On the Colbert “Equal Time” Nonsense…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Gee, what a surprise. Democrats don’t like the Federal Communications Commission “Equal Time” rule applying to non-news shows when hey try to influence elections.

The Communications Act of 1934, once aimed at radio, now mostly applied to television, includes a provision regarding coverage of political candidates. If a station gives airtime to one candidate, then the same station must offer comparable time to other candidates competing in an approaching primary or election.  Regarding campaign ads, a station selling airtime to one candidate also has to offer to sell the same amount of time to other candidates for the same office. Exceptions to this rule include newscasts, “bona fide” interview programs, and coverage of live events or documentaries. Candidates appearing in non-news, entertainment programming near to elections now trigger the provision.

As they should.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert, on the way out already from his all-Democratic-cheer-leading-all-the-time show, attacked his own network this week after he was stopped from airing an interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D), a U.S. Senate candidate, because of the FCC ’s equal-time rule.

“You know who is not one of my guests tonight?” Colbert asked his audience. “That’s Texas state representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.” On cue, his partisan studio audience booed.

“Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on,” Colbert continued. “And because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”

Boy, isn’t he funny? My sides ache from laughing! No wonder Colbert is regarded as a comic genius. Admit it, the guy is hilarious.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Month: Jill Foster in “The Telegraph”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

“Far from being isolated incidents, the two attacks are just the latest mass shootings involving trans-identified perpetrators in recent years. And they will doubtless reignite speculation among Republican figures in the US that transgender treatment is making people more likely to carry out such attacks.”

—-Freelance journalist and long-time UK editor and life-style reporter Jill Foster in “Are cross-sex drugs driving trans shooters to kill?”

I love this quote! It’s a “bias makes you stupid” all-time classic. It’s a self-awareness void all-time classic! It’s a “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts” all-time classic! It’s a “Yoo’s Rationalization,” or “It isn’t what it is” all-time classic!

What a perfect example of the Left’s woke delusions and amazing ability to see only what it wants to see. I want to frame that quote. I want to put it on T-shirts and coffee mugs.

Never mind pondering whether trans individuals are mentally ill: what does it say about progressives who can read that statement and react by shaking their heads, tut-tutting, and thinking, “How true, how true. Those hateful Republicans, and conservatives of course, will definitely speculate that because a tiny sliver of the population has been disproportionately engaging in mass murder, there might be a reason related to the radical treatment we good and rational people call “gender affirming care. What’s the matter with those bigots?”

Funny, I have been wondering, since so many individuals of dubious gender identity have been killing people lately while the news media, in its coverage that emphasizes the only their favorite anti-gun angle, never mentions the possibility that there may be a link between trans murderers snapping and their…what can I call it? Malady? No, that’s pejorative. Condition? Confusion? Delusion? Medical abuse?…if I’m the only one whose Holmesian instincts detect a possible cause and effect.

Now, thanks to Jill’s incisive reportage, I realize that my politically incorrect thoughts are simply attributable to the fact that I would rather have an orangutan rip my face off and eat it than vote for a Democrat in November.

I’m gradually viewing Jill’s matter of fact statement that only U.S. Republicans are capable of processing reality as excellent reporting. Far from being the unethical, biased, incredibly stupid assertion it appeared to be at first reading, I realize this is a factual assertion. Democrats will deny even an unavoidable conclusion if it in any way undermines their favored world view. If it is an inconvenient fact, they will made sure their captive propagandists in the media bury it or deny it, or better still, demonize those who dare to utter such Wrongthink out loud.

Thanks, Jill! You’ve given us a lot not to think about.

Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s “Islamaphobic” Quote

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

Oh, I find this fascinating, especially in light of the previous post.

Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a social media post that dog poop littered snowdrifts in the city proved that dogs should have no place in society as indoor pets because, she wrote, “like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”

Responding to this obnoxious assertion of foreign values and priorities over American ones, Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) replied, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

Naturally the Mad Left exploded with horror and indignation, with the usual calls for the insensitive Republican’s resignation and worse. But the truth is, if we are being honest about our own culture and priorities, if every Muslim in the United States joined in a mass ultimatum stating, “This is non-negotiable. Either the United States gives up its dogs as house pets, or we’re leaving!” the overwhelming majority of Americans—including me—would say, “Gee, that’s a shame. Well, bye! Good luck in your future endeavors!”

The Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was it unethical for Rep. Fine to say what he did?

Pages: 1 2

Dogs Are People Too, Sort Of, At Least When It Comes To Divorce, Says Pennsylvania.

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Pennsylvania looks poised to complete the passage of legislation requiring judges to consider the welfare of “companion animals”—you know, pets?— in divorce proceedings. House Bill 97, sponsored by dog-loving Rep. Anita Kulik, D-Allegheny, is heading to the statute book unless Governor Josh Shapiro has the guts to alienate a rather passionate voting bloc by vetoing it.

The bill amends the state’s Domestic Relations statute to add a special category for companion animals, recognizing them as sentient, “living beings that are generally regarded as cherished family members” and not property to be treated as such. As of now, pets in Pennsylvania divorces have the same status as furniture or appliances. Under the new law, judges would decide which member of the dissolving union should get custody of pets based on…

  • …whether the animal was acquired before or during the marriage.
  • …the pet’s basic daily needs, and who is best able to fulfill them
  • …which party was usually in charge of veterinary care and took care of the animals’ exercise and social interaction.
  • …which party is most likely to comply with compliance with state and local regulations regarding pets.
  • …who haa the greater financial ability to support the animal.

Reasonably, the legislation also presumes that a service animal should remain with the party who needs the service.

My late wife, an animal junkie who got far more upset over movies where a dog dies (as in “Turner and Hooch,” “Old Yeller,” “My Dog Skip”…actually, the dog usually dies in dog movies) than when, say, Ali MacGraw died in “Love Story,” would have loved that law. She never forgave Tom Cruise for treating his dog “like a piece of furniture” in “The Firm.”

Pages: 1 2

Jesse Jackson (1941-2026)

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

I chose that memorable Saturday Night Live bit above because it shows Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader who died today, at his best: smart, self-deprecating, charming and likeable. Jackson could slide into demagoguery (he was good at it), and he was frequently, even usually, a divisive presence on the national scene. Nonetheless, he was ultimately a catalyst for more good developments in American society, culture and politics than bad. But it’s a close call.

Civil rights was by no means achieved by the time Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968. The stain of Jim Crow was still strong in the South, and de facto segregation was rife everywhere else, as in my hometown of Boston where it often seemed like there were more black players on the field playing for the Red Sox than in the stands at Fenway Park. The school busing controversy was six years away in 1968.

With the eloquent and charismatic King martyred, the nation needed a new leader of the civil rights movement. Malcolm X was brilliant and charismatic but radical and racist. Rev. Ralph Abernathy was boring, a pale (no pun intended) successor to King. The other leaders of the civil rights movement resonated as grifters, determined to prove Eric Hoffer right when he argued that “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and turns into a racket.” As happens so often in American history, Jesse Jackson was the right leader to emerge when the nation needed him.

Pages: 1 2

Oh, You Didn’t Think I Would Forget Presidents Day, Did You? [Embarrassing Gaffe Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Well, to be truthful, I almost did. The contrived holiday seldom occurs this early. Nevertheless, I’m going to recognize Presidents Day with re-posts of two essays about U.S. Presidents, neither of which were originally written for the holiday.

The first is one of my favorite mysterious tales about any President, in this case George Washington, and the second, from 2015 and re-posted five years ago, is my favorite story about any President ever.

Here they are:

Pssst! Bill Maher! The “Saved By God” Belief Has Inspired Some of Our Greatest Presidents. Shut Up.

Atheists and agnostics in the public sphere don’t have to be obnoxious, but an awful lot of them are. Their explanation for where the universe came from is no more persuasive that that of the faithful (The Big Bang? Come on.) but they just can’t restrain themselves. HBO’s Bill Maher is a prime example: along with mocking committed relationships (he hates the concept of marriage), extolling drugs and debauchery, and generally keeping his Axis of Unethical Conduct membership current, he ridicules Christianity at every opportunity.

The fact is, and it is a fact, that the United States of America had a much healthier and ethical culture before organized religion had discredited itself so thoroughly, driving whole generations away. Moral codes are especially essential for those who don’t have the time or ability to puzzle through ethics, and believing in God is the best catalyst for an ethical society that there is….and it has always been thus.

Heck, just look at what a jerk Maher is. That’s what atheism can do to you. But I digress.

My target here is more narrow. On last week’s “Real Time,” Maher sneered at the belief that God saved Donald Trump from being assassinated as stupid and “dangerous.” “People see signs because they want to see them. It’s why stalkers think Taylor Swift is blinking ‘marry me’ to them in Morse Code,” he explained. “It gets dangerous when the signs make someone think God is on their side,” Maher continued.  “Republican Congressman Mike Collins said after the shooting, ‘God spared Ronald Reagan for a reason. God spared Donald Trump for a reason. God doesn’t miss.’ Really? Tell that to John Lennon, Lincoln, JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King. Look, the asshole who shot at Trump was cowardly, unpatriotic, selfish, vile, and weak, and he should rot in hell, but thinking that God protects your heroes but not mine? That isn’t cool either.”

How do you know, Bill, that God doesn’t protect your heroes for a very good reason? I can think of several good reasons for that, as well as for squashing you like a bug. Of course the certitude that God is responsible for anything is confirmation bias: my wife, the daughter of a Methodist minister, frequently expressed contempt for the faithful who simultaneously said that “God works in mysterious ways” and “there are no coincidences” while conveniently asserting that they had figured out those mysterious ways. But if Bill knew as much about American history, leadership and the Presidency as he should, he would know that the belief that God has saved them for a reason motivated many of America’s greatest leaders. It could have been dangerous, I suppose, but so far, that belief had been overwhelmingly beneficial to our nation. Perhaps even its salvation.

Leadership requires special character traits, the right formative experiences and a lot of luck. National leadership arises out of an individual’s conviction that they are uniquely qualified to do a better job than anyone else, accompanied by the passion, conviction and charisma necessary to convince others of their abilities. That’s why so many of our Presidents have been narcissists, true, but the anti-American trope that our leaders only seek power, wealth and personal benefits is, based on my lifelong study of history, garbage.

Pages: 1 2

A Psychology “Expert” Reveals “the No. 1 Phrase to Shut Down a Manipulator” [Bad Link Fixed!]

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

And to that I say, “Bite me.”

Shadé Zahrai, a CNBC contributor, weighs in with her advice regarding “one of the most effective ways to stop a manipulator.“ She says that the magic phrase is: “That’s interesting. Tell me more.”

This is passive-aggressive weenieism, as well as dishonest. I don’t tell people that I find something interesting unless it is, in fact interesting. Doing so is a lie. If I’m using “interesting” sarcastically but want “the manipulator” to think I’m sincere, that’s deceit, another form of dishonesty. Much of the time the “expert’s” use of “That’s interesting” is just another version of “Why bless your heart!”

So the expert says that the way to foil “manipulators” is to be manipulative. How expert of her! She recommends versions of her all-purpose defense if someone is trying to subtly coerce you, if someone is trying to guilt-trip you, and if someone is trying to gaslight you. Her discovery is nothing but warmed over 70’s era versions of the obnoxious (and and manipulative) deflections “I hear you” and “I acknowledge the validity of your feelings.” It’s conflict avoidance when conflict is needed.

If someone attacks me with an unfounded or unfair accusation, I might say, “Ok, produce your evidence, if you have any.” I might say, “That doesn’t deserve a response.” I might say, “What’s the matter with you?” But “That’s interesting” isn’t in the cards.

I don’t find it interesting when someone denies what I know to be true. I’ll say, “Nope, you’re wrong; your memory has betrayed you, or you’re lying. Which is it?” If someone says, “After everything I’ve done for you, this is how you repay me?” I will say, “I’m not repaying you. I’m doing what I believe has to be done, and our past interaction has nothing to do with it. I’m sorry my decision upsets you.” If someone says, “If you really cared, you’d agree with me, ” I’ll respond with, “Don’t try that emotional blackmail on me. It’s insulting, and I resent it.”

All around us now we are under psychological attack by people who want us be passive, fearful wimps, terrified on taking on liars, bullies and jerks directly. Don’t let them get away with it.

Ethics Observation on the Larry Bushart Fiasco

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Do read this New York Times story [gift link]about Larry Bushart, a progressive Facebook addict who was arrested and spent 37 days on jail after being arrested on the theory that a meme he posted (that he didn’t create) was a “true threat” and thus a felony. He was held on a two-million dollar bond. I mentioned the case last November, but had limited information then.

Believe it or not—I can barely believe it—the meme above is what got Bushart arrested! Eventually the charges were dropped, but understandably, the 61-year-old retired police officer isn’t posting memes on Facebook any more, and is hesitant to express his contrarian opinions on social media. In a real sense, his free speech has been “chilled” by state action…state action that was unethical, illegal, an abuse of discretion and power, and mind-numbingly stupid. It is also a cautionary tale.

Observations:

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “On Lincoln’s Favorite Poem, and the Poems’ We Memorize…”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

What a joy to wake up this morning not only to a spectacular Comment of the Day, but also to a note from an MIA commenter who was last seen in these parts almost nine years ago! I welcome Lisa Smith back to Ethics Alarms with a well-deserved Comment of the Day honor, for her note on the post, “On Lincoln’s Favorite Poem, and the Poems’ We Memorize…”

(I couldn’t resist leading this off with one of two brilliant Charles Addams cartoon about “The Raven.” The other has Poe pondering as a raven, perching over his door, says, “Occasionally.”)

***

I don’t know – Poe’s Raven has one of my favorite lines; it isn’t at all profound, but it is profoundly delightful to speak and to allow to roll over the brain like a cool river. I memorized the entire poem when I was a teen in the late 70’s and can still recite it. (But for the life of me, I can’t remember the “new” neighbor’s names, even though they have been here five or six years. Their dog is Annie. My priorities are laid bare, I suppose.)

“And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain thrills me, fills me with fantastic terrors never felt before.”

There may be errors in there. I write it from memory alone. [JM: Pretty close! “And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain, thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before”]

Poetry makes equals of us all. From Bukowski to Shakespeare. They speak to each person in their own way.

Pages: 1 2

Dear Prof. Turley: Clean Up Your Comments Section

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

I check Jonathan Turley’s blog “Res Ipsa Loquitur” a couple times a week. Why? First, he often covers a topic I am already focusing on; second, he writes well and scrupulously tries to give a balanced analysis. He also knows his lane, and generally stays in it. The professor has definitely been red-pilled in the Trump era; he is as disgusted with Democratic Party’s deceit and double standards as I am, and the Axis news media’s bias has become evident to him as well, as in this recent post.

Yes, it’s true, I also enjoy Turley’s column because I almost always agree with him (and he with me), as in his expressed disgust with Representative Roe Kahana.

But I come to admonish Turley, not to praise him. His reader comments are a disgrace. The comments on every post typically deteriorate into general Trump derangement screeds, non-substantive snarking, and rants about topics not even slightly related to Turley’s post, with an occasional substantive contribution buried in there somewhere if one is willing to scroll through meters of garbage.

In addition, most of the comments are anonymous, with three or four commenters named “Anonymous” sometimes arguing in the same thread. Turley, as a national figure with periodic columns in The Hill and New York Post as well frequent appearances on Fox News, has a lot of readers on his blog and consequently many comments, usually over a hundred per post. Today I spent over an hour on an extensive post of over a thousand words, and as of this minute, a grand total of 63 people have bothered to look at it. But quantity doesn’t mean quality on Turley’s blog because he doesn’t bother to moderate comments beyond removing spam. For the most part, the readers comments add nothing to his site. In fact, they diminish its value.

I am very proud of the tough, substantive, perceptive and thought provoking comments I see on the Ethics Alarms posts. I don’t pretend that my work here can match the professor’s for scholarship and erudition, but the commentariate laps any other blog I have encountered.

I’m in debt to you all. Thanks.