“bias makes you stupid”

“When They Go Low, We Go High…” Suuure, Democrats: You Can’t Go Much Lower Than This

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Several of my Trump Deranged, “Knee-Jerk-Democrats-To-The-Death-Even-If-Their-Party- Started-Sending-Dissenters-To-Gulags” friends tell me that they are all exited about flavor-of-the-week Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga) ending up as the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee in 2028. Morons. Desperate morons. In addition to the fact that Democrats have painted themselves into a “must-have-a-DEI-President-or-bust” corner (I’m going to see how many of these I can have in a single post: that’s three), Ossoff has already proven that he is an irredeemable asshole. The latest smoking gun evidence was his snide innuendo that President Trump’s ever-present aide, Natalie Harp, is some kind of POTUS comfort woman.

Sen. Ossoff slimed the President this week by saying, “He doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.” The Axis loved it because its members are contemptible and have no ethical values left; Joseph Welch’s kill shot to Senator Joe McCarthy would be appropriate here if directed at “the resistance,” Democrats, progressives and the news media: “Have you no sense of decency?” No, in fact they don’t. The Axis cheers because Ossoff proved he could “troll” Trump. What he really proved is that he’s such an asshole that he would cast aspersions on a hard-working, patriotic young woman’s morals and rectitude, which in former, more ethical times would guarantee a law suit and maybe a duel.

Nevertheless, the Axis news media, disgusting and unethical to its core and getting worse by the second, pounced. “With All My Heart, Natalie.’ Trump’s Most Devoted Aide Emerges: President Trump’s White House aide Natalie Harp is always by his side. What, exactly, does she do?” snickered the New York Times. (Why look! Permanent Times Trump-slimer Maggie Haberman co-authored the piece! I’m shocked! Shocked!). Then we have similar “Riiight-she’s-his-“aide”-and you-know-what-she’s-aiding” (that’s four) stories from the The Independent, NBC News, The Guardian, MS NOW, The Hill, CBS News, Daily Mail, Bloomberg, Yahoo News, Washington Post, Daily Kos, and more. “Meet Natalie Harp, the aide so close to Trump she once rode in an SUV trunk to accompany him” slobbers CNN.  “Yes, We Absolutely Should Talk About Natalie Harp”  writes Media Matters’ (Talk about “Have you no decency?”) Paul Waldman.

Pages: 1 2

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: The Legal Profession’s Corrupting Partisan Bias

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

That chart represents the relative number of employees, including lawyers, in the largest U.S. firms to contribute to Republicans. I have written several posts about the “ideological capture” of major U.S. professions and institution, and opined that the extreme progressive bias in the legal profession is among the most threatening to U.S. society and democracy itself. Two examples are here and here.

Right now the D.C. Bar is fighting with the Justice Department over the Trump administration requiring some major law firms to demonstrate that they are not biased against the President and his policies, an effort the Axis (and the D.C. Bar’s staff) calls making them “bend a knee.” The major law firms are biased against this President and his administration, and are increasingly willing to show it. The civil justice system will not work if the legal profession is politicized. Increasingly, it is.

The reason is pretty clear: the vast majority of law schools have almost no conservatives or Republican on their faculties, and my alma mater, Georgetown University Law Center, is typical of the top tier law schools. You can peruse GULC’s disturbing EA dossier here.

So Many Unethical Quotes, As The Jason Arday Ethics Train Wreck Picks Up Steam

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I really didn’t want to post again so soon on this, but the frantic denial and blame-shifting efforts by the Mad Left regarding a disaster of their own making is beyond anything I anticipated, and I anticipated a lot.

Lord Woolley, the principal of Homerton College, Cambridge, said Arday had been subjected to the “most horrendous, toxic, vicious witch hunt” leading to his death. Woolley is supposed to be a scholar. A witch hunt describes an effort to pin vile deeds on a victim who is innocent of such deeds. Arday did exactly what he was accused of doing, and he was in the process of being appropriately held accountable for what he did. Cambridge was also appropriately criticized and condemned, and will continue to be.

Today, Lord Woolley said: “We need an investigation into the media onslaught, the vicious media onslaught.” It’s called journalism, you dolt. For once, the left-biased news media did its job and exposed a DEI fraud as well as the institution that betrayed its standards, students and reputation by promoting and defending him. This is rich: the Left wants to investigate its captive news media for reporting the truth.

The hilariously named “Good Law Project” got thousands of idiots to sign an open letter. I’ll bold the most insane parts. It reads,

We, the undersigned, are appalled by the sustained and malicious attacks on the academic integrity of Professor Jason Arday.

Entirely false allegations of plagiarism were made against Professor Arday and referred to two universities. Investigations have found no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The relevant academic journals also found no basis for the claims.

Yet despite these unequivocal findings, rightwing media have attempted to smear Professor Arday’s reputation and undermine his career. That should concern everyone who believes in academic freedom, fairness and due process.

It is difficult to ignore the question of motivation. When a distinguished Black academic is repeatedly subjected to baseless allegations after being fully exonerated, it signals there is an attempt to undermine Black people who hold positions of influence.

Professor Arday, a working class Black man, became the youngest Black professor in the University of Cambridge’s history. His remarkable journey, scholarship and leadership should be celebrated, not overshadowed by campaigns built on allegations that have been comprehensively rejected.

Professor Arday has contributed to public life for many years, building a distinguished record of charitable and community service. This latest smear campaign and the spread of misinformation are deeply alarming – not only because of the impact on one individual, but because of the message they send to aspiring Black and Brown young people who seek to attain positions of leadership.

The demonisation of Professor Arday, and recently on Misan Harriman, risks creating a chilling effect, signalling that success and public service may be met with hostility, misrepresentation, and disproportionate scrutiny.

We stand in unwavering solidarity with Professor Arday. We call on universities not only to defend academic freedom and robust scholarship, but also to confront racism wherever it manifests itself, whether overtly or through persistent attempts to discredit exceptional Black academics.

There can be no place in higher education for campaigns that weaponise baseless accusations to damage reputations and careers. Universities must ensure that excellence is protected and that every scholar is judged on the merit of their work, not the colour of their skin.

Niiiiice! Lies everywhere!

Pages: 1 2

Update: Addendum to “Making Ethics Sense Of The Jason Arday Saga”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I don’t really want to pat myself on the back for predicting this last night minutes after I learned about the sad finale to the Jason Arday debacle. Anyone who has followed the unethical patterns of the political Left and who is capable of objective thought would have known this would happen.

I wrote,

“You know, don’t you, that the next step will be a tsunami of op-eds and essay criticizing and condemning the conservatives—racists, all of them— who “killed” Arday with their determination to drive a neurodivergent “of color” out of his remarkable position. So he puffed up his resume a little bit— Everybody does it. How else was someone like him to break through the societal barriers white society has erected to impede people like him? I will be shocked if Arday isn’t quickly canonized as a victim. It is the perfect way to deflect attention away from the real issues behind this tragedy.”

I just finished a cup of coffee and two yummy hot biscuits, and saw these:

Morons. Look at the “loves” for the first one, by Sadiq Khan, whoever the hell he is.

It’s early yet. Those op-eds are probably just being finished now. I certainly wasn’t the only one who knew this would be the reaction by many on the Left. Here’s a quote from another “X” post on the topic: “The story that will be spun about Jason Arday will be that his death lies at the feet of the people who called out his serial fabulations for being what they so transparently were…”

On The California-Texas Foiled Baby Murder Case, Part II: Ethics Verdicts

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Again, I don’t know how any thoughtful, ethical person could question the outcome in this case. Apparently the “intended parents” refused to agree that they would seek appropriate medical care for the child after he was born with a serious but medically correctable heart problem. Having been unsuccessful in their efforts to have the child aborted late term, these ghouls were going to get custody of the child and perhaps have a hospital administer “palliative care”…that is, let the baby die. Pleasantly, of course,

A legal battle, at least regarding the life of the child, was averted when the child was born ahead of the September 3 due date.

As with some of the other cases discussed in Part 1, how could a typical pro-abortion advocate who uses the standard pro-abortion rhetoric about women’s “bodily autonomy” argue that the parents could force the surrogate to undergo an abortion? Yet abortion activists are apparently immune to integrity, logic, and decency. The main thing is to get the unborn child disposed of.

The surrogate’s contract contained a clause obligating her to submit to an abortion if the “intended parents” demanded it. The lawyers who drafted that contract should be sued for legal malpractice, and there are arguable ethical violations as well. I am wondering how common such contracts are, and how often they are enforced. For human beings cannot sell themselves into slavery or otherwise contract away their “unalienable rights.” That contract provision is unenforceable as against public policy, and should be made illegal by statute.

Republicans should pass the bill in the House and make Democrats show their lack decency when they vote it down.

Ethics points:

Pages: 1 2

On Second Thought, THIS Is The Most Unethical Quote Of The Week, The Month, And Maybe The Year. Attention Should Be Paid…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

“I think that, you know, during lockdown, of course, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today.”

—-Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in her cynical and ominous reply to ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl after he asked how Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong would “get around” her past radical and unpopular positions on abolishing policing among others.

Later, she said, laughing, “I have a local city councilman that has this saying, ‘Woke 1 was crazy.'”

[A quick digression before the commentary starts. Ten years ago, I swore off using deliberately unflattering photos of public figures, especially Hillary Clinton, as unfair and akin to ad hominem attacks. I recognize that I broke from that pledge regarding Joe Biden, primarily because the mainstream media was unethically protecting him from public scrutiny of his galloping dementia, and photos like this one…

…conveyed important information. I will now officially declare that AOC will be another exception to that EA policy. She is a silly, light-weight, unethical Dunning-Kruger victim, yet the Axis keeps claiming she is charismatic and “cute.” Ignorance and dishonesty are not cute. The woman is a dangerous fool, and photos like the one above help clarify that.]

Digression over. Now, regarding that quote… the two quotes, in fact.

The main quote above, though the Axis of Unethical Conduct is working mightily to spin it, is a deceitfully worded admission that AOC and her ideological allies are now prepared to disavow their intentions and beliefs as expressed openly during the peak of The Great Stupid, highlighted by the duel afflictions of the George Floyd Freakout and the Wuhan Virus Ethics Train Wreck, because it is no longer politically expedient to reveal those intentions. So now they intend to lie.

Pages: 1 2

One of the Unethical Quotes Of The Week (There Have Been So Many…): Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

“In light of the focus on this troubling case [Jason Arday scandal] and the widespread commentary around it, I want to be very clear that we do not need the outcomes of an investigation to clearly and loudly affirm that our staff of colour are highly valued, for their scholarship, their achievements, and the contributions they make to the institution and the wider academic community. This particular case is an aberration and should not be used to cast aspersions on their work or the legitimacy of their roles at Cambridge.”

—-Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice, sounding stupid and making it clear that the investigation Cambridge announced it will be undertaking will be butt-covering exercise and that nothing it uncovers will dissuade the university from its education integrity destruction due to ideological commitment to DEI above all else.

You can read her whole letter here.

She just couldn’t do it! She just couldn’t say that the Jason Arday appointment was a profound embarrassment for Cambridge and obviously represents a breakdown in the University’s standards, values, evaluation and recruitment procedures as well as administration and oversight of faculty, and that serious reforms need to be instituted and will be instituted once an investigation uncovers all the elements of the humiliation for the school the Arday episode represents.

Yeah, we know your “staff of colour” are highly valued, because they are badges of virtue to the DEI cult the educational community has become, symbolizing Cambridge’s conformity, loyalty and commitment. That’s how a sociopathic fraud like Jason Arday got his position in the first place.

The Arday mess is not an “aberration.” It is signature significance. No competent and respectable institution of higher learning hires a faculty member like Jason Arday even once. Eric Rasmussen collected the names and published the bios of the eleven distinguished scholars, professors and administrators who thought hiring Arday would be a boon to Cambridge. They couldn’t have checked his credentials. They didn’t think carefully about his claims which were absurd on their face. They allowed him to be hired because he was “of colour,” and that was what mattered. They should all be fired, but Prentice’s letter proves that 1) that won’t happen and 2) Cambridge’s cultural and ethics rot goes far deeper than just those directly involved.

X-user “Smirkly” posted the most extensive list of the flaming, pulsating red flags in Arday’s claims and performance, and it is impressive:

Pages: 1 2

Abortion On Demand Up To Birth

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments

I have two simple questions for pro-abortion (or perhaps “pro mothers and doctors being able to kill viable infants at will” is a more accurate label…a bit long, I admit) advocates.

How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?

Abortion will now be allowed at any time before birth in Massachusetts after Governor Maura Healey (D, or course: what other party would do this?) eliminated the state’s abortion limits yesterday. Previously, the Bay State had allowed abortion only up until 24 weeks. Now a fully developed unborn infant can be killed any time during the 40-week gestation cycle, even second before birth. That means that the child could be delivered via C-section and instantly be protected by law as a living human being, but an unborn infant at the exact same state of development and fully viable can be murdered in the womb after the mother’s water has broken and contractions have begun.

To be fair, now, the home of my birth and happy childhood isn’t the only barbaric state with such an immoral law. Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia of course, also believe that being able to kill living and viable infants in the womb is a human “right.” Peter Singer, the Princeton ethics professor, once caused an uproar when he said that as long as we were allowing abortions up to birth, why not let the mother see her baby first after it is born and then have the option to kill it? He was right: morally and ethically, either homicide is exactly the same. The distinction between born and unborn at that point is arbitrary and a legal fiction, created to let mothers feel better about a monstrous act.

Pages: 1 2

A Jacques Brel Award for Film Reviewer Marya E. Gates

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Gates is one of the contract film reviewers on Roger Ebert.com, a website I find slightly unethical for the same reason I regarded the Sirius-XM Sixties Channel running old tapes of the Wolfman Jack radio show unethical. The Wolfman was long dead ( the show did not make that clear), and Roger Ebert died in 2013, but the website he once issued reviews from has continued to use his name to make readers think what appears there is, like Ebert was, perceptive and competent. As Gates’s bitter review proves, that is a misrepresentation.

As every other review and the trailer seem to indicate,“One Night Only” is a standard issue romantic comedy with a contrived set-up. Never mind: Gates decided to use her film review as a platform to spew pure partisan bile. Political bias tainting reviews is a long held target for me: the 20-year run of my professional theater company was a constant victim of it because the Washington Post reviews dismissed almost all of our productions of classic American works as insufficiently supportive of 21st century progressive values. I particularly recall our revival of Gore Vidal’s political satire “The Best Man” being panned because the concept that a Presidential candidate’s “private sexual conduct” was relevant to his fitness to be POTUS was absurdly “dated.”

Guess who was President at the time?

Pauline Kael of the New Yorker soaked her otherwise astute reviews with her leftist bias. For example, she panned every John Wayne movie because he was too conservative for her. To be fair, she was one of my earliest introductions to New York City liberal media group-think. Kael wrote that she was shocked when George McGovern lost to Nixon in 1972 because she knew literally no one who wasn’t voting for the Democrat. (George lost in a landslide.)

As the silly reviews for “The Odyssey” recently demonstrated, reviewers reading politics into films that have nothing to do with politics is obnoxious and unprofessional, but Marya Gates is under the misapprehension that she has the standing and intellect to use her reviews to rant about politics like a smug, Trump Deranged college sophomore majoring in Critical Race Theory.

Here are some excerpts:

Pages: 1 2

Addendum To The Previous Post Because I’m Pissed Off…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments
The Race-baiters can bite me,

I just left my hot cup of French Roast coffee and a Tastycake downstairs because a comment to the post “On Abdul El-Sayed” ruined my morning.

Somehow, I left out “except Richard Nixon” in the paragraph that was supposed to note that every U.S. President except Obama and Nixon had blue eyes. I don’t know how that happened: I thought I had written it. But while the comment, from a good friend, should have offered a correction (as is, sadly, often necessary especially when I write one late at night), instead the commenter accused me of being racist. The eyes bit was mentioned in a section about American leadership templates, which, while I might have written it slightly differently has it been mid-day and I were a bit fresher, I stand by it nonetheless Here’s the corrected version:

“Not too long ago, it would be impossible to imagine a serious candidate for the U.S. Senate named Abdul El-Sayed. Americans just didn’t elect people who had non American-sounding names. It was a silly bias, but a comforting one. When I wrote my thesis hypothesizing an American Presidential type, I noted that no American President had been elected who didn’t have an American-sounding name. (No, nobody thought of Dwight Eisenhower as German, for obvious reasons.) Not only that, every American President from Washington to Bush except Richard Nixon has had blue eyes. Barack Obama blew that template to bits, both in name and in eye-color.”

As I wrote just now in a correction prompted by that comment:

“I certainly knew about Nixon’s eyes: there is a controversy over their color: he is stated in some sources as having black eyes, and others call them dark brown. But he and Obama are the only brown-eyed boys: Trump restored the Presidency to its blue-eyed tradition. The Name Game has a chapter in my honors thesis, which was,indeed a controversial one: three chair-holding professors in the Harvard Government Department reviewed it, and couldn’t agree on the grade; eventually they compromised on magna cum laude. The observation about Presidents’ names was not original, and I had it thoroughly footnoted to a historian who specialized in the narrow field of Presidential character. Perhaps today’s DEI, bias-over-reality, conservative thought-suppressing Harvard College would have slapped me down for that section, but then it no longer is a top tier, trustworthy institution.”

I completed the correction this way:

“Fact: the template for the American Presidency in the minds of Americans is powerfully influenced by another fact. Every President before Barack Obama was white, male, born on the mainland and raised by Christians. He changed that mold, and if he had been a good President and better human being, he would have changed it more. I have reached the end of my patience with progressives and Democrats, yes, even Trump-Deranged friends, stooping to race-baiting when they have neither the information, the integrity nor the wit to counter opinions (and facts) they find inconvenient, as they appeal to emotion or worse. I wrote in the reply to an old and cherished friend’s accusation of racism in the comments to this post, ‘Shame on you.’ Shame on all of them.”

I stand by that, too.