Why in the world would Serena Williams, of all people, think it is necessary or appropriate to engage in public race-baiting? The woman is rich and famous, and became a national idol playing a sport that has an overwhelmingly white fan base. Never mind: Serena was triggered when she encountered a decorative cotton plant (reportedly fake) in an un-named luxury hotel. The retired women’s tennis legend, now 43, took a video of the vase holding a cotton plant on a table in the hallway, and asked her Instagram followers, “Alright, everyone. How do we feel about cotton as decoration? Personally for me, it doesn’t feel great.”
Yeah, you’re right, Serena, the New York hotel placed a cotton plant in the hallway to slyly remind you that 150 years ago black slaves were forced to pick cotton in states hundreds of miles away. I think you should organize a boycott and start a protest organization called Cotton Plants Matter.
This one is easy, or I hope it is. I shouldn’t have to go into much detail about how most of the United Nations disgraced itself today, even by the lowered standards of its recent bottom-of-the-metaphorical-barrel ethical incoherence, by walking out of the hall just before Netanyahu began his speech.
Delegates didn’t walk out on Fidel Castro, who betrayed his nation and enslaved it after promising to be Cuba’s liberator. They didn’t walk out on Nikita Khrushchev, who was a significant architect of The Great Purge under Stalin that murdered between 700,000 and 1.2 million people. The United Nations has defended, supported and honored dozens of depots, dictators and mass killers, but its members chose the freely elected leader of the only democracy in the perpetually violent and messed-up Middle East—which the U.N. is primarily responsible for messing up in the first place—to show such symbolic contempt, disrespect and stupidity. As Netanyahu said in the clear and persuasive speech that followed this insult, the gesture supported terrorism, giving Hamas reason to believe the horrific sneak terrorist attack in 2023 was a diplomatic success, in addition to killing innocent Jews, the Palestinian national pastime.
“If it’s totally stupid, you don’t go along with it…”
—Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in comments at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., as he explained why he thinks the traditional reverence for Supreme Court precedent (stare decisis) makes neither legal nor logical sense
In discussions with some of my more fair and rational progressive lawyer friends about the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, several of them admitted that Roe was a terrible opinion, badly reasoned and sloppily written. This has been the consensus of most honest legal analysts since the 1970s, but never mind, Roe declared the right to kill unborn children for any reason whatsoever a right, so for abortion-loving feminists and their allies (including men addicted to promiscuous sex without responsibility), Roe was a “good” decision. But my colleagues who knew it was not just a poor decision but a terrible one condemned anyway, because, they said, it violated stare decisis, the hoary principle that the Supreme Court should eschew over-turning previous SCOTUS decisions even if they were outdated or clearly wrong, in the interests of legal stability, preserving the integrity of the Court and insulating the institution from the shifting winds of political power.
Like many principles, that one sounds better in the abstract than it works in reality, and Roe is as good an example as one could find short of Dred Scott. Roe warped the culture and turned living human beings into mere inconveniences whose lives could be erased at whim. How many millions of human beings don’t exist today because of the ideological boot-strapping logic of that decision, which bizarrely equated the right to contraception to the right to kill the unborn?
Reverence of bad decisions as beyond reversal is also a handy political weapon: as several wags have noted, stare decisus is mandatory when the precedent at issue is progressive cant (like Roe), but when the Left passionately believes a SCOTUS decision was wrongly decided, it’s time for an “exception” to stare decisus. In his recent appearance at D.C.’s Catholic University, where he taught at the law school until protesters against Dobbs in his classes forced him to stop, Justice Thomas pointed to Brown v. Bd. of Education, the landmark decision that overturned a well-established Court precedent holding that “separate but equal” was a principle that allowed segregation in the public schools as he neatly eviscerated the intellectually dishonest position that SCOTUS precedent must be sacred.
[Before I return to my own blog after circumstances beyond my control left me unable to post for most of yesterday, I want to thank the EA commentariate for coming through with a stellar performance on yesterday’s emergency Open Forum. I expected nothing less, but the range of posts and topics was dazzling.]
A permit for the thing was approved on September 16, and originally authorized the disparaging statue to remain on display at the National Mall until 8 p.m. ET this coming Sunday. A plaque beneath the bronze figures of the late convicted pedophile and sex trafficker and the President of the United States read: “In honor of friendship month, we celebrate the long-lasting bond between President Donald J. Trump and his ‘closest friend’ Jeffrey Epstein,” followed by a silhouette of two hands making a heart shape. The stated purpose of the artwork was “to demonstrate freedom of speech and artistic expression using political imagery.” That was deceit. The purpose of the statue was to promote the desperate Axis talking point that President Trump was involved in Epstein’s criminal activities, of which there is no evidence whatsoever and has never been any evidence.
We are finally at the last installment of the Make Fake Ron Howard Eat His Words Ethics Alarms Challenge, and it is the longest and most thorough of all. Again,I would be impressed greatly if one of our progressive-minded readers would rise in “Ron’s” defense, but “his” facile, talking-point besotted declaration of liberal pride is as indefensible as much as it is pandering to the Left’s fondest delusions—as the four posts including this one demonstrate. Fake Ron’s manifesto is here; rebuttal #1 is here, #2 is here, and #3 is here.
Now you have #4, a thorough fisking by John Paul, masterfully done.
Take that, Fake Ron!
***
I’m a liberal, but that doesn’t mean what a lot of you apparently think it does.
Good for you? But I’m willing to bet 95% of the time, I know exactly what it means. Studies (I can cite them if you want) often show I know you a lot better than you know me. The big problem with a statement like yours is that your views are often highlighted and celebrated, while republican views are not. Because quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for.
The same, but see point one. If you don’t like this characterization, maybe you should do a better job of reigning your side in. If people actually cared about things, they should spend more time looking inward than outward.
Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:
True. No one is the same. But giving where this is going, I’m having a hard time not seeing you about to do what you accuse us of doing.
I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.
Great in theory….You do know republicans do this? But that really isn’t the issue. The issue is how it should be done. The biggest question: Who’s gonna pay for it?
I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that’s interpreted as “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.”
No, its not. As far as I know, never in human history has it been. Since you’re claiming it is, the burden of proof is on you. You can’t just make a statement. Also PERIOD? What are you five?
“I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.” This is not the case. I’m fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it’s impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes “let people die because they can’t afford healthcare” a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.
Strawman. Has any republican ever said this? There was a lot of (justified) critiques of the ACA (not to mention subterfuge). Also, if you don’t know better critiques of cheaper healthcare, you’re not listening to them. Additionally, everyone has access to it. You can walk into any ER and get anywhere in the country, but that’s not what you’re talking about, is it? I bet you’re also talking about Hormone therapy and abortion. But I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me how you would get healthcare cost down without making someone do their work for cheaper/free. This is going to be a problem with one of your later arguments.
I believe education should be affordable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I’m mystified as to why it can’t work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.
Setting aside the big problem with a significant number of colleges, the short answer: it can be. Trade schools, community colleges, military, are alternative methods to higher education that don’t break the bank. I’m willing to bet 999/1000 an employer doesn’t care where you went to college, only if you can do the job. I know one of Charlie Kirk’s talking point was almost 50% of people working aren’t in a field they got their degree in (I’ll admit, I don’t know if this is true). Still, this is you’re talking point. I also understand (Maybe I’m doing exactly what you accuse me of doing earlier) that colleges are one of liberals sacred institutions. If you think there is a problem, maybe, as I suggested earlier, you look inward towards a solution instead of asking for the government to step in and fix it.
I have to say that I’m pretty sick of hearing and reading about Charley Kirk. The hagiography on the Right and the desperate spinning from the Left, which fears, with considerable justification, that the activist’s assassination will be a devastating tipping point that will doom their prospects in the 2026 election, are both relentless. The Kirk memorial service i is being compared to a state funeral, and that diminishes the tradition and the status of state funerals. Whatever Kirk was, he was not a national public servant. He wasn’t Charles Lindbergh either. The Democrats approached this level of creating exaggerated status when they held a Capitol Rotunda viewing for a Capitol police officer on the pretense that he was killed by the mob on January 6, 2021. He wasn’t, but the charade was all part of the coordinated effort to demonize Republicans, just as the deification of Kirk, a partisan organizer, is a Republican effort to show that the American Left approves of and encourages violence as a political weapon. (It does, you know.)
The obvious comparison is with George Floyd, but like most obvious comparisons, it’s not valid. To begin with, there really are good reasons to mourn Kirk. George Floyd was a blight on society, if an insignificant one. His ambiguous death was brilliantly exploited despite the fact that it signified nothing except that some cops aren’t very good at their jobs (we knew that). Floyd’s death didn’t result from racism or bigotry. Sure, the lifetime petty crook and drug addict’s life “mattered,” but it didn’t matter enough to him to do something positive with it. Also, to state the the most vivid distinction, conservatives didn’t use Kirk’s murder to go on a destructive nationwide “mostly peaceful demonstration” spree resulting in billions of dollars in damage, over 30 deaths, and the disruption of daily life for Americans who had nothing to do with Floyd’s demise.
Rep. Crockett—-remember, she’s considered a “rising star” in the reeling Democratic Party—actually said this:
“And so I do want people to know that just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn’t make them a criminal.”
Interesting. The definition of “criminal” is literally “a person who has committed a crime” or the equivalent in every dictionary in existence, but never mind: this is the totalitarian Left of 2025, for which Big Brotherish denial of reality—you know, like “War is Peace” “or “Biden is as sharp as a tack” or “Harris ran a flawless campaign” is foundational.
Lest you think I have pulled Crockett’s latest nonsense out of a context where it is defensible (I can’t imagine what that would be, though), here is her whole rant, from an appearance on the podcast “Getting Better with Jonathan Van Ness.” Incidentally, you know everything you need to know about Van Ness to avoid him and his podcast like the plague by the fact that her statement didn’t prompt him to say, “What? What the hell are you talking about?”
This is the second of the Ethics Alarms commentariate’s critique of the smug and facile defense of Progressive World offered by “Ron Howard,” placed in his metaphorical mouth by someone who thinks that the popularity of the messenger is more important than the quality of the message. Sadly, the fallacy is too often borne out.
#2 is the work of DaveL, and it is notable for its succinctness. Part I is here. “Ron’s” screed is included in my original post. Now here’s Dave:
***
The piece as a whole tends to suffer from 4 main flaws in its thinking, all of which are related to one another:
External locus of control: The piece refers in many places to the idea of the strong helping the weak, the wealthy helping the poor, etc. But it doesn’t ask where rich and poor people, or strong and weak people, come from. They’re assumed to just be. Some mysterious force beyond mortal ken makes them that way. Sometimes that’s the case – often it’s not. Which leads to:
Ignoring effects of the second order and beyond: You want regulations to make things “safe”, but what does that do to make housing affordable? What does it mean for a job to be well-paid when so much of your earnings are diverted for the use of others? What happens when you make it more comfortable to be dependent, or more of a strain to be a contributor?
Refusing to see tradeoffs: These things they want are often interrelated in a way that makes them actually oppose one another. You don’t get to have everything you want, only to choose where to strike a balance. Which leads into…
Black-and-white thinking: You want housing to be “affordable” but also you want regulations to make them “safe”. How “safe” is “safe?” How “affordable” is “affordable?” One reason they can’t see tradeoffs is because they collapse these ideas from continuums to dichotomies.
I posted about the “why I am a liberal” social media post that has been surfacing on Facebook and challenged the Ethics Alarms commentariate to dissect its rampant generalities, facile assumptions, and logical fallacies. As I wrote in the post, some previously intelligent people of my acquaintance have been reposting and praising the thing, attributing its authorship to Hollywood nice guy director Ron Howard. He didn’t write it, so this is a textbook “appeal to authority,” especially since the arguments “Ron” makes are flawed at best. They are, however, typical progressive talking points. There is no reason to believe the real Ron Howard has any political science or philosophical acumen or expertise, as he has spent literally his whole life in front of cameras or behind them.
Four EA comment stars took up my challenge, and they all shined. As promised, I am posting all four, each of which would make an excellent civics class topic, if there were high school civics classes that didn’t focus exclusively on leftist cant. (Are there any any?)
You can review Fake Ron’s manifesto here. Rebuttal #1 is by Gamereg; his numbered points correspond to “Ron’s”:
The internet memes below mocking the Axis of Unethical Conduct response to the Charlie Kirk assassination and the hypocrisy of its Jimmy Kimmel firing protestations are devastating. I’m wrestling with myself not to post them all to Facebook with the legend, “Suck on this, you deluded fools!” just to watch about 250 Trump-Deranged Facebook friends’ (including poor Curmie) heads blow-up, and have them all unfriend me, thus ensuring that I live out the rest of my days lonely and unloved, but satisfied.
The conservative Powerline blog, under the administration of lawyer John Hinderaker, provides a collection of the best of the week’s memes every Saturday. He has taken over the feature since his original Meme Master quit or left or died or something, and it hasn’t been as exhaustive or as reliably hilarious since, but this one, dubbed the “The Week In Pictures: Party of Peace Edition,” is a classic: funny, merciless, and best of all, true. Not every meme included is a gem, but from the documented hypocrisy of Kimmel himself and his defenders, to the joy of watching the Left turn on Disney, to, oh, so much more that is nauseating as the “party of peace” tries to spin its way out of its accountability, collectively they deliver a…well, let the Duke illustrate:
I’m still wrestling…but in the meantime, below are the featured Kirk-Kimmel memes. They have many uses: if your Trump-Deranged relative or freind can’t see these and admit that they raise legitimate points, call 911. The whole thing is here.
Ethics Alarms 