitleds.
I guess Elon is privately donating his own money but it’s worth noting he’s committed around $45 Million a month to a Pro-Trump super PAC.
Twitter/X is huge and reaches millions.
DD
If Twitter has some kind of ideological bias under Musk, I’d like to hear about it. Of course, to hear the Left’s Musk-haters, it’s ideological bias not to censor the Right.
well Twitter isn’t a person, but the person running it is, same with the other companies you’ve mentioned. But there’s definitely a bias at Twitter/X now since Musk took over. He uses it to suit his political goals
DD
He uses it to state his opinions and political views, but that’s not the same as using Twitter to slant public opinion. It permits reporters and pundits from all sides to publish their news and views, and its reader notes challenge tweets from both sides of the spectrum. What’s the bias you see? Users can choose who they follow, and almost nobody gets shut down for “misinformation.” There’s no search engine or “shadow-banning.” Where is it?
He uses it to state his opinions and political views, but that’s not the same as using Twitter to slant public opinion
Meh Elon is 100% using Twitter to slant public opinion. Elon is constantly pushing his ideological and political beliefs to his almost 200 mil followers. It skews the algorithms, I see Crazy right wing things all the time when I log on because Elon amplifies them.
He probably reaches more people than CNN does.
DD
Nobody has to follow Musk, and unlike CNN, he isn’t pretending to be a journalist, or objective. Again, how does he force “crazy right wing things” on Twitter/ “X” any more than any other user with a lot of followers, like, say, Barack Obama? “X” itself seems pretty neutral.
Its definitely not a 1:1 exact match but the similarities are what’s important
No one has to watch CNN either but that doesn’t change the fact that Musk has the biggest audience on X, reaches more people than CNN, and has an obvious political bias, AND he’s the owner.
Elon Musk’s Tweets are so significant he actually influence markets.
With one Tweet from Musk, he can reach more people and make something trend on X. He has a lot of power and he’s using that power to affect the election. Along with the 45 million he’s pledge a month.
We started this conversation talking about companies donating to politicians which is in their right. I just think it’s also worth noting what Elon is doing, the power he has, and how he owns the 4th biggest media company in America where a lot of people get their news.
DD
Nope. 1) He’s not a journalist 2) He doesn’t filter the information coming into his platform (like Facebook, Instagram and Google do) 3) Musk personally giving to candidates and causes is distinct from his company doing it. (Chic-Fil-A isn’t anti-gay marriage, it’s CEO is.) Musk is an “influencer,” to be sure, but having a big personal megaphone isn’t unethical. If Google gives so heavily to Democrats, it raises the legitimate question of what else it does to support them. Musk may be the face of Twitter, but Twitter isn’t Musk.
Yes, I think he is too visible on his platform, and that his use of it to express personal policy preferences sets him up for criticism.