“bias makes you stupid”

Look! Another Study Showing That What Everybody Knew Anyway Is Probably True…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

A new study concludes that parents probably do have a favorites among their children.

Parents always deny this, of course. Such a preference would make any parent feel guilty, so they are in permanent denial. The favorite child reaps the benefits of his or her status, and the lesser regarded children are told that they are petty, jealous, and paranoid. Frequently, in my experience, the “Mom likes you best!” accusation works wonders, and the guilt-ridden parent will then bend over backwards to avoid any appearance of favoritism, even to the point of favoring the other child or children.

The study in question, however, seems pretty worthless. Lisa Strohschein, a sociology professor at the University of Alberta and the editor-in-chief of the journal Canadian Studies in Population, thinks that all the study does is confirm what most people already believe. The researchers acknowledged limitations in the study, and write that “the reasons why parents treat their children differently are likely more complex and extend beyond the factors explored.” Oh.

Continue reading →

Is “The Three Amigos” Really Racist, or Have I Just Been Brainwashed?

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

I am proud to say that I thought “The Three Amigos” was a largely unfunny and lousy movie when I saw it the first time…this, despite the fact that I generally admire John Landis as a director of comedies (he will always have a place dear in my heart for directing “Animal House”), and although I generally appreciate the talents of the movie’s stars, Steve Martin and Martin Short (Chevy Chase not so much). For some reason it has been showing repeatedly on MGM+ of late, and upon re-watching the thing after my sock drawer was in order, I found another reason to hate it other than its annoying tone and its predictable gags. This time around, the film seemed egregiously racist.

Oh no! Have 40 years of relentless bludgeoning by political correctness, hyper-sensitivity and wokism taken over my brain? When I first viewed the film (which Wikipedia tells me was ranked 79th on Bravo’s list of the “100 Funniest Movies,” a factoid that only reaffirms my long-standing belief that Bravo is useless), that thought never occurred to me for a second.

One of many films that borrows heavily from the Western classic (and ethics movie) “The Magnificent Seven,”—others include “A Bug’s Life” and “Battle Beyond the Stars” along with a pretty bad remake, with Denzel Washington standing in for Yul Brenner—“The Three Amigos” (the film’s score is by the same composer who scored “The Magnificent Seven”) tells the tale of three incredibly white silent movie stars who end up rescuing a town of substantially helpless and poor Mexicans. The town’s tormenter is “El Guapo,” the evil leader of the most ugly, stupid, dirty and brutal band of Mexican bandits in silver screen history. All right, maybe the Mexicans in “The Wild Bunch” are worse, but the white guys in that bloody film are hardly what you’d like to see your daughter bring home to meet the family either. Naturally the three white guys prevail, despite their collective IQ of about 210, for an average of 70 each (it actually breaks down to 85 for Martin’s character, with Short at 70 and Chase at 65).

Continue reading →

Well, I Guess There Won’t Have To Be A Revolution THIS Time…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

The Trump Deranged really do think this President is capable of being Hitler.

In a post on his usually rational and excellent blog “Simple Justice,” criminal defense lawyer Scott Greenfield embroils himself in an apocalyptic scenario where President Trump decides to break the law, defy the courts, and impose his will on the nation. Greenfield writes in part,

What mechanism exists to prevent a president from simply doing whatever he pleases? I gave the short list of how this works on the twitters.

There are three primary checks on presidential power:

1. Virtue
2. The military’s refusal to support unlawful action
3. Revolution

Some replied that this was wrong, ignoring the constitutional separation of powers, court rulings, Congress’ laws, even elections and impeachment. They missed the point. Honoring all the guardrails built into the system falls within the first check, virtue. It only matters if the president respects the law and the Constitution. Andrew Jackson realized this when he mumbled, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” What if the president just says “no”?

What is Congress or the Supreme Court going to do if the President tells them to kiss his executive butt? Congress may have the spending authority, but it’s the Treasury that holds the cash and writes the checks. The Supreme Court may have the authority to hold an action unconstitutional, but the military serves under the Commander in Chief.

If the president abides by the limitations of law or constitutional authority, as has generally been the case up to now despite the occasional overstep, then the mechanics of our society work. But what if he doesn’t?

Continue reading →

New York Magazine Is Caught Manufacturing Fake Evidence Of “White Supremacy”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Once upon a time, the news media would get away with this kind of blatant dishonesty.

The story itself that New York Magazine used this deceptively cropped photo to introduce (The Cruel Kids Table: Out late with the young right as they cultivate cultural domination”) states that “Almost everyone is white” after beginning the story by quoting a party attendee as observing, “Have you noticed the entire room is white?” Promoting the piece, the NY Mag X account wrote that the story was about “the young, gleeful, confident, and casually cruel Trumpers who, after conquering Washington, have their sights set on the rest of America.” This was a hit piece about a supposedly all-white conservative influencers Trump inauguration party, yet the party’s host was black Gen Z Republican strategist CJ Pearson. Others pointed out, like black conservative pundit and “influencer” Rob Smith, also a guest at the party, that there were many Hispanics, blacks and Asians there. He posted this photo…

Continue reading →

Abuse of Celebrity: Selena Dumb Gomez’s Virtue-Signaling

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

The video of former Disney star Selena Gomez weeping over the deportations of illegal immigrants who should be deported is a brilliant reminder that Hollywood makes you stupid. Gomez posted it on her Instagram which has 424 million followers and I want to kill myself.

Gomez is difficult to understand amid all the sobbing and histrionics, but here’s the text: “I just want to say I am so sorry… all my people are getting attacked [by Trump’s deportations]. The children. I’m so sorry, I wish I could do something, but I can’t, I don’t know what to do. I’ll try everything, I promise.”

To state the obvious, being subject to law enforcement isn’t being “attacked.” It is breathtakingly obnoxious for Gomez to call illegal immigrants “her people”—she’s an American citizen, and we are her people. Of course she plays the always popular “Think of the children!” card. And the hubris necessary for a B-list celebrity—she was okay in “The Dead Don’t Die”— to apologize for something she has no power over whatsoever, and to promise to “try everything” to stop it when there is nothing she can do is especially staggering.

“Entertainment Tonight” isn’t much better, saying in that clip that the deportation policy mostly “targets Latinos.” No, you hacks, it entirely targets illegal immigrants.

You can say this weepy virtue-signaling is harmless, but the fact that an ignorant woman like Gomez has over 400 million followers means that a political, cultural and ethics dunce can influence a dangerous number of people, making them stupid, fearful, and bad citizens. It has always been thus that our most talented artists (not that Selena is one of those) usually lack intellectual and critical thinking abilities on par with their performing abilities. They also tend to be emotionally frozen somewhere between the 6th and 11th grade. There are exceptions, of course, but social media has given these Dunning-Kruger victims a way to spread their juvenile politics and poor civics literacy far and wide, usually infecting the young most of all, and most damaging of all.

Maybe I’ll make a video of myself weeping over this…

Pundit Malpractice, Part II: A Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Masterpiece From “The Hill”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

This is truly a “Hold my beer!” moment to savor from “The Hill.” David Brooks’ fake history lesson, draped in his usual smarty-pants rhetoric, was unforgivable, but The Hill’s opinion piece with the click-bait title, “Blue Alert: Why Democrats are poised to win in 2028 and 2032” is so silly, lazy and idiotic that even Brooks gets leave to make fun of it.

Authored by GOP operatives Gary D. Alexander and Rick Cunningham, the thing makes it crystal clear how the Republican Party got the moniker “The Stupid Party” if it pays for advice from people capable of writing such junk. To state the obvious, Democrats aren’t “poised” to do anything at this point. The party has no leader; its President just exited the White House with one of the worst six months in Presidential annals; its Senators made asses of themselves in the hearings on Trump’s nominees so far, and its House members have declared themselves fans of biological men spiking volleyballs that crush women’s faces and illegal aliens who rape and kill. Its DEI Presidential candidate ran an embarrassing campaign while the party’s platform became “Abort more babies” and “Having a rally in Madison Square Garden proves Trump is Hitler.” Poised? Poisoned is more like it.

The article flags itself as bonkers by the third sentence, asserting that Democrats were already in an advantageous position to win in 2032. That’s eight years from now: I’m going to forgo the amusing but needless exercise of pointing out how unpredictable American political fortunes have been even two years in the future for most of our history. In eight years, the little fifth grade girl next door will be on the pill and registered to vote. Ah, but these two swamis write that their entrails readings “are deeply rooted in history and strategic realities.” You know, like Brooks’ one-term Presidents proving that populism doesn’t work.

Let’s examine these “realities”:

Continue reading →

Pundit Malpractice, Part I: David Brooks, Making The Public More Ignorant About History Than They Already Are

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

What excuse does David Brooks have for publishing manifestly false Presidential history as part of the usual New York Times anti-Trump propaganda? None that I can see. He styles himself as a thoughtful public intellectual. He majored in history at Columbia. Okay, he is Canadian but he lives here and is presented by the New York Times as an authority.

I have to presume that if he writes a column with flat-out false information about U.S. political history, he is misleading the public intentionally or, just as unethically, he didn’t check his facts. Of course the New York Times editors don’t hold him to being factual, responsible or ethical. They let Charles M. Blow, Michelle Goldberg and their other biased hacks get away with worse most days. But I expect them to lie. I expect Brooks to be wrong, but at least to get his facts right.

Nope.

In the obnoxiously headlined “How Trump Will Fail,” Brooks tells us that “Trump has gone all 19th century on us. He seems to find in this period everything he likes: tariffs, Manifest Destiny, seizing land from weaker nations, mercantilism, railroads, manufacturing and populism.” At least he hasn’t embraced the version of America pushed by the Biden Administration: open borders, government censorship, racial discrimination, political prosecutions, puppet Presidencies and government cover-up journalism. The main thrust of Brooks’ analysis is that “populism” doesn’t work and has never worked in the U.S.. Brooks’ sneer at the American values of individualism, personal responsibility, exploration, confidence, exceptionalism and capitalism is palpable.

Continue reading →

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: Leadership vs. Bureaucracy

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Here is an example of what is being discussed, from January 15:

A poll that I saw this morning (and that had mysteriously vanished when I looked for it just now) found that 43% of Los Angeles citizens would consider looking to the Republican Party for future leadership. That was considered significant in a city with only 18% of its residents identifying themselves as Republicans. I thought the amazing finding in the poll was that 48% still say they would only vote for more Democrats.

Post 2024 Election Freakout Update, Fashion Ethics Division: How Hateful Are The Trump-Haters? THIS Hateful…

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Believe it or not, the social media Trump Hate mob was offended by that photo and others of Ivanka Trump wearing the dress at President Trump’s Inaugural Ball. Why, you well may ask, especially if you are of sound mind and under the age of 80? This is why…

Yes, Ivanka had the audacity to wear a recreation of one of the dresses Audrey Hepburn wore in “Sabrina,” a 1954 film with William Holden (above) and Humphrey Bogart. That film is so old that it had a remake, and the actor who played Bogart’s part is in his 80s, Harrison Ford. My late wife Grace loved Audrey Hepburn, and though I re-watched that film with her just about a year ago, I wouldn’t have picked up on the dress homage. But nothing is too petty and bonkers to attack a Trump over.

“She [Audrey] is the complete opposite of Ivanka’s silver spoon life,” read the comment of one lunatic. Typical ignoramus: Hepburn was raised in a wealthy family among the Dutch aristocracy; her mother was a baroness, her father a wealthy oil executive. But facts don’t matter to these nutcases.

Continue reading →

Two Incompetent Elected Officials of the Month: Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) and Tennessee Rep. Andy Ogles (R)

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I may start pairing this category from now on. These two recent examples of elected officials who would be working at Pizza Hut if they were subject to the Ethics Alarms “Stupidity Rule” are, sadly, not as unusual as they should be.

The mention of the Stupidity Rule reminds me: over on my Trump Deranged Facebook feed, an otherwise sharp and perceptive FBF posted a scathing reaction to the Trump administration’s announcement directing that government employees who witness efforts by their supervisors or other staff to defy executive orders must report the violations. This proves Trump is a Nazi, you know. I had to wrestle my fingers to the floor to resist posting that all the new administration is doing is reiterating a law of long-standing: government employees must report illegal conduct, and Executive Orders have the force of law. Ignorance makes it so much easier to be Trump Deranged…

But I digress. Let’s look now at the incompetent elected Republican, a dolt in the House I was happily unaware of until now. Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, making a strong bid to land on the Ethics Alarms list of the worst members of Congress before the 2026 elections, introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution, repealing the 22nd Amendment, to allow President Donald Trump and other future Presidents to serve a third term. Trump, of course, is the reason for this irresponsible and DOA proposal.

Trump “has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal,” said Ogles. “It is imperative that we provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration. He is dedicated to restoring the republic and saving our country, and we, as legislators and as states, must do everything in our power to support him.”

Well, I’ve never said that there weren’t members of Congress who would support a dictatorship.

Trump is 78: getting him through the next four years without seeing him keel over or start speaking in tongues like our previous President is going to take some luck as it is. Ogles wants a two-term President who will be 86 by the end of his tenure. President George Washington was brilliantly prescient to set the precedent (aka “democratic norm”)by serving only two terms, while Franklin Roosevelt, who decided that the war gave him leave to keep getting elected President even though he was failing intellectually and physically, was dangerously wrong. The U.S. learned that lesson, and Ogles wants to unlearn it.

I have a better idea: let’s limit Ogles to two terms (he’s in his second).

Moron.

Continue reading →