Stop Making Me Defend Debbie Wasserman Schultz!

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Ick, yuck, pooey! In the EA “Stop making me defend…” series, there has never been a subject more revolting than Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). She’s noted in past posts for her unethical quotes, her multiple scandals (here, too), her ignorant speech patterns (also here) and her lies. She was the main miscreant in Hillary Clinton’s rigged Presidential nomination in 2016. The only reason I haven’t focused on this awful, unethical woman lately is that the Democrats have so many younger recruits who are as bad as she is or worse.

However, the one thing I will never criticize DWS for is her color.

Other Democrats, however, are not so forgiving.

After Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation last month creating a new congressional map in Florida, Rep. Wasserman Schultz decided not to run for re-election in her altered 22nd Congressional District, where she lives and where the voters are apparently morons since they have voted for this ethics-free creep for 11terms. Instead, Wasserman Schultz opted to run in the now more Democratic-leaning 20th District. Ah, but that district has long elected black members of Congress. So, true to their party’s baked-in racism, black leaders and candidates in the 20th are furious that a white bitch is daring to encroach on their domain.

“I would not have expected the call would come from inside the house,” said Elijah Manley, a teacher and activist who was the first candidate to enter the primary race for the district’s seat. “I didn’t think a white Democrat would be the one to take away a black seat.” Rapper Luther “Luke” Campbell, also running for the seat, said, “If her strategy is to come in because there are multiple Black candidates and hope we ‘split the vote’ … that’s the same old playbook — divide and conquer.” “At a time when aggressive redistricting has already weakened minority voting strength across Florida, the preservation of Black political representation is not optional,” the Democratic Black Caucus of Florida said in a statement. “It is essential.”

I keep trying to imagine a political party throwing a fit on the grounds that a black candidate is daring to run for a “white” seat. That would be seen, correctly, as racism straight up. But Democrats have programmed their black supporters to embrace “good racism” while maintaining that all blacks are cookie-cutter clones who will think and behave as their color demands, rather than as objective and patriotic Americans seeking what is the right course for all.

I would vote for a block of cheese over Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but black Democrats opposing her based on her race shows how warped, corrupted and bigoted their party has become.

How’s That Computer Strike-Calling System Working?

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

My verdict: it’s an improvement over relying entirely on the fallible home plate umpires, but ethical problems remain.

The current system gives each team two challenges if they think a ball or strike call is wrong. The teams can keep challenging as long as the ABS (Automated Ball and Strike) system backs their judgment. If a challenge proves mistaken, the team loses the challenge.

We have learned that knowing when a ball or strike call is wrong from the players’ perspective is harder than it looks. A few players are really good at it, but most are not. Because the prospect of a key pitch call being blown at a crucial juncture late in the game when the victimized team is out of challenges looms large, players have become increasingly reluctant to challenge pitches early in a game.

Ironically, the system takes accountability from umpires in some cases. In a recent Red Sox game, Boston’s opponent was out of challenges. In the 7th inning with the game close, a 3-2 pitch was called out of the strike zone, and Boston’s batter walked to first base with two outs. The pitch was, in fact, a strike, and should have ended the inning. Instead, the Sox had a long rally, scoring six runs. The announcers harped on the fact that it was the miscalculations of the losing team in using up their two challenges that opened the floodgates, but that’s not why the team lost. The team lost because the umpire blew the call, and it’s his job to call pitches correctly.

This situation, and there have been many of them so far this season, convinces me that players should not have to challenge bad calls, and the results of games should not depend on whether an umpire’s botch is challenged or not. The ABS system knows when a ball is in the strike zone with every pitch. If an umpire calls a ball a strike or vice-versa, the bad call should be instantly overturned without having to be challenged.

Proposition: A Basic Knowledge Of US History Should Be Prerequisite For Running For Congress, Because It Is Incompetent And Irresponsible For Any Rep. To Be As Ignorant As Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

A straight “Unethical Quote of the Week” or “Incompetent Elected Official” EA honor still doesn’t do Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) justice. She is special. Well, I hope she is.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was crossing rhetorical sword points with Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) during the House hearing over U.S. military action in Iran. When Rep. Chu accused the administration of not caring about Americans’ financial struggles—which is, after all, completely irrelevant to the decision to defang a hostile nation seeking nuclear weapons that has been at war with the U.S. since 1979— Bessent asked her who was President of the U.S. during World War I. After a pause, apparently to check all the blank files in her memory banks, Chu answered “I don’t know.”

Pages: 1 2

Remembering the Remarkable Sheb Wooley [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

My favorite ubiquitous unknown character actor of all time is probably amazing Whit Bissell, this guy….

…who appeared in many classic films and tons of TV series despite having the dramatic range of a mannequin. But Sheb Wooley is the focus of this “Duty to Remember” post. I love performers who excel in multiple realms, and while Sheb isn’t quite in Hedy Lamar’s league (but who is?), he was versatile, and has one distinction that nobody is likely to equal, ever.

Sheb was best known for his role in Westerns. He was a regular cast member in the famous TV series “Rawhide,” renowned as the show that made Clint Eastwood a star and for the memorable theme song sung by Frankie Lane (“Move em out!”). He also played the brother of the dreaded villain in “High Noon” who had vowed to kill Sheriff Gary Cooper, and was one of the three Miller accomplices gunned down by Cooper (and Grace Kelly) in the climax of one of the greatest Westerns ever made. Decades later, Sheb had a key role in another classic: he was the high school principal who hires disgraced college basketball coach Gene Hackman to take over a tiny Indiana school’s basketball team in “Hoosiers.”

That’s just the normal stuff, though. Sheb Wooley was also a successful Country music star and songwriter (often under the name “Ben Colder”) and in 1958, penned and performed one of the most memorable novelty songs in a decade filled with them. That’s Sheb singing “The Purple People Eater” in the video above. His most impressive distinction, however, was as the voice actor for the Wilhelm scream, the stock recording of a man in the process of a experiencing a violent death. Because it has been used in in nearly 750 films including the first three “Star Wars” movies and the original “Indiana Jones” films, Sheb Wooley has “appeared” in more movies than any American actor. And his scream, which you can enjoy here, is still being used in new productions (it’s a film school in-joke), so Wooley’s voice keeps acquiring new roles. The most current list is here.

I must mention that the actor who is probably Sheb’s runner up for the title of “Most Film Credits Ever” is James Hong, the actor best known, perhaps, as the annoying maitre’d at the Chinese restaurant Jerry, George, and Elaine futilely wait to dine at in a famous episode of “Seinfeld.” [Notice of Correction: I originally included Kramer as one of the group. He was omitted from the episode, and apparently that cause a bit of tension behind the scenes.] Hong, who is 97, has inflated his own list of credits with his work as a voice actor, and has over 600 credits.

No hit songs, though, and no immortal scream.

Scott Pelley’s Self-Immolation Proves How Corrupt and Biased the “60 Minutes” Culture Was

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

A year ago I wrote, after Scott Pelley gave a full-Trump Deranged commencement speech at Wake Forest,

“Scott Pelley has long been the most openly biased and partisan of the ’60 Minutes’ team (well, he and Leslie Stahl), and his speech is an instant “It isn’t what it is” classic. His arrogance and fury reveals a destructive, untrustworthy profession beginning to realize that the jig is truly up: they have betrayed their nation and its ideals, and nearly everyone knows it, or as President Trump so wisely observed, our journalists are indeed ‘enemies of the people.’ It is rumored that Pelley is likely to be dumped at CBS: Good.”

Well, it took a year and a turnover in management, but Pelley is finally out. The speech is fun to look back on today, because the pompous Pelley intoned, “America works well when we listen to those with whom we disagree and when we listen and when we have common ground and we compromise….To move forward, we debate, not demonize. We discuss, not destroy.” Yet when a new regime led by New York Times refugee Bari Weiss began the task of reforming the rotten “60 Minutes” Democratic propaganda machine that had embarrassed the network by editing Kamala Harris’s interview a week before the 2024 election to make her seem (sort-of) coherent—not an easy task—Pelley was no longer interested in listening, discussing, or compromising. He was determined to demonize. In a meeting called by Nick Bilton, the new executive producer of “60 Minutes,” Pelley accused Bilton’s boss, Weiss, of “murdering” the iconic Sunday news program. “She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that,” he said, adding, “She has no qualifications for her job; you have slender qualifications for this job. The changes that she’s made at the ‘Evening News’ have been catastrophic, so why should we expect that any of this is going to be any better?”

He went on to mock Bilton’s assurances that he cared about the program. If Pelley had been trying to get fired, he could have hardly done a better job. And sure enough, he got his wish, as Bilton delivered the following “Bye-bye!” letter in short order:

Pages: 1 2

Jill Biden’s Elder (And Former President) Abuse

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments
What an awful human being...

This story is too awful to contemplate. If you have a soul, maybe you don’t want to read it.

Former President Joe Biden was planted in the audience this week at a New York City stop on his wife’s tour promoting “Dr.” Jill’s memoir, “View from the East Wing.” Whoopi Goldberg was moderating the Q and A segment (How’s that career going, Whoop?) when President Biden wandered up to the edge of the stage and said “I have a question.”

“Joe has a question? Like you couldn’t ask it later?” the distinguished author said. Oh, nice! If you didn’t want Joe to embarrass you or himself, why did you place a mentally declining old man in a position where he might do so? Or was he having another “stroke”?

Joe, as he has been for years now, was oblivious. “Who do you love most in the whole world?” what is left of Joe Biden asked. “I love you most, Joe. Was that it? Was that the answer he wanted?,” Jill said to the group, talking about him in the third person as if he were a toddler. The 46th President of the United States stood and blankly faced his wife.

The shell of Joe Biden then said, “It’s overwhelming, isn’t it?,” whatever that means. At least he didn’t say “We beat Medicare.”

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Graduation Split

/ Jack Marshall / 62 Comments

Chicago Tech Academy student Tyvion Campbell, 18, performed a split as she walked across the state to get her diploma during her graduation ceremony last month the Harold Washington Cultural Center in Chicago. The exuberant display got cheers from the crowd, but the young woman, a gymnast, was refused her diploma as a result, and subsequently reprimanded by school officials.

“The principal [Zataya Shackelford] told me that ‘I need to think of a way to make up for what I’ve done. This was supposed to be a celebratory moment and I made it about myself,’” Campbell told reporters. She was escorted out of the ceremony and still hasn’t received her diploma.  “It was disappointing,” Tylon added. “It really hurt my feelings. I cried and I couldn’t even continue the graduation.” Apparently the school has no specific policy prohibiting celebratory gymnastics.

I’m amazed that any school would do this. All of the graduations I participated in were handled with restraint and decorum by the graduates (think of the ceremony in “An Officer and a Gentleman”) and any student performing even mild “Hooray for me!” gestures would have looked like a buffoon. However, students parading across the stage like they had just won an Olympic gold or a “Best in Show” ribbon has been standard graduation practice for decades now. In fact, the amount of grandstanding seen in high school ceremonies has increased in inverse proportion to how much a diploma means. The excessively proud high school grad with the screaming family in the audience probably can’t read. Tylon graduated with a 3.5 GPA and plans to study Business Administration at Georgia State University, we are told by the news media, meaning that she at least thought she had something to split about. Sadly, everybody on the stage probably had that high a grade point average or higher.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Was it fair for the school principal to punish the student for her split?

Now, other cases where students were punished for crossing metaphorical lines during their graduation ceremonies are easy calls. For example, Leen Hijaz, a senior at North Carolina’s Clayton High School, had her mic cut off during her commencement speech when she stated to rant against I.C.E. Good! She had no right to hijack the proceedings. In my fantasy world, her diploma would have been revoked and and she would be sent back to the fifth grade to learn about the rule of law and civics.

Chuck Schumer’s Gary Condit Impression

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

In 2001 ABC’s Connie Chung interviewed Congressman Gary Condit about his relationship with Chandra Levy, his then missing intern with whom Condit was romantically linked. Condit was the prime suspect in her disappearance and murder, so he agreed to a TV interview to “clear the record.” To say he did not accomplish that objective is an understement. Every time Connie Chung asked him directly about their relationship, Condit repeated the mantra, “I’ve been married 34 years. I have not been a perfect man. I have made mistakes in my life. But out of respect for my family, out of a specific request by the Levy family, it is best that I not get into the details of the relationship.” This made him seem slimy, evasive, and guilty. It turned out that Levy had been murdered by a stranger, but Condit’s career was as dead as she was thanks to the image he conveyed in that interview.

Evading a question by repeating the same answer word for word every time it is asked is an unethical practice, and a damning one. It might as well be accompanied by two boldly lettered signs one reading, “I’m afraid to answer these questions, but I think if I keep evading them the public is too stupid to figure that out” and the other reading, “This statement is brought to you by my lawyer.” Yet Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the putative leader of the Democratic Party did a Gary Condit impression when he was asked four times about the apparent implosion of the Graham Platner campaign to be the Democratic nominee to unseat RINO Maine Senator Susan Collins.

Here is how it went :

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunces: Everyone Connected To The Justice Department’s $1.8 Billion Slush Fund Or Whatever The Hell It Was From President Trump On Down…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Wait, what was that?

Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, announced today that the Justice Department was withdrawing the $1.8 billion fund to compensate people claiming to be victims of unfair prosecution, supposedly the result of the settlement of President Trump’s lawsuit against his own Treasury Department. “We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, told lawmakers during a congressional hearing.

First of all, GOOD!, but second and most importantly, how in the wide, wide, world of sports did anyone think this offensive, conflicted, half-baked, stupid idea would be anything but condemned, attacked, ridiculed, mocked and ultimately blocked in the first place?

Any idiot could have figured out how unethical this thing was, so it should have been laughed out of the room the second it was suggested. I’m certainly any idiot, and I wrote three posts pointing out what shouldn’t have had to be pointed out at all. Here, I wrote in part:

“[T]his deal stinks, and should be challenged ethically if not legally. The whole Justice Department and the Treasury Department too had irresolvable conflicts, and should not have been allowed to make a settlement with their own boss.”

Here, I wrote in part,

“If you can process this whole astounding ethics debacle and come out anything but but disgusted and disillusioned, you apparently are capable of rationalizing anything…How can anyone defend any of this?…It needs to be widely condemned and stopped.”

And finally, I wrote here,

“I continue to think, or at least hope, that this abomination will be stopped. As I already wrote when asked in a comment, this, unlike the artificial offenses behind the two purely partisan impeachments in Trump’s first term, is a genuine impeachable offense.”

This conclusion didn’t require an ethicist, or any special expertise, or an IQ above 100. So how did this outrageous thing get to the public announcement stage? The fact that it did should shake public confidence in the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the IRS, President Trump, Vice-President Vance and the entire White House staff. Did no one have the sense God gave a mushroom to tell everyone involved in this fiasco, “That’s ridiculous! It will make this administration look foolish, untrustworthy, corrupt and incompetent! It will undermine the President’s authority and the public trust! It will endanger the GOP majority in Congress and be a self-inflicted wound with no counterbalancing benefits! You can’t be this stupid! Come on! Think, dammit!” ???

I realized that Blanch’s statement was a perfect embodiment of Gilda Radner’s iconic catch phrase as addled “Weekend Update” commentator Emily Litella, which somehow had not been listed already in the Ethics Alarms Hollywood clip archive. But do you know what? Most of the 46 clips listed are appropriate to describe some aspect of this aborted, disgusting, self-indicting betrayal of trust. For example, here’s #18:

And #20…

And of course #15…

…as well as…

Let’s tote up all the clips that are directly applicable in one respect or another. We have twenty-seven, more than half: 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38,39, 43, 44, 45, and, of course, 46. This episode was that bad, that unethical, that indefensible, and Ethics Alarms called it immediately, or as Fredo said in #16,

When Trump and Company do things this reckless and unethical, it humiliates everyone who try to oppose the Trump Deranged.

You know. Morons.

Professor Turley Sells His Book…

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

There is nothing inappropriate about Professor Jonathan Turley using his own blog to sell his recently published book. However, his recent posts are, as he would say in his restrained professorial way, “concerning.”

Turley has, along with former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, notable in recent years for his estrangement from the political party almost all of his academic colleagues give their unconditional love. It is clear that Turley has been “red-pilled” by the gradual (and sometimes not so gradual) transformation of the Democratic Party into a “by any means possible” political descendants of the radical Weatherman of the Sixties, embracing violence, socialism, anti-American propaganda, control of the news media, and intolerance of opposing political views. Although he makes a consistent effort to try to criticize both extremes of the political spectrum (In a post condemning a politically motivated Democratic attack on acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch, he writes, “It is fair to note that the Trump Administration has undermined its own position in denouncing lawfare by pursuing past critics, including dubious prosecutions over seashell threats against James Comey” for example), the drift of his blog to the right has been impossible to miss. 

I am certainly sympathetic. It is difficult to find anything close to the anti-democratic statements and acts by members of the Democratic Party, “the resistance” and the unethical mainstream news media on the conservative side; I face this problem every day.

A digression: listen to this clip from retired New York Times columnist Paul Krugman…

He was repeatedly flagged as an Ethics Dunce and worse here at Ethics Alarms, but maintained a prominent platform on the Times op-ed pages all through the first Trump term and most of the Biden years. Has any prominent Republican pundit ever called for the “purging” of progressives? The Democrats keep claiming that President Trump has secret plans to do so, but that is their favored partisan defamation. The Democratic Party in deed and word had embraced totalitarianism as their favored approach to the “greater good.” Turley sees it, as do I. Moreover, Krugman isn’t alone by any means: former Clinton minion James Carville is regularly heard ranting about using extreme measures to ensure permanent domination by his party. MSNow’s hard left propagandists, who, depressingly enough, are favored by the current Democrat mainstream as if they were real journalists, repeat these aspirations hour by hour, day by day.

Back to the topic: Turley now promotes his book, “The Age of Rage” in post after post. He finds ways to link his blog post topics to his baby relentlessly. In today’s post about a bonkers woke church on Nantucket cancelling its traditional Fourth of July celebration to prompt an examination of “whiteness,” he writes, “This type of pandering and posturing has become the norm today. In a time when the American flag is denounced as a divisive and “triggering” symbol, a refusal to celebrate our Independence is yet another way of proving one’s bona fides to the perpetually enraged.” Yesterday, in a post about NYC’s Communist mayor threatening to take property from landlords and transfer them to tenants, he writes, “In my book Rage and the Republic, I discuss this trend in Western countries toward socialist policies. It is what I refer to as the “economic factionalism” that has been used in prior years by figures ranging from Huey Long to Bernie Sanders.”

I am an admirer of Professor Turley’s courage in bucking the cookie-cutter leftist scholarly community, and frequently find his blog posts a source of ethics news. However, he is undermining his credibility by appearing to choose topics that support his new book’s thesis, and tailoring his prose to point to “The Age of Rage.” It is self-defeating. Turley should certainly be able to recognize his own conflict of interest. Unfortunately, bias even makes the wisest and smartest of us stupid.