The Most Reliable Of The Factcheckers Turns Full Propagandist

My contempt for the mainstream media’s rejection of professional ethics to serve as the lickspittle lackeys of the Democratic Party and its progressive stakeholders knows no bounds. In the same general pernicious category lie the media’s allies—social media, Big Tech, and the self-proclaimed factcheckers. For decades now, I had held on to the hopeful fiction that at least one factchecking organization, the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.Org, at least could be relied upon to make a good faith effort to do its job objectively. Oh, it has always had a left-leaning bias, make no mistake about that. Many years ago I was at a conference where the keynote speaker was the head of FactCheck.Org. She proudly proclaimed the organization’s “absolute objectivity and non-partisanship.” When it came to time for audience questions, I couldn’t restrain myself: by pure coincidence, I happened to have in my briefcase a recent “factcheck” by the group that outright misstated a fact to minimize negative characterizations of Bill Clinton. I read the relevant passage to the speaker, and asked, “How can you honestly describe that passage as anything other than partisan and biased?” Her response was, as I recall, “Huminahuminahumina...”

But still, I am a sap. I so wanted to believe that there was an exception to my conviction that factcheckers are all Democrat propagandists. And now FactCheck has engaged in an instance of flagrant (and inept) propaganda under the guise of factchecking that is worthy of Baghdad Bob or Pravda.

Continue reading

The Democrats’ Revealing Hypocrisy Regarding The Harassment Of Justice Kavanaugh [Updated]

Eschewing, for the nonce, a detailed explication about how long the list is of things AOC doesn’t “get,” this tweet was issued just a few days when an obnoxious comedian and right wing troll named Alex Stein ambushed the perpetually clueless socialist Congresswoman as she was going up the steps of the Capitol, gleefully calling out that she was his favorite “big booty Latina” and saying that even though she wants to “kill babies,” she looked “sexy” in her dress. AOC reacted thusly to his camera operator, and Stein later posted the episode on his YouTube channel.

Of course, Stein’s conduct was disgusting, and his treatment of the Congresswoman qualifies as sexual harassment in form and substance despite being legal. I also qualifies as a protest. But Ocasio-Cortez was not amused, tweeting in succession…

Continue reading

Pssst! David Brooks! Proposing A Solution That Doesn’t Exist Is Lazy And Unethical

I saw the headline, “A 2024 Presidential Candidate Who Meets the Moment” in the opinion section of my digital New York Times and saw that the writer was David Brooks, the pseudo conservative, what-passes-for-an-intellectual pundit who at least poses as rational much of the time. I had to click..who could it be that Brooks believes is the promising man or woman who can lead the nation back to unity and sanity? I searched my memory banks and couldn’t imagine who it might be. Having given up on the guessing game, I finally read his column.

Do you know who Brooks’ 2024 Presidential Candidate Who Meets the Moment is?

Nobody.

Continue reading

Unethical Quote Of The Week: GOP Senate Candidate Herschel Walker [Expanded]

“Since we don’t control the air, our good air decided to float over to China’s bad air. So when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then — now we got we to clean that back up.”

Yes, Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker really said those words, in that order. The gibberish is on a recently released video of an appearance he made last week at a local GOP picnic in Hall County, northeast of Atlanta, when Walker spoke, if you can call it that, about climate change. The Republican Party, desperate to take control of the Senate, actually nominated a candidate to defeat Democratic incumbent Ralph Warnock whose grasp of science, logic and language is that infantile.

Walker’s sole qualifications, if you can call them that, for the Senate are that he is a local and national sports celebrity, and black. He has no other qualifications. In addition to his obvious lack of education and erudition, he has also lied repeatedly for years, presenting himself as someone he is not. He is a neon-bright hypocrite, lecturing about the responsibilities of fatherhood while hiding the existence of his own children conceived without the security of a secure relationship with their mothers. Continue reading

Thursday Ethics Thinkin’ And Theorizin’, 7/14/2022: The Horror…The Horror…

I just stumbled upon that video from “The Red Skelton Show,” vintage early Seventies. The ethical values being destroyed here are competence and respect (for the audience, for the culture, for the nation, for music and dance.) You can learn so much from the thing, and yet it raises so many questions…like, how did the culture devolve from “Good Morning!” in “Singing in the Rain” to this slop in 20 years? Is this what killed movie musicals—a sudden lack of taste? What caused it? Did the choreographer know he or she was presenting shit? How could he live with himself? They paid someone to create that! Did Simon and Garfunkel see this? Why didn’t they kill themselves? How do we explain Liberace to future generations? How can anyone claim that the US is a nest of white supremacy when whites publicly humiliated themselves like this? Seeing those dancers with their insipid expression and their ridiculous outfits made me want to rip my skin off.

If the United States could survive the Seventies, it can survive again. This video gives me hope and perspective, and I will regard it as beneficial on balance, provided that I can get it out of my brain before it drives me stark, raving mad.

1. Least surprising poll result of the year: A Pew Research Center poll determined that, among reporters who say their outlet’s audience leans left, 30% support “equal coverage for all sides,” and 69% said that “it is not always deserved.” I have problems with Pew’s framing of the issue—you know, polls. Presenting the facts fairly and objectively shouldn’t involve “sides” at all. The objective should be to explain events and issues without picking or having “sides.”

Continue reading

Two Open Letters…

 

 From the sublime to the absurd…

Yesterday, RealClearPolitics published an open letter from Brown University professor Glenn Loury and the founder of The Woodson Center, Robert Woodson Sr., denouncing the  attacks aimed at Justice Clarence Thomas following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling and Thomas’ provocative concurring opinion. It’s a nicely direct and necessary condemnation:

White progressives do not have the moral authority to excommunicate a black man from his race because they disagree with him. And those – regardless of background – who join in the charade or remain silent are guilty of enabling this abuse.

We, the undersigned, condemn the barrage of racist, vicious, and ugly personal attacks that we are witnessing on Clarence Thomas – a sitting Supreme Court justice. Whether it is calling him a racist slur, an “Uncle Tom” or questioning his “blackness” over his jurisprudence, the disparagement of this man, of his faith and of his character, is abominable.

Regardless of where one stands on Justice Thomas’ personal or legal opinions, he is among the pantheon of black trailblazers throughout American history and is a model of integrity, scholarship, steadfastness, resilience, and commitment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

For three decades Justice Thomas has served as a model for our children. He has long been honored and celebrated by black people in this country and his attackers do not speak for the majority of blacks.He is entirely undeserving of the vitriol directed at him.

Character assassination has become too convenient a tool for eviscerating those who dare dissent from the prevailing agenda, especially when it is a black man who is dissenting.This is not about the content of the court’s decisions or Justice Thomas’ personal views; some of the undersigned agree with his judicial decisions and some do not.

We speak out – as black people and Americans – to condemn these attacks and support Justice Thomas, because to remain silent would be to implicitly endorse these poisonous schemes as well as his destruction.

Continue reading

The Victoria’s Secret Smoking Gun: The New York Times Doesn’t Just Use Unethical Reporting To Push Its Political Agenda…It Does It To Push A Social Agenda As Well

The Times article yesterday was headlined, “Victoria’s Secret and What’s Sexy Now: A rebranding and a new documentary have the lingerie company back in the cultural cross hairs.” The piece emits barely-restrained enthusiasm for VS’s controversial rebranding and implies that the effort, while having to overcome much bias and cultural headwinds, is succeeding….and should. The final words written by NYT fashion maven Vanessa Friedman are these:

[P]erhaps the real takeaway from all of this is that no one person or brand or size or shape gets to say what’s sexy — and that should be seen as a good thing.

That sexy in the end has to do with feeling at ease in your skin, rather than in any single garment. That there are as many definitions of the term as there are people in the world. And that actual empowerment doesn’t come in a bra and panty set. It comes out of it.

Her article begins by saying that when the fantasy female bedroom attire company announced, in a fit of wokeness, that it would “become a champion of female empowerment, replacing its bevy of supermodel angels with the VS Collective, ten women of great accomplishment as well as varying ages and body types — the news was met, generally (and understandably), with raised eyebrows.” Among those virtual eyebrows were those of this blog, which observed at the time in part [Item #3]:

Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “The Mark Of A Totalitarian: Michael Moore’s ‘Replacement’ For The Second Amendment”

I assumed Michael Moore’s epic idiocy in the form of a “new amendment” would provoke some lively responses. Among the liveliest was this Comment of the Day from one of longest running active commenter (and one of few I’ve had the pleasure to meet face-to-face, Tim LeVier.

Tim makes the timely observation that Moore doesn’t understand what a “right” is in American tradition, and indeed there’s a lot of that going around. Part of the Left’s fury over not only the SCOTUS opinion reaffirming the Second Amendment but its long-overdue erasure of the imaginary “right to abortion.” Numerous ideological scholars are now attacking the Founders and their Constitution as archaic because they didn’t understand the more expansive concept of “rights” favored by progressives. They want recognition of a right to make a living wage, a right to have a home, a right to have enough food, and so on, ad infinitem. That inflated concept of “rights” is the predominant one in socialist and communist societies. They don’t work, you know. Usually the nations gulled into either system fail spectacularly. However, all those “rights” sound great in theory: the problem is that all require an efficient, trustworthy government that won’t abuse the almost limitless power maintaining such a society requires. Isn’t there an old saying about that? I seem to remember one.

The first stirrings of serious socialist aspirations in high places emanated from none other than President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who always had a dangerous measure of dictatorial aspirations in his soul. In his famous Four Freedoms speech, he endorsed loose talk about “Freedom from Fear” and “Freedom from Want” to accompany the basic First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom the worship. “Freedom from Fear” sums up Moore’s insidious “28th Amendment” and “Freedom from Want” is an open invitation to the nanny state., or worse. FDR was pandering when he launched this irresponsible rhetoric, at a time when poverty was rampant, there was an unhealthy and growing popular attachment to Communism, and when he was also rallying support for a war against Nazi Germany. Calling these universal freedoms that all people possess—in other words, rights— was metaphorically playing with dynamite that could blow up democracy.

It still is.

Here is Tim LeVier’s Comment of the Day on the post, “The Mark Of A Totalitarian: Michael Moore’s “Replacement” For The Second Amendment.”

***

Too bad he doesn’t understand what a “right” is. You have a right to exist and create safe conditions for yourself, but you do not have a “right” to protection. If we had a “right to protection”, the Uvalde police officers would be on death row at this moment. No. Police a.k.a. the government, is for maintaining the peace if possible, but restoring peace and cleaning up after tragedy is more correct to their mission. Continue reading

Broadway’s “Funny Girl” Fiasco’s Conflicted Agent

You can be forgiven if you haven’t followed the massive Broadway crack-up saga of the “Funny Girl” revival; after all, Broadway is an elite, increasingly culturally irrelevant dinosaur where 80% of those on stage are gay, 90% of those in those in audience can afford hundred dollar tickets, and half of the shows first premiered when Joe Biden was in braces. You can be excused even more if you missed the massive ethics scandal at the crack-up’s core; after all, most theater reporters have no ethics alarms, just like most theater professionals. Still, to quote a character in an ancient Broadway classic that had an significant ethical impact, “Attention must be paid.”

Continue reading