Apparently the lessons of the past election are not sinking in for many as quickly as some thought.
Since the election, it has been confirmed that the Harris campaign paid Oprah Winfrey’s production company Harpo a million dollars for the elaborate event including Winfrey’s fawning interview of Harris on stage, and that it paid Al Sharpton’s National Action Network a half-million dollars before Sharpton did his Harrs interview. This is unethical. It is cheating. To the extent that the interviews were journalism ( Winfrey used to be a journalist and is still accorded the credibility and status of one, Sharpton pretends to be a journalist rather than what he is, a race-hustler, on MNBC) accepting such payments create a conflict of interest and a breach of journalism ethics. Even if they are not technically unethical journalism, the lack of transparency is.
Oh, I get it. Trump ran through six Defense Secretaries in four years (a record) and had an adversary relationship with the Pentagon. As with so many other Departments, entrenched resistance to Trump’s leadership flourishes there, and there are cultural issues as well.
The sort-of new President has learned a hard lesson, and wants a loyal outsider to tackle the Defense Department. Harry Truman once described the department as a feather bed where you punched a problem in one part of the bed and another problem would pop right up.
DOD is huge, a labyrinth of interlocking bureaucracies, and managing it requires superb leadership skills, diplomacy, organization and more. There is no reason to believe that Pete Hegseth possesses any of these.
Odd. One would think that the editor of a (once) respected science magazine would not resort demonology to explain her own conduct. Indeed, one would think that such conduct would disqualify said editor from continuing in her position.
Laura Helmuth, a woke activist who has destroyed the credibility of Scientific American by politicizing its content, went bonkers after Trump defeated Kamala Harris and tweeted,
How professional! How trustworthy! How scientific! Who wouldn’t trust the analysis of a science magazine edited by someone who makes such declarations in public?
When we last left American University Allen Lichtman, he was smarting from his obviously incompetent and biased prediction that Kamala Harris would defeat Donald Trump proving to be spectacularly wrong. On Wednesday after Election Day, Lichtman told USA TODAY, “Right now after a very long night I am taking some time off to assess why I was wrong and what the future holds for America.” That was enough for me to enshrine him in the “Bias Makes You Stupid” Hall of Fame.
So Lichtman thought and he thought, and he reviewed his over-hyped formula that had delivered 9 out of 10 correct predictions in races that anyone could have predicted with no formula at all (Lichtman’s: go with who looks like the obvious winner, and when in doubt, pick the Democrat), and he applied his training and skills as a an American Presidential historian, and guess what he figured out! No, really, guess. I’ll give you time to think…
Ready?
On his YouTube channel, Lichtman that voters were not “rational” or “pragmatic,” succumbed to “disinformation” and Trump’s promotion of “xenophobia,” “misogyny” and “racism”!
Gee, the Ladies of “The View” came up with that, and they’re all biased, Trump Deranged morons. The voters were stupid, the brilliant Democratic message was muted by social media lies, and half of all Americans wouldn’t vote for a black woman as President because of bigotry.
I think the professor should have “assessed” a teeny bit longer. But it probably wouldn’t have done any good.
“I think two things this year, and maybe going forward, broke this premise of a rational, pragmatic electorate, and these are trends that are not new but have exploded this year beyond anything we’ve ever seen before. First is disinformation,” this clown said. “Always had disinformation, but we’ve never had anything remotely on this scale, where billionaires — I don’t know how much Elon Musk is worth, I’m sure more than a hundred billion dollars — who control critical sources of information for the electorate. I mean, Elon Musk owns X, and I’ve seen reports that his disinformation that he’s put out, has been viewed by two billion viewers, vastly more influential than New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS… the incredible explosion of disinformation…makes it very difficult for a rational, pragmatic electorate to operate.”
“Then add to that that we’ve seen Trump and his allies exploit, far more than ever before — even 2016 and 2020 — trends that run deep into American history and still resonate at this time: xenophobia, fear of foreign influences … We have never seen, in recent history, xenophobia to this level, and it digs deep into a trend in American history. It’s not something brand new, and it’s not just white people, you know?” Lichtman said. “People of all races and ethnicities can be subject to xenophobia. And finally, there’s racism, one of the deepest, most pervasive trends in American history. And we have seen, just as Trump and his allies have brought misogyny and xenophobia to a new level, he’s also brought blatant racism to a new level … So we see then the explosion of disinformation and these three dark trends from American history, and that calls into question the whole premise behind the keys of rationality and pragmatism.”
Wow. What a hack!
If I had a son at American, this would be sufficient to have me seek another school to send him to, because such a complete lack of perception, analysis and accountability shouldn’t be permitted on any faculty, in any department.
“Experts” like Lichtman will now validate the fact-free rationalizations of the current Trump-Derangement victims and Democratic Party leadership seeking ways to duck responsibility for running a terrible candidate (whom everyone paying attention knew would be a terrible candidate before she was “selected). He blames Elon Musk? Did Musk magically make Harris sound like an evasive, babbling phony who couldn’t function without a script or a teleprompter? That’s a neat trick! Isn’t part of a college education to learn the life skill of recognizing when you’ve screwed up and learn from the mistake? Clearly Lichtman won’t teach his students that.
Small wonder that Lichtmas thinks Harris was the “rational” choice for President: he’s almost as much of a phony as she is.
The hysterical, fearful diatribe below came from my Facebook feed. This is a friend. A very nice guy. I don’t have the energy or heart to fisk it; if you feel like making the effort, even if you just do part of it, go ahead. It won’t be hard.
I am very angry at the people, officials, celebrities and publications responsible for doing this to my friend. I’m sure he really believes everything he has written. He’s an innocent, caring, trusting soul who was a sitting duck for the diabolical propaganda the Axis marinated good people like him in for almost ten years for their own political agendas.
It can’t feel good believing you and your friends are at “mortal risk.” Deceiving people like my friend so they are terrified of the future is despicably cruel. Yes, my friend is an artist and artists are emotional and often politically unsophisticated and under-educated (and our civic education is terrible anyway.) It is not just artists though. I know lawyers who are expressing essentially the same fears.
Bad, cynical, ruthless and unethical people are responsible for all this crazy panic. Today, the execrable Karine Jean-Pierre was pressed on this point by a Fox News reporter: If Biden was telling the truth about how a Trump administration would create an existential danger to the republic, that if he was elected “rights would be stripped away” and “democracy would crumble,” why did the President say in his remarks today that everything is going to be okay?
Karine, who would have a hard time answering a question about what her favorite color is, gave a rambling non-answer, then complained that the question was unfair, and left the room in a huff. But we know the answer, don’t we? Biden and the Democrats always knew all of that Hitler fearmongering and the “last election ever” warnings were pure nonsense, but they thought it might win the election. If trusting souls like my friend were reduced to permanent anxiety, eh, well, so what? Collateral damage. The ends justifies the means. Screw ’em.
Does this outrageous story of contrived race-baiting on Broadway relate to tomorrow’s election? Sure it does. I’ll explain after you finish gagging following the facts of the incident.
Kecia Lewis is a talented black Broadway actress. She won a Tony for her performance in “Hell’s Kitchen,” a 2024 jukebox musical (that means the show has no original music and uses previous pop hits to try to tell a story). The show, about the life and career of Alicia Keys, shares a wall with another Broadway theater and creates a problem that actors, directors and producers have complained about for decades: the amplified sound in “Hell’s Kitchen” can be heard by the audience of the show next door. (You know when you’re in a multi-screen “cineplex” watching an intimate drama and the movie showing in the next theater is “Pearl Harbor”? It’s like that.)
The show next door to “Hell’s Kitchen” is “The Roommate,” a quiet, two-actor drama starring Mia Farrow and Broadway legend Patti LuPone of “Evita” fame. LuPone sent a polite note to the “Hell’s Kitchen” producers asking them to turn down the volume at two points in the sound design that were loud enough to interfere with her show. They did. LuPone, in gratitude, sent a thank-you note to the producers and flowers to the stage management and sound staff.
In a normal world, that would be the end of it. I’m certain this exact scenario has played out many times over the years as simple professional courtesy and consideration. Ethics!
But no. Kecia Lewis decided to be offended. She posted a video on Instagram reprimanding LuPone for engaging in “microagressions.” She complained,
“After our sound design was adjusted, [you] sent flowers to our sound and stage management team thanking them”… “I want to explain what a microaggression is – These are subtle, unintentional comments or actions that convey stereotypes, biases or negative assumptions about someone based on their race. Microaggressions can seem harmless or minor, but can accumulate and cause significant stress or discomfort for the recipient. Examples include calling a Black show loud in a way that dismisses it. In our industry, language holds power and shapes perception, often in ways that we may not immediately realize. Referring to a predominantly Black Broadway show as loud can unintentionally reinforce harmful stereotypes, and it also feels dismissive of the artistry and the voices that are being celebrated on stage. Comments like these can be seen as racial microaggressions, which have a real impact on both artists and audiences. While gestures like sending thank you flowers may appear courteous, it was dismissive and out of touch, especially following a formal complaint that you made that resulted in the changes that impacted our entire production, primarily the people who have to go out on stage and perform.”
Yes, she really says that. She does. I’m not making it up! This insufferable actress not only felt that was a reasonable response to a request, a thank-you, and flowers, but decided to issue her complaint publicly rather than having the guts to tell LuPone that she’s a racist to her face.
I don’t understand this storyat all. Of course, it would help a bit if the news media thought it was worthy covering. Instead the story gasps in the rarefied and suffocating atmosphere of a few conservative websites. I get it: this idiocy makes progressive extremism look bad. But then, it is bad.
Third-year Scalia School of Law students Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara (that’s the George Mason U. law school in Northern Virginia) have been sanctioned by the school in the following bizarre scenario. On September 27, 2024, a classmate solicited their opinions in a “Scalia Law ‘25” GroupMe chat regarding their support for his proposal that the student government put tampons in the men’s restrooms. (Yes, this again.) Cerankosky was critical of the proposal, arguing that “allow[ing] biological females into male restrooms to access period products as ‘trans men,’” would mean “female bathrooms will welcome male occupants.” She found that development unacceptable because female students might be “considerably uncomfortable if there are males using private women’s spaces on campus.” “Women have a right to feel safe in spaces where they disrobe,” she added. Arcara posted her agreement with that assessment.
The male classmate then ridiculed their concerns and called the two women anti-trans bigots. Two weeks later, on October 11, both Cerankosky and Arcara received “no-contact” orders from GMU’s Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion prohibiting them from having any contact with the male classmate, aka “Asshole,” who had complained to the administration alleging harassment. Neither of the women had ever spoken to the guy, other than to exchange messages in the chatroom.
If the administrators at the insanely expensive school (the parents of 1,700 students pay tuition for all grades of $65,540 a year) are not embarrassed by that headline, they should be. Morons.
The school told families this week that “students who feel too emotionally distressed” after the election can get excused from classes, and—I find this incredible—psychologists will be available during the week to provide counseling for the tender souls who have presumably been told by their teachers and parents that they will be sent off to work camps and their parents will be executed in Trump wins.
The message to parents “acknowledges that this may be a high-stakes and emotional time for our community. No matter the election outcome will create space to provide students with the support they may need.” Excused absences will be allowed on Wednesday or whatever day the election results are announced for those students who are unable to “fully engage in classes.”
Any student who doesn’t immediately recognize this as a “Get Out Of School Free” ticket is too dim-witted to be in school.
The National Mall is supposed to contain unifying and patriotic memorials and monuments and to be a place of pride for all Americans. It is certainly not a venue for partisan grandstanding and electioneering, or, at least wasn’t designed to be. Never mind, though: as part of the Biden Administration’s effort to try to snatch victory from the maw of the most utterly deserved defeats in American Presidential election history, the National Park Service provided a permit for an ugly, satirical, attack on Donald Trump and his supporters (they are garbage, after all) on the Mall, neatly timed to coincide with the last ditch “anything goes” assault on traditional election campaign civility and fairness because, well, “saving democracy” justifies anything.
The bronze sculpture features a pile of Dairy Queen-arranged shit on the desk of ex-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, complete with nameplate. The elegant plaque reads,
“This memorial honors the brave men and women who broke into the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 to loot, urinate and defecate throughout those hallowed halls in order to overturn an election. President Trump celebrates these heroes of January 6th as ‘unbelievable patriots’ and ‘warriors.’ This monument stands as a testament to their daring sacrifice and lasting legacy.”
The 2024 election is its own, massive ethics train wreck, as the tag will show you. It officially began with Democrats (and the news media, but I repeat myself) spending too long lying to the public about Joe Biden’s deteriorating mental state and deciding to select a Presidential nominee Soviet-style bypassing all democratic norms and processes. The party broke all previous campaign records for hypocrisy by taking this course while already making the dangerous claim that Republicans are the threats to democracy, and that Donald Trump as President would never allow another free election again. Amazingly, the campaign has gone downhill ethically since that point.
But I did not foresee that a Don Rickles-style “roast comic’s” jab at an ongoing news story would or could, even in the Age of the Great Stupid, turn into a controversy dominating headlines when the election is so near and serious matters should be the public’s focus.
I’ll summarize the events as efficiently as possible to get to the main point:
Ethics Alarms 