“bias makes you stupid”

Rueful Observations On A Trump Derangement Outburst…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

1. Nah, Trump Derangement is a myth!

2. If you want to see this orgy of hate and violence without the annoying commentary, here’s a link I couldn’t embed.

2. How does a mush-mouth like Topping have the gall to host a show of any kind? Jeeeez, whatever your first name is, get a coach! Learn to speak clearly. Slow the hell down. Not only are you hard to understand, your speech pattern is excruciating to listen to. This is malpractice.

Why hasn’t anyone told him?

3. Look at the hate on this crazy old bat’s face! What could possibly justify that?

4. There are several places on the web where one can purchase Trump pinatas. Here, for instance.

5. The onlookers cheering her on epitomize the description “angry mob.” The Axis of Unethical Conduct made them this way, hammering away at “Trump is a Nazi” and related slander and libel, day after day, for ten years. And it has caused brain damage. The remedy to speech is, we have decided as a nation, more speech, and “hate speech” is still protected speech. Inciting riots, however, is not protected speech. Nonetheless, inciting riots in slow motion, over long periods of time, by repeating demonizing and violence-triggering propaganda and rhetoric over and over again until it is embedded in weak minds, is legal. It is also unethical.

6. Do you think the crazy woman doing this while wearing a shirt that extols kindness on the front and the Golden Rule on the back recognizes the double standards she is embracing? It it intentional satire? Is she just an idiot?

7. Democrats cheer on this kind of lunacy while insisting that their “8647” rhetoric plays no part in the repeated assassination attempts. The only President I can find whose avatars were subjected to such vicarious and symbolic violence was Abraham Lincoln during protests like the draft riots in New York. (Confederate equivalents don’t count.) True, he wasn’t…

Oh. Right.

8. I react emotionally to people attacking and defiling images of the President of the United States. just as I do to flag burning. It is an attack on my nation, its institutions, its history and its values. The conduct shows civic disrespect that cannot be rationalized away.

______________

Pointer: Steve Witherspoon

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Res Ipsa Loquitur: Reuters’ Unethical Headline

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“Spirit Airlines shuts down, industry’s first Iran war casualty”

Today I was a guest on The Steven Speirer Show, talking about ethics. In the final minutes, Steven, a California lawyer, asked me what I regarded as the greatest ethics issue facing the U.S. today. Without hesitation, I named the corruption of journalism and the collapse of ethics in the journalism profession. Readers here are familiar with that conclusion and why I am confident that it is correct. A republic cannot function with out an informed populace. “Advocacy journalism,” the elevation of the profit motive over integrity, responsibility and honesty, and the increasing intrusion of the techniques of “fake news” into reporting has transformed journalism into a toxic combination of propaganda and indoctrination.

“Professions earn that label by being trustworthy,” I told Steve. “Our news media today cannot be trusted, and those who do trust it are uninformed or misinformed.” My host said that he wished he could disagree, but in good conscience could not.

Then I checked my emails after the session, and saw the link to the Reuters headline above, re-posted on Yahoo! Finance. (Arthur in Maine gets the pointer for the link; my apologies for misidentifying the source in the original version of this post). It’s a classic, typical of how journalism operates today. A story about a company bankruptcy that was long in the works is framed as an indictment of the Iran War, and by extension President Trump.

Pages: 1 2

“You Know…Morons”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Seldom has that Ethics Alarm clip been more appropriate than in response to the video below:

Stipulated: I have no idea how many people were interviewed to compile that selection of angry protesters unable to articulate what they were angry about. In my experience, however, it wouldn’t have taken many. At least the guy who defaults to Trump’s penchant for putting his personal brand on things has a point, but if that’s the first thing that comes to mind, the required retort is “Seriously? That’s what you’re out here demonstrating against? The name on the Kennedy Center?”

I wish there were more answers to work with. At least they would form the foundation for discussion. As with the previous post about people who criticize Supreme Court decisions without reading them, I believe it is incontrovertible that if one is determined to protest in public, one must be capable of articulating what is such a substantial grievance that it justifies doing so.

Today’s Trump Deranged Facebook Post:

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Again, such a post is signature significance for Trump Derangement. No one who isn’t clinically ill with this cerebral malady would ever post such crypto-libel. It might as well have read “I am not a cannibal” or “I am Marie of Romania.” There is no evidence, none, that Donald Trump is a pedophile, yet the Trump Deranged believe it anyway. What did Donald Trump ever do to justify this delusion? How does beating Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College translate into likely pedophilia?

Now, the long-time friend who posted this today is an actor, and a communist (he’s one of those who says, “Real Communism has never been tried”) but he’s not an idiot. He’s serious and informed. Yet I would no more post a statement on Facebook that is that batty than I would announce that I am the reincarnation of Mae West. My friend only did it, presumably, because he is certain that none of his friends will think less of him for doing so, and that most of them will agree with him.

Ethics question: Should friends let friends make fools of themselves even if most of the people in their bubble don’t realize it? Isn’t this like noticing that a friend has a big piece of spinach on a front tooth? The problem is that someone who posts something this stupid isn’t likely to listen to reason, logic, or rational analysis. Are friends obligated to try to alert friends when they are behaving foolishly in public even though the likely result is losing that friend?

Good to Know! Only 68.2% of Harvard Alumni Magazine Readers Can Correctly Answer An Easy Ethics Question.

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

The chart above reflects the results Harvard got from its alums when it asked last month in its alumni magazine what the school should do about its absurd grade inflation, which Ethics Alarms examined here , here, and here.

The red bar shows the percentage of readers who felt that Harvard should “Implement recommendations from a Faculty of Arts and Sciences subcommittee, such as imposing a 20-percent cap on A’s in every class and awarding internal honors based on “average percentile rank” instead of GPA.” In other words, fix the problem. In other words, establish a grading system with some integrity. In other words, ensure that a Harvard College diploma means something other than that a student somehow got admitted to the iconic and supposedly challenging institution.

What should be troubling to Harvard—and us— is that the other options got as much support as they did:

  • 14.1% think that the school should “Grade all classes pass-fail; take A’s out of the equation.” This doesn’t address the problem at all. Harvard doesn’t fail anyone already: it is harder to flunk out of Harvard than almost any U.S. college. The pass-fail option just substitutes one false standard for another.
  • 11.17% chose the “solution” “Nothing; students work hard and it’s unfair to change the rules.” Morons. Who says they “work hard”? Effort doesn’t mean success, achievement or mastery: one can work hard and accomplish nothing. It’s unfair to change what obviously doesn’t work? How does an intelligent, educated person reach that bizarre conclusion? Revelation: over 10% of all Harvard grads are incompetent and irresponsible.
  • 6. 12% voted to “Implement changes, but only if other schools do it too.” Wow. There’s leadership for you. 6.12% of all Harvard grads are apparently weenies.

In related news, the embarrassing Harvard student petition opposing grading reform at Harvard University as “racially harmful” has been removed from Change.org. The petition urged Harvard to abandon the plan limiting top grades because doing so would “mirror and reinforce existing racial and socioeconomic hierarchies.” I had expressed my dismay at the petition here.

Yecchh! The DOJ’s Indictment Against James Comey Is Embarrassing and Unethical, Like The Democrats’ Lawfare Indictments Against Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

How embarrassing, irresponsible and incompetent….

Yes, the Trump DOJ really indicted the Deep State’s scumball ex-FBI Director for his obnoxious Instagram post featuring an anti-Trump seashell message he happened upon on the beach (Yeah, I wouldn’t put it past this guy to arrange the seashells himself and then pretend it was made by someone else, but that is unprovable.)

Trump’s DOJ has unsuccessfully indicted Comey once already. That indictment at least had some law and logic to support it: this one does not. I didn’t think the DOJ and FBI could be so wasteful as to have an ongoing investigation of a seashell formation that has taken eleven months, but to be fair, tracking down all those mollusk witnesses and interviewing them must have been quite a chore.

Last year I wrote, after Comey issued his Instagram post,

“James Comey, the partisan, dishonest, unethical former FBI Director whom Trump was right to fire (but he should have fired him earlier) posted on Instagram, with approval, a message that consisted of the numbers 8647, meaning “rub out the 47th President,” Donald Trump, delineated with sea shells. …

 “Nice! It didn’t take long for Comey to realize that this was, to say the least, a tactical error, and he took down the post. In doing so, Comey proved what a mendacious creep he is again by claiming that it never occurred to him that 8647 might be interpreted as a call to have the President of the United States eradicated, offed, murdered, killed…you know assassinated. Never mind that there have been two near misses by the “Kill Trump” club already, that some Democrats and “the resistance” have openly advocated violence, and that for a former head of the FBI to join their ranks is, to put it mildly, unseemly. Comey said he was sorry.

“Not good enough. Not nearly good enough. A former high law enforcement official calling for the assassination of the sitting President is a big deal, attention should be paid, and Comey should suffer more than the indignity of having to channel Emily Litella (“Never mind!”)

“…There is no valid justification for taking criminal action against Comey (who wrote coyly under his shells photo, “Cool shell formation”), but there also is no good reason not to thoroughly humiliate this Ethics Villain either.”

Instead, the crack MAGA lawyers in Trump’s Justice Department decided to thoroughly humiliate themselves instead by using this old, obnoxious, since-deleted Instagram post as the basis for two criminal counts alleging that Comey “ma[d]e a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the States”:

DOJ has to prove under the law that “a reasonable recipient“ of the image of “8647” posted by Comey “who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret” the post “as a serious expression of an intent to do harm” to Trump. It can’t. Among other things, the editing term “86” is ambiguous. Because I have been an editor, I know it means “Kill this section” or “throw away this story.” But even in the editing game, 86 doesn’t literally mean “kill” because you can’t kill something that isn’t alive in the first place. Furthermore, most Americans don’t have a clue that “86” means “eliminate/cut/get rid of/trash, etc.” In fact, the DOJ can’t assume or prove that Comey did, so the “knowingly and willfully” requirement is dead in the water, like the previous inhabitants of those shells.

It’s overkill because the indictment is obviously absurd and you shouldn’t have to be a lawyer, a legal scholar or a beach-comber to figure it out, but Alan Rozenshtein and Ben Wittes at Lawfare—a reliably anti-Trump, Axis-allied site, but that doesn’t mean it is always wrong— examined the legal issues regarding Comey’s post and concluded, “James Comey could have gone a lot stronger than ‘8647’ and still not risked jail.”

Absolutely correct. Taking a picture of an ambiguous message on a beach and calling it “cool” can’t conceivably constitute a “true threat.”

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court held “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit [a law] to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” A seashell message on a beach complimented by a fired FBI director is likely to incite violence? Come on.

Pages: 1 2

Toward A Useful Trump Derangement Diagnosis…[Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

In my continuing quest to identify useful symptoms of Trump Derangement (to shake in the faces of those who deny that there is such a malady, or that it isn’t frighteningly widespread, I found the just-released survey of self-identified Democrats and progressives invaluable. Read it all, but heed particularly one item in the chart above, showing what percentage of this group believes that the July 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump was a false flag hoax orchestrated by MAGA to create sympathy for Trump ahead of the election.

Almost a fifth, 19% believe this crack-brained theory is definitely true. Another 27% believe this nonsense is “probably true” (despite any evidence whatsoever). That’s almost half, or 46%. I would add to this the 15%, dimwits all, who say they “aren’t sure.” That’s a damning 61% of Democrats and progressives who are so marinated in hate and and bubble-bath that they can’t accept reality.

A man sitting behind Trump was killed by a bullet, and Trump’s ear was grazed. Reviewing what happened at that campaign speech and not concluding that it was an honest-to-Pete assassination attempt and a close call at that constitutes a Bias Makes You Stupid lollapalooza, right up there with thinking the world is flat and dinosaurs didn’t exist. This is signature significance for brain failure, and the name for this variety is “Trump Derangement.” 61% seems a bit small to me, but it’s still damning.

Now it appears that the same 61% (or more) are claiming that last weekend’s attempt to kill the President was also a hoax. From The Hill:

Pages: 1 2

Now THAT’S Nepotism!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The Philadelphia Phillies (that’s a baseball team, for those of you tragically unschooled in the Great American Pastime) have fired manager Rob Thomson and named former Yankee star and past major league manager Don Mattingly as interim manager.

The Phils are off to a terrible start, especially for a team that has been a World Series contender for four years and was supposed to be one this season. Firing a manager in April, especially a skipper as successful as Thomson has been, is rare indeed, but the Boston Red Sox just did it. Baseball teams are like that: they tend to get caught up in fads. With this firing, many think the New York Mets will follow suit and fire that team’s manager. The Mets, another expected contender with a huge payroll, have been worse than either Boston or Philly. It may also be germane that all three cities are infamous for having impatient and unforgiving fans.

But I digress. Here is the issue: Don Mattingly is an experienced manager and was Thompson’s bench coach, essentially the in-game strategy consultant. He would make perfect sense as Thomson’s replacement, except for one fact…

Mattingly’s son Preston is the Philadelphia Phillies general manager.

That’s Don on the left and Preston on the right above.

Stop Making Me Defend Jimmy Kimmel (AGAIN)!

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

The latest unfair conservative assault on Jimmy Kimmel led me to do a quick survey of all the Ethics Alarms “Stop Making Me Defend X” posts. With this one, Jimmy indeed becomes the leading non-political figure in number of SMEDX entries, with three. I bet you can guess the leader in the political figure category: yes, it’s Donald Trump. (In second place is Joe Biden.)

President Trump was the subject of the very first such post, way back in 2015 when I was writing a “Letting Donald Trump be President is like letting a chimp pilot a passenger jet” post almost weekly. The list of figures (and sometimes other things) that have prompted rueful defenses here is a rogues gallery: Kathy Griffin, Robert De Nero, Bill Maher, Bill and Hillary, Eric Swalwell, Eric Adams, Chris Cuomo…the most recent was Jeff Bezos, just a week ago. The previous SMEDX effort in defense of ABC’s disgusting late night host was last September. I began it like this, quoting my first defense of this asshole in 2017, and I wouldn’t change a single word today:

“I detest Jimmy Kimmel. I loathe him. He is the most revolting of all the Left-Licking late night and cable progressive comics, worse than Colbert, Maher, Samantha Bee, all of them. All of them combined. He is an ongoing blight on the ethics of American society, and yet he is self-righteous in the process.’ My opinion of Kimmel has, if anything, deteriorated since I wrote that.”

However, the current conservative pundit, website and MAGA attacks on Kimmel as the symbol of Axis hate-rhetoric that irresponsibly encourages Trump Deranged assassins is completely unfair. (So are the attacks on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for his “total war” statement.)

On his show last week, Kimmel was riffing on what he might say if he were the MC at the upcoming White House Correspondents’ Dinner. “Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow,” Kimmel said. Of course Kimmel didn’t know that there would be an assassination attempt that night. But more importantly, there was nothing violent about the joke at all. In fact, it was well-constructed; the line can be interpreted in several ways, but taking it to be referring to Trump’s assassination is not among them.

Melania is considerably younger than her husband: in an earlier era, she would be called a “trophy wife.” I think I may have heard a wag make nearly that same joke decades ago when I attended a trial lawyers association convention. The number of decrepit antediluvian millionaire lawyers with gorgeous 20- or 30- something women on their arms was fairly revolting. Kimmel’s joke could have easily been made about the late professional bimbo Anna Nicole Smith when she married, at 26, an 89-year-old billionaire. Remember?

I can see why the First Lady was insulted by the innuendo (a bit “too close to the bone”), and, taking a cue from her husband, exploited Kimmel’s bad luck to pounce on Jimmy the way Jimmy pounces on the President literally every night his show airs. Nonetheless, it was unethical. “Tit for tat,” revenge and deliberate mischaracterizations are still unethical no matter how much the target “has it coming.”

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: “Michael”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

As you may have heard, the new biopic “Michael” is on the way to becoming a huge box office hit, which Hollywood needs desperately these days. It is also a film that critics have nearly unanimously panned as pure hagiography. Sure, movies about real people routinely gild the human lily, but “Michael” has taken the whitewashing (Is it tasteless to use that term in reference to Jackson? I think it’s rather appropriate…) to absurd levels. The film stops before the 1993 allegations of child sexual abuse against the pop icon, in part because the terms of Jackson’s financial settlement ($20 million while refusing to admit wrongdoing) with an accuser prohibited the estate from publicly questioning the allegations against him. Thus “Michael” is a big wet kiss to the King of Pop and his fans, omitting the dark and creepy stuff, which in Jackson’s case is considerable. I would argue that it is also defining.

Jackson is played by Jaafar Jackson, one of the singer’s nephews, who looks like Michael might have looked if he were, you know, normal. Telling the life story of Michael Jackson while ignoring his disturbing pederastic tendencies is like making a movie about Errol Flynn or John Barrymore that never shows them taking a drink. Or a movie about John Wilkes Booth that leaves out that little Ford’s Theater incident. How about a Bill Clinton biopic that leaves out Monica? Fatty Arbuckle was a silent film genius: why ruin a movie about him by including that downer of a party he gave where a woman was killed and he was tried for murder?

Pages: 1 2