U.S. Society

One Upside Of The Left’s Gloating and Dreamcasting After The Mid-Terms: Their Civic Ignorance and Arrogance Are Being Displayed For Everyone to See

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

My progressive Facebook friends, and others of course, are re-posting that leftist fever dream with gusto. Posts like this are all over social media and X.

The confident and completely mistaken rhetoric that accompanies these celebrations is even being echoed by the dumb conservative news media as well. Here’s Fox: “Democrats’ midterm sweep hands them a path to bypass the Electoral College before the 2028 presidential election. Trifectas in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada could push the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to 272 electoral votes, two more than the 270.”

No, there is no path. The Democrats’ fondness for cheating can’t get around this one: there is no “If enough people decide not to obey the Constitution, then they don’t have to obey it.” Uh-uh. Sorry. Go back to school, if you can find one that bothers to teach Civics 101. The Electoral College is how the Constitution dictates that Presidential elections are decided. Democrats don’t like that? Swell, let them try to pass a Constitutional Amendment, and good luck.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is unconstitutional, and pretty clearly so. The Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10) requires explicit Congressional consent for interstate “compacts” that alter the balance of power within the federal system and infringes upon the interests of non-compact joining states. But more decisively, the structure of the Electoral College was carefully designed by the Framers through difficult constitutional compromise. Bypassing or nullifying the operational impact of the Electoral College across state lines using a multi-state agreement rather than going through the formal Article V constitutional amendment process violates the structural integrity of the U.S. Constitution.

And that, you confirmation bias-addled revolutionaries, is the position our substantially originalist SCOTUS is bound to take, should take, and will take. Sure, there are “experts” who deny reality, but there are experts who will say anything, like, say, that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation prop. Bias makes experts stupid too.

The Electoral College is here to stay, for better or worse.

As Mediaite Edges Ever Closer To The Ethics Alarms Blacklist…

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

There’s no excuse for this. There is a reason for it, however: Mediaite knows it can get away with this smear because the Miller Deranged don’t care about facts, just that all males accused of a sex crime must be considered guilty even decades after they have been exonerated. The good, virtuous, woke response in 2006 to the false charges made against the Duke students was to condemn the lacrosse players while presuming the alleged victim was a pure as the driven snow and as honest as Diogenes.

X Readers had to add the context Mediaite deliberately omitted to assist in the stampede to demonize Miller (I guess I should say “further demonize Miller.”) He was defending the presumption of innocence (which Nancy Grace seldom observed), not defending rape, and the accused students were indeed innocent, as their accuser eventually admitted that she lied.

Addendum To “Stop Making Me Defend President Trump’s Trolling!” [Dumb Typo Corrected…]

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Picking a particularly dumb hill to die on, one commenter already on thin metaphorical ice and two already banned (but not yet blocked) past commenters decided to insult me personally based on this post, in which I pointed out what should have been obvious to anyone not made stupid by bias and paying attention, that Trump’s social media post supposedly offering the vacant job of White House Press Secretary to Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White was an extravagant trolling exercise as well as a message that he was not going to be cowed by the results of the mid-terms last week.

At the same time, a more respectable commenter picked the day to argue, without evidence or logic, that I need to be less assertive in such posts, because nobody likes me, or something, and that I am not skilled at persuasion.

I realized that these comments indicated a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the purpose of Ethics Alarms, an error that has raised its hoary head before. I don’t spend about four uncompensated hours a day researching and writing this blog and responding to comments (271,000+ responses so far, the most of any blog still standing) to convince anyone of anything. I remain true to and devoted to the mission, which states,

Pages: 1 2

I’d Compose An Open Letter To My Biased, Ignorant and Obnoxious Facebook Friends, But I’m Afraid I Wouldn’t Be Diplomatic…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Good natured teasing is friendly; nasty gloating is not. Stupid, ignorant gloating and posts that confidently cite false information, partisan spin and flagrant projection are not pleasant or conducive to dialogue, civility, comity, respect or trust.

Here is a sampling of what my Facebook friends are posting today. I’m not counting my friend’s post boasting about working day and night to elect Michigan’s new anti-Semitic, terror-supporting, fake-doctor Senator, or Curmie’s post, where he enthuses over the rising “youthful leadership” of the Democratic Party like AOC, that Senator, and Mayor Mandani.

If anyone wants to fisk this collection of lies, half-truths and absurd characterizations, be my guest.

Is the Constitutional illiteracy of the Trump Deranged and Axis of Unethical Conduct as bad as it seems?


Riiight. Voting for Democrats is rejecting fascism, hate and the politics of fear. Do people actually believe this? The party has run almost exclusively on hate and fear in both of the last two elections. (Note: What the Trump Deranged call “authoritarianism” is known as “using the Constitutional power of the Presidency.”)

Res ipsa loquitur.

Finally, insanity followed by a warning against not being insane, with a sane prediction as a capper:

I regard any reference to The Epstein Files, which, as you will recall, a Democratic Administration could have released in toto at any time, with its Justice Department searching for any way possible to derail Donald Trump’s candidacy, as signature significance for a partisan hack who cannot be taken seriously (or Margery Taylor Greene.)

Further Ethics Observations On The Mid-Term “Blue Wave” and Its Aftermath…

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

1. Uh, check the Constitution, fools. I keep reading about all the wonderful legislation the new socialist, Muslim, LGBTQ+, radical, anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-rule of law, anti-gun, pro-open borders Congress is going to inflict on the nation. The President can veto legislation, and this President will. The Totalitarian Party isn’t close to the 2/3 majority it needs to over-ride a Presidential veto. FDR holds the record with 635 vetoes, but he had three full terms in office to do it. Grover Cleveland vetoed 584 bills total across his two non-consecutive terms, so he’s the record-holder for a one- or two-term President. Trump used only 10 vetoes in his first term (one was over-ridden), and only two so far in this term. I doubt that he can pass Grover, but he’s going to catch up fast.

2. This is the caliber of the Congressional majority now:

Wait: what “misconduct”? Garcia is literally trying to criminalize viewpoints and policy views. I have not been kidding or exaggerating when I have been writing that the Democratic Party is now totalitarian in design, tactics and ideology.

How incompetent, dim and short-sighted did conservatives and Republicans have to be to either sit out the election or vote for Democrats out of pique over “affordability” when they knew, or should have know, that this was what they were voting for? Answer: Very. Too ignorant and apathetic to maintain a functioning democratic republic? I think I know what Ben Franklin would say…

Pages: 1 2

Family Ethics: Apparently “The Ethicist” Has Decided To Only Answer Stupid Questions From Now On…

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

This is the latest question from an ethics-challenged boob that “The Ethicist” (the New York Times Magazine’s ethics advice columnist, Kwame Anthony Appiah) thinks is worthy of discussion and publication:

“Can I Have an A.I. Chatbot Field My Mother’s Endless Complaints?” “Would using a chatbot as an emotional buffer be compassionate, or would we be failing in our filial duty by substituting an algorithm for a child’s attention?”—Name Withheld

Wow. No wonder you withheld your name from being attached to that disgusting suggestion, Whoever You Are. If you didn’t, everyone with an ethical brain cell left would know you’re a heartless asshole.

The answer is “No!” Sure, you can do it, just as you can set the neighbor’s dog on fire. But it’s obviously unethical, wrong, unforgivable, and a terrible idea. Of course it is. Gee, would it be all right to substitute a bot for actual parenting when your child is upset? Oooh, tough one! Would it be ethical to have chatbot in the confession booth while the priest takes a nap?

I wrote this before bothering to read what good ol’ Kwame wrote. Let’s see…

Ugh. “The Ethicist” actually thinks this abdication of family duty might be justifiable! He writes,

“The fact that a chatbot is no substitute for human companionship doesn’t mean it can’t play a useful role when other people aren’t available. You owe your mother attention and companionship, but not in unlimited quantities. It’s relevant that you and your brother are feeling exhausted by emotional demands that exceed what you can reasonably supply. If your mother would feel better having an A.I. chat partner, that counts as a reason to provide one.”

The last sentence is a despicable cheat. “If your mother would feel like she was getting exactly the same amount of attention and loving concern from a machine that she obviously needs from her children, then why not?” That’s a self-ratifying proposition. It would be just as valid if you substituted “trained snail” or “inanimate carbon rod” for “machine.”

If my parents , or my wife or my sister, or my son felt the need to talk to me, and especially me, for any reason important to them, I would be there for them, and they knew it. There was no limit. There would never be a limit. The same is true of any friend. (My clients, on the other hand, pay for the privilege) If I were running short of time due to other commitments, I would say so with apologies, but promise to be available as soon as possible. What I would never say is, “Hey, here’s a bot you can talk to. Good luck!”

You can read the whole exchange here. If I were you, I’d use my time more judiciously.

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files:

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

What an asshole.

The Axis news media unconscionably supported this creep. Imagine the outrage if a Republican candidate treated a reporter that way.

More Post-Election Eve Ethics Observations

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

1. The media can’t stop themselves from using extreme rhetoric to describe this “blue wave”: “monumental,” “catastrophic,” “historic.” It was, in fact, a pretty typical wipe out of the controlling party in a mid-term election, and certainly not the “extinction level event” Ron DeSantis claimed in the aftermath. Wouldn’t it be nice if reporters, pundits and public figures bothered to learn some history? I guess its more fun to make people fearful and hysterical.

Here are the worst post-WW II losses by a President’s party:

  • 2010 Barack Obama lost 63 House seats (and 6 Senate seats), the largest modern midterm swing.
  • 1946 Harry S Truman lost 56 House seats and 12 Senate seats.
  • 1994 Bill Clinton lost 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats.
  • 1958 Dwight Eisenhower lost 50 House seats and 13 Senate seats.
  • 1974 Gerald Ford lost 48 House seats and 4 Senate seats.
  • And in 2018, Trump lost 41 House seats.

But that’s peanuts compared to mid-term losses in Congress suffered by earlier Presidents. Grover Cleveland lost 125 seats in 1894! In 1874, President Grant lost 98 seats in the House. Heck, even FDR got clobbered in 1938, losing 72 seats. (cont.)

Pages: 1 2

Why Can’t “The Stupid Party” Figure Out How to Appeal to Stupid Voters and Other Ethics Observations on the Mid-Terms (Corrected and Expanded)

/ Jack Marshall / 51 Comments

I could have written most of this post two days ago and it would have been exactly the same. But there is always hope and optimism, and I am a sap at heart.

1. Black entrepreneur and pundit Adam Coleman nailed it in his substack. He writes in part,

…When you’re glued into politics, reading blogs, scrolling through social media, you get inundated with niche issues and everyone is trying to convince you that this is the defining problem that will swing an election…And it never really is. These are usually tertiary to the real reason the average person who barely cares about politics got in their car and drove to the polls; kind of like a protest drive since gas prices are relatively high. The country isn’t split between hardcore Democrats and Republicans because clustered in the middle are fickle and swing voters who are reacting to the moment. These are people who selectively vote (even if they predominantly vote for one party) or might vote for both parties. These are regular Americans who pay more attention to their wallets than what some Ivy League economist says about the economy. I once heard someone describe the economy for the average person as a “vibe” versus a reality and I think they’re kind of right…Pretty much every president has low approval ratings, or at least periods of low approval ratings that coincided with midterm elections.Right or wrong, the economic woes of the public will always be put at the feet of the president. If the stock market sucks, it’s the president’s fault. If you can’t afford DoorDash like you used to, it’s the president’s fault.

The midterms are the way for the American public to punish the president in power. Yes, the typical political discussions matter, like quality of candidates etc. However, if people are angry and emotional, they don’t generally make rational decisions. If the reason for them voting is based on spite, do you really have a chance of changing their minds? You can’t fact your way out of shifting an emotional voter.

I kept getting the same irrational response Coleman describes from even more politically engaged friends and relatives, despite the fact that the rate of inflation has come down since the Biden administration, and even though the recent GNP report showed vivid economic growth.

2. What creates a “vibe” that is illusory and manipulative? The news media, of course. (Cont.)

Pages: 1 2

On Early Voting, Axis Media Bias, and the Shameless Excuses From Democrats Trying To Deny the Alaska “Dan Sullivan” Scandal

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Early voting is, EA holds without doubts, a breach of election integrity, a system that deliberately appeals to the blind, apathetic, knee-jerk partisan voter. The reason should be obvious: the campaign period is a time to learn about the character and positions of candidates, and not infrequently information arises during that period relevant to the voter’s determination of who is worthy of trust and support. In my case, a campaign ad in which a candidate lies or makes a statement that I consider disqualifying will potentially change my vote.

In the current election, two revelations came to light that should, or at least could cause a discerning voter to change his or her mind. One is the accumulating evidence that Rep. Omar engaged in immigration fraud. The other is the New York Times report that Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign deliberately sought to confuse voters by recruiting a second Dan Sullivan—that’s the GOP Senate candidate’s name— to appear on Alaska’s ballot.

Pages: 1 2