Wikipedia says that “that “The Shawshank Redemption” (1994) is considered “one of the greatest films of all time.” OK. It’s a good movie. If “one of the greatest films of all time” means one of the best 250 movies, I can live with that. But let’s not get carried away. The Stephen King novella adaptation has been the #1 ranked movie on the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) for over two decades, which tells me that the people who frequent that site do so because they don’t know much about American cinema—you know, like Ann Althouse. A substacker I never heard of writes, “I know I’m thirty years late, but I finally watched The Shawshank Redemption. I laughed, I cried, I threw a metaphorical tomato (many, in fact) at the warden and his prison guards, I walloped and fist-bumped in joy at the end. It lived up to every bit of hype and, in my opinion, justified its place as the #1 ranked movie…” That’s nice. You need to get out more, and I officially don’t care what you think about anything else.
But she’s not alone. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an 89% approval rating from 146 critics, It has a score of 82 out of 100 on Metacritic based on 22 critics indicating “universal acclaim”.The American Film Institute ranked the film number 72 on its 2007 AFI’s 100 Years…100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) list, outranking “Pulp Fiction” released the same year. It was also number 23 on AFI’s 100 Years…100 Cheers (2006) list of “most inspiring films.” I think I could list 23 equally or more inspiring films in the sports category alone of the top of my head. The Writers Guild of America listed Frank Darabont’s screenplay at #22 on its list of the 101 greatest screenplays. In 2014, “The Shawshank Redemption” was named Hollywood’s fourth-favorite film, based on a survey of 2,120 Hollywood-based entertainment industry members.
Yes, that’s because the California wokies want to abolish prisons. I’d vote the movie only the second-best film adaptation of a Stephen King novella.
I just watched most of the movie again for the first time in many years. Even if I had been a member of “The Shawshank Redemption” cult, however, I couldn’t forgive the film this gaffe that I missed first time around: in a long panning shot as “Red” (Morgan Freeman) goes on in his soporific narration about how the inmates must have hobbies, there is a brief shot of a chess board, set up and ready for a game.
The board is set up wrong, with a black square on the right-hand corner. I have written about that careless, insulting mistake twice, first in 2022’s Chess Board Ethics: A Popeye. Quote:
🚨 THE VIEW HOST QUESTIONS PATRICK CLANCY FOR DIVORCING LINDSAY CLANCY ‼️ Sara Haines questioned how Patrick’s marital love ended so quickly after Lindsay killed their 3 children. Patrick has since remarried. Do you agree with Haines? #LindsayClancy#PatrickClancy
[Sorry for stooping to using TikTok, but it had the only suitable clip that WordPress would let me embed…]
“The View” is trying to get its own private dining car on the Lindsay Clancy Trial Ethics Train Wreck. First Sunny Hostin uses the issue to declare that she was the “lone juror” who got a man declared not guilty after he killed a woman and made her into a delicious soup…and it turns out that she was lying about the whole thing and wasn’t the “lone juror” after all. Now Sara Haines—how can anyone determine which of these opinionated, wokeness-infected, ignorant women is the dumbest?—expressed her shock that Lindsay Clancy’s husband (now remarried) would divorce the woman who murdered his children. After all, Haines says, don’t the marriage vows state “in sickness or in health”?
Well yes, Sarah, but at least the vows I took didn’t have a “whether one of us murders our kids or not” clause in there.
Haines really and truly asks, “How did the marital love end so quickly?” Gee, that’s a real brain-teaser. Domestic abuse activists argue that “marital love” has been abandoned once a husband punches his wife in the face, but that’s obviously bad and inexcusable. Murdering the children is more nuanced. Good question, Sara. I’ll have to think about that….
How is someone as dumb and confused as Haines on television anyway? The inconvenient truth about all journalism is that the vast majority of reporters just aren’t very bright, and certainly not as smart as they think they are. Nonetheless, we allow them to have public platforms and exposure that consistently accomplish the opposite of what our Founders believed made “the press” essential to a functioning democracy. Heck, we allow them to manipulate elections. Haines and her colleagues—not just the confederacy of dunces on “The View” but reporters and pundits generally—make the public less informed, less astute, less ethical and less responsible. Somehow this stupid woman—yes, I hold that asking why a man would divorce his wife after she murdered three children, especially their three children, is signature significance: no intelligent person even thinks that’s a puzzle, never mind announcing it on national TV—managed to be a correspondent on NBC and ABC. What does that tell us about the competence, judgment and trustworthiness of broadcast news?
Related questions:
Will anything cause ABC to recognize that calling “The View” a news program is a disgrace, and that the network metaphorically soils itself and the culture every time it gives this coven of morons gets another hour to lobotomize the public?
How do Democrats continue to get votes when siding with progressives means associating oneself with the likes of Sara, Sunny, Whoopi and Joy, never mind Bernie, Kamala, AOC, Fredo, Ayanna, Jasmine, Gavin, and Zohran?
When did American woman lose their ethical bearings?
I burned this week’s open forum on Tuesday night as my remedy for enforced absence from EA (dead laptop, ethics road trip), so I’m waking up this morning with a different low energy feature. This was an awful week from a scheduling standpoint; on the other hand, at least my ethics wisdom was in demand. I had back-to-back seminars to teach for the first time since Ethics Villain Dr. Fauci and the totalitarian Left wrecked my training business (and the economy, children’s socialization, education, culture…) with their lockdown. Oh, and it killed my wife, too, I mustn’t let them off the hook for that. But I’m not bitter…
1. TCM has cancelled Porky Pig. It is hypocritical for a station that purports to preserve American film history and present the screen entertainment of the nation’s past for enlightenment and perspective to engage in any censorship at all reagrding the content its mission dictates, but I guess Porky doesn’t count. TCM often shows Warner Bros. cartoons between its main features, and as any culturally-literate person knows, these always ended with Porky Pig poking through the screen and stuttering, “That’s all folks!” the traditional Loony Tunes coda. It took me a long time to figure it out (“Huh! That’s funny…this one doesn’t have Porky…”) but Ted Turner’s legacy project has erased Porky from the endings of all its Warner Bos. animated features. What petty, silly, cowardly, pandering morons. Porky stutters, see, so he’s being mean to the disabled, or “differently-abled,” or funny speech-enabled, or whatever the hell we’ve been ordered to call it by our moral betters. If “Make America Great Again” meant nothing more than “End Crap Like Banning Porky Pig,” it would still be worth cheering for. I am officially ECLBPP.
2. Speaking of mind-rot in the U.S., one of my most esteemed and once-rational Trump Deranged Facebook Friends demonstrated how the cult corrupts. He posted with favor an essay by a progressive journalist that purported to give “both sides” of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and recommended that everyone read it. The essay was weakly camouflaged anti-Semitism and anti-Israel propaganda, and obviously so.
Once my friend would have seen that, but Trump Derangement has eaten a substantial part of what had been an impressive brain. The party he is now pimping for has become, incredibly, pro-Islam, pro-Iran, pro-Hamas and pro-terrorism, so the Cognitive Dissonance Scale is forcing him to excuse these indefensible positions by embracing spin, rationalizations, and lies. The author my friend was promoting referred to Israel as an “occupation” and cited the position of the World International Court as evidence of Israel’s wrongdoing. There is a reason why the U.S. doesn’t recognize the anti-American, anti-Isreal WIC.
Those are flaming tells, and that my friend, a retired lawyer, couldn’t or wouldn’t see that is itself a tell. Tragic. And yes, this time I did comment critically on his post. No response, because he’s still smart enough to know I was right.
3. Back to TCM: the station is saluting director Stanley Kubrick this month, which is appropriate since almost every one of his movies is brilliant and he excelled in every film genre he tried. I stumbled upon a disturbing note, however. Sue Lyon, who played Nabokov’s teenage sex nymph in “Lolita,” was evidently raped and sexually abused repeatedly by the film’s producer during the shoot, which the actress reasonably believed derailed her emotional stability, career and life. Where was Kubrick while this was going on? It was his film and his project, and I hold him responsible if his child star was being abused during the production. This month HarperCollins UK announced it would stop selling the children’s books authored by David Walliams following allegations that he harassed female and junior employees. The UK has lost all common sense in its woke-mania: if we start banning artists based on their personal conduct, we’ll have decimated our cultural resources. Kubrick’s film achievements aren’t degraded by his human failings, but it is interesting to me that Porky Pig was banned because he stuttered yet the TCM progressives don’t think Sue Lyon’s abuse under the director’s metaphorical nose is worth mentioning. TCM’s hosts habitually mention all sorts of production details in their introductions and final comments to the movies they show. (“Gone With The Wind” is racist, you know!) But they admire Kubrick too much to tell “the rest of the story.”
4. Here is something artificial intelligence is good for: baseball statistics and history. Last night the Boston Red Sox lost to the Cleveland Ind..sorry, Guardians 1-0 on a home run around Fenway Park’s famous “Pesky Pole,” which marks the shortest outfield fence point of any baseball park still in use. I wondered if the Red Sox had ever lost a 1-0 game on one of those cheap homers, so I asked Google’s bot. The answer came in seconds: No, last night was the first time that has happened in all the games the Sox have played at home since 1912. Then I decided to check the information, as one must with AI until its annoying habit of making stuff up abates. It took me almost an hour, but the bot was right.
“Did you know my school was bad like this when you decided to put me here?” she asked…“So you had money to send me to one of the best schools, and you chose not to?” she said, hurling her words. “Because other kids are disadvantaged, you didn’t want to put me in a great school?” Najya was asking what I’d accomplished by not choosing the “best” school for her. And the honest answer is, I don’t know. When it comes to the choices my husband and I have made about public education, these days I feel that I failed both my values and my child.”
Lyricist Oscar Hammerstein Jr. had many moments of great ethical clarity, as did his pupil and protege, Stephen Sondheim. I don’t think either topped this song, however, from the 1951 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, “The King and I.” I’ve highlighted the key sections.
When I was a boy, World was better spot. What was so was so, What was not was not.
Now I am a man— World have change a lot: Some things nearly so, Others nearly not.
There are times I almost think I am not sure of what I absolutely know. Very often find confusion In conclusion I concluded long ago.
In my head are many facts That, as a student, I have studied to procure. In my head are many facts Of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!
[spoken] Is a puzzlement. What to tell a growing son?
[sung] What, for instance, shall I say to him of women? Shall I educate him on the ancient lines? Shall I tell the boy, as far as he is able, To respect his wives and love his concubines?
Shall I tell him every one is like the other, And the better one of two is really neither? If I tell him this, I think he won’t believe it— And I nearly think I don’t believe it either!
When my father was a king, He was a king who knew exactly what he knew, And his brain was not a thing Forever swinging to and fro and fro and to. Shall I then be like my father And be willfully unmovable and strong? Or is better to be right? Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?
Shall I join with other nations in alliance? If allies are weak, am I not best alone? If allies are strong with power to protect me, Might they not protect me out of all I own?
Is a danger to be trusting one another, One will seldom want to do what other wishes… But unless someday somebody trust somebody, There’ll be nothing left on earth excepting fishes!
There are times I almost think Nobody sure of what he absolutely know. Ev’rybody find confusion In conclusion he concluded long ago,
And it puzzle me to learn That though a man may be in doubt of what he know, Very quickly will he fight, He’ll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!
Oh-h-h, oh-h-h! Sometimes I think that people going mad! Ah-h-h, ah-h-h! Sometimes I think that people not so bad!
But no matter what I think I must go on living life. As leader of my kingdom I must go forth, Be father to my children, And husband to each wife— Et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.
If my Lord in Heaven, Buddha, show the way, Ev’ry day I try to live another day. If my Lord in Heaven, Buddha, show the way, Ev’ry day I do my best for one more day, But… Is a puzzlement!
Slowly but surely, they are forcing me to tell them how full of shit they are.
Posting this from the Kennedy Center’s marble slobber over our most over-rated President,
…a friend of many decades proclaimed on Facebook, “Can you imagine ANYTHING approaching this coming out of the current administration?”
As Popeye memorably said (many times) before swallowing his un-canned spinach and going bonkers, “That’s all I can stands, I can’t stands no more!!!” I responded, as nicely as I could,
“There just has to be some way to make your point without advancing shameless Kennedy hagiography, Jon. JFK always talked a good game…there is also substantial evidence that he organized a gang rape, compromised US security by having an affair with a foreign spy (as well as with a Mafia don’s moll), and was saved from being the man who triggered WW3 only because a Russian Premier decided it was worth backing down and getting purged to save millions from death. No, JFK wasn’t afraid of Jackie’s grace and beauty so he humiliated her by being a serial adulterer and sexual predator. Marilyn writhing at his birthday party in a dress that made her look naked, basically broadcasting their sexual relationship, may be the most disgusting public moment in US political history. And of course, Kennedy didn’t write most of his fine words, not even the ones that got him a Pulitzer Prize for “Profiles in Courage,” which was mostly authored by Ted Sorenson. It’s amazing what being assassinated or dying young will do for one’s reputation. As SNL writer Michael O’Donahue said when Elvis died, “Good career move!” Kennedy was a bad man and weak President. I really don’t care what he “said” and neither should anyone else.”
I can’t wait to see how the blithering idiots who “loved ” “sad-faced” and “angry-faced” his post try to spin that. I’m betting my friend, who knows I know what I’m talking about when it comes to Presidential history, will default to “But Trump…!” because that’s all he’s got.
Little by little, drip by drip, these people are forcing me to point out their ignorance, bias and stupidity.
[Oh…and someone tell Jack’s ghostwriter that it’s properly “that,” not “which.”]
“What has made the University of California exceptional is its commitment to increase access without sacrificing excellence. In recent years, California has proudly defied a national trend: On average, about 40 percent of its students are the first in their families to attend a four-year college. More than half qualify for free tuition. The percentages of underrepresented students have crept up, through a variety of initiatives. The California Dream Act gave undocumented students access to financial aid, as well as in-state tuition. Students on University of California campuses may struggle with basic math, but they are graduating at record rates.”
—-Woke book author and writer Miriam Pawel, in a gobsmacking op-ed (gift link) in the New York Times.
You might think that I am being unfair, that the quote above is obviously taken out of context. Surely, surely, such a paragraph must be preceded by a convincing set of statistics proving that indeed the University of California system has not sacrificed excellence in its quest for “access” [Translation: “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”].
Nope. There is nothing. This woman, marinated in progressive cant her whole adult life, truly believes that DEI is excellence. Not knowing how to read, add, reason or write. The diploma is the sole benefit and the sole objective. That the diploma falsely conveys the belief that its holder actually is competent, responsible, knowledgeable, skilled and accomplished doesn’t matter to Pawel. “Students on University of California campuses may struggle with basic math, but they are graduating at record rates,” she writes. “The percentages of underrepresented students have crept up, through a variety of initiatives. The California Dream Act gave undocumented students access to financial aid, as well as in-state tuition.”
But if I were running “The Ethicist” column, I wouldn’t dignify such a dunderheaded query with publication at all.
“Name Withheld” says that her boyfriend admits to “sexting women on the social platform YikYak, which lets you message anonymously with other people at your college.” She continues in part:
“I don’t know if I should break up with him. If he were cheating, I would do so instantly…This is a weird middle ground where he’s not really cheating, but he’s definitely crossing a line. He also told me that he first started sexting people (on other platforms) when he was in middle school… I worry that it may be a mental-health issue…We share a fair number of friends, and despite this major failing, I still think that my boyfriend is an upstanding guy. I don’t want to cause him harm by telling people why we broke up… But I also don’t want to harm my reputation — I can’t afford to lose friends because they think I’m in the wrong for breaking up with him.”
She closes her epically clueless letter with a surprise question. I assumed she was asking whether The Ethicist (NYU philosophy professor Kwame Anthony Appiah) thought she should break up with the creep. Her actual question: “Is sexting anonymously cheating?”
My runner-up answer to the letter after “RUN AWAY!” would be, “What the hell is the matter with you?” What’s the difference whether sexting women anonymously is technically “cheating” or not? Her sicko boyfriend has been sending anonymous sex messages to women since he was in junior high school! (“Dear Ethicist: Is torturing small animals cheating?”) Whatever you choose to call it, such conduct is signature significance: no “stand up guy” behaves like that. Case closed, boyfriend disqualified as trustworthy love-interest beyond a reasonable doubt, no appeal, end of story, bye-bye!
The number of flashing “IDIOT!” signs in the letter are impressive. She appears to think that “cheating” is the only permitted justification for breaking up. If she’s so worried about injuring his reputation by telling people that he’s a sick perv, then don’t tell anybody. How hard is that? But my favorite is “I can’t afford to lose friends because they think I’m in the wrong for breaking up with him.” She can’t afford to lose friends who don’t think sexting women anonymously is enough of a red flag for a boyfriend that it justifies telling him to hit the road? Who needs friends like that? Who wants friends like that? The doomed college co-ed—what becomes of women this confused? Nothing good—literally is saying that she would continue a dangerous relationship if her friends wanted her to. Wow.
Now let’s see what the Professor says….Ugh! Terrible. Equivocating academic-speak gobbledygook. Example: “Plenty of people would find his activities — para-sexual interactions with para-amours — cheating adjacent.” You can read it for yourself if, and only if, your sock drawer is organized.
He’s not wrong. And MSNOW, CNN and Politico are not by any stretch of the imagination the “independent” news organizations they say they are, or even genuine journalists, since it is remarkably obvious that they are really “Democratic Party surrogates with press credentials,” as one wag accurately describes them. And they are, as the President stated in one of his most audacious, bold and correct assessments, “enemies of the people.”
It is also true that as pivotal mid-terms approach, those three outlets and many others are throwing a major portion of the weight of the news media into spinning, concealing, misrepresenting and and prioritizing news stories in the manner most likely to push votes to Democrats and Socialist/Communists, not based on facts, law, common sense, logic or the best interests of the nation, but based on an ideological agenda.
Never mind. Trump’s actions here are futile, and I assume he knows it; if he doesn’t, then he has a bunch of lawyers to fire. He’s doing this to focus attention on the Axis news media’s unethical and corrosive efforts to manipulate elections, as it did in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Yes, it’s unethical for a President to deliberately violate the Constitution knowing that his actions will be struck down. It’s also unethical for journalists to use First Amendment protections to abuse their power and undermine democracy, but there is nothing in the Constitution that stops them from doing it
“The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” MS NOW said in a statement posted on X. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalists in our democracy,” it added. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.
Yada yada. That’s all the right rhetoric. Too bad it’s such a scumbag organization using it.
“We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do our reporting without hinderance or interference from the government and this ban is an illegal assault on this fundamental right,” CNN said in a statement posted on X. “We will not be deflected from our duty to hold the government and other public bodies to account, and we will continue to report on the actions and processes of this administration without fear or favor,” the statement added.
Of course, CNN made virtually no effort to hold the Obama and Biden administrations “to account,” but were, instead, complicit in their unconstitutional behavior. The Constitution, however, doesn’t say what biased and unethical news organizations can’t do, just what the government can’t do to them.
Politico Press, the publication’s communications team, said that “POLITICO will continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones. We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them.”
The funny word in that statement is “continue.”
Nevertheless, President Trump doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, making the metaphorical ethical leg mighty weak as well.
I wish I had the gust to post this on Facebook. And the fact that I know that it would upset so many of my long-time friends is itself an indication of how ethically warped the political Left has become. In fact, “ethically warped” is a euphemism for a far more damning and accurate term.
[This one is pretty funny too, but it’s not really an ethics meme…]
