One of the few reasons I was worried about Donald Trump getting a second term rather than the United States ending up with that incompetent babbling, DEI Doom Machine Kamala Harris in the White House was that I knew with absolute certainty that his second four years in the White House would be exhausting on the ethics front, making it both impossible and absurdly time-consuming to cover the ethics landscape adequately. That has come to pass even more horribly than I dreaded. Trump does stuff (as Presidents are supposed to do) but often does it sloppily or defiantly; he trolls, he jokes, he behaves like a the kid in “The Twilight Zone Movie” who acquires the power of a god; the Axis of Unethical Conduct goes nuts, the Democrats lie, the polls are faked, the news media spits Trump-Hate propaganda, unethical judges throw monkey wrenches into the works, businesses pander, ethics train wrecks pop up everywhere, socialists, communists and idiots demonstrate…
I feel like Newman feels about the U.S. Mail in the “Seinfeld” clip above.
If EA were going to have the impact and thoroughness it needs to have (five commenters are not enough), it would have to be a multi-contributor site like Instapundit, Powerline, Victory Girls or Legal Insurrection, or I would have to be retired like Althouse or work only a few hours a day like Prof. Turley. But the latter options are impossible (forever, for reasons largely, but not entirely, beyond my control) and I have tried to build the former without success.
The brilliant Mrs. Q opted out quickly because of other priorities. Curmie, who brought a different perspective to his carefully curated posts, went Trump Deranged and quit without so much as a “thanks,” a “Bye!” or a “Good luck!” I have a standing offer to one of EA’s dependable contrarians, who has chosen to ignore it. (This is one reason I bristle when someone calls the blog an “echo chamber.”)
Talk about the mail “coming and coming”! I already have several topics on the runway, and this morning I saw about a dozen others that need ethical analysis that know I will not have time to provide, as well as some issues I’ve already discussed continuing to throb. For example, all of the morning shows and the news were concentrating most of their time on the disappearance of the “Today Show’s” hosts’s mother, which is, literally, trivia compared to other developments, like, say, emerging evidence indicating that a member of Congress—a Democrat, of course—may have ties to terrorist organizations. But.. but…a talking head celebrity’s mother is missing!
Also on the Ethics Alarms radar…
Ethics Alarms 
A valuable discourse upon echo chambers: The Gordian Knot of Modern Politics | RealClearPolitics
Read the piece, but here’s one excerpt: “The understandings that most of us espouse are not so much our individual assessment of a given set of facts, but an echo of what other like-minded people are saying. When was the last time you, or someone you know, said something startlingly original about current events? That’s why it is so frustrating, and boring, to talk with people across the political divide – you know what they are going to say before they open their mouths. It’s likely that they feel the same about you.”
And an interesting suggestion of the beginning point, the Reagan Revolution: “This phenomenon has become more pronounced in America, at least since the so-called Reagan Revolution challenged the liberal consensus and the nation began splintering into rival groups that increasingly see themselves at war with fellow citizens who won’t agree to their terms. Winning means staying on message.”
My conclusion: EA is an echo chamber. So what?
I’d suggest the EA commentariat fairly consistently “challenges the liberal consensus.” That’s why lefties, avid proponents of the ever-expanding liberal consensus, call EA an echo chamber.
It’s cute that you believe conservatives don’t have their own echo chamber. I live in deep red territory and the stereotypes about conspiracy theories and far right could be valid. If I hear one more speculation about chem trails… it all comes down to media and click bait though. In my history class they discussed “yellow journalism” which morphed into tabloids. I would speculate that there’s been a tabloid creep into all mainstream media
I used to completely enjoy the end of the year doom and gloom about Nostradamus, Myan Calendars, comets and other disasters which may or may not be eminent. I don’t anymore. Every day is doom and gloom. Economics dictates “click bait” in the world we are in now. It sacrifices real important news that’s less than interesting to most.
I have yet to decide if it’s better to have these biases as news or if it’s better to ignore it all and just focus on your sphere of influence. I lean toward option 2.
It’s cute that you believe conservatives don’t have their own echo chamber.
“My conclusion: EA is an echo chamber.”
Should I throw in a “Well bless your heart?”
lol If you feel the need. It may be an echo chamber, but it is different from my real-world echo chamber, so I suppose that is something. “Thoughtful disagreement is not a battle: its goal is not to convince the other party that he or she is wrong, and you are right, but to find out what is the truth and what to do about it.” Ray Dalio Principles: Life and Work
Again, my point, as elaborated in the linked article, is EA is an echo chamber, but that’s neither here nor there.
I don’t see anyone on the left at all interested in finding the truth and what to do about it. They want total domination in all things. Because they are right and morally superior and are contemptuous of anyone who has the gall to question or otherwise cross them.
I do not believe that consensus is necessarily a good thing. Five hundred years ago the consensus was that the earth was flat, kings ruled by divine right, witches were burned at the stake, and confessions were extracted by torture. During the Enlightenment we learned to question the consensus, propelling the Western Civilization to great scientific and moral progress.
The thing about science is that all papers and results need to be properly reviewed. In politics all proposals need to be properly debated, and often compromises need to be made in order to govern.
The problem in our modern society is that in proper scientific criticism is waved away in the name of “consensus” by “experts” who often toe a particular line (ideological or otherwise) because criticism is punished. As a result trust in science and experts have evaporated, with COVID and climate change hysteria providing the examples.
In politics, the parties basically have stopped talking with each other, politicians and base alike. Instead people have a tendency to read and listen to those that confirm their biases, and demonize those that do not share their biases. This was exactly the political situation at the end of the Weimar Republic, with all the main political parties beholden to dogma and ideology.
Trust in institutions have evaporated as well, as a result of the 2008 bank and real estate crisis, the handling of COVID, the politization of many federal government agencies, and of the courts. Gen-Z has lost faith in the American Dream, and become radicalized in both directions explaining the popularity of Groypers and Antifa. Loss of trust, faith, and hope was also prevalent at the end of the Weimar Republic. All that is missing is another Great Depression.
My question is, does the current situation in the USA resemble the Weimar Republic.
Germany during the Weimar period had not had a long history of democratic government. There were large numbers of people who had never had faith in the democratic system there, especially when the Reichstag continued to be dissolved and new elections held nearly every year.
So, it doesn’t really resemble Weimar right now, especially since the economic issue is not nearly as dire as what Germany experienced during that time.
Agreed. For the most part, the country just keeps chugging along because most people are simply trying to live their lives and prosper.
And basically, the U.S. is the best deal on offer. It’s why people want to come here in droves.
Here is a story that may explain why many men will refuse to be a Good Samaritan, and help out a stranger on the road in distress. In this case the Good Samaritan is falsely accused of rape, and almost had his life destroyed in court. The lady was drunk and removed from a taxi, so she had no option than to walk home.
Many men will see this story as a warning, and choose for minding their own business instead of helping strangers in apparent distress.
Feminist and anti-rape activists point out only 2% of rape accusations are false.
If EA is an echo chamber, is there a list of positions or conclusion to which all 5 commenters nod their heads while smiling at each other?
Trump Derangement is a thing.
The left wants single party rule.
Democrats want open borders as a means to win elections.
The mainstream media is acting on the left’s behalf and is part of the left.
Socialism and communism are not viable governmental models.
As does every country, the United States needs to conduct its foreign affairs in its own best interest.
Good racial discrimination is racial discrimination.
People should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Government is not able to fix every human defect.
Let me challenge the echo-chamber hypothesis with a polarizing idea. Looking at current events, do we just not have anyone left in this country who actually cares about the country? I mean, is there anyone left who would have fought the British instead of composing a balanced letter to Parliament with a list of grievances and then grumbled when they were ignored?
What I am talking about:
(1) All over the country, there are people marching through the streets under the flag below claiming that this is Mexican land now.
https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/b57b90f/2147483647/strip/true/crop/5098×3400+1+0/resize/1360×907!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F98%2F42%2Ffe721125910e411ced0f4de0be6a%2Fa7e7ff267ded4b779df33dfac6d5dbc6
During the pro-Hamas protests in DC, American flags were removed from government buildings and replaced with Palestinian flags.
These are signs of invasion and conquest. I am a member of the militia. Am I not obligated to shoot them? I am serious. If you see people claiming to conquer American territory in the name of a foreign government, aren’t you supposed to shoot them? Why hasn’t anyone done it? I know the objection will be “They don’t know what they are doing”, but I don’t buy it. I have watched a few interviews and they state explicitly that “This isn’t the US anymore, we have claimed this for Mexico”. Now, I may buy the argument that they don’t understand that they should be shot for this, but for me, that holds about as much weight as the armed robber who wants the clerk arrested for shooting him. Now, I am not expecting everyone to shoot them for this, but I am a little disappointed that not one person has. I mean, have we moved the goalpost so far to ‘armchair warrior’ that not one person out of 300 million will defend the country with such provocation. That means that such a behavior is at least 5 standard deviations from normal.
(2) In Minneapolis, the ‘protesters’ are setting up roadblocks, stopping all cars, and checking the license plates of the vehicles to see if they are ICE or not. I’m sorry, if you are driving down the street and the road is blocked by barricades manned by antifa demanding ID and you are blocked in by the cars behind you, can’t you fight your way out of this situation? Why is everyone just complying? Who gave antifa…sorry ‘Anti-ICE’ access to the government license plate database anyway?
I just can’t see our founding fathers putting up with this. I can’t see Americans from the 1940’s putting up with this. Why are Americans accepting this? Are we no longer worthy of freedom?
There is your provocative idea of the day. What would you do when confronted by either of the 2 situations above? Would you join in, run away, comply, or resist? I haven’t seen a single person in the country choose the last option. Is this why the 2nd Amendment enshrines the right to form militias?
I think the applicable principle is restraint. People saying California is Mexican land or raising Palestinian flags are delusional. They are not acting on behalf of the Mexican government or Hamas. I’m also not sure many people take the ICE interferers seriously either. They can make things difficult in a particular jurisdiction for a while, but I don’t think they’ll be able to stop the administration’s attempt to address the illegal alien situation overall.
And by the way, we have had two shootings resulting in death. They haven’t gone particularly well.
#2
1. Here in SC, only an idiot would put up a barricade stopping traffic and accosting people stuck in their cars for plates or IDs. Guns are as prevalent as your choice of carbonated beverage, and stupid people will get shot fast as we have a very strong sense of don’t tread on me around here. If they don’t get shot, law enforcement has no sympathy for this kind of stupid and I expect if people don’t get shot, they will at least get run over and police will respond with a slow walking FAFO.
2. I will not be stopping for “barricades”.
FAFO
“Andas jodiendo, te das cuenta …”
We had to come up with a rather modified translation but it works.
Can you think of two states more different from each other than Minnesota and South Carolina? I can’t.
Having grown up in the South Florida before it became part of Latin America, I know the South. Again, essential reading to deepen your acute understanding of the difference between Yankees vs. Rebels: Cracker Culture; Celtic ways in the Old South. Grady McWhiney, University of Alabama Press, 1988. Absolutely fascinating reading. The North’s contempt for the South goes back well into Colonial times and across the Atlantic to England vs. Scotland and Ireland and Wales.
These are signs of invasion and conquest. I am a member of the militia. Am I not obligated to shoot them? I am serious. If you see people claiming to conquer American territory in the name of a foreign government, aren’t you supposed to shoot them?
How about “demography is destiny”? And also “this is a result of the inevitable progression of democratic principles”. In my researches from years ago, and in respect to California, I discovered there were government officials who warned : “Don’t let the country be flooded over with peoples from Mesoamerica, they will change the nature and quality of the political body”.
There is a kind of “inevitability” in many modern, liberal beliefs : You can hardly turn against them. And if America is defined as a “propositional nation” you will have to accept the inevitable : the country will be transformed.
On the other hand, it might well be that America is simply in one other consequential phase, and perhaps in dome future, when millions have been assimilated and somehow they restructure American education, that the “mongrel” culture (it is sort of inevitable, as in Brasil) will embrace the pure principles of which the American republic was founded.
It is curious that the problem of North America is also the problem of South America: the inevitable “blending of peoples”. There is just lots more “people of color” in the South …
Decisions were made in about 1965 that impressively led to the conditions and outcomes of now. These are facts.
I think you’re describing the melting pot. Who knows, maybe over time, it will work and even Somali children will become capable Americans rather than turn Minneapolis into Mogadishu.
Here is an article by Jacob Sullum.
https://reason.com/2026/02/05/don-lemon-may-be-a-hack-but-that-does-not-make-him-a-felon/