For the second time this year (EA covered the Median Strategies fake polls here) as the contentious mid-terms approached, a polling organization whose “blue wave” numbers the news media had swallowed hook, line and sinker revealed itself to be a sham. This week, after the polling website FiftyPlusOne began asking questions, Wedgewood Polls confessed that its polling data was made up. The phony poll numbers had been publicized and used in state race analyses by all the polling aggregators, including such alleged authorities as Nate Silver and The New York Times. Wedgewood now claims that it was all a social science experiment.
Right. Nice try: here is the public statement by these scumbags:
The earlier fake polling company made the same claim that it had engaged in a “short-term social experiment examining how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem without independent verification.”
Doris Kearns Goodwin is probably about as well known as any historian right now, thanks to her frequent appearances on TV (48 times on Charlie Rose’s PBS show alone). In addition to being a much published and acclaimed Presidential historian, she went through a period where she was often talking and writing about baseball, so yes, I have a warm spot in my cold heart for her. Goodwin is perhaps best known for her Pulitzer Prize -winning book “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, much of which was adapted by Tony Kushner into the screenplay for Steven Spielberg’s 2012 film “Lincoln.”
Doris taught the American Government course on The American Presidency when I took it, succeeding Richard Neustadt who literally wrote the book on the subject, His “Presidential Power” is considered a masterwork even today. I got Doris in her first year teaching before “Goodwin”: she wasn’t very good, but she was cute, a pert redhead who arrived at Harvard with a whispered reputation of being one of LBJ’s conquests when she worked as a White House Fellow. A professor like Doris was a rarity at Harvard back then, for she was less than half the age of the typical Government Department prof.
Doris is in her 80s now, and yet that photo above is still the one she sends out for her appearances. She has a gig in a couple of weeks: the Humphrey School of Public Affairs will host her as she gives the 2026 Distinguished Carlson Lecture at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, titled, “Leadership for a More Perfect Union: Lessons from America at 250”. I think it’s mildly unethical for people to use photos of themselves that make it seem like they have the equivalent of the “Picture of Dorian Gray” in their attic. Kearns hasn’t looked like that in 40 years.
All of this is just a prelude to her Ethics Dunce exploits, however. I was watching an episode of American Horror Story Season Six, “Roanoke,” about a legendary mansion in North Carolina with a bloody and ghostly history. Imagine my surprise to see my old college professor showing up in an interview about the house, explaining its origins, the owner, Edward Philippe Mott, whose actions sent the house on its way to damnation, the many horrible demises of subsequent residents. The interview concluded with Doris saying that she doesn’t believe in ghosts but wouldn’t want to spend a night there—like the recent reality “ghost hunters” show crew that had been found slaughtered.
UPDATE: Literally minutes after I posted this, I saw reports that she is “transitioning” out of the White House Press Secretary role. Good.]
***
There’s no excuse for this.
The new details on the latest White House paid liar’s misrepresentation of herself as a “lawyer” or “attorney” make her (and the decision to appoint her) appear worse and worse; she’s either a fraud or an idiot. In either case, she has lost all credibility. A paid liar must have credibility, as strange as that sounds.
Katie Zacharia confirmed yesterday that she had never passed a bar exam or and has never been an “attorney.”Then she claimed that she had not misrepresented her legal career by saying she “is” a lawyer. As I have explained already, she’s not. If many members of the public—you know, morons—think that a JD or LLB degree means one is a lawyer, that doesn’t excuse the holder of a law degree thinking or saying that. “Lawyer” means one can act as a lawyer—Duh!—and a mere law school graduate cannot. It is against the law for such a person to practice law, which is what lawyers do—again duh.
In interviews with The New York Times and Real America’s Voice, Zacharia said she had consulted Pepperdine’s president and “others” about how to describe her qualifications before appearing on television, and was told she could use the term “lawyer,” but not “attorney” or “esquire.” Zacharia hasn’t said which “president of Pepperdine” advised her. She graduated from law school there in 2011. Andrew K. Benton was the university’s president at that time. In 2019, Jim Gash became the president told the Times that he was not the one who advised her, though he did call her “a young woman of high integrity.” You know, a a young woman of high integrity who represented herself a lawyer without having a law license. Gash’s representative said “he does not comment on private conversations,” but a statement from Gash said: “Pepperdine is proud to count Katie among our alumni, former colleagues and friends. As she takes on this significant responsibility, we pray that God will grant her wisdom and courage. We look forward to seeing her use her incredible gifts and extensive experience in service to our nation.”
Got it. A non-responsive answer. A law degree from Pepperdine isn’t worth the paper it is printed on, and the school’s presidents are cowards and suck-ups.
Devoted fans of the long-time TV game show “Wheel of Fortune “—“You know, morons!”— are enraged, as least based on the uproar on social media, because the puzzle board above foiled a competitor in the “bonus round,” costing him a car.
David Shepard of Atlanta, Georgia, was the unfortunate contestant. The pop culture media seems to think it’s relevant that he’s a cancer survivor. It isn’t. If the puzzle was unfair, then it was just as unfair whether he was cancer survivor, Sydney Sweeney, a convicted felon or Eric Swalwell. The amplified fury is another example of “toxic empathy,” as well as ethics ignorance.
But back to the issue at hand:
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:
Is that puzzle unfair?
I can’t tell you the answer, because if you know it on your own, it will probably influence your answer to the quiz. According to TV Insider, fans of the show are screaming that “nobody uses that word” and that it was part of a conspiracy to avoid giving away a $50,000 Audi. I didn’t solve the puzzle in the time allowed ( I tried before my coffee) but I certainly know the word. “Have you ever heard that phrase? Let us know in the comments,” asks TV Insider.
Take me now, Lord.
And it’s a word, not a “phrase.”
On the side of the protesters as much as I can stand to be, that puzzle reminds me of the gag in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” where the mystical keeper of “The Bridge of Death” asks three easy questions of one of King Arthur’s Knights (“What is your name? What is your quest? What’s your favorite color?”) then replaces the color question with “What is the capital of Assyria?” for Sir Robin (who is magically flung into the gorge) and “What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?” for King Arthur.
Nonetheless, it is a real word, and the show never promised that its puzzles could all be solved by people who never progressed beyond Junior Scrabble…
Post Script:According to the AI bot I just asked, the average airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow is about 24 miles per hour, or 11 meters per second. Of course, that answer could be completely made up, and I don’t care enough to check.
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.”]
White leftists are the only groups that considers the natural human preference for one’s own ethnic group to be wrong, toxic, racist and a mark of bigotry.
This certainly shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention for the past, oh, 50 years or so.
Now what?
My reflex instinct is to presume that a group that vilifies those who display natural human characteristics that are not only permitted for everyone else but extolled (“I want to see performers/ elected officials/ judges/ Cabinet members/ etc. who look like me!”) is an unethical group.
New data provides a sobering indication: At least one in four of all the people who have played in the N.F.L. might expect to end up with chronic traumatic encephalopathy, according to a study of hundreds of cases over a recent six-year period.
Researchers considered every former N.F.L. player who died from 2016 to 2021. There were 878. Some died in their 20s, some in their 80s, most in between.
The study’s main finding was simple math: At least 215 of those 878 former players — 24.5 percent — had C.T.E.
The actual prevalence could be far higher. The roughly 25 percent rate does not consider the 643 brains that were not examined. Some of those, maybe many of them, likely had C.T.E. too.
C.T.E. is a progressive neurological disease caused by repeated impacts to the head. It can be definitively diagnosed only by examining the brain after death.
Studies have shown that the rate of C.T.E. in people who have not sustained repeated impacts to the head is nearly zero.
If the new study’s statistics were applied to today’s players — 1,696 on the league’s 32 regular-season rosters, not including more than 500 members of practice squads and those ineligible due to injury — at least 400 of them would be diagnosed with C.T.E.
Experts say that the rate of brain disease represents an occupational safety hazard with little comparison in the American workplace.
I have written this before, and had this story on the EA runway for a long time because it makes me angry. People who cheer on football are literally encouraging young men to cripple themselves for their entertainment. It is unethical, and indefensible.
Now and then there are moments when I feel that indeed I have not lived in vain.
Tuskegee University president Dr. Mark Brown (above), a retired Air Force major general, issued a memo to all students of the “traditional black institution” this academic year declaring that all students will be required to follow a dress code right out of 1962.
“The university has developed a new policy for student attire on campus, classroom attendance, and cell phone use in classrooms,” Brown wrote in a message to students. “Tuskegee students now have a dress code for public and professional places. The Student Handbook requires students to arrive on campus with a business suit and proper shoes for a business meeting. Students are prohibited from wearing revealing clothing in class, to the cafeteria or in official settings like Convocation. They are also not able to wear bedroom shoes, bonnets, or du-rags to class or the cafeteria. The goal here is not meant to restrict you from enjoying the Tuskegee Experience, but to prepare you with a solid foundation for the workforce you will enter once you leave Tuskegee. Employers are less forgiving and too often presentation may overrule stellar preparation.”
“Tuskegee University continues to prepare the best and brightest for a lifetime of success,” Brown added. “With these changes, we want to ensure every student is as prepared as they can be. I look forward to seeing you in August.”
“Do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world? Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day.So either you have buried your head in the sand … and that’s an intentional choice to be uninformed, or you took a gamble, and neither of those are consistent with the code of conduct.”
Aarons’ brief included references to imaginary witnesses and fake testimony from at least one real witness. That AI bots are likely to make up case cites and even statutory language has been recognized and publicized widely, not just in legal publications but in the general news media since early 2024. Lawyers, including those with large national law firms like Morgan & Morgan and even the Justice Department continuing to file these bogus bot-authored court documents is amazing to me. And they are too stupid, ignorant and lazy to even proof-read what the bots wrote! One judge recently railed specifically at using ChatGPT for legal work, which he compared to using Mad Magazine as a legal reference.
Bacon threw the metaphorical book at Aarons, removing him as attorney from the case of a 60-year-old man convicted last year of murdering his wife, found him in contempt of court, ordered him to pay $5,000 to a client protection fund, and referred him to the bar for potential discipline. The murder appeal will be handled now by a public defender.
It isn’t just lawyers, of course, who deserve tongue-lashings like this. Teachers, professors, newspaper editors, legislators, politicians, screenwriters, and, yes, judges to name just a few of the affected groups have an obligation to keep up-to-date on the AI revolution, and a disturbing number of them are not even close, which is inexcusable.
Two veteran members of Congress, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. James Clyburn recently indicated that they were ill-informed regarding AI. That this is, frighteningly, not unusual shouldn’t give us any comfort. Lawmakers are notorious for taking an inordinate amount of time to understand new developing technology, as when the late Senator Ted Stevens, while chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, described the internet as a “series of tubes.” Like the internet but perhaps even more so, however, artificial intelligence is a civilization-altering (and perhaps -threatening) phenomenon moving at the speed of light. Those who are too dim, indolent, unimaginative and irresponsible to keep up need to get out of the way and retire to some nice, safe, quiet pursuit like beachcombing or golf.
Oh…it’s the Rules of Professional Conduct, Your Honor, not the “code.” Judges have ethics codes. Lawyers haven’t been governed by a “code” for 40 years.
Ryan Harkins contributed the second Comment of the Day to grace EA’s cyber-pages today, and like the earlier one by Humble Talent, it is excellent. Since the topic is Jason Arday, I believe I am allowed to give a brief update on this latest story of the academic world’s DEI disgrace:
In a substack essay, Max Klinger wrote about his experience in the Cambridge department that later hired Arday for its faculty. He wrote in part, “I studied in the academic department at Cambridge that later employed Jason Arday. Here’s just some of the crap I learned: For one module, I wrote a lengthy essay about how cultural products like kids’ cartoons and jazz songs serve as instruments of capitalist oppression. I got a top mark on that paper (despite knowing at the time that I was essentially regurgitating complete crap).While studying for another paper I had a debate with the professor, an eminent anthropologist, because she insisted that native tribes could fly through the trees – not metaphorically, but that they could literally fly because they believed they could fly. After all, who are we to question ‘indigenous ways of knowing’…For a different course, I read long ‘research papers’ which argued that the fact that black kids are excluded from schools more than white kids proves systemic racism exists in education. Crucially, they ignored the fact that white kids are excluded more than, e.g., Japanese kids, a statistic which, applying the exact same logic, would suggest that the education system is systemically biased in favour of, erm, Japanese kids (which obviously it isn’t)…”
The United States Mission to Belgium, under U.S. Ambassador Bill White, released a statement condemning Ghent University for retaliating against the American scholar who blew the metaphorical whistle on Arday’s plagiarism. “The United States government regularly funds and supports research, academic exchanges, and other engagements with overseas universities,” it said in part. “Dishonest, corrupt institutions that engage in, or reward, scapegoating mob behavior are not desirable partners for us. This is particularly true where the purpose and effect of the scapegoating is to punish accurate journalism unearthing academic dishonesty. We are therefore reviewing any relationships we have with Ghent University.” Good. No Democratic administration would do this, and you know why.
So far, there has been no report on what was Arday’s cause of death. Everyone assumes he took his own life, but no information has been forthcoming on how, if indeed he did. I find that strange. But then everything about this sad tale is strange.
