Yes, that screenshot does speak for itself, but I have some observations anyway:
1. If you’re not familiar with how “Rotten Tomatoes,” the film review aggregator, works, the “popcorn meter” at 98% reflects positive reviews by ordinary movie viewers, and the smashed green tomato tells us that theprofessional critic consensus was only 6% favorable.
2. There is always a chance that the popular reviews were rigged by MAGA zealots. The film “Melania” did have a surprisingly strong box office in its opening weekend, however.
3. The divide does not mean that the critics are wrong. A similar split occurred initially after the critics savaged the all-female “Ghostbusters” re-boot. That movie was, in fact, almost unwatchable.
4. The stats do appear to demonstrate, however, in this case, that movie critics tend to be members of the progressive bubble, and are probably incapable of watching anything connected to President Trump objectively.
5. In my opinion, the split also shows incompetent and irresponsible critics. The job of a critic is to inform audiences whether they are likely to enjoy a movie, not to solely apply the critic’s eccentric and personal tastes. Of course, I have my own biases as a periodic director, performer and playwright…and yes, occasionally a critic. My favorite theater critic was the great Robert Benchley, who often said, in effect, “this kind of play isn’t my cup of tea, but if you like this sort of thing, you’ll probably like this.”
[From your Host:This excellent essay arrived on an Open Forum, and as I sometimes do, has been elevated from Comment of the Day status to a Guest Column. I’ll even forgive Sarah for making me look bad in comparison to such thoughtful, eloquent and perceptive work.]
***
“The embarrassment is that chemistry was treated as a mere technicality rather than the foundation of the entire conclusion. The embarrassment is that skepticism—real skepticism, the disciplined refusal to accept claims without robust evidence—was framed as denial rather than diligence.”
This particular article discusses the extraordinary claim that our brains contain a huge amount of microplastics. The problem with this claim is that the study has a fatal methodological flaw. The study relies on spectroscopy and detecting signatures of chemicals to determine a sample’s composition. However, the fats in the brain break down into similar compounds as polyethylene, which means without further differentiation methods, there is no way to tell if the “microplastics” the study detected were actually just normal lipids found in the brain. The whole article is worth reading, as it does an excellent job of explaining the issue.
I recently saw a post on Facebook that decried the idea that experts could be challenged by some novice watching a few YouTube Videos and reading a few scientific papers. This led to a long discussion in the comments, which was unfortunately extremely one-sided. Most everyone agreed that trying to correct an expert in their field was utter hubris.
“Take something you are good at, like maybe changing transmissions. Imagine someone who has watched a few YouTube videos comes up and tells you that you are doing it all wrong. How would you respond?”
The main problem with this is that, in terms of changing a transmission, we can obviously see who is right and who is wrong. The car will run, or the car will not. Indeed, if you truly are an expert in changing transmissions, you can step up and, in simple terms, explain why your process is the correct one, what is wrong with the YouTube watcher’s process, and even perhaps teach your skeptic how to do it correctly.
With any field of expertise, we have to remember that experts are people too, and all humans have flaws. Experts can be tempted by money, power, prestige, and politics. There are also limitations that even experts struggle to overcome. For example, in many branches of research, there are serious problems (often ethical in nature) in creating a good control group.
Being inclined to shoot off one’s mouth like the President does not a qualified and responsible Cabinet member make.
Handling the necessarily ugly process of removing the illegal immigrants deliberately inflicted on the U.S. by Joe Biden (or whoever was pulling his strings) and the incompetent Sec. Mayorkas requires skill, courage, and media savvy. Well, one out of…wait, one out three is terrible. Kristy Noem is a detriment to the policy and the President.
Noem told the world that Alex Pretti committed an “act of domestic terrorism” against immigration agents. That wasn’t true, and even the videos most damning of Pretti didn’t indicate anything of the sort. But her outburst undermined the credibility of Homeland Security and I.C.E., giving the open borders, nullification extremists on the Left just what they wanted.
Noem isn’t clever enough to talk her way out of this, either. She told Fox News last week, Oopsie!… the situation immediately following the killing was “very chaotic,” see, and she was just “being relayed information from on the ground from CBP agents and officers that were there.” “We were using the best information we had at the time,” Kristi blathered. Right: the best she had at the time was bad information, uncorroborated, and only an irresponsible ass would announce it to reporters as fact.
When I heard that Rep. Omar had been “assaulted” and “attacked,” I assumed that something violent had occurred. When I read that a “substance” has been “hurled” at her, I assumed that the substance was 1) toxic and 2) aimed at her face.
Nah. The idiot squirted liquid harmlessly at her chest, and the “substance” turned out to be vinegar. It might as well have been water. For her part, the scamster, anti-Semitic “Squad” member didn’t even appear startled, much less harmed.
Yes, there is no question that this qualifies as an assault, as it placed a victim in legitimate fear of an un-consented to touching. The “substance” could have been bleach or battery acid or that stuff that made Margaret Qualley crawl out of Dem Moore’s back, and it could have been squirted in her eyes. We obviously can’t have public figures or even random, normal citizens on the street having that happen to them, so the “attacker” has to be tried and punished, I would assume with probation and a fine.
However, in reality what occurred was less consequential than a cream pie in the face, and Omar has been playing victim now for days, whining about bigotry and intimidation, and behaving as if not going into hiding after a few drops of vinegar hit her clothes (Would that even stain?) makes her Joan of Arc. And she’s getting TV time for doing it!
Meanwhile, the Left’s pundits are furious that President Trump suggested that the mini-spectacle was “staged.” Of course Trump should shut up in cases like this, but if they were going to fake a pathetic “attack” on Omar to give her a chance to play victim and wanted to make sure she was never in a scintilla of peril, that’s what it would look like.
The Left is also ethically estopped from complaining about Trump’s effort to minimize an indignity inflicted on a Democrat after so many Trump Deranged pundits, like Joy Reid, claimed the assassination attempt on Trump where a man sitting behind him was shot dead was “staged.” Then there was so much of the Left’s reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death, as in “Hooray!”
The New York Times reports (Gift link!) that the United Nations announced it was “facing imminent financial collapse and would run out of money by July” because the United States had not paid its annual dues for 2025. If the situation isn’t rectified, the U.N. will be forced to shut down its New York City headquarters this summer. Also in jeopardy: the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “which responds to global emergencies like conflicts and natural disasters.”
U.N. secretary general, António Guterres, sent a letter to all 196 member states warning of “imminent financial collapse.” “The crisis is deepening, threatening program delivery and risking financial collapse,” he wrote. “And the situation will further deteriorate in the near future. I cannot overstate the urgency of the situation we now face.”
What has the U.N. done for “peace and security” lately? “Sustainable development”…sound like “climate change” to me. Human rights? The U.N. criticizes the United States for alleged human rights violation, while letting actual human rights atrocities.
The United States is entirely responsible for the current crisis, because 95% of the money owed to the United Nations is our share. And this is because the United States pays a ridiculously excessive share of the expenses of an organization that has increasingly done this nation little good and a great deal of harm for decades.
My theory? They hate Trump so, so much that they were willing to risk their own being blown to bits for the faint chance there would be something devastating in the Epstein Files that would blow him to metaphorical bits. Or their Trump Derangement is so extreme that they were sure something damning and irrefutable would be revealed, even though everything we know indicated there wouldn’t be. Whatever the reason,
KABOOM!
And also, GOOD. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving gang.
Former Obama White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler’s emails with and regarding Epstein show that he showered Ruemmler with expensive gifts over several tears. The evidence in the recent mass Epstein Files dump comes after CNN reported last month that Ruemmler advised Epstein on media strategies. She insisted to the outlet that she “did not represent him and was not compensated by him.” Hmmm. A $9,400 Hermes handbag, a Hermes-branded Apple watch, and a spa treatment package at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington sure seem like compensation to me. The gifts revealed in the documents released yesterday by the Department of Justice came years after allegations of Epstein’s sex crimes became public knowledge.
Ruemmler is now the top lawyer for Goldman Sachs. The Washington Free Beacon found emails ranging from 2014 to 2019 in which Ruemmler routinely corresponded with Epstein’s associates to accept gifts or express her gratitude to the sex trafficker. In some cases, she even asked for specific items.
In 2016, when Epstein purchased Ruemmler a $9,400 handbag from the French luxury brand Hermes, he took particular care to ensure Ruemmler received the gift, directing one of his associates to “confirm receipt with Kathy” and “follow up to make sure it happens.” When Ruemmler received the bag, she wrote in response, “OH MY GOD!!!!! He is in so much trouble!!!! I am dying. It is so beautiful!” A second-hand version of the same bag now sells for around $5,000.
And here I am, living in cardboard box by the docks. I just have to find richer friends….
Two years later, in November 2018, Epstein bought Ruemmler a Hermes edition of the Apple Watch, which retails for $1,300. Emails show that Ruemmler asked for a specific model and said the gift was “so sweet of Jeffrey!”
“If truly okay with him to do the Hermes, I would love the 40 mm, stainless Hermes with bleu indigo swift leather double tour,” Ruemmler wrote at the time. “I’ll wear that one every day, whereas the sportier ones I would likely only wear on weekends or when exercising, etc.”
Also in 2016, two years after she left the White House staff, Epstein booked a “full half day” spa appointment for Ruemmler at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown. He wrote to an associate, “she won her case and needs some pampering.” Gee, why was the convicted sex trafficker sucking up to the lawyer? His associate responded with a credit card authorization form and said, “Kathy will go either today or tomorrow she says…” A massage and facial at the luxury hotel can cost $1,000 or more.
Wait a sec…Frank Drebbin has something to say:
Epstein appeared to provide other gifts of unknown value to Ruemmler. In December 2014, an Epstein associate emailed Ruemmler that Epstein planned to send his housekeeper to “deliver your ring to you!!” In February 2019, an Epstein associate sent an email to an unidentified individual reading, “Reminder: Bottle of wine and note card to be delivered to Ruemmler today. Let me know once it has been delivered so I can tell Jeffrey.”
Democrats truly are addicted to “It isn’t what it is,” or Yoo’s Rationalization. It is this characteristic that has led them so deep into George Orwell territory and why the 21st Century mutation of the party is so untrustworthy. “War is Peace,” and an open border was a secure border, according to Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security. “Slavery is Freedom,” and President Biden was sharp as a tack even as he descended into gibberish on national TV. And, as we all know, “Ignorance is Strength,” and Kamala Harris was the most qualified Presidential candidate ever, ran a perfect campaign, and only lost because Americans are sexists and racists.
Maura Healy, the Democratic governor of my original home state (which has always been a little bit nuts) really opted in to Yoo’s Rationalization big time this week. She submitted a radical pro-illegal immigration bill to designate schools, hospitals, churches, and courthouses as official “ICE-free zones,” which would have the effect of sharply (and I believe illegally) limiting where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can operate in the Bay State.
Healy’s bill would require ICE agents to obtain a judicial warrant before making civil immigration arrests in so-called “sensitive locations,” effectively placing some of the most common public spaces off-limits to routine federal enforcement. I.C.E. agents would have to obtain a judicial warrant before making civil immigration arrests in so-called “sensitive locations,” effectively placing some of the many public spaces off-limits to routine federal law enforcement. The bill would direct state agencies not to allow I.C.E. to use state-owned property for enforcement operations and restrict cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. And the proposed legislation does not distinguish between non-violent illegal immigration cases and criminal offenders: apparently in the Bay State, any illegal immigrant is a Good Illegal Immigrant.
Why not start off the day with a humiliating confession? Nothing else has been working lately…
Back in May, I wrote about that ad above in which a goofy pitchman for the Allied Injury Group nicked or squashed a couple of legal ethics rules in the course of exactly the kind of lawyer advertising the profession was afraid would result when it had to eliminate the unconstitutional ban on the practice. It was a harsh post and should have been. I wrote in part,
“…the spokesperson calling himself “Your Favorite Attorney” is an actor, indeed a stand-up comic named Shaun Jones. All of the jurisdictions prohibit lawyer advertising in any form that is misleading or that includes false information. A sole practitioner can’t call her firm “X & Associates,” for example, if she’s the only lawyer in the firm. Putting a non-lawyer in front of a camera and calling having him call himself an attorney is an undeniable violation, and an intentional one… Jones also says that if the client doesn’t make money, “I” don’t make money. That is deceit. The firm will argue that the actor is only saying that if the firm doesn’t win its cases, the actor won’t get paid. But his statement is intended to refer to contingent fees for attorneys, and he isn’t one. “
Having done my duty to flag these hacks, I then proceeded to put the wrong law firm name in the headline! I have a typo and proofreading problem, as even casual visitors here know; I’ve gotten better, but the fact that these posts are usually written in fits and starts while I try to complete actual income-relating work [Thank you, by the way, to those of you who sent me generous contributions or gifts over the holidays, or kind words of encouragement that I appreciated just as much.] means that I sometimes miss glaring errors. That’s not an excuse. But it’s true.
This one was a doozy, made worse by my obstinate habit of proofing everything but the headlines. And so it was that The Allied Law Group, a distinguished and, based on my research, an impeccably professional and trustworthy firm that specializes in civil appellate law, media and First Amendment law, open government laws, regulatory litigation, legislation and general litigation, but not personal injury law, was unjustly and wrongly impugned.
That firm’s clients include lawyers, public interest groups, trade associations and media organizations. Their website is impressive and professional; I would even say, as one who is often asked to review the content of lawyer websites for ethics violations, exemplary.
So this was a really bad mistake on my part, and I could not be more sorry, embarrassed, contrite and remorseful. I apologize to the firm, its lawyers, its staff and clients. The post has been corrected, and let us never speak of it again.
I want to note that the firm attorney I spoke with was thoroughly civil, respectful, and, frankly, nicer than I might have been in a similar situation. She did not threaten me, as many lawyers are wont to do. She did inform me of the undeserved abuse that her firm has been getting—even death threats!—from people who have confused the firm with Allied Injury Group. People want to kill unethical lawyers now? I did not see that coming. I do have a hard time believing that anyone inclined to send death threats reads an ethics blog, but never mind: I accept responsibility for contributing to the confusion.
The Allied Law Group’s representative also didn’t make any demands during our conversation, because before she finished her second sentence I said: “I’ll fix that post immediately.” Nor did not instruct me to post this: I told her that I would compose an apology and get it up as soon as possible, because that’s my policy when I screw up.
Finally, I want to thank commenter Ric, who sent in a comment flagging the error last November. As Herman Kahn said, unlikely disasters occur when there’s a 1% confluence of bad management and bad luck. I try to read all reader comments. I missed that one.
A few final notes after a crappy day, culminating in a defamation suit threat:
1. Today DOJ released more than 3 million pages, 2,000 videos and 180,000 images from the Epstein files, after staff sorted through more than 6 million records. What a ridiculous waste of time and resources. Now the Axis will either claim that the Trump DOJ protected the boss by destroying those damning videos of Trump being covered in Bosco and licked clean by a bevy of 13-year-olds, or it will scream about rumors, hearsay, and unsubstantiated accusations that have no evidentiary value. The latter has already started; “Woman Told FBI Trump Abused Her at 13, Epstein Files Reveal,” is the “bombshell” headline at the gutter-dwelling Daily Beast. This was one of many uncorroborated tips, with no names attached and no way to investigate further. But, of course, they must be true, because Trump. Remember, the Biden Justice Department had four years to release all this, but was too busy concocting other ways to put Donald Trump in jail. lest he win the election.
2. This is the kind of legal accountability our Leftist states think is appropriate, at least when the miscreants are “of color.” District Court Judge Angel Kelley said, in sentencing Monica Cannon-Grant, a non-profit fraudster, “Ms. Cannon-Grant’s actions were crimes of greed and opportunity but will not go unpunished thanks to the law enforcement community, who have dedicated their mission to uncovering and putting an end to such devious schemes. This case illustrates that anyone who defrauds state programs and exploits their position in the community, will be held accountable for their actions.” Then she pronounced a slap on the wrist: four years’ probation, with six months of home detention and 100 hours of community service. Cannon-Grant was also ordered to pay restitution of $106,003 as well as forfeiture of an amount to be decided at a later date.
Once again, I was torn what to use to introduce a post. This choice was especially tough. You see, AI-produced fake conjoined twins Valeria and Camila are gaining the status of web “influencers” despite the fact that they don’t exist. The only possible explanation for why anyone, never mind 280,000 (and rising) followers, would care what this imaginary creature would have to say is that two heads are better than one…but that only applies if they are real heads.
Their (wait…what are their pronouns?) Instagram page tells you they are digital creations not real people but apparently that doesn’t matter to their fans. The fans seem to like being lied to. “Our spines were dangerously fused together, so we had to undergo several surgeries and operations throughout our lives after birth, and that’s why we have these beautiful scars,” Valeria and Camila revealed in one post.
It’s too bad Doublemint gum doesn’t have TV ads these days.
Oh, I almost forgot. The losing nomination to kick-off this post? This old stand-by, from Sheriff Bart and the Waco Kid, which applies exactly to anyone who would spend more than a nanosecond paying attention to the musings of imaginary—but sexy!— freaks:
Ethics Alarms 