How desperate must progressives be to stoop to an appeal to an authority as untrustworthy and ridiculous as Alex Jones? “Headquarters” is a Democrat social media account “followed by” Kamala Harris and others in the Democratic leadership. Alex Jones told the morons who listen to his garbage that he thought the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax. Who could be a worse character to use as validation for anti-Trump positions? Tucker Carlson? Daffy Duck? Luigi Mangione? Mr. Ed? Marley’s Ghost?
I have never understood how Jones gained any notoriety at all, except that there are a depressing number of cognitively impaired right-wingers out there. Even in that brief clip he broadcasts his ignorance: Congress doesn’t invoke the 25th Amendment and even raising that (the ever-popular Plan E on the list of Axis “Get Trump!” plots) is signature significance for an idiot.
But I digress. This is your weekly white board for new ethics issues and angle. Fill it up!
You have to truly be a blind ideologue to proudly post something this blazingly stupid on social media.
Let’s begin with the pairing of a trans pride flag with the Palestinian flag…the poster is irony-challenged. Jade then pronounces conservatives incurious, a contention that she doesn’t bother to support. I, for one, am curious how dedicated progressives continue to maintain scientific, legal and economic nonsense despite year after year of being embarrassed by their policies.
Then the tweet really gets rolling. Thoughtful people and ethicists believe abortion is “bad” because it involves ending a human life for the convenience of another human who is more powerful. The act would still be the same—homicide—if the Bible had no perspective on the matter at all. Similarly, we don’t believe theft is wrong because the Ten Commandments say so, but because civilization couldn’t exist if it weren’t prohibited.
It is something of an accomplishment that each of the three declarations is more moronic than the one before. “Immigrants are bad because Fox News said so” is a masterpiece of dishonesty and confusion. First of all, no one among conservatives says “immigration is bad.” Presumably Jade means illegal immigrants, but is so addled by the deceitful rhetoric of the Axis of Unethical Conduct that she doesn’t know the difference. I’m surprised she isn’t curious about that.
No, illegal immigrants are bad because they are breaking the law, and breaking the law is almost always bad by definition. Fox News doesn’t need to say so: statutes say so, court opinions say so, experience and common sense says so, Kant says so, Dostoevsky says so, and Hammurabi says so.
And yet the last line still wins the Ignoramus Blue Ribbon. Capitalism is good, not because Ronald Reagan said so, but because capitalism has, over the last 250 years, made the United States of America the richest, most productive, most influential and most creative nation on Earth, with the highest standard of living, the most innovation and the greatest number of contributions to civilization over that period.
You can’t argue with someone who posts nonsense like this. Well, you can, but I won’t. Jade complains about conservatives being incurious, but is so doctrinaire that she doesn’t have enough curiosity herself to check facts and history to find out if she knows what the hell she is talking about.
Every time I think about the fact that Chris Cuomo, once the golden boy of CNN, is a lawyer I want to burn my law school diploma. Every time I think of all the money “Fredo” was paid to make Americans dumber and more ignorant (as when he announced that “hate speech” was not protected by the First Amendment), I begin questioning the choices I have made in life that brought me to my current lowly position in life. And every time he opens his mouth on his podcast, I want to hold his empty head up to my ear so I can hear the ocean.
“In the eyes of the law, Dobbs was the right decision. Why? Roe created a legal rationale that did not exist! And if you do not create it constitutionally or legislatively, it should not exist. And legislation is where you fill in the hole between implicit and explicit, and that wasn’t done with Roe. The Congress should have codified Roe v. Wade. But they were never going to. Why? Because it’s such a useful device to divide us, so helpful to the parties. Dobbs was therefore the right decision. Well, then why didn’t the liberal justices [vote with the Dobbs majority]—because it’s political. Because they feel it’s political. They don’t want to say it, but they’re all female. I mean, now they’re all female on the left. And it’s political. Now, do I like their political position? Yes, I do. I believe that reproductive rights are a thing. And I think that they are obviously invested in women, and they should be. And that taking it from them was taking a right from women. And that’s the first time I’ve seen that done, except for prohibition. And I think it was wrong. But legally, I think it was the right decision.”
Well thank-you, Chris, for that anala…wait, WHAT?
That dog’s breakfast of Authentic Frontier Gibberish makes one of Jackson’s dissents seem like Oliver Wendell Holmes at his best. Reproductive rights “are a thing”? What the hell is that supposed to mean? The reason Roe made no sense is that there is no such thing as a foggy “reproductive right” that includes killing unborn children. Prohibition took away a real right as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, as getting drunk is clearly, for some, “the pursuit of happiness.”
Neither Roe v. Wade nor Dobbs were designed to “divide us,” and the reason Congress didn’t codify it under Carter, or Clinton, or Obama, Chris, you moron, is because they didn’t think it was necessary. They thought (as did I) that the issue was settled by Roe, at least legally. Abortion was still always going to be divisive; no law was going to change that. Remember the Defense of Marriage Act? Abortion is squarely in the category of an ethics conflict, and ethics conflicts are always divisive by nature. Roe was shoehorned into the law by the Supreme Court to settle the issue and end division, just as Chief Justice Taney foolishly thought the Dred Scott ruling would end the controversy over slavery.
Oh, and would someone point out to Chris that there weren’t three women dissenting in Dobbs, because Justice Breyer hadn’t retired yet?
JUST IN: 21-year-old dies after workers forget to attach safety rope and push her off 40-meter bridge in São Paulo’s Limeira, Brazil pic.twitter.com/ceqniPJkUs
Traditionally, the tale of the plug of tobacco has been law students’ favorite anecdote explaining the term “res ipsa loquitur,” or “the thing speaks for itself.” I have reprinted the story or a link many times, but not yet in 2026, so here you are…
“It seems that appellant [Mr. Pillars] consumed one plug of his purchase, which measured up to representations, that it was tobacco unmixed with human flesh, but when appellant tackled the second plug it made him sick, but, not suspecting the tobacco, he tried another chew, and still another, until he bit into some foreign substance, which crumbled like dry bread, and caused him to foam at the mouth, while he was getting “sicker and sicker.” Finally, his teeth struck something hard; he could not bite through it. After an examination he discovered a human toe, with flesh and nail intact. We refrain from detailing the further harrowing and nauseating details. The appellant consulted a physician, who testified that appellant exhibited all of the characteristic symptoms of ptomaine poison. The physician examined the toe and identified it as a human toe in a state of putrefaction, and said, in effect, that his condition was caused by the poison generated by the rotten toe.[emphasis added]…Generally speaking, the rule is that the manufacturer is not liable to the ultimate consumer for damages resulting from the defects and impurities of the manufactured article…[but the Court can] “imagine no reason why, with ordinary care human toes could not be left out of chewing tobacco, and if toes are found in chewing tobacco, it seems to us that somebody has been very careless.” Agreed. The case is Pillars v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., 78 So. 365 (Ms. 1918).
Similarly, 21-year-old woman Maria Eduarda Rodrigues de Freitas is dead because the idiot staff at a bungee-jumping event threw her from a bridge but forgot to attach the cord, leading to the poor woman plunging about 130 feet into a ravine. Maria was pronounced dead at the scene. The incident occurred on the “Skeleton Bridge” in Limeira, in the state of São Paulo.
Six people have been taken into custody. Good.
You know, hiring the equivalents of Moe, Larry and Curly to supervise bungee jumping is even more irresponsible than letting the Three Stooges be plumbers, carpenters or surgeons, which were among the set-ups for many of their slapstick film misadventures. Neither their employers nor the negligent homicide perps themselves can fall back on any rationalizations on the list and get away with it. #19. The Perfection Diversion, or “Nobody’s Perfect!” and “Everybody makes mistakes!” or #20. The “Just one mistake!” Fantasy are probably their best shots, but the problem is that literally nobody does this, ever, unless they are menaces to society who need to be locked away for the greater good. Tossing a trusting thrill-seeker off a cliff and neglecting to fasten the cord expected to safe her life is signature significance for a reckless moron. I guess #20A, “Everyone Deserves a Second Chance,” is also worth a try, but I would require such a bungee jumping establishment to prominently display a sign that says:
“Warning! Occasionally our staff neglects to attach the cord, which will result in a jumper having their brains splattered all over the ravine floor.”
I hate blaming victims, but I feel compelled to add that those of us who deliberately engage in activities that have no societal utility whatsoever and that innately involve the risk of death or serious bodily injury are limited in the amount of sympathy they can expect from me when their metaphorical tossing of the dice comes up snake-eyes. There are several posts on EA about the topic, as with people who pay absurd amount of money to climb Mount Everest or who go over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Those who feel something as pointless as bungee jumping will enrich their lives and signify a purpose to an otherwise empty existence have their priorities seriously out of order. They don’t deserve to die, but they do deserve to have St. Peter say, when they knock on the Pearly Gate, “You died how? What were you thinking?”
Yes, she’s the 23-year-old daughter of Minnesota’s lawless, incompetent, anti-First Amendment governor, whom the Democratic Party tried to inflict on the nation as a Vice-President.
“Gun control doesn’t just save Democrats’ lives, it also saves Republican lives. You’d think we’d be at a point now where we could call for some common-sense legislation, but, I don’t know. I don’t know.
“Also here to say that political violence is never okay. Duh. That’s the difference between us and them. It’s never okay. But there’s something we can do about it…common-sense gun legislation. … We should do something about that for everybody’s sake. For everybody’s sake. Yeah, happy Tuesday. Feeling a little anxious today, but we’re gonna get through it.”
“Common sense gun control” is, as EA has noted many times, a stand-in for “Do something!” as well as “I got nuthin.” It is amazing that anyone who resorts to such non-substantive cant is ever taken seriously. Idiots like Hope can’t articulate any measures short of banning all guns and confiscating them from lawful purchasers that would stop nuts like the guy who tried to shoot up the White House Correspondents Dinner…and even that wouldn’t stop law breakers—you know, criminals— from breaking the law to get guns.
Yet how many friends and associates do we all have who might read Hope’s nonsense and mutter, “How true, how true…”?
Stipulated: I have no idea how many people were interviewed to compile that selection of angry protesters unable to articulate what they were angry about. In my experience, however, it wouldn’t have taken many. At least the guy who defaults to Trump’s penchant for putting his personal brand on things has a point, but if that’s the first thing that comes to mind, the required retort is “Seriously? That’s what you’re out here demonstrating against? The name on the Kennedy Center?”
I wish there were more answers to work with. At least they would form the foundation for discussion. As with the previous post about people who criticize Supreme Court decisions without reading them, I believe it is incontrovertible that if one is determined to protest in public, one must be capable of articulating what is such a substantial grievance that it justifies doing so.
Question: How does anyone who purports to support the Democratic Party not feel like an idiot these days? Observe:
Now, what Ramses witnessed in “The Ten Commandments”—burning hail…THAT might have been evidence of global warming…
This woman, arguably made stupid by progressive indoctrination and propaganda though she might have been born that way, is still arguably more astute than “The View’s” resident lawyer, Sunny Hostin, who claimed that earthquakes and eclipses were also evidence of climate change.
There’s a lot of crazy ethics stuff going on this week. Analyze it for us. Me, I’m going to bang my head against a wall for a while…
Imagine: You are a mediocre journeyman baseball player past your prime and holding on the big league job by your fingernails. In desperation, you decide to cheat, using banned performance-enhancing drugs, risking suspension and a career of being regarded as untrustworthy by fans and future employers—and you get away with it, Not only that, but you have the best season of your career by far, make the All-Star team for the first time, and because you were playing out a one-year contract, you win a\three-year, $42 million guaranteed contract. It all worked! You have a job for three seasons, and you’re set for life. even if your arms fall off.
Then you cheat again, lose half of year one (2025) with an 80 game suspension, and cheat again, and get banned for an entire season. Total loss: 21 million dollars.
Meet Braves outfielder Jurickson Profar, possessor of one of my all-time favorite baseball names (along with Van Lingle Mungo , Urban Shocker and several others) who was just hit with his second PED offense and a 162-game ban, ESPN’s Jeff Passan reports. Now he’ll miss the entire 162-game season in 2026 and will get a lifetime ban if he gets a third positive test in the future, which, given his apparent IQ, seems plausible if not likely. Profar will not be paid his $15MM salary this season, and he will be ineligible for postseason play in 2026 if the Braves were to get into the playoffs, which his conduct has made less likely.
Profar turned 33 a couple weeks ago, so in baseball terms he is in the twilight of an undistinguished career with the exception of that single shock 2024 year where he played like he was on steroids or…oh. Right. He’s signed through the 2027 season and is owed a $15MM salary again in that disastrous (for the Braves) contract’s final year. They likely will release him as soon as Profar’s year-long ban is up. He has probably played his last game in the Major Leagues.
As long as ABC News persists in making Americans dumber by presenting the biased, silly, incompetent panel of women on “The View” as a news program, that network has to rank third from the bottom of the journalism barrel, slightly above MSNOW and CNN. Its commentary on the SOTU speech, however deserves some kind of prize for being the most ludicrous of all. If you’ve been paying attention, that’s quite an achievement.
Co-host Amanda Carpenter got the gold by complaining that Trump had an “unfair dynamic” while delivering the speech:
CARPENTER: He got that split screen. And when he was talking about Minnesota and saying we’re not going to go easy on them. Who thinks he’s been easy on them? And so, she was shouting back, ‘you’ve killed Americans’ but you couldn’t see what she said!
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: No.
CARPENTER: And so, it’s such an unfair dynamic that I just – We got to find ways not to participate in that and give him that kind of advantage. I just can’t believe we haven’t learned this lesson after ten-plus years.
Uh, see, it’s the President’s speech, see, and the members of Congress are there to sit, listen, show respect for the Presidency, and maybe applaud. This is like saying that an actor playing “Hamlet” has an “unfair dynamic” if members of the audience aren’t welcome to run up on stage and dance.
The Trump Deranged think the fact that Trump exists and is the President is an “unfair dynamic.”
[Just thought I would re-post a past example of the “logic” and level of analogies being embraced by I.C.E. protesters…]
Quote #1:
“Why did you have real bullets?!”
—Becca Good, the wife of dead activist Renee Nicole Good, after witnessing her wife’s shooting death by an I.C.E. officer.
This has to be one of the stupidest quotes Ethics Alarms has ever covered. It demonstrates how estranged from reality so many of the anti-I.C.E. and Trump Deranged protesters, demonstrators and activists are. On MS-Now, the pro-multiple sclerosis news channel, a bizarre anti-gun nut deemed worthy of a position on a televised panel discussion said this…
Seen on MSNBC: “Why does an ICE agent have a gun?!”
Yes, why do law enforcement officers carry guns (with real bullets!)?
The real questions should be…
1) “Why do crazed progressives think that it is reasonable, justifiable, ethical or safe to interfere with lawful law enforcement activity?”
2) “How did American citizens, some of them of above average intelligence, get the bonkers idea that interfering with I.C.E. operations wasn’t a crime?“
3) “When will CNN, MSNBC and other news outlets stop giving a platform to “experts” and elected officials who tell their audiences that Rachel Good was “murdered”?” That position is completely contrary to known facts, as well as court decisions. This morning I heard some asshole saying that on CNN with no contradiction or push-back from the host whatsoever. The host even said “Thank-you.” Thank-you for misleading our dim-witted audience members and helping to put both Federal officers and stupid protesters (who might not expect them to use real bullets) in jeopardy!
Quote #2: (the letters in parentheses are mine, to be referenced in my commentary)…
Ethics Alarms 