The headline raises an interesting question: can an ethics villain be an ethics dunce, since ethics villains by definition don’t care about ethics, so how can they be judged stupid for ignoring them? Ah well, a topic for another day. Ann Althouse would ask Grok to resolve the issue…if I ever start quoting AI here regularly, someone please come up behind me and bash in my head with a brick.
I’ve been putting off the National Football League announcing that its now iconic halftime show during the 2026 Super Bowl in Santa Clara will star Bad Bunny, a performer I was mercifully unaware of before the announcement. After all, I could write this post any time between now and February 9, 2026, the day after the national sports event that I will not watch again because the sport it involves is deadly.
Today, however, I am in a bad mood, so it’s time. The Super Bowl has evolved as cultural phenomenon that is one of the rare yearly American events that unifies the nation, families, races and commerce. It is supposed to be non-partisan, non-political, and G-rated so families can watch the game and its surrounding hoopla with their children. When Janet Jackson exposed a nipple during a halftime performance, you would have thought that she has performed a human sacrifice by the reaction in the news media.
But now it is 2025, the Great Stupid still stalks the land, Trump Derangement reigns in the corporate suites, and thus the National Football League, which happily pays its players to become brain-injured, has chosen as its star attraction during the Super Bowl half-time show…
- …a cross-dressing native Puerto Rican rapper, as the Trump administration allegedly “targets” the trans community, who is likely to be promoting drag and fluid sexual identity to children unless the NFL has bound him contractually not to, which I doubt,
- …who is vocally anti-American, supporting Puerto Rico’s independence and withdrawal from U.S. territorial status,
- …who “sings” only in Spanish, while the President declared by Executive Order that the national language of the U.S. is English, as of course it is and must be, despite the fact that the majority of Super Bowl viewers do not speak Spanish, and
- …who has openly advocated for illegal immigration, refusing to perform in American venues because ICE might show up, while pro-open borders protesters are becoming more violent in their organized resistance to immigration law enforcement, plus…
- …frequently loads his lyrics with graphic sexual content and obscenity. For example, here are lyrics from his biggest hit:
“Raise your hands if you don’t have sex
The guy is so-so, and she wants flow
She’s not a golddigger, she doesn’t want a ticket
She only wants to dance without any problems
Squirt, I want her to splash me
Tell me, where do you want me to be
“Yo no sé mañana”, said Luis Enrique
That’s why I don’t question her nor want explanations
I’m going on top
Baby, you’re hot…”
And to think the half-time show once starred “Up With People”….
This can only be interpreted as a deliberate thumb in the eyes of the President and his supporters. What was the NFL thinking? Anti-Trump New York Times guest columnist Molly Jon-Fast has a theory:
The reason the N.F.L. picked Bad Bunny is the same reason that Jimmy Kimmel’s first show after his suspension had huge viewership, that “South Park” is having its best ratings in years and that Target’s sales are off since it dropped its D.E.I. efforts. Let’s face it: Woke is good for business….Democrats might want to ask themselves: What would Bad Bunny do?…Most Americans don’t like what the Republicans are doing, and they certainly don’t like how they are doing it. But the Republicans are still getting away with it. They want to reshape the country, roll back a hundred years of progress and ask for permission later — or never. The Democrats need to empower messengers that the establishment is scared of, people who don’t delight megadonors. Democrats need to stake their claims on a set of strong beliefs, and see if Americans will follow. They need to stop being lawyerly and timid.
It’s a good sign that MAGA is freaking out about Bad Bunny.
You see, she thinks making an anti-American, non-English performing, cross-dressing, vocally Trump-opposing, anti-ICE, pro illegal immigrant potty-mouth rapper the focus of a uniquely unifying U.S. popular culture event is a good thing (Bias makes you stupid). She also is deluded, or lying, or both: most of the country does not oppose what Trump is doing; they just don’t like him. Neither do I.
But he’s a lot more admirable than the National Football League. And smarter. The NFL must be looking at a different cognitive dissonance scale than I am.
Ethics Alarms 
“The Democrats need to empower messengers that the establishment is scared of…”
“It’s a good sign that MAGA is freaking out…”
I wonder if it occurred to Jon-Fast that the Democrats’ bold tactic of “make other people fear you” might actually be the reason the Republicans are “still getting away with it.” (And, to be fair, vice versa. Republicans can be quite callous towards legitimate concerns of Democrats.)
“Democrats need to stake their claims on a set of strong beliefs, and see if Americans will follow.”
Yes, as long as those beliefs are constructive and inclusive of people’s concerns. Not just any “strong beliefs” will get people to follow, and they certainty won’t lead to good outcomes. You can’t just choose “strong beliefs” based on what makes people afraid. “What would Bad Bunny do?” is not the kind of belief that forms the basis of a political movement that does anything good for healthcare, infrastructure, the economy, the environment, et cetera.
This person also seems to have a weird assumption that Republicans consist almost solely of rich people and “the establishment”, as if they don’t have to maintain a voter base by broadcasting a political platform that resonates with people. I recommend she do more listening to ordinary Republicans and find out what their concerns are and why they support current policies.
As Juror 8 says to Juror 9 when he tries to confront a bigot in “Twelve Angry Men”: “He can’t hear you, and he never will. Let’s sit down.”
I forgot to mention: Turning Point USA announced that it will be holding a competing half-time show during the Super Bowl, presumable streamed. I hope it’s good. Maybe “Up With People” can make a comeback.
There isn’t any point in listening to what democrats are concerned about because their concerns come prepackaged straight from the propaganda machine with a built in “solution” that is always communism. The communist solution is always the only possible solution, with no other potential solution allowed to even be mentioned much less actually considered. Democrats are incapable of caring about anything they are not explicitly told to care about, and incapable of discussing any solution but communism. Caring about their concerns is a box canyon.
Those are some sweeping assumptions to make. Have you ever looked for legitimate concerns raised by Democrats? Have you ever talked with moderate Democrats or read or watched anything by them?
Are there moderate Democrats?
EC
How do we define a moderate Democrat. I suppose the best way is to use John Fetterman as the model. Unfortunately he is outnumbered in the Senate as it appears he is the lone voice of reason.
One of your pillars of civility, if I can categorize it that way, is to engage in meaningful dialogue. How does one do that when terms often change meaning or are even ill defined. What exactly does tolerance mean when if you disagree with policy matters such as males in women’s private spaces or sports? What if you want to argue that affirmative action is discriminatory and actually prevents people from being recognized as winning meritoriously when it serves as a crutch for others? What does fair share mean when the top one percent pay the lion’s share of all taxes and many pay nothing and get money they never paid in back? What is the non-monetary fair share of effort that the poor owe to society in terms of doing everything within their power to make their own communities clean and safe, and themselves more skilled and productive. Who gets to define these terms? Why should these questions be asked and the terms more precisely defined. The answer that I can deduce is that defined terms undermine emotional arguments because when data can be evaluated more precisely then many arguments founder. I challenge you to define fairness that would get broad based support from those who will pay the taxes or be recipients of direct benefits.
When any rebuttal to progressive ideology is framed as a bigoted, fill in the blank phobic, or racist white supremacist ideal it is hard not to dismiss those claiming the mantle of Democrat as zealots who wish to impose their dogma on society at large with no one being able to challenge them.
Right now the issue of closed government and who is to blame is front and center in the media. Progressives are not voting for a clean CR because they want to pressure the majority into caving into demands that the minority wants before any negotiation begins. We do not have a government shutdown we have the equivalent of a lockout created by Democrats and they are using federal workers as willing pawns to achieve a goal that they would not get in good faith negotiations. Federal workers know they will get back pay and local governments are bending over backwards to provide for these poor workers who will starve or be evicted because the evil Republicans are not giving in to the demands of the spendthrifts in Congress. I don’t recall these governments doing anything approaching the largesse being offered to federal employees to private sector workers when they are furloughed.
As long as the Democrats and their media allies frame issues as the other side is dismantling Democracy, when they fail to acknowledge that the other side won a democratically decided contest based on the very promises made in the campaign, I find it difficult to accept the idea that it is my responsibility to listen to their concerns; especially when they are blatantly obtuse about their actual goals and instill fear in their base about the motives of the other side.
COTD. Thank you Chris.
Yeah, I kind of liked it too. Waiting for EC’s response….
You are absolutely right that defining terms is important. That’s why the Values Reconciliation Workshop introduces terms that we can use to nail down descriptions of people’s concerns in ways that make sense to everyone, without surrendering one’s own concerns. These terms allow us to have a meaningful discussion about what is at stake for everyone without first needing to agree on every premise or assumption. The terms are costs, risks, habits, and trust. We don’t use “tolerance”, which is too arbitrary, or “fairness”, which is existentially meaningless outside of games.
If you want to help make Democrats less extreme, then it’s your responsibility to listen to their concerns because, done right, that is an essential part of the process by which they start to realize that you have legitimate concerns as well. It’s not only listening to their concerns, but paraphrasing them to express what matters most, the legitimate values that underlie the often ill-advised policy positions.
When people hear what they actually want in a way they recognize, they will realize that they’ve been making assumptions about how to accomplish it. Furthermore, because you’re the one expressing it, they can tell that you understand them and take them seriously, and so they will take you seriously when you express your values and point out that their assumptions are causing problems.
You’re dispelling that fear that the media paints you with, and breaking the narrative that they’re foisting on people. Having done that, you and the people you engage with can start exploring ways to address all of your concerns without causing so many problems.
Does that answer your questions?
“Have you ever looked for legitimate concerns raised by Democrats?”
Of course I have. I used to actually enjoy calm, civil political debate. 15 years ago asking why someone felt the way they did about some political talking point was a feasible approach to starting a conversation. Now? I cannot even have a non-political conversation with a democrat without having them attempt to ram their propaganda down my throat.
Forget discussing politics, I can’t even attend a family wedding or discuss a video game in discord without the random bouts of rabid political Tourette syndrome popping off. Any attempt at conversation turns into hysterical shrieking of Democrat propaganda talking points. Even ignoring them turns into hysterical shrieking of Democrat talking points.
Everything is political and everyone who doesn’t 100% agree with every democrat talking point is a nazi. Even caring about something other than non-democrat talking points makes you a Nazi, or at least nazi-adjacent because you are distracting from the “important” issues, aka what you were told to care about by the propaganda machine.
There are no moderate democrats. A moderate democrat disagrees with at least one democrat policy position, which ipso facto makes them a right wing fascist according to the Democrats.
Thanks, that helps clarify. I’m pretty sure there are moderate Democrats around you, but you might not be able to tell because the loud extreme ones drown them out and they just go along with it.
There’s an art to getting people to stop venting and start thinking, or at least to get back on non-political topics. People want to be heard. From the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey’s son kept interrupting his work to say he wanted to go play outside. He stopped when his father confirmed that he had listened and understood the desire. “You want to go outside, don’t you?”
I do the same thing, but I paraphrase people’s complaints in more basic terms, understated but firm, in order to rein in the emotional spiral. “ICE is going about their stated goals in a very untrustworthy manner. It’s irresponsible to set quotas for arrests, because that creates incentives for unacceptable behavior like this.”
“A moderate democrat disagrees with at least one democrat policy position, which ipso facto makes them a right wing fascist according to the Democrats.”
Yeah, some people do feel that way. People can play semantic games with whether or not “Democrat” has been defined to be mutually exclusive with “moderate”, but there are still moderates who are registered Democrats and lean Left relative to Republican policies. There are people explicitly pushing back against “purity tests”, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
In my experience, both parties are mostly composed of full of reasonable, sane people who have been led to believe that there are no reasonable, sane people in the other party, and that therefore the immediate priority is to drive the other party out of office. The idea is that the victorious party, which naturally only has a few extremist factions, will then have plenty of time to work out the reasonable, sane things to do.
There is reason for to doubt that the sane and reasonable Democrats still form a critical mass within their party. Abigail Spanberger could not bring herself to ask Jay Jones to step out of the race during Thursday’s gubernatorial debate. No Democrat politician has asked Jay Jones to step out of the race.
The reason is that the Democrats have been captured by the radical left, and that wing is very comfortable with political violence. Democrat politicians are riding a tiger now they cannot dismount without being eaten by that tiger.
That radical wing is also the reason why the shutdown of government continues. If six Democrats end the filibuster on the CR, the political career will be over next year as AOC will primary him and become the next NY senator.
The problem is not that the Democrats have radicals among them, it is that the Democrat base has gone insane. Various polls such as YouGov have indicated that a significant number of Democrats are comfortable with assassination of Donald Trump (> 50%) and Elon Musk (> 40%). The reactions after the Charlie Kirk have confirmed this darkness in the heart of many Democrats. And now a supposedly “moderate” Democrat is running for AG in Virginia, and he openly fantasizes about killing a political opponent who gave a nice eulogy for a Democrat politician, plus his children. The reasonable conclusion of conservatives (e.g. Matt Walsh) is that the Democrats want their political opponents dead.
I do not know how you can have a reasonable debate with people who call you Nazi, and do not seem to have problem with political violence up to assassination.
That does not mean that Republicans should not try to understand Democrats. Understanding your enemy is essential in war gaming.
This is not the time for Republicans to become “reasonable” and reach out across the isle. The Democrats as a party have become an existential threat to the USA, and needs to be thoroughly defeated.
“The problem is not that the Democrats have radicals among them, it is that the Democrat base has gone insane.”
EC’s idealism will not permit it from conceding this, but it is true.
You’re the idealistic one if you think that the problem is that the Democratic base has “gone insane.” As humans, they were insane to begin with.
Since before recorded history, humans have been dehumanizing and happily murdering each other for land, conquest, slavery, and spreading the One True Religion(TM) in the name of the Loving God. They believed that they were entitled to do this because they were stronger or better or more virtuous, and other humans were weak, inferior, and evil. They saw only flaws in their rivals and only excellence in themselves. This is not a new phenomenon.
The natural state of your species is not working together to build a better world for the common good. It is “divide and conquer ourselves.” That’s why I’m here to make humans a little more unnatural.
You think that the political parties weren’t already set up for insanity by default? That representative democracy doesn’t gravitate towards the same problems as a communist dictatorship? Of course the Democratic base supports insanity! The Republican base does as well–you’re just more willing to downplay it because the Democratic insanity scares you more.
Meanwhile, you’re willing to write off an entire group of people as insane because they have been made to feel threatened and are responding exactly as humans do when they sense a threat–by attempting to remove the threat first, and asking whether it was actually a threat after a few centuries. Republicans and Democrats fear each other, and they react to this fear by trying to inimidate each other, which leads to more fear, et cetera, until each side considers the other side an existential threat to their communities and their way of life. It’s a two-in-one echo chamber where each side shows the other side the worst of themselves while admiring the sound of their own voice. As this feedback loop escalates, it’s only logical that people would be willing to resort to violence in order to protect the people they care about. Many human cultures consider that one of the highest virtues.
This all entirely within normal human parameters, and a human of your age should know how to handle other humans who feel threatened. Maybe the problem is that you yourself feel threatened by them, so you don’t want to hear anything that makes them sound less like a threat and more like ordinary people who deserve to have their concerns, if not their ideas, taken seriously.
The question is, what are you willing to do to end the threat? Are you willing to learn something new?
Your lack of familiarity with the human species handicaps you here. The wisdom of crowds is reliable, which is why democracy works, along with the power of culture, in the Us a product of luck, success,and a large number of heroes, role models and leaders. Ethics is cumulative and gets better over time, and, as Abe Lincoln so wisely said, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Americans don’t go insane, they get complacent, lazy and inattentive, ultimately leading to cultural amnesia. That’s what happened in the Sixties—a lot of stupid ideas flourished until everyone (well, almost everyone) realized, “Oh, right, THAT’S why we have always done things that way: it works!” The same is going on during The Great Stupid, but again, people are slowly remembering.
I’m doing a lot to end “the threat” by talking sense to smart people, and I learn new things every day.
Ah, okay. That’s good to hear. I had gotten a different impression of your assessment of the situation and your response to it.
The golden rule exists for a reason. Humans are perfectly capable of getting along and reasoning things out as long as they follow it. The problems arise when one side of an argument decides they are morally above the golden rule and can abuse some other group of people with impunity. If the opposition doesn’t follow the golden rule, then no one else has to follow it either and chaos breaks out.
I’m not going to tolerate discussion parameters with people who don’t treat other people the way they want to be treated. If people think they are better than me because they are always morally correct no matter how sociopathically they behave, then they are not worth debating. The golden rule violations already made them wrong, no matter their reasons for thinking they are right. I am not entering the sociopathic box canyon, no matter how right the sociopaths think they are.
If you want civil debate, argue for the golden rule. I’m willing to follow it, but Democrats are not. That makes them wrong, no matter what their reasons are.
Some people are actually sociopaths, and you don’t have to engage with them. Most of the people you see acting like sociopaths have been led to see the opposition as sociopaths and an existential threat. By exactly the reasoning you describe, they throw out the golden rule because they are under the impression that their opponents have already violated it, and/or that it’s a self-defense situation which does not violate the golden rule.
You being willing to follow the golden rule helps immensely. Ethics is about building trust, and unilaterally abiding by boundaries demonstrates honor and goes a long way towards building that trust. It dissolves fear and helps people realize that following the golden rule will not doom them.
I find “civil debate” as most people understand it is not particularly helpful. It usually boils down to two people saying “we should do things my way, because your way causes unacceptable problems, and here are all the facts to prove I’m right.” It’s far more useful to just get all people’s concerns on the table, and then start figuring out how to address all of them. This approach does not require anyone to commit to the golden rule beforehand; they participate because they get to explain their point of view to someone who listens and asks questions to clarify and explore solutions rather than to try to prove that they should surrender unconditionally. That’s how we get them on the path back to the golden rule.
If you’d like to learn how to get people who have suspended the golden rule to participate constructively in a discussion and rethink their beliefs, I’m running a workshop that walks through the process. Otherwise, just keeping the golden rule helps make a better future possible. Thanks for setting the example!
I don’t believe that NY state is still a safe Democratic district.
Perhaps what needs to happen is for AOC to primary Schumer and then lose in the general election.
Don’t say it couldn’t happen — it would take a good Republican candidate, but I’m not so sure that AOC would automatically be elected.
Something like that might be the dash of cold water to the face to wake up the Democrats.
Or it might not. But having one of your core ideologues go down in flames would surely rock the boat — if it is still capable of being rocked.
If it didn’t — well, then maybe we introduce the elephant to the Whig.
I think conservatives should beware of getting cocky, and campaign as if they are the underdog. NY turning red? I believe it when I see it.
Let’s first see what happens this November. My expectation (and hope) is that Mamdani wins the mayoral race in New York City. If the New Jersey and Virginia elections this November yield victories for the Republicans, there may be hope for the midterms and a slight hope for New York turning red. Such an outcome will radicalize the base even further, which is good for the longer term fortunes of the Republicans.
If the Democrats win the New Jersey and Virginia elections then I predict the Democrats will also capture the House during the midterms. Such a result will also confirm that political violence is of little concern to the base of the Democrats.
One of the possibilities is that they split the governors’ races. In that situation, my bet would be that NJ goes Republican and VA flips back to the Democrats.
As far as NY? Absolutely the Republican should run as an underdog. I’m not predicting a Republican win if AOC is the nominee, but I think it’s more likely than with Schumer.
The biggest factor would probably be who the Republicans nominate — they need to stop putting up candidates who are going to flame out in the general election.
Maybe the GOP will run Stefanik for the Senate or as governor in NY.
You might be right about NJ and VA, I am kind of curious about what Jack’s opinion is after Thursday’s gubernatorial debate between Abigail Spanberger and Winsome Earle-Sears. My opinion was that the debate was a disaster for Spanberger at many levels, including the ethical level. This may well push the momentum for Spanberger downwards. I am not saying that Winsome Earle-Sears is a strong candidate. However I expect a very strong and motivated GOP turnout to prevent the Democrats from winning.
“This is not the time for Republicans to become “reasonable” and reach out across the aisle.”
What are you concerned will happen if Republicans try that? Do you think that’s mutually exclusive with methods you consider more effective?
I’d heard there was a guy out there named “Bad Bunny.” What a joke. Rap is a joke. The Super Bowl halftime show has been reduced to a very dark joke. Evidently Beyonce’s husband Jay Z is responsible for programming the Super Bowl halftime show. Brilliant. Ethics corrupter. Maybe Beyonce will have a cameo doing Wet Ass Pussy?