Dispatches From The Great Stupid, An Ethics Dunce Family, And West Coast Bizarro World [Link Fixed!]

/ Jack Marshall / 42 Comments

This story is so mind-meltingly stupid that it actually makes me angry.

I am not going to be kind. When woke delusions get this serious, innocent people are going to be hurt. That’s Jennifer Angel above, a small business owner and Oakland baker. She was an anarchist and extreme social justice advocate, as if anarchy doesn’t lead directly to injustice. I’m sure she was a nice person, just permanently crippled by living too long in California and hanging out with aging hippies. Jennifer didn’t deserve to die, and die horribly, but she did: when a thief broke into Angel’s car while she was in it, grabbed something and jumped into a getaway car, Angel chased the thief—after all, that’s what you have to do when there are no police, as Angel wished. Sadly, she got caught in the door of the fleeing vehicle was dragged down the street, her head smashing against the pavement repeatedly. She was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Angel’s family and friends issued a statement, and it is utopian claptrap for the ages. here is most of it, and when I can’t stand by without commenting, I will interrupt: Continue reading →

An Integrity Test For Senator Romney

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Well played, Tulsi!

Let’s see if Mitt has the integrity and character to apologize. If so, he had better do it soon. Will he? I’m guessing that he will eat the metaphorical crow.

Ethics Dunce: Fox News anchor Julie Banderas

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Journalists have pretty much jettisoned every other ethical value connected to their profession, so it shouldn’t surprise me that they’ve jettisoned professionalism as well. Come on, dude, you didn’t really think that Don “Isn’t it cute that I’m drunk and ranting on TV” Lemon was unique, did you?

Fox News anchor Julie Banderas—no, I don’t believe she got her lofty perch in broadcast news for her reporting skills, but then neither did Chris Cuomo—was one of the gang on “Gutfield!,” Fox News’ evening comedy talk show last week. She exploited the opportunity to announce that she was divorcing the father of her three children live as she launched into a bitter diatribe against Valentine’s Day..

“Fuck Valentine’s Day!” she said. “Yeah, it’s stupid. I mean, even when I was married, I didn’t get shit for Valentine’s Day.”

“Wait, you’re no longer married?” host Greg Gutfeld asked.

“Well, I’m getting a divorce. I’m gonna go ahead and say it right here for the first time,” the trusted news anchor replied. Her announcement was planned, because she told her Twitter followers that she would be making it on the show that night. “Thank you everyone, congratulations are already in order,” she continued. “If you know me, you’ll clap. That was breaking news, listen you don’t have to be a guy to not get shit on Valentine’s Day, come talk to me after the show. It’s a Hallmark holiday, it’s stupid. It’s just absolutely ridiculous and I don’t think you need one day.”

Observations: Continue reading →

Trans Ethics Train Wreck Update: Why Is All This This Happening? [With A Bonus Comment Of The Day On “Hogwarts Legacy”]

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Among the many things I don’t understand about the increasingly bizarre trans-advocacy bullying and propaganda is the ideological divide. Why are Democrats and progressives supporting this manifestly bonkers—and unethical—effort to defy reality?

Some of the latest “revoltin’ developments”:

1. The unhinged fury at J.K. Rowling for not falling in with the pro-trans guerillas.

Today is the release date for Hogwarts Legacy, the most highly anticipated video game of 2023. But many trans-fans are conflicted about the game because of supposedly transphobic comments made  about transgender people by J.K. Rowling, the creator of Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and the whole empire.  Conveniently, EA Comment-Master Humble Talent registered a report on today’s Open Forum. In his Comment of the Day, slightly shortened here (read it all at the link) HT writes,

[P]rogressives hate JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, feminist icon, and TERF extraordinaire. It’s not like Rowling is particularly offensive….The problem isn’t that she’s offensive, the problem is that she’s a traitor. Worse, she’s a traitor that they helped prop up, she has “Fuck You” levels of money, and nothing they do can actually cancel her, because again… She’s independently wealthy, isn’t particularly offensive, and doesn’t care what they think.

Her offense, such that it is, is a less than enthusiastic endorsement of the trans agenda. She has no problems using pronouns, she tries, generally, to be polite, but sometimes uses a variation of the TERF maxim of “there are very few places where gender actually matters anymore, but where it does, it matters a lot” and doesn’t put much stock in the idea of trans women in women’s sport, and feels that trans women shouldn’t be in women’s prisons or abuse shelters, off the top of my head.

Trans people, not very well adjusted to reality to begin with, are so used to getting their way when they whine on Twitter that they’re not dealing very well with the idea that Warner Brothers would continue to risk their ire by further developing the Harry Potter Franchise, which in some very unclear way involving assumed royalties benefits Rowling, the newest iteration of which is “Hogwarts Legacy.”

…It’s fairly obvious that the developers were acutely aware that they were going to be under a DEI microscope, so there is a LOT of representation in the game. This isn’t a huge departure from the source material, there was a lot of representation there too… Rowling is, after all, progressive….

Very early on in the game, you meet the Potterverse’s first trans character: Sirona Ryan. Trans people apparently don’t think that pandering was enough, because Sirona starts with Sir, and that’s an obvious slight.

Because of course it is. The developers going out of their way to try to cleanse the franchise of the filth of its creator by shoehorning in as much DEI as possible is just cover so that they could name their first trans character Manlina McBeefcake to squick the trans people they’re not actually pandering to. Because that makes sense.

Which is the theme here… Nothing is enough. They’re bound and determined to hate it. Which is why the success of the game seems to feel like pure rock salt in the open wound of their entire existence. It’s a good game with a very popular franchise released at a time when there aren’t any other new releases worth note on the market.

So…. What do you do when something you hate is succeeding and you’re really unused to the market not giving a damn about your displeasure? You melt down. The fireworks over this have been some of the most entertaining terminally online bullshit I’ve seen in my life. Brigades of trans people and their allies are joining Twitch streams of people playing HL and cramming their chats with bile, article after article after article written by progressives whining belligerently over the market’s apathy to their discomfort, but most interestingly, because it’s new: Someone coded a website that would log whenever someone streamed HL and compiled it in a searchable database, so trans people could know who to boycott…. Which was basically everyone, so it’s not exactly effective.

Any and all of this would have been derided by the same people doing it as targeted harassment and bullying if they were the target of what they’re doing to others, and they’re doing it without a spark of self awareness. Which lends more credit, I think, to my prevailing theory of: These people don’t actually care about targeted harassment, bullying, or any other professed principle. They’re consistently unhappy people and their single last joy in life is bitching with the intent of depriving other people of the joy they are incapable of feeling.

2. More Lia Thomas ethics rot… Continue reading →

Most Unethical Zookeeper Ever! [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The key question in determining whether José Rubén Nava Noriega is the worst and must untrustworthy zookeeper ever rests on the basic question: How could one be worse? Almost ten years ago, there was a management scandal the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. in involving multiple cases of negligent animal care. This guy makes the zookeeper in that episode seem like Dr. Doolittle by comparison.

Noriega, the director of Chilpancingo Zoo in Guerrero, Mexico, had only been in charge for a few months before an investigation found out that he was, to put it mildly, not doing a very good job. He had authorized animal trades with fake invoices to justify money transfers. He traded rare watusi bulls for building materials and tools that he either sold or hid.  Animal births and deaths weren’t recorded, as zoo policies required. Most mysterious of all, his zoo somehow managed to lose 10 reptiles, a jagurundi, a coyote, several birds, and four of the zoo’s ten pygmy goats.

At least the missing pygmy goats mystery was solved: Noriega ate them. Well, not just him: Noriega had the four goats slaughtered, roasted and served to the whole staff at a New Year’s party. (My wife was once attacked by pygmy goats at the London Zoo. I have pictures!)

The goats are apparently not edible. “They were not animals suitable for human consumption,” the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources told reporters. Now, if Noriega  had eaten some other zoo animals, that would have been OK. Well…better.

Noriega’s been fired, by the way.
________________________

Comment Of The Day: Unethical Quote Of The Week: Former Head Of Twitter’s Office of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

In this Comment of the Day, made yesterday by veteran EA commenter Glenn Logan, he alerts us to an arguably even scarier statement at the Twitter censorship hearings yesterday, pointing to Jonathan Turley’s horrified (the professor is always horrified in a restrained fashion, unlike me) reaction to both the statement and the Democratic approval of it. The entire day of testimony justifies the appearance of Geena above, and she was only warning about a single man gradually turning into a giant fly. We are watching our nation mutating into a repressive, totalitarian society that restrains and punishes independent thought.

How many of your friends would vote for the likes of  Rep. Melanie Ann Stansbury (D., NM), whose response to the creepy statement Glenn writes about was “Exactly”? Or with former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal’s statement that he pledged to regulate the platform’s content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation” and would  “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard”?

For all his weirdness, hypocrisy and Trumpish trolling, Elon Musk performed one of the most important acts in defense of democracy and America’s future in recent memory.

Here is Glenn’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Former Head Of Twitter’s Office of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth.”

***

Jack wrote: Roth literally said that Twitter believed you have to destroy free speech in order to save it—and he didn’t even realize how Orwellian that is.

Indeed, but what really freaks me out (and only slightly hyperbolically) was the testimony of his fellow Twit, former Twitter executive Anika Coliler Navaroli at a House Oversight Committee hearing yesterday, which is analyzed by Jonathan Turley on his blog:

Navaroli said in response to a question from a Democratic member:

“Instead of asking just free speech versus safety to say free speech for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.”

Continue reading →

Open Forum! Get Ready to Rumble…

/ Jack Marshall / 37 Comments

“Conspiracy” is back up and free on Amazon Prime. That’s the excellent and disturbing dramatic recreation of the Third Reich’s powerhouse meeting, under the direction of Heydrich (with Eichmann taking notes), to determine what to do to eliminate the millions of Jews Germany now had imprisoned. (That link takes you to the EA post about it from 2021. A quote from Heydrich (Kenneth Branaugh), reading an actual document from Hitler’s high command, struck me differently than it did the first time I saw the film, thanks to  the creepy testimony of former Twitter censors before Congress yesterday:

“In order to control events, it is necessary to control opinion.”

Never mind me (or Heydrich): please discuss what you want to discuss.

Somebody Explain To Roseanne Barr What A Double Standard Is

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

I guess I should start off by admitting that I have never found Roseanne Barr sufficiently witty, original or entertaining to make up for the ugliness of her world view, her horrible nasal screech, and her unjustified belief in her own brilliance.

I never could stand her hit sitcom or sit through an entire episode, so the reboot was about as welcome to me as most reboots (like the sad zombie version of “Murphy Brown”), but even a little less. When she managed to get herself fired and transformed into a pariah for making a racist slur against Barack Obama’s top advisor (and Michelle’s pal) Valerie Jarrett, tweeting in 2018 that Jarrett was the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Planet of the Apes movies, I didn’t feel sorry for her. The tweet was racist, and it was a mark of Barr’s arrogance, built up over years of being excessively praised and rewarded for being “outrageous”—I file her in the same general category as similarly unfunny shock-jocks like Howard Stern—that no ethics alarms went off when she thought it would be hilarious to compare an Obama staffer to a monkey. It was also stunningly stupid. From my ethicist perspective, Barr made the offense worse by claiming that she had no idea that Jarrett was black. Sure, Roseanne. Continue reading →

Roshomon* Ethics: The House Votes To Block Two D.C. Laws

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

What’s going on here? As is often the case, it depends on who you are and what your perspective is.

The House voted by large margins to adopt resolutions that would overturn a two laws passed by the District of Columbia’s City Council. It was the first attempt to interfere with the District’s “home rule’ privileges in more than 30 years,  when Congress  overruled a local law in 1991 to annul a measure that would have allowed the construction of an apartment and office complex 20 feet above the city’s downtown height limit. Nothing in the District is allowed to be taller than the Washington Monument, and that was considered a potential wound to the Capital’s mystique and the honor due to its namesake.

Congress can exercise authority over D.C. local affairs, according to the District Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17). Congress reviews all D.C. legislation before it can become law (the members seldom read them, or course, usually acting as rubber stamps) and can change or reveres D.C. legislation. It is a power that Congress hesitates to use, however, especially when Democrats are in the majority. The two measures opposed this time, however were just asking for a slapdown. One allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections, a recent fad in woke cities, D.C.’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, which would lower penalties for a number of violent criminal offenses.

The reaction of D.C.’s race-obsessed political class was so predictable it wasn’t even a challenge. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District’s nonvoting House delegate, reacted to the House vote by playing the plantation card, saying, “D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and brown, are either unworthy or incapable of governing themselves.” Continue reading →

An Ethics Song Challenge: “That’s The Way I Always Heard It Should Be” (1971)

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Discuss.

I heard Carly Simon’s hit (she co-wrote the lyrics) in the car today; I hadn’t listened to it or thought about it for decades. When I first listened to the song, I just took it as more whiny Sixties “our parents don’t know how to live and we’re still stuck with the world and values they created” lament. Now, after being married myself and actually fighting through life, I realize its a much smarter and perceptive song than I thought, and one that raises a lot of complex ethics issues. I’d be very interested in the commentariat’s thoughts about… Continue reading →