The holiday-appropriate heart-warming tale is told in this video I can’t embed here. Apparently a wealthy “Secret Santa” is giving $1 million to “deserving people in eastern Idaho,” and the East Idaho News is publicizing the plan with daily surprise visit to the lucky recipient. “Brenda in Blackfoot”is first up. From the News: “She is a single mom with eight adopted children who all have special needs. She works from 4:30 a.m. to approximately 1 p.m. every day to support her children… She has really struggled… In May, they experienced a small house fire, which caused a lot of damage to her home….Googling the repairs for instructions , [Brenda] did all of the repairs herself. Her family also had a flood in their home about six weeks ago….Brenda went through cancer treatment last year as well…”
It’s About Time! Finally Another Progressive Fake Stat Used To Justify Open Borders Has Been Debunked
Thank you, Crime Prevention Research Center, John R. Lott Jr, and RealClearInvestigations. But what took you so long?
This ridiculous-on-its-face fake statistic started being prominently wielded by Democrats and progressives in 2024: “Statistics show that [“immigrants”/”undocumented aliens”/”migrants”] are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens.” Fortunately, for a statistic that sounded dubious from the second it was first claimed, the rationalization was unpersuasive even if it had been true. Ethics Alarms swatted this intellectually dishonest talking point away several times, pointing out that crimes committed by individuals here illegally should never have been committed at all because the perpetrators should never have been in a position to commit them. Such crimes are all the direct result of U.S. government negligence, incompetence, or deliberate failure to enforce existing immigration laws. A single murder, rape or other crime committed by an illegal immigrant is still one too many, and inexcusable.
Ethics Observations On The 2024 Presidential Election Spin
The facts: As of this date, Trump has about a 1.5% edge in the popular vote, and a decisive win, 312 to 226 over Harris in the Electoral College. By any analysis, it was a very close election. A single percentage point of votes flipping would have given Harris the popular vote lead, though her winning the Electoral College would have required pinpoint distribution of those votes.
What is a fair and ethical interpretation of this? Who’s lying, spinning, exaggerating or telling it like it is?
1. Today stories came out about Harris’s staff saying that internal polls showed her behind Trump from the start, and that they knew everything would have to break right for her to win. This in part is the campaign ducking responsibility: if Harris lost by only 1.5%, obviously she could have won. They are saying, absurdly, “It wasn’t our fault, the deck was stacked against us!” Harris ran a terrible campaign, and still came close. If she had run a better campaign, and got better advice (that she paid dearly for) that 1.5% would have been within reach. If she had competently answered a soft-ball question she got on “The View,” for heaven’s sake, that might have been enough. Or if she had agreed to the interview with Joe Rogan (and not fallen flat on her face, which is a big if). If she had not chosen The Knucklehead as her running mate. Any of these might have allowed Harris to prevail despite everything else.
Ethics Dunces: The Trump-Deranged Michigan Women Who Did THIS…
Why is this unethical? Let me count the ways…
1. It is grandstanding and virtue-signaling without purpose.
2. It demeans women. This is the kind of stereotypical, weak, emotional female behavior that causes biases to linger. I am constantly irritated at movies and TV shows that depitctwomen screaming like little girls if they see a dead body or witness some other traumatic event. I never heard my mother scream; I don’t think she ever did. I’ve never heard my sister scream. My late wife screamed exactly once in our 43 years of marriage, when she saw her cat in the jaws of a stray dog on our porch. Screaming over the results of an election is the mark of, if not mental illness, serious arrested adolescence.
3. The stunt makes progressives look incompetent, desperate and untrustworthy. They may be all of these things, but it is the duty of members of any group not to bring disrepute and ridicule down on other members.
4. Being proud of Trump Derangement shows a distinct distortion of values, such as proportion, prudence, dignity and responsibility.
Is it possible that this was done entirely as satire? If so, the stunt failed spectacularly, because no one seems to have seen it that way.
‘Nah, There’s No Deep State!’ Res Ipsa Loquitur At The State Dept. Proves Otherwise
Among the many dishonest arguments that have been flying around in the mainstream media, that is, the Democratic Party’s “Get Trump!” propaganda arm, is that the efforts of the incoming administration to clear government bureaucracies of untrustworthy lifetime workers is inherently sinister. After all, we are told, these are virtuous, experienced, ethical and non-partisan specialists in their fields who show their patriotism by working for every President with equal verve, cooperation and the determination to follow the will of the people. That’s a lie, and the previous Trump administration showed us (and Trump of course) how much of a lie it is.
Nonetheless, the news media continues to advance the myth. Why? Because they want an entrenched progressive Deep State to undermine conservative policies and Republican Presidents, especially Trump. That’s why.
We have Representative Darrell Issa to thank for blowing a whistle on recent flagrant evidence of the Deep State at, appropriately enough, the State Department.
Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)
I went back and forth whether to include Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz or Lauren Boebert in the early November post listing the most unethical candidates on the ballot from each party; I only had room for two more Republicans. Ultimately I went with Greene and Gaetz, and now I’m kicking myself. In addition to being a repeat winner in this damning category and having a terrible Ethics Alarms dossier, Boebert may be the least credentialed member of Congress in a hundred years: a high school drop-out, she was the owner of a bar and restaurant called “Shooter’s Grille”(where she encouraged the restaurant’s staff to carry guns openly) before getting herself elected to Congress by Second Amendment fans. She also could be the lost twin of Lacey Chaubert, the former child actress who played one of the high school idiots plaguing Lindsey Lohan in “Mean Girls” (and now a Hallmark Channel Christmas movie regular), except that Chaubert’s character (“That’s so fetch!”) appeared to be smarter than Boebert.
The woman literally is clueless regarding the proper behavior and comportment owed to her constituents and the nation as a U.S. Representative. Shortly after the election this month (she was elected to a second term) Boebert joined Cameo, a website where celebrities sell personalized videos to fans. Stay classy, Lauren!
Why American Journalism Is Ethically Clueless And Doomed In One Rant….
I wish I could find a video of Axios CEO Jim VandeHei‘s embarrassing rant at the recent National Press Club gala that wasn’t tricked up like this one, but it’s sufficient to make the point. Naturally, Axios called the thing “inspired” and the assembled hack propagandists at the Press Club applauded like seals. He passionately defended “fearless reporting,” meaning with no fear of accountability. “Everything we do is under fire!” he warned. Yes. That’s because what you do so often is destructive, reckless, incompetent and biased. It should be under fire.
“I hate this damn debate about,‘ Oh, we don’t need the media,’ he said last week night as VanderHei and co-founder Mike Allen accepted the Fourth Estate Award for “lifetime achievement.” “It’s not true!”
Let me explain, Jim: we don’t need the unethical, arrogant media we’re currently stuck with, which is untrustworthy and dangerous. “But at the core of that is maybe transparency, maybe a free press, maybe the ability to do your job without worrying about going to jail, maybe the ability to sit in a war zone and tell people what’s actually happening!” Oh, bite me.
Paging Moral Luck! Paging Moral Luck!
Judge S. Kato Crews, a progressive appointee by President Biden to the U.S. District Court in Colorado, refused to allow an injunction against the San Jose State women’s volleyball team from including a biologically male “transwoman” (above) to compete with the team in a women’s volleyball conference tournament this week. He ruled that appellate and Supreme Court precedents clearly establish that the protections of Title IX and the 14th Amendment apply to transgender individuals.
A key factor in the decision seems to be that the plaintiffs, which are the other colleges in San Jose State’s conference, a current co-captain of the San Jose team, other former players and the recently-suspended assistant coach, should have filed the suit earlier. The conference’s transgender participation policy has been in effect since 2022 and four conference opponents and one non-conference opponent forfeited games against San Jose State beginning in September.
“The rush to litigate these complex issues now over a mandatory injunction,” Crews ruled, “places too a heavy burden on the defendants”—the Mountain West Conference and its commissioner, two administrators at San Jose State, the school’s head volleyball coach and the board of trustees of the California State University System. That’s a reasonable judicial call under most circumstances, but the judge and the entire pro-trans movement in the U.S. is now at the mercy of moral luck. That is the annoying life reality that random occurrences out of the control of decision-makers have a way of retroactively defining a decision as either prudent and wise or reckless and wrong. Crews’ decision neatly tees up the perfect conditions for moral luck to settle the trans athletes in women’s sports controversy
Did the New York Times Deliberately Set Up This Straight-line For The Obvious Joke, Or Are Its Editors Completely Clueless?
Comment of the Day: “Apt Analogy of the Month: Jaguar’s Suicidal Ad=Kamala Harris’s Campaign”
The various issues being discussed around Jaguar’s weird, woke-pandering, car-less video ad have been covered twice at Ethics Alarms, initially here. The always trenchant EA comment whiz Mrs. Q issued this emphatic Comment of the Day explaining “What’s going on here?” from her perspective, and as ever, she doesn’t mince words. Here its is, on the post, “Apt Analogy of the Month: Jaguar’s Suicidal Ad=Kamala Harris’s Campaign”….
***
“Like most adverts now, this is a story of rich white heterosexuals selling stuff to other rich white heterosexuals, using images of multi-ethnic, pansexual, differently abled humans in order to appear progressive, without actually doing or changing anything…“
Recently, it was mentioned on this blog that furries were accepted by the “LGBTQ community.” First off there is no such thing as community here. Most gays can’t stand bisexuals and most trans don’t like gays. But let’s get to the real shit here.
The people who always have and always will sign off on supposed “edgy” lifestyles and content like this has always been what my wife and I refer to as the elite, bored, rich, and white. Ever heard of the term “academic lesbian?” Learn about it and the picture starts to become clear.







