Hello everybody! I’m your host, Wink Smarmy! [APPLAUSE] Welcome to “How Stupid Do They Think We Are?,” the popular ethics game show where our panelists try to puzzle out just how stupid the usual suspects—we all know who they are, don’t we?—-think we are based on their lies, poses, flagrant misrepresentations and embarrassing efforts to deceive! [APPLAUSE]
Welcome panel! And here’s today’s challenge…
UC at Berkeley has announced that it is launching a nonpartisan academic institute in the political science department will become a hub for research, teaching and civic engagement.
The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy, or NPI, will be a hub for research, teaching and civic engagement rooted in a shared commitment to advancing the public good. Through faculty research initiatives, undergraduate courses and a visiting fellows program, the institute will explore what impedes progress and how best to solve political problems, from polarization to the future of artificial intelligence.
Chancellor Rich Lyons said the institute aligns with Berkeley’s commitment to fostering civil discourse, advancing democracy and preparing students to lead with integrity.
“The purpose and impact of the NPI will be defined and strengthened by Berkeley’s ability to bring together world-class faculty and extraordinary students and by our commitment, as the country’s preeminent public university, to advancing the greater good,” Lyons said. “We intend to do more than simply study democracy; we are building this institute to strengthen it.”
Before I throw the challenge over to you, panel, let me ask our resident ethicist, Jack Marshall, just how stupid does UC at Berkeley think we are?“Thank-you, Wink. I have to say, to answer your question, so stupid I’m having trouble processing it. To begin with, Berkeley is one of the most left-leaning institutions in the country, as well as one of the most egregiously partisan. One landmark study by “Econ Journal Watch” found that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans at UC Berkeley by a ratio of roughly 9.9 to 1.
“But putting that beside, Nancy Pelosi was one of the most partisan Speakers of the House in U.S. political history. She green-lighted two impeachments against a Republican President purely because she had Democratic votes to do it, though the intent of the Constitution’s provision envisioned non-partisan consensus regarding actual “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Later, she violated both House rules and Congressional norms by rejecting Republican nominations to participate in the so-called “J-6” Committee, ensuring a purely partisan witch hunt constructed as a political weapon. Pelosi is the only House Speaker to deliberately show disrespect to a President, ostentatiously ripping up his State of the Union speech on camera.
“Calling an institution “non-partisan” that is named after Nancy Pelosi is head-explodingly cynical. Who could possibly believe that, except someone who is completely ignorant of recent political history, or someone who would lose Scrabble game to a mollusk?”
Thank you Jack. I see your point. In light of that, panel, let me re-frame the question a bit. Fill in the rest of this sentence: “Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….
Jack, do you have an example to get us started?
“Hmmm. Okay, Wink, how about this: Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as The Kristi Noem Institute for the Ethical Treatment of Pets?
Perfect! OK, panel, now its up to you! how stupid does UC at Berkeley think we are? Answer by finishing this sentence:
“Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….???
Good Luck! You have 30 second to come up with the best answer! The clock starts…NOW
Ethics Alarms 
“Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….the mouse who sees the cheese in the trap as a healthy choice.
Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as Bill Clinton’s 1993 statement that “Women deserve a workplace free from intimidation, exploitation, and abuse of power.”
Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”
Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as Hillary Clinton responding to a reporter who asked if her email server had been wiped with: “What, like with a cloth?”
“Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as appointing Iran, Saudia Arabia, and/or representatives of Boko Haram to the UN High Commission on Women’s Rights.”
“Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….”
…thinking, believing and perceiving, as if hallucinating on some jungle-drug like a stoned hippy, that the recent foolish, wasteful, belligerent, ridiculously ill-timed attack on Iran was a “success” when in reality it was a TOTAL FAILURE, an embarrassment, and one more ignoble feather in the silly sombrero of a LOUD MOUTHED FOOL…
There. I got it worked out. Is there a prize?! 🏆
You DO get a prize! Hijacking posts with no possible relationship to your comment is a no-no: it’s rude and the equivalent of blog graffiti. The prize is a WARNING: Cut it out. In addition, using the website for repetitious, relentless harping on a single topic is rude, obnoxious and boring, as well as contrary to the spirit and intent here. This isn’t your billboard.
I see your point. I will shut up about it.
..saying that 2020 Joe Biden is the best Joe Biden ever.
No, that won’t work
…telling us that Barack Obama improved race relations.
no…
…telling us that we just need 2 weeks to ‘flatten the curve’.
no…
…saying that black people can’t be racist.
no…
…telling us that advertising doesn’t work, so we shouldn’t worry about the government advertising stuff we don’t want.
no, that still isn’t good enough. Let me think about it some more.
“Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….???
… as believing that that “public” can realistically be thought of as having intelligence (?)
Maybe 15% of the population has the awareness combined with natural intelligence to distinguish the manipulative sophistry in that title. The rest (I suspect) do not.