The reports reminded me of a crazy story I wrote about years ago: a man accidentally sawed off his hand in a workshop accident, and because the pain was excruciating, he remembered that he had read somewhere that inflicting pain in another part of your body will mask the pain coming from the first locale. So, only having one hand left to address the problem, he grabbed his nearby nail gun and shot several nails into his head. And it worked! He hardly felt his arm wound at all! But the nails still killed him…
4. Headline: “Virginia Democrats Earmark $100,000 for Statue Honoring Late Judge Accused of Trading Sex With Convicted Killer’s Mother for Legal Advice.” Niiiice values, there, Democrats! But we knew that…
Grace Church alleged in a 2023 court filing that then-Roanoke City circuit court judge Onzlee Ware had promised to intervene with the judge overseeing a murder trial against her son, providing legal assistance like reviewing and annotating the son’s psychological evaluation and editing remarks she prepared to deliver at her son’s sentencing. Before Onzlee would deliver, however, “I had to have sex with him first in each encounter with him,” Church wrote.
The Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission placed Ware on paid suspension and launched an investigation. The probe concluded that the sexual relationship took place but the couldn’t prove that the sex was part of a quid pro quo deal or that he Ware tried to influence trial judge. Two canons of judicial conduct were obviously breached, however, so Ware was sanctioned. He died of cancer a few weeks later.
Why is this guy deemed by Democrats to be worthy of a statue? Well, he’s black, he was a Democrat, and he was a trailblazer as the first black delegate from western Virginia and second black judge. Erecting a statue to this kind of “trailblazer” would be like baseball having a “Jackie Robinson Day” every season even though Jackie had bee accused of taking bribes from gamblers. Grace Church said Ware “never called me again” after her son was sentenced, adding that she felt “cheap, used, wasted” and “did not want to continue living anymore.”
But you can’t just believe all women! Come on.
5. The Times: “Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene Say They Are Done With the G.O.P.” The mainstream media is playing this up as some kind of blow to the party and President Trump. This confirms the bias against both Trump and his party. The fact that either of these two awful people can’t tolerate the GOP is only evidence that there are some levels of human offal this party won’t accommodate.
6. Speaking of anti-Semites, here’s another Times headline: “Victories by Pro-Palestinian Democrats Show the Party’s Shift on Israel” That’s some great equivocation there. The Democratic party is now the party of Jew-hate, another development that should have been obvious for quite a while.
Ethics Alarms 
Perhaps too much freedom has led to all of this. The Founders didn’t believe in pure democracy for good reasons. Mamdani is spreading. I think Trump may be an aberration, and NY is a sign of the future.
Wash your mouth out with soap.
Everyday!
Lazy and complacent conservatives, Republicans and parents allowed this to happen right in front of them. They were all irresponsible citizens, and whether it is too late to reverse the disastrous trend is open to debate.
This is what the Dissident Right has been saying for many years now, and they examine causes and offer some fairly startling conclusions about what “lazy and complacent Republicans” should have done, but did not do, and will not do (and cannot do). So, all that can be done is to sit on the sideline and watch.
The Times: “Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene Say They Are Done With the G.O.P.” The mainstream media is playing this up as some kind of blow to the party and President Trump. This confirms the bias against both Trump and his party. The fact that either of these two awful people can’t tolerate the GOP is only evidence that there are some levels of human offal this party won’t accommodate.
6. Speaking of anti-Semites …
I have tried to understand why you have such distain for Carlson. I think I do understand: he is a dirty rhetorician in his monologues, inserting unwarranted innuendo at times. (His cackling laughter is also disgusting).
However, that is only a part of what he does or what he offers. He is also saying things and presenting outlines for understanding that could well be sone part of rectifying what “lazy and complacent Republicans” have allowed to occur.
There was what I thought to be an amazing piece of journalism when he examined Paul Singer of Elliot Management and the destructive effect of this sort of “vulture capitalism”. But, it does involve a critique of these operations and this does contribute to the popular belief that “people are being screwed”. And this contributes to the present mood that some sort of activism is necessary so that average, working people get a better deal.
Can Carlson be fairly described as antiSemitic? I do not think so myself. That term is really not much more than a smear and the (necessary and moral) opposition to Israeli policies and the (obvious) “dual loyalty” question of American Jewish Zionists can be examined with an open and fair mindedness.
Tucker approvingly had a Holocaust denier, Daryl Cooper, as a guest on the show, who posited Churchill as the real villain of World War II. That’s signature significance: no non-anti-Semite would give such a person a platform. It’s not a smear. He also hosted White Supremacist Nick Fuentes.
You may think I am an advocate for those (or any) views, but I am more truly an observer of what people believe and how standard views are changing (either rightly or wrongly). Personally, I would have to read what Daryl Cooper has said before I would get on the wagon of condemnation.
The issue of “villany” is very complex. How that war was brought about has all sorts of differing aspects. And many parts have been examined — and reexamined. But the way you are setting this up is that simply by me saying this, that your next step will be to condemn me because I (might) see things differently.
I do not agree with you that “platforms” should be withheld (you imply this). I think that platforms should all be opened up.
There is much more to be gained by understanding Nick Fuentes and his views (they have coherent aspects) then in ‘blanket condemnation’. He was treated brutally simply by holding controversial (sometimes juvenile!) opinions.
Tucker approvingly had a Holocaust denier, Daryl Cooper, as a guest on the show, who posited Churchill as the real villain of World War II. That’s signature significance: no non-anti-Semite would give such a person a platform. It’s not a smear. He also hosted White Supremacist Nick Fuentes.
Why, I ask myself, do I experience fear and guilt when I resolve to oppose your extremely wrong-headed opinions? Is what you want here a place of no opposition, no talk back? Since that cannot be true (I know that you wish that so many who have LEFT Ethics Alarms would choose to return, but it seems that readership is shrinking, overall). Anyway, I will trybto proceed …
I do not think you have the right to propose that either Daryl Cooper or Nick Fuentes be ostracized from the cultural and civil conversation. Both Carlson and Fuentes have as much rights as you because they are citizens. How is it, I wish to know, that you believe you have a moral tight to decide if Cooper or Fuentes get a ‘platform’ or if they are excluded for reasons of political prejudice?!
Fuentes in fact was de-platformed and de-banked because he had audacious views that bothered the mainstream. And Fuentes managed to survive and to prosper and to build an audience of citizens who do not see nir think like you do: pseudo-conservatively. Weak conservatism. Cuckservatism. That there is his intolerable crime! Because he tells a version of what’s true. Who has sold out America? is his question. True, very true, that he brings up the “JQ” but so do other Jews. And certainly the perverse relationship between Israel and the US has OBVIOUSLY influenced and possibly determined US policy in the Middle East! So, on what basis could it ever be wrong to TALK about these things?
Things are going on, Jack, that seem beyond your capability to assess and to judge so harshly. I do not get the reasons why all of this cannot cone out in the open and be discussed.
Well, in any case, that IS what is happening! Despite the rigid opinions of an Old Guard… 💂
I do not think you have the right to propose that either Daryl Cooper or Nick Fuentes be ostracized from the cultural and civil conversation. Both Carlson and Fuentes have as much rights as you because they are citizens. How is it, I wish to know, that you believe you have a moral tight to decide if Cooper or Fuentes get a ‘platform’ or if they are excluded for reasons of political prejudice?!
Both have a right to say whatever stupid things they care to. Tucker Carlson has every right to use his absurdly inflated influence and reputation to give them credibility they do not warrant and to makes stupid, ignorant, hateful people moreso. And I have a right, nay, an obligation to point out how unethical it is on the parts of all three of them. This is First Amendment 101. Any platform for those two clowns should be shamed, shunned, and driven into obscurity, because they are doing measurable harm. Such lies are legal, but unethical. If they aren’t lies but delusions, then it is unethical and irresponsible to spread delusions.
Unusually silly comment, Alizia.
I would like to demand that we require all public employees and those employed by private pos-secondary institutions of higher learning be paid in a manner that is equitable – meaning everyone makes the same. We should eliminate longevity increases as well as any and all pay differentials. These are the people pushing the socialist agenda. If it is wrong for Elon to have more than everyone else it is logical that pay differentials among those who espouse the idea of equity and inclusion then it will be necessary to make all things once available only to the highly paid elite be accessible to even the least valuable member of the organization.
Obviously, we cannot pay everyone employed at a university the same as the highest paid employee the only solution is to budget a fixed amount and divide that by the number of those employed. To deal with part time employees just create an hourly rate and pay everyone at that rate for the hours worked. That creates some finite cap on costs.
When the costs of creating “equitable fairness” of socialism impact higher income people who make up the majority of the electorate then the push for socialism will stall. The idea that we use government to strip the assets of a small demographic group. Based on the belief that that wealth was stolen from the favored masses is reminiscent of a time in the 1930’s.
Tucker Carlson has every right to use his absurdly inflated influence and reputation to give them credibility they do not warrant and to makes stupid, ignorant, hateful people moreso. And I have a right, nay, an obligation to point out how unethical it is on the parts of all three of them. This is First Amendment 101. Any platform for those two clowns should be shamed, shunned, and driven into obscurity, because they are doing measurable harm.
I am completely in favor of your commitment to what you believe is your “ethical obligation” to oppose them. So everything is quite good there. But what interests me is your use of terms line “stupid, ignorant, hateful”. It resonates like “basket of deplorables” and the NYTs intellectual elite determining that the masses of the flyover country are uneducated brutes and beings of a lower-order. You are, unquestionably, a member of an American intellectual ruling class (a directorate) given your education, but the fact is, Jack, that it is your CLASS that has overseen, even directed, America’s downturn and the path toward ruin. And what I mean is: this is what sone of the younger American generation are thinking and talking about.
You have just bursted out with PURE OPINION that you believe are absolute, incontrovertible truths. But you are (according to my view) simply wrong, and deeply prejudiced. And I have then an obligation to explain WHY you are wrong. Not only have I done this, but I have also referred to resources where you and your readers can educate yourselves (the Bowden talk I linked to is one example).
Oh, so you are the one in the Cat Bird seat who can declare on matters of “harm”!? But what I say back to you is that they have ideas about harm and harm done that definitely challenge your own (which can be described as weak, disempowered, pseudo-conservatism). I assume that is why you wish to de-platform them and anyone who opposes or challenges your mere opinions? Because they make bold assertions that touch on how your views have helped bring about crisis?
I am interested in, we are interested in, ideas and view that are empowering snd strengthening. And you refer to us (I am using generalisms to make the point) as hateful and ignorant.
But I think it is the other way around (not absolutely but partially).
Just as the Dreaded Democrats hate what you say and think, you too express a similar intolerance (and contempt and loathing) for people like me who have transcended your sickly Liberal categories and actually are developing a reasonable, intellectually defensible and morally-based platform through which to view the destructive results that have beeb brought about by your generation.
Put whatever labels you wish on that or them or me, we think see and interpret DIFFERENTLY.
I’m not going to waste time arguing with someone who can’t figure out that espousing a topsy-turvy fantasy history where 6 millions murdered Jews are a hoax and Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II is by definition “stupid, ignorant, hateful”. If you believe otherwise, I’ll be kind and designate you as a victim. Get well soon.