“bias makes you stupid”

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

Predictable Aftermath To Assassination Attempt #3 That Still Must Be Aggressively Addressed…Somehow

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

Above is the guy who was trying to kill the President and as many of his aides and Cabinet members as possible last night. (I don’t care what his name is.) You can read his “manifesto”  here. The news media is calling it “unhinged.” It’s not unhinged. This is an arrogant, well-educated, erudite narcissist who has been indoctrinated by the Axis of Unethical Conduct’s propaganda over ten years to the point where he believed that assassinating the President of the United States is a patriotic act. John Wilkes Booth believed the same thing. He wasn’t unhinged either.

The key quote in the message is: “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” There is no evidence that Trump is a pedophile. There is no evidence that he is a rapist. There is no evidence that he is a traitor, or that he has committed any crimes in office. But the news media and its message-makers within “the resistance” and the Democratic Party have been working hard to convince the weak of mind or narrow of perception that up is down and black is white. Outside the White House Correspondents Dinner, demonstrators carried signs saying “Death to tyrants” and “Death to all of them.” The failed assassin isn’t the wacko outlier that the Trump Deranged want sane people to think he is. He is one of them. He got his news and information from MSNBC and CNN, and believed this…

Last night Richard Grennell tweeted to CNN’s Jake Tapper, “You encourage the mentally unstable to take action against Trump every night.” Grennell is wrong. Tapper and his colleagues encourage normal, functioning Americans to hate and oppose their President every night. Another “X” used wrote, “Most of the people in that Washington Hilton ballroom tonight are morally responsible for what just happened. For over 10 years they’ve pushed the most hateful, vile conspiracies: Trump is a threat to democracy, a dictator, literally Hitler 2.0. They demonized him nonstop, normalized violence in their rhetoric, then acted shocked when the inevitable keeps occurring.” That is correct. So is the Instapundit contributor who wrote that MSNBC is complicit in last night’s attempted murder.

I played Scrabble last night with a smart, passionate, kind neighbor who is a private tutor who does wonderful work for various charities, and who devotes her spare time to helping the poor. She texted me today that she was in “mourning” because President Trump was still alive.

If there aren’t enough sane, principled, informed voters who care sufficiently in November to make sure that the party and the parties responsible for inflicting this hate plague on the nation do not gain control of the government, then American society will have proven that it is no longer worthy of a republic.

Ethics Quote of the Week: “Spicy Bits” on “X”

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

“The SPLC orchestrating the Charlottesville event and then pivoting to “endorse” the narrative that Trump coddles white supremacists is the definition of a classic Democrat false-flag operation. They manufacture the crisis, weaponize the media to lie about the “fine people” quote, and use it as a political cudgel to demonize heritage Americans. It’s not just hypocrisy; it’s the standard operating procedure for the Democrat junta regime that relies on fabricated morality and lies to maintain power.“

Honestly, I don’t see how any fair, honest, informed American can disagree with that statement. I’ll even employ the “No True Scotsman” approach: any American who does disagree with that statement is, by definition, not fair, honest, or informed, and perhaps all three.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which we now know helped plan, organize, and pay for the Charlottesville demonstration, endorsed Kamala Harris, who a month later accused Donald Trump of enabling white supremacists during their debate.

The public now has sufficient information, even with the desperate attempts by the news media to submerge it all, to understand what a dangerous, Machiavellian, deliberately divisive and unscrupulous party the Democrats have allowed their organization to become. Regardless of one’s ideological preferences, it is unethical not to emphatically reject them.

More Observations on the Southern Poverty Law Center Scandal

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I am having to wrestle myself to the floor to stop from posting on Facebook:

Please, my friends. Don’t embarrass yourselves by defending the SPLC, which has already been making fools of its supporters for decades. It’s fine to be a progressive or a knee-jerk Democrat, except that your party’s leaders are in denial, and lying to you. This is not the time to accuse the Justice Department of targeting legitimate social reform organizations or of supporting “white supremacy.” The apparently agreed-upon spin, that all SPLC was doing by giving millions to the same groups they were claiming to be fighting was creating “paid informants” won’t stand up to reality. Read the indictment. Admit that you’ve been had. Condemn the SPLC for being another social justice racket, even worse than Black Lives Matter.

I won’t though, because the protests and rationalizations I will get back will make me physically ill.

As more of this damning story comes out (and is in the process of being buried by the Axis media, which is substantially responsible for helping the SPLC in perpetrating this astoundingly cynical, disgusting scam), the clearer it is how corrupt this organization was, has been, and is. Also, as in the cases of Eric Swalwell, Harvey Weinstein and Cesar Chavez, the question must be asked: Did the rest of the Axis of Unethical Conduct know the SPLC was a scam, and when did they know it?

Also:

Pages: 1 2

Open Segregation And Discrimination In A (Of Course) California School District

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

I want to hear someone try to defend this.

The Daily Caller reports that the Albany Unified School District in California hosted a trip to Virginia for “young men and women of color.” They visited Historically Black Colleges and Universities, while discussing “social justice,” according to documents obtained by parental rights group Defending Education. The local Board of Education trip approved the trip at a cost of $42,845.

“This unique mentoring program encourages Albany High School young men and women of color to develop social, personal, and academic success skills,” the Board’s statement announced. “Students gather in a safe, supportive, and empowering environment to voice their needs and challenges. The students engage in enriching discussions on social justice, education, leadership, mental well-being, and self-awareness. This mentoring program is transforming the lives of young men and women of color to make a significant global impact in society.”

The favored students also visited the Virginia Museum of History and Culture, the Virginia Civil Rights Memorial and the Black Heritage Trail. But wait! There’s more…

“AUSD’s 2025-2026 Local Control and Accountability Plan names “Young Men of Color and Young Women of Color Programs” that aim to “provide social emotional supports to most underserved students.” The programs are part of a $1,257,234 “social emotional/mental health” support effort.

“The same plan details the district’s intention to provide staff with “professional development” programs centered on “culturally responsive/anti-racist pedagogy.” These teaching practices are necessary to support “student groups who are persistently and historically underserved,” the document states.

“Another document from 2026 includes a goal of “Recruit[ing] and Retain[ing] a Diverse, High Quality Staff,” DE found. The Superintendent Report detailed plans to “strengthen inclusive hiring,” expand “equitable recruitment pipelines,” and implement “affinity-based supports.” The report mentioned a “Black Teacher Project” to help in these race-based hiring and retention efforts and suggested the district would track staff demographics as an indicator of success.”

Questions:

  • How can a school district get away with flagrant racial discrimination like that in the 21st Century?
  • Are there no white families at all in that district? If there are, what the hell is the matter with them? Why would they permit such biased treatment of their children…in a program they are paying for?
  • Are there no “parents of color” in that district with the integrity to protest a policy that is divisive, illegal and discriminatory? 
  • Does California secretly lobotomize its citizens? Is Weenie juice secretly put in the water?
  • How can educators so smugly described a purely discriminatory educational exercise without any ethics alarms ringing?

I don’t understand this story at all.

Ethics Quiz: AI Jesus

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments

We all knew this was coming, as sure as God made little green idiots. Nonetheless, it poses an ethics conundrum. Several, in fact.

First, though: “What’s going on here?” What’s going on is that once again, someone has figured out a way to profit from human desperation, sadness, and gullibility, or, as P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” P.T. was being conservative in his estimate.

For just $1.99 per minute, or $49.99 for 45 minutes (what a deal!) anyone can have a spiritual conversation with a digital avatar of Jesus Christ, whose appearance is modeled on actor Jonathon Roumie’s portrayal on the TV show “The Chosen.” This courtesy of the Just Like Me website, which explains, “Jesus AI is an artificial intelligence tool designed to offer comfort, encouragement, and timeless wisdom inspired by teachings of love, compassion, forgiveness, and personal growth. It is not Jesus Christ himself, nor does it possess divine authority.”

We can cross off dishonesty from the list of possible ethics breaches, I guess. But historians and anthropologists believe that Jesus probably looked like this…

I still have questions, however.

Pages: 1 2

Smoking Gun Evidence That Democrats and Progressives Seek One-Party Rule, Not Democracy: The Virginia Special Election

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is another integrity test for your woke friends who claim that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.

Tomorrow, Virginians (like me) will go to polling places to decide whether to vote for a “proposed constitutional amendment.” Note that the proposed amendment isn’t included on the ballot. This is because Democrats, who dominate the state government cheat. There is no other way to explain this.

Constitutional amendments, which must be approved by Virginia voters, have to be on the ballot with a full explanation of the amendment available to the public at least 90 days before the election. Virginia Code 30-19.9 provides,

“The explanation shall contain the ballot question, the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment, and a statement of not more than 500 words on the proposed amendment. The explanation shall be presented in plain English, shall be limited to a neutral explanation, which may include a brief statement on the effect of a “yes” and “no” vote on the question but shall not include arguments submitted by either proponents or opponents of the proposal.”

How has it been “made available”? I don’t know: I hadn’t seen it, and I’m fairly informed on such matters. Maybe it was in something I thought was junk mail. Maybe Democrats think posting something on a website nobody is likely to visit is sufficient advance notice. The alleged required explanation of the current proposed amendment is here. In addition to the deceitful and misleading language on the ballot above, we see:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Substack of the Year (So Far): “Open Letters by Mersault”

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

The ficks are running thick this spring!

You know “Mersault” is an unethical and untrustworthy pundit because he, she or it won’t let readers know who is writing this far left, biased, garbage. (That’s a photo of the writer above) The author had the nerve to send this substack post to me unasked, and given its quality and content, I regard that act as in the same category as putting a flaming bag of poo on my doorstep.

Pages: 1 2

Oh No! Not The Redskins/Commanders “Racist Logo” Nonsense Again!

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I resent having to waste my time writing about this astoundingly stupid story. I have bills to pay, clients to satisfy and other much more interesting ethics stories to cover (like how the mainstream media can get away with ignoring the damning evidence that Trump’s first impeachment was a Deep State/Axis conspiracy to illicitly remove an elected President, as some of us <cough!> had figured out it was anyway).

But I’ve followed the political correctness, fake victim-mongering, Native American white guilt power play involving sports team names, mascots and logo too long not to take on this latest outbreak.

To summarize the past EA analyses of the contrived Washington Redskins controversies:

  • The team nickname was created to allude to both Boston baseball teams that hosted the first Boston NFL team, the Braves and the Red Sox. There was no intended derogatory homage to an Old West descriptive term for Native Americans, which some tribes used to refer to themselves.
  • The assault on team names, mascots and logos was a particularly silly side-effect of the outbreak of wokism and political correctness in the 90s. It wasn’t about the sports teams, but simply a means to the end of demonstrating the power of race-baiting and bending organizations and companies to the will of the Perpetually Offended.
  • The most annoying manifestation of this fraud was the “Would you accept a team called the Washington Negroes?” argument. Teams are named after people and things that the public views as admirable. Being referenced by a team nickname or mascot is a compliment, and nobody seriously considers such an association as “dehumanizing” unless there is a benefit to the imaginary victims in doing so.
  • Few of the teams under attack based on the contrived “racist” theory had the courage and fortitude to avoid capitulating, the Atlanta Braves being one worth saluting. (Ironic, because the Braves was the original name of the Redskins). Even Congressional Democrats (under Harry Reid, now roasting in Hell) tried to get into the act and force the D.C. team to ditch “Redskins,” because Democrats don’t believe in personal freedom and the First Amendment when either gets in the way of the party’s agenda.
  • Finally, a new owner changed the Redskins name to the bland “Commanders.” Many fans in D.C. still call them the Redskins anyway. 

That brings us up-to-date until this week, when the NFL team unveiled a new logo that alludes to the old Redskins name and legacy by shooting a graphic arrow (or a “native spear,” which is somehow more politically correct) through the generic “W” that has stood for “Washington Commanders.”

Demonstrating how petty and desperate for significance and publicity they are, some Native American activists crept out of their teepees to feign being offended again.

“The Washington Commanders’ decision to update their logo is disappointing and inappropriate to say the least,’’ the Association on American Indian Affairs said in a statement. “It is time to stop repeating this cycle and listen to Native Peoples who have been clear, consistent, and unwavering on this issue: We are not your mascot.’’

The association speaks with forked tongue, or, if you prefer, is lying. “Native Peoples” have repeatedly answered pollsters to the effect that they don’t care what the Washington NFL football team calls itself, and didn’t mind “Redskins” when it was still the team’s nickname. The “clear” message from the association is that the anti-Redskins activists do not speak for the people they claim to speak for, so that statement is flat-out false. I hold that nobody should respect, trust or pay attention to lying activists.

Becky Clayton-Anderson, president of the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA), says that her group’s members approve the new logo, and that NAGA “is pleased to see the Washington Commanders incorporate a Native spear into their new logo design. It’s encouraging to have a small piece of Native imagery represented again, honoring the deep connection between Native heritage and America’s sports traditions.’’

The result of the movement to erase all cultural references to Native Americans is to further alienate that rich part of U.S. cultural history from the rest. NAGA’s opposing activists will be considered successful when they expunge all Native American imagery and traditions from American life.

But wait, there’s more! There are “experts” to heed! Stephanie Fryberg, a social psychologist, suggested the new logo will cause harm.

Fryberg claimed in a statement, “Research has long shown that Native-themed mascots and symbols cause psychological harm, particularly to Native youth, by reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to the ongoing erasure of Native peoples in contemporary society.”

Yeah.

1. What research, Stephanie? We know: research created and manipulated to confirm the theory of the 10% of activists who were upset about “Redskins.” Please: show me. Show me a single individual who is tangibly “harmed” by the addition of an arrow or spear to the Commanders logo. Presumably that individual also was traumatized every time Steve Martin posed with that gag arrow through his head. If not, why not? Do Indian Head nickles also cause such victims distress?

2. Anyone who is truly harmed by the design of a logo for a local sports team has serious underlying emotional and intellectual problems that go far beyond that.

Comment of the Day: “Briefly Noted….” (Corrected)

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The Comment of the Day was inspired by the short post focusing on the video above, in which people who have been doubtless throwing up comments on social media about the poor, abused citizens of Gaza and Israeli “genocide” were confronted with easily available facts regarding the how the endless Palestinian conflict is fueled by decades of demonizing Jews, and were shocked–shocked!—that indoctrination and propaganda have consequences.

Sarah B., (not to be confused with Sarah Bales, who is also an ace commenter) as is her wont, posted in response two trenchant comments which I am combining as one. I’ll divide them with a page break to “split the baby” regarding the current complaints regarding the new WordPress page break system.

Here is Sarah’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Briefly noted…”:

***

Yes, being this ignorant is a problem, but the big question now is where were they to learn this? Surely not in school. As an early millennial, we sort of covered the Muslims in the Crusades, where the Muslims were poor, abused peaceful people who were abused by those nasty Catholics, skipping the years upon decades upon centuries of aggression beforehand. I watched footage of the Twin Towers my senior year, as parts of it were happening, but was cautioned not to think that this was done by Muslims, but instead some ragtag extremists.

The indoctrination has only gotten worse, I believe. And since it was already evil to think Muslims could be other than peaceful when I was in school, and the fact that several of my contemporaries who got pregnant right out of high school are already grandparents, that means we are multiple generations of indoctrination in. Other than my favorite option of razing the DOE to the ground, salting it, and going back to private tutors/mini-schools/homeschools, what can be done? If you are told the same thing by everyone, and it is common knowledge, why would you even think to look at another viewpoint. Only the old fogies, who are Islamophobes say otherwise and we already know to ignore Boomers.

We have an education crisis, but rather than calling those who suffer from it morons and unethical, we should celebrate things like this that start to explain how the real world works to those who have been brainwashed into believing falsehoods.

Pages: 1 2