“bias makes you stupid”

Imagine: You and I Have Friends Who Think This Bernie Sanders Quote Is Profound…

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

…rather than unethical and idiotic. Some of these people even supported the old fool for President.

If fact, democracy dies in fatuous logic like that quote. Jeff Bezos has no more obligation to keep the Washington Post operating than I do. It’s a money losing operation that has squandered its reputation and good will by ceasing to trading objective journalism for leftist propaganda. At least Jeff’s $500 mil. yacht and his wife’s $5 million ring were worth what he paid for them. Bernie’s statement is like saying “If Bezos can afford expensive yachts and rings, then he should build bonfires with $100 bills.” Or “If Y spends money on A because he wants A, then he should waste money on X because I like X.” Brilliant, Bernie. But typical.

Without Bezos or some other billionaire with discretionary funds, there would be no Washington Post at all. Economics, however, has never been Bernie’s long suit, being the fan of Karl Marx that he is. There are few cognitive voids in Woke World more annoying that the “It’s wrong for people to spend money on what they want and care about because they should spend their money on what I want and care about.” The corollary to that is “Therefore, I should have control of those people’s money.”

In related news, climatologist Bjorn Lomborg has calculated that worldwide, governments have spent a staggering $16 trillion at least on climate change policies that have not succeeded in lowering the world’s temperature one bit. Meanwhile, not a single life has been saved. Limiting access to fossil fuels has made poor countries poorer by blocking their access to affordable energy. To be fair, many hustlers and companies have profited from this extravagant exercise in virtue-signalling. Why doesn’t Bernie focus on all those wasted taxpayer dollars? As Stephen Moore writes,

What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off? What if the $16 trillion had been spent on clean water for poor countries? Preventing avoidable deaths from diseases like malaria? Building schools in African villages to end illiteracy? Bringing reliable and affordable electric power to the more than 1 billion people who still lack access? Curing cancer?Many millions of lives could have been saved. We could have lifted millions more out of poverty. The benefits of speeding up the race for the cure for cancer could have added tens of millions of additional years of life at an economic value in the tens of trillions of dollars. Instead, we effectively poured $16 trillion down the drain.

And…and…we could have saved democracy by keeping the Washington Post staff at full strength!

Verdict: Moore is correct. Well except that instead of “we effectively poured $16 trillion down the drain, he should have written we ineffectively poured $16 trillion down the drain.

Two “Opinions”…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

A dumb or obviously biased opinion column in what passes today for our journalism platforms arguably isn’t strictly “unethical.” It does, however, demonstrate incompetence, contempt for the public, or in many cases indolence, as in “Hey Marge! We need something to fill that space on the Op-ed page!” “Oh hell, let’s publish that thing about reparations. It will be good for a few Letters to the Editor.” “Okay! You got it!”

And so we get junk like “Illinois city’s reparations plan is misguided, divisive and likely unconstitutional” on the Fox News website. To begin with the obvious, this is old news. I wrote about Evanston, Illinois’s City Council’s bat-house crazy plan back in June, and the city has been obsessed with this since the it agreed in 2019 to use tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales to generate a reparations fund.

“This year, Evanston, Illinois, will send $25,000 payments to 44 Black residents and descendants of Black residents who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969,” writes Erec Smith, a research fellow at the Cato Institute and a former associate professor of rhetoric at York College of Pennsylvania. Oh! He must be an expert, then! How come he can’t spell “Eric”?

Erec continues,

“At its core, the Evanston program is race-specific, providing benefits solely to Black residents who meet narrow historical criteria. This raises an obvious legal question: Can the government dole out money based on race? Critics have already flagged the program as constitutionally questionable under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Beyond legality, there is a broader question about fairness. The program compensates some individuals while excluding others who may face equal or even greater financial need. Wealthier Black residents in Evanston receive the same payments as those struggling economically, while low-income residents of other races receive nothing. Isn’t a poor White person more in need of that money?”

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Villains: Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D), Gov. J.B. Prizker and Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments
New Juliana Stratton Ad “Fuck Trump, Vote Juliana”
byu/GeckoLogic inillinois

Stay classy, Juliana, Tammy, Governor, Illinois, Democrats.

There is no excuse for this.

Stratton is seeking retiring Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) seat, with the state’s primary taking place on March 7. This is impressive in one respect: she is actually giving voters a chance to replace the objectively awful Durbin with someone even worse. the At least Polling averages from Decision Desk HQ show Stratton trailing behind Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) with 18.5 percent compared to Krishnamoorthi’s 30.5 percent. So I guess Stratton decided that the best way to make up ground is to energize the Trump Deranged vote and say “fuck.”

Right on cue, later last week there was another foiled assassination attempt on the President whom Democrats call racist, a dictator, Hitler and a fascist, all provocation for the weak of mind and ethics to view as justification to murder our nation’s leader. As a Fox News history-reading reporter noted, they want Donald Trump assassinated just like Benjamin Harrison.

Since anyone likely to be persuaded—or even entertained—by this bottom of the unflushed toilet bowl political offal, it’s unlikely that any of them will be bothered by the candidate lying to their faces in the ad, smirkingly saying. “They said it, I didn’t!” That’s deceit, and deceit is lying. This miserable excuse for a public servant is openly lying in her campaign ad, and thinks it’s funny.

I’m so old I remember when the Democratic Party and its zombie media accused Sarah Palin of causing Rep. Giffords to be shot because Palin put her face in cross-hairs on a campaign map to indicate that the Arizona Democrat could be defeated. In addition to their other anti-virtues, Democrats are hypocrites on a level previously unapproached by mortal man or woman. As in 2024, they deserve to lose in the mid-terms, and if Republicans can’t accomplish that against such a vile, destructive, divisive and ugly party, they should just give up and start pottery barns or something. Maryland. Oregon. California. Minnesota. Illinois.

Not just unethical.

Not just irresponsible.

Disgusting.

Obesrvations on Gavin Newsom’s Unethical Quote of the Week

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Listen above to Newsom, the incompetent governor of California, as he engagingly insults a roomful of African Americans. Promoting his Presidential campaign-launching memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” Newsom was asked about his dyslexia and his personal experiences that voters could relate to (the old “he understands people like me” trope that Bill Clinton exploited so well). He responded by describing his struggles with dyslexia and somehow managed to sound like he regarded his low SAT scores as a badge of honor, telling the almost all black audience: “I’m like you. I’m no better than you.”

Already there are many discussions of this—what was it? A gaffe? A canny bit of self-deprecation? Smoking gun patronizing?—on the web and social media. To me, and I admit I’m mired in confirmation bias when I look at anything Newsom does through the lens of his frightening EA dossier—I mean, just look at that mess!— I classify the remark as pure res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself. Newsom blundered into expressing the attitude progressives and Democrats have had toward American blacks for decades. They believe that it is a voting bloc that is easily fooled and exploited, and, as a group, gullible and not too swift on the uptake. That’s Newsom, and that’s the Democratic Party that he wants to lead.

Pages: 1 2

Updates On “The Great Stupid”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Let’s start our review of just how dumb our population, society and culture have become since The Great Stupid spread its dark wings over the land with the book covers above. The book, current on sale and display at Barnes and Noble among other stores, is called “Mona’s Eyes,” referring to the “Mona Lisa,” perhaps the best known and most famous painting of all, by Leonardo Da Vinci. But the publisher allowed the eyes being used on the cover jacket to be those of a completely different woman in a different painting by another famous painter. Those eyes belong to “The Girl With A Pearl Earring, by Vermeer.

Morons.

There is a silver lining here, however. In mocking that cover, “Instapundit’s” Ed Driscoll quoted a minor Ethics Alarms post from 2023 on a book about Pearl Harbor with a cover graphic showing German planes attacking our navy on December 7, 1941. I clicked on the link and was amazed to find myself reading my own post, which I had completely forgotten about. In the resulting phenomenon known as an Insta-lanch (this is EA’s third), that post got over 3,600 views (and counting) after only being read about 500 times in three years.

Meanwhile:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Quote of the Day, (Also Stupid): Theater Critic Nuveen Kumar

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

“But I don’t think it’s necessarily antiwoke to tell an all-white story or to relegate nonwhite characters to the margins, if that’s where they fit the creative intentions.”

—Former Washington Post theater critic Naveen Kumar in the paper’s “Whitewashing ‘Wuthering Heights.'”

Oh, well that’s really big of the critic, don’t you think? How generous of him! He is willing to concede that a director might still be regarded as a good person if he or she doesn’t cast actors “of color” (you know, like the critic) to play characters written as white, visualized by the playwright as white, in a story obviously about white people!

Yes, this fatuous, offensive statement came late in an essay that was already obnoxious, with the biased and reductive headline, “Whitewashing ‘Wuthering Heights’.” [Gift link!] The Post post was defending, sort-of -but- not-really, Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” film, in which Heathcliffe, Emily Bronte’s hormonal romantic anti-hero, is played…

…by a white actor. Never mind that previous film adaptations have cast Heathcliff as white, notably the classic starring Lawrence Olivier in the role, probably because he was the best actor alive at the time.

Yes, it is true that the ethnicity of Heathcliff has always been a matter of debate: with Bronte describing him as “dark-skinned,” a “gypsy,” and a “little Lascar,” a term for South Asian sailors. The idea is that he is an outsider and at the bottom of the social ladder; that certainly would justify casting a black, Indian or other non-white actor, but certainly doesn’t mean he has to be played that way. (I would not think that casting Heathcliff as Swedish would work, but you never know: I could see one of the Skarsgaard boys pulling it off.)

Pages: 1 2

Will the Supreme Court Get An Apology From The Axis And The Trump Deranged? Nah. Of Course Not.

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Remember former Perkins Coie lawyer Bradley Datt, the ex-Perkins Coie litigator whose post-Charlie Kirk assassination Facebook Facebook entry began, “Charlie Kirk got famous as one of America’s leading spreaders of hatred, misinformation and intolerance.The current political moment—where an extremist Supreme Court and feckless Republican Congress are enabling a Republican president to become a tyrant…”? The firm correctly fired the jerk, but such worthies as Unethical Website “Above the Law” and a lot of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends endorsed his “extremist Supreme Court” and “tyrant” analysis.

The U.S. Supreme Court just confirmed a major constitutional limitation on presidential power by striking down the sweeping tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed in a series of executive orders. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the President by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.

The opinion is here; analysis is everywhere, but what I care about right now is that when the centerpiece of the President’s economic program and foreign trade policy was before the Supreme Court, the alleged “radical” Justices did not rubber stamp it and did not “bend a knee,” but rather, as they are sworn to do, followed the law and the Constitution and ruled that President Trump had exceeded his powers. Three of the supposedly “radical” justices (if you’re not willing to distort the law in the direction the Axis favors, you’re radical), Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett, joined with the three lock-step progressive DEI Justices (a black woman, a lesbian, and the “Wise Latina”). They are the ones who apparently make up their hive mind on cases before they even read the briefs based on what Democrats want, to foil the Republican POTUS. Fortunately, the other six Justices have some integrity

Because, you see, Trump isn’t a “king,” and the system works, just as the balance of power among the branches of government is supposed to.

No, Washington Post Editors, THIS Is What Stephen Colbert’s Spat With CBS Is REALLY About…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

….and you all know it as well as I do.

Proving that the Washington Post wasn’t recently gutted by its Gazillionaire owner Jeff Bezos to make it more fair and objective but just to try to save money while keeping it dishonest and partisan, the paper’s Editorial Board published a disingenuous, politically motivated and deliberately misleading editorial [gift link!]explaining that the Trump Administration’ resuscitation of the long dormant—but still on the books—FCC “Equal Time” rule is simply a pretense for using the regulation for political censorship. You see, as the Post editors “explain,” the rule is no longer needed! here is how they frame the current controversy:

“Passed by Congress as a part of the 1934 Communications Act, the equal-time rule says that if a broadcast station features a candidate for public office, it “shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The FCC is charged with enforcing it. On Monday, Colbert said that CBS prohibited him from airing an interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico (D). He claimed the network’s lawyers were worried about clashing with the FCC.

“CBS told a different story. It said Colbert wasn’t prohibited from airing the interview, but rather warned that it might “trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett.” Talarico, a state representative, and Crockett are the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in the 2026 Texas Senate race. The network claimed it presented Colbert with “options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.”

“On Tuesday night, Colbert rebuked the network again, but the finger-pointing misses the point of how a zombie regulation created this mess in the first place.

“The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.

“Since the advent of cable news and the internet, the possibilities for transmitting information and entertainment have exploded. Colbert’s Talarico interview, for example, was posted on YouTube, where it already has more than 6 million views — far more than it probably would have received if not for this controversy. Politicians can compete for attention without government help….”

The Post’s subterfuge would be a legitimate argument except for the democracy-rotting condition that the paper is ignoring because it is part of it. That condition is the near total ideological monopoly of the entertainment industry, giving the Left—again, the Post and its pals—access to the controls of the powerful propaganda and indoctrination weapon television still is.

Pages: 1 2

Someone Is Actually Allowed On TV Who Vomits Junk Like This As “Commentary”…Wow.

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

True, the junk salesman is Lawrence O’Donnell, who is not only Trump Deranged but a serial killer of facts, fairness, objectivity and responsible news coverage who been running amuck on MSNBC, aka. MSNOW, for decades. But even partisan propagandists masquerading as journalists should have some standards enforced on them by their bosses, shouldn’t they? How can the network justify keeping someone employed who offers audiences junk like O’Donnell’s rant yesterday over Stephen Colbert being told by CBS that he had to abide by the FCC’s “Equal Time” regulations?

Here’s O’Donnell, ranting…I think I’ll intersperse my comments in red this time:

Pages: 1 2

On the Colbert “Equal Time” Nonsense…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Gee, what a surprise. Democrats don’t like the Federal Communications Commission “Equal Time” rule applying to non-news shows when hey try to influence elections.

The Communications Act of 1934, once aimed at radio, now mostly applied to television, includes a provision regarding coverage of political candidates. If a station gives airtime to one candidate, then the same station must offer comparable time to other candidates competing in an approaching primary or election.  Regarding campaign ads, a station selling airtime to one candidate also has to offer to sell the same amount of time to other candidates for the same office. Exceptions to this rule include newscasts, “bona fide” interview programs, and coverage of live events or documentaries. Candidates appearing in non-news, entertainment programming near to elections now trigger the provision.

As they should.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert, on the way out already from his all-Democratic-cheer-leading-all-the-time show, attacked his own network this week after he was stopped from airing an interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D), a U.S. Senate candidate, because of the FCC ’s equal-time rule.

“You know who is not one of my guests tonight?” Colbert asked his audience. “That’s Texas state representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.” On cue, his partisan studio audience booed.

“Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on,” Colbert continued. “And because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”

Boy, isn’t he funny? My sides ache from laughing! No wonder Colbert is regarded as a comic genius. Admit it, the guy is hilarious.

Pages: 1 2