This made me laugh out loud. After my Trump-Deranged relative repeatedly defaulted to “If Trump isn’t dangerous, how come so many of those who worked closely with him now say he’s unfit and a fascist?,” I saw a Guardian headline in Memeorandum: “‘Fascist’, ‘conman’, ‘predator’, ‘cheat’: what 11 former Trump staffers say about him now.” So I looked at the article.
1. The surprise move has sparked a “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias” spectacular! Editor-at-large Robert Kagan, resigned in protest. “People are shocked, furious, surprised,” said an editorial board member. Wait: why does the staff care so much that the Post isn’t officially endorsing Harris? They care because they are partisan and biased. They want their paper to do everything it can to help Harris and defeat Trump, not to to report the news objectively, and not to be officially neutral. That the staff reacted this way tells us all we need to know about the Post’s trustworthiness, if we didn’t know it already.
2. Endorsements were justifiable when newspapers maintained some semblance of objectivity. In today’s rotting journalism, however, with “advocacy journalism” holding sway and the Post being a particularly flagrant offender (I cancelled my Post subscription because the New York Time was less biased!) an endorsement doesn’t mean what it once did. That was, “We have assessed the candidates and their positions. We now can state our measured conclusion: X is the responsible choice for voters.” Now, an endorsement only means, “We have been favorably reporting on the Democratic candidate while being relentlessly negative about the Republican candidate, and all our reporters and editors are Democrats and progressives. Of course we’re endorsing X.”
1. Are there any videos of Trump supporters acting like this? As with the many episodes of violence against citizens wearing MAGA caps: if the Trump supporters are the Nazis, why is it that the Democrats are the only ones engaging in violence and harassment?
2. I asked this question of a Trump Deranged relative today. The “But Trump…!” answer I got was “What do you call the Capitol riot?” I call it a bunch of idiots trying to remedy what they thought was an attempt to steal a Presidential election through a protest that got out of control. It was not Americans targeting those whose political views did not align with theirs.
It is time to call these two partisan operatives in the guise of professors what they are: hypocrites, hacks, abusers of authority and totalitarian enablers. Naturally, they are Harvard government professors, my college and my major. I already have my Harvard diploma turned face to the wall and on the floor; there’s not much else I can do is burn it. But I consider these two unethical academics—they shouldn’t be called “scholars”—and insult to me, and any readers who are capable of non-Trump-Deranged thought. The New York Times is complicit by repeatedly giving them a platform to sell books and mislead the public.
But that’s the Times: an institutional ethics villain assisting two individual ethics villains. Nice.
I’ve been flagging the indefensible dishonesty and scholarship-as-propaganda of these two since 2018, when they were lionized by the Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance,” Democrats and the mainstream media) for their Big Lie launching book, “How Democracies Die.” They’ve published more similar screeds since. I wrote in part (If you like, skip to the end of the long quote, but this is necessary perspective for the rest of the post):
“!! The Washington Post just announced it won’t endorse a Presidential candidate. This is not only a victory for Trump, it should send Democrats to their panic rooms. The message is how terrible a candidate Harris is, and the narrative that she is otherwise has collapsed.”
Good.
There is hope.
(I’ve been waiting for just the right opportunity to post that (badly acted) clip from “Plan Nine From Outer Space,” and this story is perfect.)
Amber Matthews, 23, a social justice warrior who literally doesn’t know what she’s protesting and furious about, thought she was tearing down a string of Israeli flags at a New Jersey restaurant. She proudlposted the video of her vandalism—but good vandalism, see, because Jews are evil—on TikTok.
Oopsie! They weren’t Israel flags, they were Greek flags. See the difference? (Hint: One has a cross, and the other has a Star of David…)
Tough one! Hey, anyone could make that mistake…especially an ignorant, self-righteous moron.
In the video, Matthews screams while she is tearing down the flags,“Free Palestine! What are you looking at? You know damn well there’s a genocide. I’m taking this shit down.” She adds, “I don’t stand for it. There’s genocide, and I don’t stand for Zionism.”
Actually, her brains is so clearly atrophied that its a miracle she can stand at all…
This would be evidence of historical and geographical ignorance even if the woman did tear down Israeli flags. There is no Palestine, the Palestinians are 100% responsible for that fact, and a nation waging war after being attacked isn’t “genocide.” (Jews know what genocide is.) Having and loudly proclaiming an uninformed opinion is bad. Using the uninformed opinion as justification to destroy private property is much worse, and destroying the wrong property is more unethical still. Then she posted evidence of her crime as if it was something to be proud of, when in reality it is something that should require Matthews to wear a bag over her head for the rest of her life.
The New York Post reports that she’s been arrested and charged. Good.
I am accepting the fact that the blog from here to election day is likely to be politics heavy, and I regret that. It can’t be helped. Kamala Harris and the Democrats are operating the most nauseatingly and dangerously unethical election campaign nationwide since the days of Jim Crow, and the Presidential campaign that has been inflicted on America by Harris is stunning in its cynicism, relying on Big Lies and ad hominem attacks exclusively. A supplement to that is that the campaign is also relying on unethical, indeed anti-democratic journalism.
For the much coveted “October Surprise” that is supposed to save Harris, the best the Axis news media could come up with was an alleged Trump inflammatory quote regarding a dead soldier, one that was not even attached to a named source and that was subsequently denied by both the family of the soldier and others who were supposedly witnesses to the statement, and another private quote by disgruntled former Trump aide John Kelly supposedly praising Adolf Hitler. Yes, its back to that: after 12 years, a Trump term in office in which he resembled Adolf not at all, after a four years of a Democratic Presidential term in which Kamala Harris’s party emulated totalitarian attitudes and tactics (and that witnessed as well a frightening rise in anti-Semitism, we’re back to this…
…because, shockingly, that’s literally all they’ve got. Harris’s disastrous CNN “town hall” made this undeniable among all but liars and fools: she wouldn’t or couldn’t answer straight questions, periodically slipping into untranslatable Kamala-speak when she wasn’t obviously reciting memorized talking points.
How could such a metaphorical empty suit get to this point, where she is one national mental breakdown from the White House? Easy: she was yanked onto the 2020 Democratic ticket only because of her color and genes, handed the top spot four years later without once offering herself to voters as a Presidential candidate based on her performance as VP—which was uninspiring (and I’m being kind)—and then selected Soviet-style without giving national convention delegates a choice. And this is supposed to be a party obsessed with “choices.” It is also the party now warning the public that their opponents are threats to democracy.
If it were not so depressing, and if it did not have a chance of working, this last-ditch strategy would be funny. It should also signal the end of the Democratic Party. But it isn’t, and it won’t.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to write more about this; there is more of it than I have time for, frankly, but it’s important. You don’t have to, though. So don’t, not here.
Deal?
Well THAT’s embarrassing!
At the end of the most recent post, discussing Amazon’s explanation for why its AI bot Alexa was telling inquirers to vote for Kamala Harris, I wrote,
“Can anyone point to an “error” by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Amazon or Google that ever favored Trump or Republicans rather than their Axis pals and allies? Please enlighten me if there are any: I doubt there are. Amazon is “the dishonest waiter,” one of many providing lousy service to distort our democracy.”
Guess who pointed me to not only such an error in the other direction, but an error by Amazon itself, also involving Alexa? Me. I wrote about it in a post from a year ago called “AI Ethics: Should Alexa Have A Right To Its Opinion?”
I immediately thought of the “dishonest waiter” when I stumbled upon this story, about a month late. (How did I miss it? You readers are supposed to keep me up to date!) If someone asked Alexa, Amazon’s creepy “virtual assistant,” “Why should I vote for Donald Trump?” “she” replied, “I cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party or a specific candidate.”
In “Denial,” the film about the lawsuit by British Holocaust denier and fake historian David Irving against American Deborah Lipstadt, the late, great Tom Wilkinson as Lipstadt’s barrister Richard Rampton, in the process of excoriating Irving to the court where the case is being tried, evokes the analogy of “the dishonest waiter” in a memorable speech:
My lord, during this trial, we have heard from Professor Evans and others of at least 25 major falsifications of history. Well, says Mr. Irving, “all historians make mistakes.” But there is a difference between negligence, which is random in its effect, and a deliberateness, which is far more one-sided. All Mr. Irving’s little fictions, all his tweaks of the evidence all tend in the same direction: the exculpation of Adolf Hitler. He is, to use an analogy, like the waiter who always gives the wrong change. If he is honest, we may expect sometimes his mistakes to favor the customers, sometimes himself. But Mr. Irving is the dishonest waiter. All his mistakes work in his favor. How far, if at all, Mr. Irving’s Antisemitism is the cause of his Hitler apology, or vice versa, is unimportant. Whether they are taken together or individually, it is clear that they have led him to prostitute his reputation as a serious historian in favor of a bogus rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and the dissemination of virulent Antisemitic propaganda.
I immediately thought of the “dishonest waiter” when I stumbled upon this story, about a month late. (How did I miss it? You readers are supposed to keep me up to date!) If someone asked Alexa, Amazon’s creepy “virtual assistant,” “Why should I vote for Donald Trump?” “she” replied, “I cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party or a specific candidate.”
I doubt that Ethics Alarms will be able to keep up with the predicted (and coming to pass) pre-election hysteria and ends justify the means overload that the Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance,” Democrats and the mainstream media) are inflicting on the nation as they fear their fake DEI candidate for President will lose, as she so richly deserves to. It is almost entire fueled by Big Lies, fake news, ad hominem attacks, and anything that might distract from Harris’s increasingly obvious incompetence and dishonesty.
I am serious when I say that I only drop by Fox News, CNN and MSNBC for about five minutes each day, and it’s a amazing the garbage I see anyway. I just heard Kamala Harris tell Anderson Cooper, in last night’s CNN “town hall” (Who believes Harris didn’t have the questions in advance?) that she believes that the border must be secure and that there should be “serious consequences” for illegal immigration…this in the same campaign where she has said that she supports amnesty for illegals as well as citizenship! See, if the “consequences” of illegal immigration are exactly what illegals want, that’s called an “incentive.” Naturally, Cooper didn’t call Harris on this self-evident—stupid, really— contradiction.
Ethics Alarms 