Ann Althouse

The Sec. of Transportation Tells Kim Kardashian That She’s an Irresponsible Ignorance-Spreading Fool. Good!

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

In an episode of the reality show “The Kardashians” (My god, is that still on?) Uber Kardashian Kim, the only one of the breed who earned her celebrity (with a sex tape and a huge derriere), told actress Sarah Paulson that she had watched interviews with Buzz Aldrin, who was on the Apollo 11 mission with Neil Armstrong and the second person to walk on the moon, and they convinced her that the moon landing was a government hoax.

“I don’t think we did. I think it was fake,” the Kimster announced. “I’ve seen a few videos on Buzz Aldrin talking about how it didn’t happen. He says it all the time now, in interviews.” Does anyone know what the hell she’s babbling about? The last time I heard about Aldrin in relation to the moonwalk conspiracy theory, he punched a guy in the face for claiming it was true.

Then Kardashian repeated a trope of the ancient conspiracy theory: “There’s no gravity on the moon. Why is the flag blowing?” I view that statement all by itself as signature significance: anyone who says it once is too gullible to be let outside without a keeper, and anyone who says it publicly is an idiot. The “mystery” can be answered by viewing the archived videos or by 3 seconds of googling. Who goes on TV and asserts a non-fact that anyone, including her, can prove false in a trice?

This time, however, big guns were trained on the specific idiot. Sean Duffy, the US Transportation Secretary and acting administrator of NASA, rebutted the whatever-she-is on X. He wrote: “Yes, Kim Kardashian, we’ve been to the moon before … Six times! And even better, NASA Artemis is going back under the leadership of [President Trump]. We won the last space race and we will win this one too.”

Madison, Wis, bloggress Ann Althouse, in one of her “it’s not the topic, it’s the tangents” posts, asks,

“Why is a government official calling out a private citizen who expresses interest in a conspiracy theory? We’re Americans. We have our conspiracy theories. Keep your government nose out of our business. You’re only giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. Why stick your neck out to deny what isn’t true? You’re making it more fun to believe the theory!”

Ann is evoking the “Streisand Effect” with her “You’re only giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.” She’s wrong, maybe even at an Ethics Dunce level. This conspiracy is hardly unknown: there was even a movie about it, and I have encountered moonwalk skeptics periodically ever since the event. “Why is a government official calling out a private citizen who expresses interest in a conspiracy theory?” Because, Ann, celebrities are not “private citizens.” They are public citizens; they make their millions by being famous and by appearing, speaking and misbehaving in public. More Americans by far know who Kim Kardashian is than who know who Sean Duffy is. A disturbing number of Americans, maybe even a majority, believe that being a celebrity (and appearing on TV) indicates virtue, wisdom and intelligence. Celebrity culture helped get Donald Trump elected President. Doesn’t Ann Althouse understand that? Hasn’t she ever heard the rejoinder, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?”

Continue reading →

If I Were Ann Althouse, I’d Issue a “Bite Me!” Post and Switch to WordPress

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Is Ann Althouse a secret weenie?

My favorite Wisconsin-based female retired law professor blogger revealed today that her blogging platform, Blogger, had taken down one of her posts as a violation of its “Hate Speech” policy. She was informed,

“Your post titled ‘Is the news of Biden’s advanced cancer news of a terrible scandal?’ was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and deleted the post, previously [here] Why was your blog post deleted? Your content has been evaluated according to our Hate Speech policy. Please visit our Community Guidelines page… to learn more…. We encourage you to review the full content of your blog posts to make sure they are in line with our standards as additional violations could result in termination of your blog.”

Ann says that she is going through the appeal process and expects to be exonerated with the post being restored. But she writes, “[W]hat jackassery! Was I “inciting hatred against” Joe Biden “on the basis of” his “disability”?!I’d linked to something titled “This is the Most Dangerous Cover-up in the History of the Presidency….” Ann then asks in bold, “Is “the most dangerous cover-up” something that must be… covered up?“

Continue reading →

I’ve Been Looking For an Excuse to Note the Passing of Harrison Ruffin Tyler, and I Finally Found One…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Harrison Tyler was the grandson of John Tyler, our tenth President of “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” fame, who became President when William Henry Harrison died. When my late wife Grace and I were on our honeymoon, we met Harrison Tyler as we toured Sherwood Forest, the Tyler family home and plantation. He was still working as a chemical engineer at the time. I knew that Tyler had many offspring and was still spawning them in his 60s, but I found it astounding that his grandson was still among us. John Tyler was 63 when son Lyon Gardiner Tyler was born, and Lyon was 75 when Harrison was born.

The ethics connection popped up in Ann Althouse’s post about Harrison Tyler, who died on Memorial Day. She quoted from a biography of Tyler that called him a racist. One of Ann’s astute commenters criticized the label as injecting “a kind of modern commentary” into a biography of a 19th Century historical figure. Ann bristled at that, writing that the conduct so described was “out and proud racism” and asking, “You think that’s modern commentary”?

Another commenter slapped Ann down decisively. “The Oxford English Dictionary’s first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902,” the commenter wrote. “Yes, I think labeling the mindset of an 1840’s person using a word that wasn’t in their vocabulary is an author’s intrusion.” Yet another commenter wrote, “Racism was the water people swam in back then.”

Bingo. At a time when blacks were almost universally believed to be an inferior sub-species of human, “racism” as we now define it didn’t exist. Calling a President in the 1840s a racist is like saying that physicians who practiced bleeding in the 18th century engaged in medical malpractice. It’s presentism.

I’m surprised Althouse fell into that trap.

 

 

 

A Nelson For All The Progressives, Democrats and Trump-Haters Freaking Out Over Biden’s Pardoning His Son

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Didn’t everyone know that Joe would eventually pardon Hunter? The fact that they didn’t shows the depth of Woke-World’s delusions.

EA had an Ethics Quiz on this topic yesterday but the point was to determine what Biden’s most ethical course was, not to suggest that it wasn’t obvious what he would do despite all of his “promises.” I stated that for me the ethical course was clear: the President has an obligation to do what is in the best interests of the nation regardless of its effects on his family or himself. Just as I was preparing a post on how the EA ethics decision-making systems would help the President to the right thing, I heard about the pardon, rendering the issue moot, or at least too moot to justify an hour of my time.

The Axis really exposed its stupidity on this one. Here’s a supercut of the Left’s propaganda merchants praising Biden’s integrity for promising not to pardon his son..

Continue reading →

Note To Candidate Trump: Civility Isn’t Bullshit

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Today’s “Trump is a terrible person and you have to vote against him even though there is literally no rational reason to vote for Kamala Harris” article is “At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity.” Of course he did. Public discourse and civility, all a part of the crucial ethics value of respect, have plummeted precipitously as Ethics Alarms predicted here and chronicled since, most recently yesterday. Trump has unquestionably been a catalyst for the coarsening of American speech and culture, but as this tag will show you, so many prominent individuals and institutions followed his lead and escalated the rot that blaming Trump alone would be, well, the kind of thing the Trump Deranged do every day.

Naturally, as Vulgarian-in-Chief, Trump couldn’t let himself be reduced to relative civility by Congresswomen saying things like “Let’s impeach the motherfucker!,” iconic actor Robert De Niro getting cheers at events by screaming “Fuck Trump!,” or a coded phrase meaning “Fuck Joe Biden!” being plastered on T-shirts, banners and mugs. Sooooo, as the Times gleefully informs us…

Mr. Trump opened his speech at the airport in Latrobe, Pa., with 12 minutes of reminiscing about the golfer Arnold Palmer, who grew up in the Western Pennsylvania town and for whom the airport was named. His monologue culminated in lewd remarks about the size of Mr. Palmer’s penis. Moments later, Mr. Trump gave the crowd an opportunity to call out a profanity. He went on to use that four-letter word to describe Ms. Harris. “Such a horrible four years,” Mr. Trump said, referring to the Biden-Harris administration, as he surveyed the crowd of hundreds of people in front of him. “We had a horrible — think of the — everything they touch turns to —.” Many in his audience — which was mostly made up of adults but included some children, infants and teenagers — eagerly filled in the blank, shouting, “Shit!” Minutes later, Mr. Trump urged his supporters to vote, telling them that they had to send a crude message to Ms. Harris: “We can’t stand you, you’re a shit vice president.”

Oh, nice. That’s the way to make America great again.

Continue reading →

What Does THIS Poll Tell You?

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

Often astute by quirky ex-law prof/blogger Ann Althouse presented readers with a poll this morning asking who she should vote for and whom they thought she would vote for. Althouse is a denizen of Madison, Wisconsin, and believed to be a moderate liberal who typically votes for Democrats. A long-time blogger whose readers are swelled by the ranks of former students, she has somehow accumulated a group of mostly conservative commenters. They also tend to be knowledgeable, analytical and articulate

The results of the poll are overwhelming enough to suggest some accuracy, at least in regard to the group polled. 79% said that Althouse “should vote for Trump.” Only 4% voted that Ann should vote for Harris. The rest opined that she will vote for no one.

What’s going on here?

You Think I’m Too Tough On Ethics Alarms Commenters? Ann Althouse Says, “Hold My Beer!” I Say, “Bite Me!”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Sorry, this is petty, I know, but I can’t let this pass.

Here’s Althouse today: Presenting “We’re Having the Wrong Argument Over the Olympic Boxers/Questions about unfair advantage won’t just go away.” by Helen Lewis in The Atlantic for discussion, the retired law professor/blogress writes, “Please read the whole thing before commenting and restrict comments to the issue framed in the article, which I am not going to attempt to summarize. If you don’t know what 5ARD is, please don’t comment.”

Then it turned out that the article was behind a paywall, and you have to give The Atlantic a credit card to get your free trial subscription. “Oh, that’s a problem! Sorry,” says Althouse.

This garners (Ann hates the word “garner”) Althouse the second “Bite Me!” award of 2024. Ethics Alarms introduced the “Bite Me!” in 2023. It’s a distinction reserved for either an individual whose “response to being bullied, pressured and threatened into submissiveness is to say, “Do your worst. I believe in what I am doing, and I don’t grovel to mobs,” or as used several times in the course of 2023, the author of unethical conduct that demands the response, “Bite me!”

Ann falls in the second category.

Ann Althouse Jumps the Ethics Shark!

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

Oh-oh. This is more depressing news.

Althouse’s shtick is beginning all of her blog posts with a quote from another article, then she weighs in. Let me start this post the same way: here is part of what Ann writes regarding the news media’s rapid rush to condemn President Biden’s debate performance, what she calls ” a stampede.”

I’d really like to know who decided a stampede was the right approach and unleashed it while the President was still on the debate stage. Immediately after the debate, CNN’s John King was cued up to describe a stampede already in motion…As King described it, it’s hard to see how they even watched the debate. They seem to have gone into cabal mode to capture the post-debate narrative. Was it — to use Solnit’s phrase — “a sort of insider coup”? Who did this without knowing that they could — via stampede — drive their own candidate out of the race?…I want to know who led the “deep… wide… very aggressive panic” that “started minutes into the debate” and communicated it to John King and motivated CNN to present this as the narrative, right after the debate, preempting any normal post-debate analysis and throwing the Democratic Party into chaos. Did someone decide to risk everything to shock and awe Joe Biden into submission? Who could do that? Who would do that? And how did that old man — that supposedly broken down hopeless old man — resist? How could he resist? Who’s helping him with his hero story, which is going strangely well against the deep, wide, aggressive panickers… whoever they are?

What the hell?

It must be hard being a relentless contrarian, which is Althouse’s brand There is an obvious peril in working to say the opposite of what the conventional wisdom is, which is that occasionally the conventional wisdom is right, and a contrarian looks ridiculous. I hope that’s the explanation for that passage; if not, one of my long-time favorite bloggers has lost her frick’n mind.

What led her into this morass was an essay at The Guardian titled “Why is the pundit class so desperate to push Biden out of the race?”

It’s a dumb article by a climate change activist (among other things). Maybe Ann was having trouble finding blog topics; it’s happened to me. But come on: isn’t it clear why anyone with eyes, ears and a brain would be desperate to push Biden out of the race? He’s sliding into full dementia, that’s why; it’s been obvious for a long time, and dementia-sufferers shouldn’t be President of the United States!

The “pundit class” has another very good reason to “stampede”: trying to somehow salvage a scrap of public trust after being exposed as fully complicit in the Democrats’ Soviet-style cover-up. Is this so difficult to figure out? For Althouse? A lawyer, social critic and law professor Emeritus?

Apparently it is. Althouse’s commentary quoted above is at least as laughable—and ethically warped— as the Trump-Deranged Guardian article that inspired it:

Continue reading →

And Still More Post-Debate Ethics! [Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

The <gasp!> apocalyptic news was the New York Times posting an editorial board statement telling Biden he has to go “for the good of the country.” Of course, the Times can’t be expected to accept a share of responsibility for saddling the U.S. with Biden by burying the credible account of a staffer who claimed he raped her, hiding the Hunter laptop story until the success of Joe’s basement campaign was cinched, and generally serving as an uncritical Democratic Party cheering section when it counts. The Times also let the completely discredited Lincoln Project take a typical shot at Trump in its op-ed pages. And a silly one: the Project’s mouthpiece said that Trump botched the debate because he didn’t “lay out a positive economic plan to appeal to middle-class voters feeling economic pressure” (Sure he did: get Joe Biden out of the White House! Works for me!) and reverse himself on abortion, saving “young girls” from having to “endure extremist politicians eager to criminalize what was a constitutional right for two generations.” No woman is in danger of ever being imprisoned in the U.S. for having an abortion. Dumb prosecutors will do dumb things, but that’s no reason to ignore the critical issue at the core of the abortion problem: the delicate human lives abortion enthusiasts want to ignore. In the debate, Trump focused on that. It wasn’t a mistake.

As for the Times board, it dutifully parroted the official DNC talking points about Trump’s lies and “lies,” as if Biden wasn’t spitting out whoppers himself when it was possible to figure out what he was saying. The Times also used the latest trope from the Axis: Republicans should consider replacing Trump. Sure, that makes sense. If Biden was a complete vegetable and still beating Trump in the polls, is there any chance that Democrats would replace him as their nominee? Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!

More:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Month: Missouri and Louisiana

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

“The bully pulpit is not a pulpit to bully.”

—-The attorneys for Missouri and Louisiana in their U.S. Supreme Court opposition to staying the unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit order declaring that officials from the White House, the surgeon general’s office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the F.B.I. had violated the First Amendment by secretly pressuring social media platforms to take down posts as “misinformation.”

What a great line! I’m amazed it has never been used before: an instant classic and useful quote.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments in a case to determine whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment in combating that endlessly useful word to progressive and Democratic censors, “misinformation,” on social media platforms. There are four case before SCOTUS on this topic, which, among other expressions of alarm, was the target of the so-called “Twitter Files” posts organized by Elon Musk in 2022.

The case being argued today, like the other ones, arose from revealed communications from administration officials urging/ persuading/ threatening social media platforms to take down Left-unfriendly posts on the Wuhan virus vaccines, the 2020 election and Hunter Biden’s laptop and other matters. Last year, the Fifth Circuit hit the Biden administration with an injunction that severely limited this tactic. The three judge panel wrote,

Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no
actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or
significantly encourage social-media companies to remove,
delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their
algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected
free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the
platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of
punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or
supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling
the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.

And the Biden administration opposed that language. Let me repeat that for emphasis: the Biden administration opposed that language. This is, you will recall, the administration and the party that has based its campaign against Republicans before the election this year on the premise that it is the Republicans and their presumptive Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who pose an existential threat to democracy. Yet these are the same aspiring totalitarians who used the power of the government—“Nice little business you have here…be a shame if anything were to happen to it!”—to secretly coerce, pressure, and infiltrate (read the whole order linked above) social media and Big Tech platforms to do their bidding regarding what opinions and assertions could be communicated by citizens.

Continue reading →