“bias makes you stupid”

Remembering the Alamo, Davy Crockett, and the Butterfly Effect

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The Alamo fell just before dawn 190 years ago today. An estimated 220 men died in the furious attack by would-be Mexican emperor Santa Ana’s army of 5,000: once it breached the walls of the fortified mission, a massacrec commenced that was over in 20 minutes.. The defenders had come from many states, territories and nations, and eventually they knew they were going to die if they stayed. Only one of them, Lewis Rose—maybe—decided to leave. Even the messengers sent out by William Barrett Travis to seek rescuing troops returned to the Alamo knowing hope was lost, and they they would be killed. After 13 days, during which the Alamo was pounded by cannon fire, forcing the men to spend the night making repairs, the battle was over. But those 13 days gave Texas General Sam Houston time to raise the army that would defeat of Santa Ana at the Battle of San Jacinto.

Ethics Alarms has posted ethics essays about the Alamo almost every year since the blog began. It is my favorite U.S. historical story, mixing drama, legend, ethics lessons and fascinating personalities, notably Jim Bowie, Travis, and, of course, Davy Crockett. Here is my first post about Davy, from March of 2010, posted to mark the passing of Disney legend Fess Parker, whose portrayal of the frontiersman on TV brought Crockett out of the historical shadows.

Crockett was the most important casualty of the battle, because at the time of his death he was the first modern celebrity, famous in part for being famous, celebrated by dime novels and sensational, and fictional, stage plays. His death focused public attention on Texas as nothing else could. Actress-singer Zendaya is the most popular celebrity in the U.S. today: imagine what the public reaction would have been if an Iran-backed terrorist attack had eliminated her. (Try to imagine it without reflecting on the relative values of a nation whose top celebrity is Zendaya as compared to a nation whose children idolize “The King of the Wild Frontier”). In that 2010 post I wrote in part,

“Like another iconic figure who once portrayed him, John Wayne, what Davy Crockett symbolizes in American culture matters more than his real life story. He built a reputation for being the perfect example of the rugged American individualist, standing tall for basic values, especially honesty and courage, while keeping a sense of humor and an appetite for fun.  In his doubtlessly ghost-written 1834 hagiography, “Narrative of the life of Colonel Crockett,” Crockett stated his credo as

“I leave this rule for others when I’m dead: Be always sure you’re right–then go ahead.”

It is as good an exhortation to live by the ethical virtues of integrity, accountability and courage as there is, and it gained great credibility when Crockett remained in the Alamo to die defending a nascent Texas republic, in complete harmony with his stated ideals. Battling for right against overwhelming odds,remaining steadfast in the face of certain defeat, never complaining, never looking back once he had decided to “go ahead,” Crockett’s legend is a valuable and inspiring, if not always applicable, example for all of us when crisis looms. Nobody who ever saw the final fade-out of the Disney series’ final episode, with Fess Parker furiously swinging “old Betsy,” Crockett’s Tennessee long rifle, like a baseball bat at Santa Anna’s soldiers as they swarmed over the walls, ever forgot the image, or mistook what it meant. Davy knew he was going down, but he would fight the good fight to the end….”

They don’t teach the Alamo in schools any more except in Texas, and the woke historical revisionism of the battle casts it as a minor event and even a shameful one, since many of the Texas settlers Mexico invited to settle its Texas territory brought slaves with them. In our “1619 Project” World they were fighting for white supremacy against a brown army.

Pages: 1 2

Apparently A Majority Of Younger Americans Think The U.S. Invented Slavery. I’ll See You At The Wood-Chipper…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

A few days ago, I saw a chart showing what U.S. demographics believed that the United States invented slavery. I noted it for a future post, and now I can’t find it, but I found plenty of authority that supports that assertion. Coleman Hughes, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a fellow and contributing editor at their City Journal, has been making this point for years. Way back in 2016, The College Fix wrote in part,

For 11 years, Professor Duke Pesta gave quizzes to his students at the beginning of the school year to test their knowledge on basic facts about American history and Western culture.

The most surprising result from his 11-year experiment? Students’ overwhelming belief that slavery began in the United States and was almost exclusively an American phenomenon, he said.

“Most of my students could not tell me anything meaningful about slavery outside of America,” Pesta told The College Fix. “They are convinced that slavery was an American problem that more or less ended with the Civil War, and they are very fuzzy about the history of slavery prior to the Colonial era. Their entire education about slavery was confined to America.”…

The origin of these quizzes, which Pesta calls “cultural literacy markers,” was his increasing discomfort with gaps in his students’ foundational knowledge.

“They came to college without the basic rudiments of American history or Western culture and their reading level was pretty low,” Pesta told The Fix….

Often, more students connected Thomas Jefferson to slavery than could identify him as president, according to Pesta. On one quiz, 29 out of 32 students responding knew that Jefferson owned slaves, but only three out of the 32 correctly identified him as president. Interestingly, more students— six of 32—actually believed Ben Franklin had been president.

Pesta said he believes these students were given an overwhelmingly negative view of American history in high school, perpetuated by scholars such as Howard Zinn in “A People’s History of the United States,” a frequently assigned textbook.

Pages: 1 2

Good News, Progressives, Democrats and Trump Deranged! The Washington Post Is Still Biased, Dishonest and Untrustworthy…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

“Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

What a joke.

A lot of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends flipped out in fury after owner Jeff Bezos fired much of the Washington Post staff, including many unethical, lying pundits and columnists. How dare Bezos interfere with his paper’s partisan propaganda just because it was losing money by the millions? Many of my mentally ill friends announced that they would boycott Amazon in vengeance.

I’m thrilled to be able to inform my miserable friends, relatives and colleagues that they now have a reason to buck up. The Post may be gutted, but whatever remains in the ruins is still dishonest, unethical, biased and as partisan as ever.

In a story three days ago headlined, “Outside White House, hundreds protest attack on Iran, urge end to conflict,” the Post highlighted a protest that broke out near the White House hours after “Epic Fury” began. The reports chose to explain the event though the eyes of Ermiya Fanaeian, “a 25-year-old PhD candidate in political science at Howard University” whom the Post introduced as a young woman who “has lived in the United States since she was 1, but still has family in her home country of Iran.”

As “word spread of attacks there by Israel and the U.S.,” Post reporters Jasmine Golden and Liam Scott wrote, Fanaeian “grew concerned about her relatives and other Iranians” and “decided to protest the military action.” “It hits close to home,” Fanaeian was quoted as saying. “I also know that the people in Iran are the ones who are going to experience the most, the biggest consequences from these attacks.”

Poor Ermiya! This is the news media playing the cognitive dissonance game. Let’s watch the President’s attack on an international villain and purveyor of terrorism that has been declaring “Death to America!” and planning death to Israel for decades, as filtered through the emotions of an innocent young female student worried about her family.

Pages: 1 2

Presenting The Little-Known Progeny of “Bias Makes You Stupid”: “Bias Makes You Direct Stupid Versions of ‘Inherit The Wind'”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

I’m sorry to return to the topic of theatrical casting ethics so soon after my last deep dive (here), but The Arena Stage’s new production of the Lawrence and Lee classic “Inherit the Wind” has opened in Washington D.C., where that company is revered beyond all others. It is a travesty, theatrically and historically, and especially directorally, since the director, Ryan Guzzo Purcell, has apparently done no research into the history behind the drama or, in the alternative, has decided that virtue signalling and DEI sensibilities are more important than fairness to the authors and an unquestioned American classic.

I suppose, he could be just plain nuts.

“This classic courtroom drama, inspired by the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial, explores profound themes of intellectual freedom, religious conviction, and scientific discovery. Witness the gripping narrative unfold in the nation’s capital,” the Arena says on its website. Right. That’s what the play is supposed to be about. It also is a fictionalized version of a famous historical event involving three famous and important American figures: Clarence Darrow, generally believed to be the greatest trial lawyer this nation ever produced (I know a little bit about him), William Jennings Bryan, the famous orator, statesman, and three-time loser as the Democratic nominee for President, and H.L. Mencken, the brilliant, acerbic, misanthropic writer who covered the trial for the Baltimore Sun. Lawrence and Lee, the playwrights, ethically decided that rather than falsely represent real historical figures whose words and characters they might need to manipulate for dramatic purpose, made it clear who their characters were based on and gave them suggestive but different names so there would be no confusing the fiction with fact. (I say “ethically” to contrast their conduct with the writers of “Death by Lightning”). Thus Darrow became “Henry Drummond,” Bryan became “Matthew Harrison Brady,” H.L became “E.K. Hornbeck” and Scopes became “Bertram Cates.” Nonetheless, the historical connection to the real figures is central to the show.

But not to the Arena Stage. The actor playing Bryan/Brady is made to resemble Colonel Sanders for some reason, in a Kentucky Fried Chicken goatee and a white plantation suit. Bryan was famously a Mid-Westerner, so this appearance is jarring, especially since the play has a long running bit about the court calling Bryan/Brady by the honorific title,”Colonel.” This choice is approximately as disorienting as casting a character based on Abe Lincoln with a jockey. Knowing that Brady is Bryan is important: a major speech by Brady’s wife laments the pain the character suffered from being defeated in three runs for the White House. Bryan is the only man since 1844 to run for the office three times. In the classic movie version of the play, Frederick March played Brady taking pains to evoke Bryan’s speaking style, his posture, expressions and body language. His performance was finger-lickin’ good.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: No Applause, No Applause, No Applause!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Hmmmm…

In Tacoma Park, one of the most woke and wonderful communities in already insufferably progressive Maryland, Mayor Talisha Searcy ordered the crowd at a recent city council meeting not to applaud the various statements made by citizens as the council sought comments on a study regarding the city’s rent stabilization laws.

“I just want to make sure I’m learning about how to facilitate civility within a community,” the mayor said as she ordered the audience to “refrain from cheering, booing, signs, all that good stuff” as well as applauding. Many in the crowd were not pleased. When a spectator shouted that prohibiting clapping is “undemocratic,” the mayor delivered the stunning theory that “clapping for some and not all is not democratic” and that “we have to allow for people to feel safe to say what they feel.”

Okay, she’s an idiot, an ethics dunce, an expired hippie, and the most obnoxious species of progressive squish. These are the kinds of people,who demand that nobody at a meeting ever condemn even the most brain-dead idea because it might hurt the feelings of the dim bulb who offered it. Searcy is the kind of person who loves the passive-aggressive “I hear you” that usually means, “but I’m going to forget you ever said anything so stupid.”

There is no defending her claim that “clapping for some and not all” is undemocratic. However, I am interested in whether it is ever ethical to ban positive reactions, politely expressed.

Pages: 1 2

Iran Attack Aftermath: Update

/ Jack Marshall / 38 Comments

1. You have to give Ann Althouse credit, as annoying as she often is. She lives in Madison, her blog readers once were predictably progressive, but she is relentlessly mocking the Axis’s inability to show the integrity and common sense to admit that President Trump finally taking action against Iran is praiseworthy.

  • Here, she favorably cites Philip Klein in “Donald Trump Wasn’t Bluffing on Iran” (National Review), and notes,
    “From the comments over there: “How Barack Obama must feel now, having tried sucking up to the Ayatollah, then bribing him (as did Biden later), and now finally realizing, after mocking Trump and denouncing Trump and lying about Trump, that the president who will be remembered as being truly consequential, is Trump. Sleep well, President Obama. Trump got him.”
  • Here, she quotes “Fear turns to joy as ordinary Iranians see off Ayatollah Khamenei/There was smoke and a sound. We looked up. Did they kill Khamenei, they asked”
  • Here, she reminds us that Trump-hater Sen. John McCain joked about bombing Iran nearly 20 years ago, wondering when we would “send them an airmail message. ” “Question answered: February 28, 2026,” she writes.
  • Here, she notes that Glenn Greenwald appeals to the authority of Charlie Kirk to condemn the attack, a cheap shot by Greenwald.
  • Here, she salutes (in her own, Ann-ish back-handed way), Sen. John Fetterman for being the only Democrat to openly support the President.
  • Here, she points out how absurd and dishonest the Trump Deranged voices are claiming Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Left’s Epstein files obsession. I would add that if you want a Trump Derangement test, making that argument is as clear a positive for the malady as one could find.
  • Here, she posts a TikTok video in which an Iranian schoolboy declares, “I Love Trump.”
  • Here, she mock comedian Mike Benz, who tweeted that Trump had started WWIII, and then withdrew the dumb comment saying that he didn’t mean that literally but only figuratively because he didn’t know how to describe “what this is.” Ann: If you “don’t know of a 280 character way of describing whatever this is,” there is always the option of saying nothing…”

Meanwhile, her few remaining knee-jerk progressives are largely silent, as are the progressives, troll and non-trolls alike, who frequent Ethics Alarms. I think that is cowardly.

2. Over at MSNOW, the talking heads that routinely attack capitalism are warning that the Iran conflict might adversely affect the stock market.

Pages: 1 2

The Axis, the Trump-Deranged and the Anti-American Americans Beclowning Themselves During the Iran Misson, 6:48 AM-6:48 PM, EST…

/ Jack Marshall / 32 Comments

Me: Not really. All that matters to these tiresome crazies is that President Trump is doing it, so it must be bad. That was a 6:48 AM post. The Axis only got worse, as the Left threw a tantrum over its failed ideology being exposed once again as the weak, foolish sham it is…

Me: Not soon enough. Carter allowed Iran to commit an act of war by kidnapping the U.S. Embassy personnel and holding them for ransom. For all these years, the Democratic Party has been the weenie party, making the world a more dangerous place. Now it is furious because the U.S. is finally using its power as it should have all along. There has to be “a big kid on the block,” or the world goes to Hell, and the Big Kid had better be the one nation that aspires to seek freedom and ethics.

Pages: 1 2

Addendum: In Addition To Being An “Incompetent Elected Official,” Rep. Boebert Is Also a Fick

/ Jack Marshall / 32 Comments

“Fick” is the Ethics Alarms term for a particularly repugnant variety of Ethics Villain, the kind that is not only unethical but who openly admits it and is proud of it as well.

Two days ago, I wrote about Boebert’s stunning violation of House rules by taking a snapshot during Hillary Clinton’s closed door testimony and sending it to a slimy social media “influencer” in “Incompetent, Unethical Elected Official of the Month Who Wasn’t Behaving Like An Ass At The SOTU: Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-Co)” As of now, the post hasn’t topped 50 views, which may be an Ethics Alarms record for disinterest. I don’t get it. Maybe this is an “echo chamber.”

On an ethics blog, the fact that any House member, regardless of party affiliation, is so unethical and unprofessional should not only incur interest but horror. An esteemed commenter explained on that post’s thread that the lack of interest was because stating that Boebert is disgrace is a “water is wet” analysis, in other words, a Julie Principle situation. Then why so much interest in members of the “Squad” acting like assholes during Trump’s SOTU address? Both displays were official misconduct that did harm to our institutions and the public trust. I’ll submit to the Julie Principle when, for example, Kamala Harris sounds like she’s speaking Erdu, because “fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly” and Kamala is an idiot. But Boebert drags all of us down with her antics. Attention should be paid. Americans should register their objections.

Well, let’s see if anyone cares about Boebert’s fick-y response to the criticism of her photo stunt. When asked by reporters as she left Hillary’s deposition in Chappaqua, New York about her leaking the photo, Boebert responded, “Why not?”

Oh, only because it’s against House rules, you scum.

Pages: 1 2

Incompetent Elected Official of the Week (If you don’t count all the others): Drunk Washington State Legislator Joe Fitzgibbon

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

This video brings back some bad memories as I head to the second anniversary of my wife’s sudden death. Grace battled alcoholism our whole marriage, and the careful, plodding, slightly slurred speech pattern you hear above from Rep. Fitzgibbon is exactly how she would speak when she was smashed and trying to hide it. Sober, she was quick-tongued and sparklingly articulate.

I feel sympathy for Fitzgibbon, but he has to resign, and so far doesn’t have the integrity to do it. Fortunately for him, he belongs to a side of the ideological spectrum that doesn’t believe in responsibility or accountability among their other ethical quirks.

Fitzgibbon, to his credit, at least issued an ethical apology for his disgraceful conduct, except for one teeny-tiny omission: there was no “therefore, today I tender my resignation as representative of the 34th District”:

Pages: 1 2

On The State of the Union Message

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I haven’t done this before and may never do it again, but I found conservative podcaster Vice Dao’s assessment of Trump’s State of the Union Addresses pretty much spot-on, so I’m posting a lengthy section from his podcast.

Was last night a tipping point, a moment that history will show suddenly made the previous victims of the Axis of Unethical Conduct’s Big Lies, propaganda and acceptance of Trump Derangement as a justifiable attitude toward the elected President of the United States of America slap their collective foreheads at last exclaiming, “Wait, what have I been thinking? The Democratic Party is nuts! How can anyone in their right mind support such anti-American crackpots?” Time will tell. As Dao says, Democrats and the Axis media seem to be whistling past the graveyard now, giving the agreed-upon line that ‘yeah, Trump pleased his racist base because that’s who was watching, but State of the Unions never have any lasting impact, and that means this one won’t.‘

They hope. I wouldn’t be so sure of that, and they probably aren’t so sure themselves. Sure, Trump loaded up his speech with his usual hyperbole, fudged statistics and claims that this or that was the best, the greatest, the most wonderful ever, giving the New York Times and the rest plenty of opportunity to “factcheck” the speech and call Trump a liar. (The Times really and truly published a “factcheck” of Trump’s speech before he made it, apparently oblivious to how biased and unfair that looked.) Nobody is going to remember any of the usual drivel, which is indeed standard SOTU blather. What they will remember, because unless Republicans are even more incompetent than I already think they are, the GOP won’t let anyone forget it, is the two anti-American “Squad” members, Representatives Omar (who has said that she cares about Somalians more than Americans) and Tlaib (who is a Palestinian, anti-Semitic mole) screaming at the President from the sidelines, wearing “Fuck ICE” pins. The public will remember that not one Democrat had the sense to avoid falling into Trump’s well-laid trap, refusing to stand when he asked for an impromptu vote on whether they agreed that the duty of the government was to protect citizens rather than illegal immigrants.

“One of the great things about the State of the Union,” he said, “is how it gives Americans the chance to see clearly what their representatives really believe. Tonight, I’m inviting every legislator to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

No Democrats among those who chose not to boycott the event—how unifying of them!–stood. The entire Republican contingent stood and cheered. “With one maneuver,” conceded the Times today, “Mr. Trump divided the room, asking viewers to see the two camps as he saw them: There were the Good Americans and there were those willing to jeopardize the country’s security.”

Pages: 1 2