Most Unethical Substack Essay of the Month: David Hirsch

I know this guy (not the guy in the picture: that’s Ben Stiller as “Mr. Furious” in “Mystery Men”), an opinionated retired lawyer convinced of his own intellectual superiority. I was still surprised at the bias and incompetence of his recent substack post titled “Trump: Death by Yesbuts.” Yet because it is another manifestation of extreme Trump Derangement, my Trump Deranged Facebook friend, another retired lawyer whose intellect is to Mr. Hirsch’s as Elon Musk’s is to a sea sponge, actually linked to this thing approvingly on Facebook. It is to weep. Is stupidity contagious now? Do we need a vaccine?

The author signals his incompetence and ethical vacuum in his very first paragraph by mocking jurors in a hung jury who told him, “Of course there was a reasonable doubt, but he was guilty.” We are not even told which side the jurors voted for, a factor rather crucial to making sense out of his analogy. That statement by itself would be consistent in the mouths of any of the jurors in Reginald Rose’s “Twelve Angry Men” who finally acquit the almost certainly guilty accused because the prosecution didn’t sufficiently prove the case against him. It was very reasonable for any juror to conclude that the kid committed the murder but that nonetheless, he was not proven guilty in court. In fact, this was my conclusion after watching the whole O.J. Simpson trial.

The rest of the article quickly devolves into standard anti-Trump distortions, name-calling and bias, as well as the familiar narrative discussed in my previous post. Hirsch writes,

Back in 2017, [Trump] told the Conservative Police Action Conference that “Nobody loves the First Amendment more than me.” But, he added, “The fake news doesn’t tell the truth. It doesn’t represent the people. It never will represent the people. We’re going to do something about it.”

In other words, “Yes, but….” “Freedom of speech” is a great phrase but the speech better not say bad things about me!

False translation, but then bias makes you stupid. Fake news doesn’t serve the people. Fake news is a blight on democracy, and it is very important to do something about it. Trump was not talking about news “saying bad things,” he was talking about the deliberate manipulation of facts for partisan gain.

Continue reading

Another Dispatch From the Trump Deranged….

This is persuasive anti-Trump data, don’t you think?

Yes, the same lawyer friend who posted the previous Occupy Democrats attack on I.C.E. to Facebook just endorsed that brilliant analysis. Scandinavian nations gorging on anti-American propaganda have decided to boycott the U.S. for vacations because they don’t like the government Americans elected? Brilliant. Bite me. Nobody’s telling you to dump your character-suffocating nanny states. You want to eschew the glories of the USA to make some kind of ideological point? Go ahead. It’s your loss, Sven

I don’t think I’ve ever vacationed in a foreign nation whose government I did like. Great Britain is rotting on the vine, but I’d go to see Westminster Abbey, the Tower, the Lake District and the British Museum in a heartbeat if I could afford it. All of Africa is a hopelessly corruption-crippled mess, but I’d go to see landscape and the wildlife. I’ll visit Broadway even after Mamdani turns the Big Apple into worm-eaten mush.

Or maybe the gentle Swedes et al. don’t want to be killed and raped by our illegal aliens, after so many of them have been victimized by their legal ones. Just spitballing here.

I am worried that sooner or later one of these moronic posts is going to cause me to snap and lay out in unrestrained terms how stupid and offensive I find this bombardment of intellectually dishonest and biased garbage by someone whom lots of people look to for enlightenment and perspective. It is an inexcusable misuse of influence and status, and worst of all, it’s boring. Every day, it’s the same thing. He’s still talking about Epstein, for heaven’s sake.

If I snap, I will instantly see my list of friends crater to 12, and probably lose more clients. But I won’t…

I’m trying real hard, as Samuel Jackson says in his epic monologue in “Pulp Fiction,” to be the shepherd here. But I don’t know how much longer I can stand this…

More on Trump Derangement and I.C.E.

I still am noodling about how exactly to define Trump Derangement beyond listing the symptoms. I’d say, for example, that a retired and distinguished lawyer re-posting with favor a typical Occupy Democrats Facebook rant qualifies as one. This particular Occupy Democrat post—is that group worse than Move-On, better, or the same?—expressed outrage over “US citizen and Army veteran George Retes'” testimony to Congress over (if he is to be believed) a mistaken arrest and abusive treatment by I.C.E., as it mistook him as an illegal immigrant. Naturally, since he was recruited by Democrats to impugn the agency, my friend (and a somewhat famous classmate who has been engaging in what I would call borderline unethical conduct by regularly attacking his former client, President Trump) automatically accepted his account over that of Homeland Security, which in a release rebutted Retes’ claim as well as that of others who have been cited by critics as being falsely detained or arrested.

Continue reading

Thanksgiving Trump Derangement, A Clinical Study

A good friend and widely- (and justly) admired lawyer who has been displaying his Trump Derangement symptoms on his Facebook page all year just provided an excellent example of the malady with his Thanksgiving post.

He re-posted the following Occupy Democrats “X” entry attacking J.D. Vance for his speech to the troops this week, as if anything issued by that extreme partisan propaganda outfit is reliable, fair, or trustworthy:

Then my friend, a lawyer, someone who knows as well as anyone that hearsay is unreliable and that biased sources will make you look foolish, wrote:

“If this is accurate it is one of the most bizarre rants by an American politician that I have ever read or heard about. What other American vice president has ever taken on and dumped all over in such crass language the most sacred symbol of one of our most important national holidays? I guess it’s remotely conceivable that Vance was trying to be funny, but if so it seems he needs major schooling on how to amuse an audience of soldiers desperately sick for home at Thanksgiving. MAGAS? Any thoughts on this? Are you proud of this man?”

Never mind that Occupy Democrats is infamous for its distortions of reality to demonize Republicans. Never mind that the video of Vance’s remarks are easily accessible on YouTube. Never mind that a good lawyer like my friend would never dive in with an opinion after writing “If this is accurate” when he had every opportunity to determine on his own whether it was accurate or not. He wanted the biased assessment of Vance’s speech to be true, because he wants to believe the worst about President Trump and anyone who supports him, and he knows that nobody on Facebook, save, perhaps, me, and I have a sock drawer to organize, will call him out on his unethical post.

I did watch the speech, which is posted above. The bit about turkeys was a small segment of the speech as whole. It was not a “rant.” His point was that Americans celebrate Thanksgiving with a roasted turkey out of tradition rather than because it is the yummiest main course imaginable. Of course he was trying to be funny, and because we can’t hear the audience reaction, it is impossible to tell if his routine worked (I could give him a few tips on his delivery) but so what? That was a minor section of the speech. Nor was he using “crass language.” Vance ad libbed “You’re full of shit!” to the soldiers raising their hands as part of the gag, and anyone who believes using the common if vulgar phrase in front of military personnel will be regarded as crass doesn’t know that audience.

But this is Trump Derangement! Neither Trump nor anyone connected to his Presidency gets or is owed good will or the benefit of the doubt. Everything that is said or done or suggested by the President or his supporters is presumed to be terrible, and the Trump Deranged don’t want to be bothered by context, facts or perspective. Their minds are made up. I am watching previously fair, wise and rational people debase themselves without even realizing it, because, you see, the President is “deeply evil.”

Observations on the Epstein Drama. Summary: I Don’t Understand This At All.

Right now, a sniffling groups of women including past victims of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking operations are standing in front of the Capitol before Congress’s vote on releasing “the Epstein files,” whatever that means at this point. One speaker—they are all saying not just kind-of the same thing, but exactly the same thing but in different words (sometimes) said that their lament isn’t about politics. It’s obviously about politics. Both CNN and MSNBC, the most aggressive Democratic propaganda agents broadcasting, are showing the demonstration live, as if it’s important news. Fox News is barely mentioning it.

The issue is political and partisan. The proof is irrefutable. Why didn’t the victims, or whoever organized them, or the mainstream media, insist that the Biden Administration release the files when the power to do so was entirely within its grasp? Nobody thought of it? The Democrats were fabricating ways to “Get Trump” and had been since 2015; everyone knew he had once been pals with Epstein; and the scandal was 20 years old. The Epstein revival only became a thing when the Axis of Unethical Conduct became desperate in its efforts to slow down Trump 2.0 as his administration began dismantling the Obama-Biden nascent totalitarian state. Naturally, Axis media was all in. Naturally, publicity hound Marjorie Taylor Greene, who comprehends neither law nor logic, decided to use it to get cheap clicks. Maybe she really thinks a rehash of the evil deeds of a man who has been dead for six years is a good use of her time; who knows? She’s an idiot.

Continue reading

The President’s “60 Minutes” Interview

President Trump sat down for a full interview with “60 Minutes” yesterday, and was grilled by CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell (as I was once, though not on that show). The transcript and the video are here. Under the new regime of CBS News Czar (“Editor-in-Chief”) Bari Weiss, there were no deceptively edited sections as in the infamous and unethical (and, I believe, illegal) Kamala Harris interview a year ago when the network switched around her responses to try to deceive voters into believing that the Democrat isn’t, you know, a babbling idiot.

This post’s purpose isn’t to critique O’Donnell’s questions. She was appropriately respectful, aggressive and professional except that her facial expressions conveyed her hostility, which is unprofessional but now common practice among Axis broadcast journalists. The shot above was typical: she looked at the President of the United States as if he were a six-foot talking cockroach. Nor am I going to praise or criticize the substance of Trump’s responses, though I note that he showed an excellent knowledge of American Presidential history when he pronounced Joe Biden as our Worst President Ever.

It is simply to point out that the Trump Derangement narrative that this President is mentally failing and as cognitively disabled as Joe Biden (“Just in a different way” as one sufferer told me on Halloween) is either delusional or deliberately dishonest. The interview was slam-dunk proof of that, and yet this slander/libel is Axis cant now. I regard the claim as evidence of a genuine disruption of thinking ability. Bias makes you stupid, and in this case, bias is making these poor people ridiculous.

Continue reading

You Know, Ethics Alarms Would Stop Posting So Often About The Constant Unethical Assault On Our Elected President If The News Media Would Stop Its Unethical Assault On Our Elected President…

Because I can’t let crap like this pass; I’m sorry, I just can’t.

The headline in the Times says, “Trump Says a Recent M.R.I. Scan Was ‘Perfect,’ and He’d ‘Love’ a Third Term”: President Trump made the comments on the second day of his trip to Asia. The Constitution limits presidents to two terms, but Mr. Trump has suggested he might try to circumvent it.” No, he didn’t say anything of the sort. The President said he was healthy, and that he would “love to do it,” as in a third term. That does not suggest that he would try to circumvent the Constitution. When I say I would love to have Elon Musk’s resources, and I would, it does nor mean that I am tempted to rob him. If I say I would love to spend a night with Sydney Sweeney, it does not mean I am plotting to abduct her.

Continue reading

Cowabunga! The Washington Post Supports Trumps Ballroom: Ethical Quote of the Month

“The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past. Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”

—-The Washington Post editors, in an Editorial not only defending the President’s East Wing overhaul for a long-needed ballroom, but implying that he is a strong leader. 

See! I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everyone says! The Post editorial duplicates the arguments I made here. It’s not a particularly ingenious point of view; it should be obvious to anyone capable of thinking through the orange mist of Trump hate.

Writes the Post: “It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties. The State Dining Room seats 140. The East Room seats about 200. Trump says the ballroom at the center of his 90,000-square-foot addition will accommodate 999 guests. The next Democratic president will be happy to have this.”

Now watch Post staffers quit in a huff, and laugh as my Facebook friends proclaim that Armageddon is here. The Comments on the Post are a window into the mental wasteland that D.C. Trump Derangement has wrought. The Washington Post actually gives Donald Trump credit for doing the wise, smart, and necessary thing, and these are the first 10 comments I read:

“As the editorial board compares building a backyard deck to a 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom that somehow makes a case for why my government’s needs it, my mind wanders to the past, where serious people wrote for newspapers.”

“Washington Post editorial board, I am embarrassed for you.”

Hey, Jeff[Bezos]. We see you. How do Trump’s boots taste?”

“DEAR(?} WP EDITORIAL BOARD: According to your editorial, if Trump wants to tear down the White House and replace it with a replica of Mar a Lago, he could proceed without any safeguards. It’s not about whether a larger ballroom is needed but whether there are any controls. According to your editorial, if Trump doesn’t like the style of the Washington Monument, the Capitol building or the Smithsonian buildings, he could redesign them as he likes.

“Sorry, it’s not his house. What else needs to be said?”

“Wapo won’t let me post what I’d really like to say here so it’s adios, arrivederci, bye-bye WaPo.”

“So how much money is Bezos contributing to the Golden Calf to build this thing? It will dwarf the original White House, and if Trump says it will be “beautiful,” we know what it will look like — he’s already turned the Oval Office into a pre-revolution French whore-house. How many times in a year will any sane president need a ballroom for 1000 people? Why not just built a football stadium on the lawn?”

“I guess Jeff Bezos is looking for an invite to the dance floor.”

“The Billionaires have spoken through this EB opinion. Why does anyone who has obscene levels of money have to wade through regulations or be denied a modern estate in an historic neighborhood? We billionaires shouldn’t have to wait for anything or ask anyone’s permission. We’re rich. That means we’re smarter than everyone else in the room. You with less than us? Your opinion and your rights don’t matter. We, the richest of the rich, have spoken.”

For The Trump-Derangement Archives: Unethical Quote of the Week That Made Me Not Bother To Pay Any More Attention

“I Particularly Like the Line Where You Said Trumpism Is Seeking ‘To Amputate the Higher Elements of the Human Spirit — Learning, Compassion, Science, and the Pursuit of Justice, and Supplant Those Virtues With Greed, Retribution, Ego and Appetite.'”

—-Ancient and execrable Washington Post pundit E.J. Dionne (EA dossier here)) in the course of a metaphorical mutual masturbation session with NYT Stockholm Syndrome conservative David Brooks (EA dossier here), plus former host of NPR’s “All Things Considered” Robert Siegel, “Trump Has a Religion. What Do Democrats Have? Mamdani might be working in Democrats’ favor. But what about ‘No Kings’?”

Althouse flagged this, and I just couldn’t stomach reading it. Siegel’s bias is presumed from his long tenure at NPR, where, some readers will recall, I was blackballed for daring to defend Donald Trump on the air.

Ugh. The President pressuring universities to teach rather than indoctrinate and gutting the wasteful Cabinet department that had presided over catastrophic decline in pubic schools is “amputating” education. Enforcing the laws is “amputating” compassion. Refusing to waste trillions in response to politically-inspired climate change hype is “amputating” science. The arrogance and smug certitude of these close-minded assholes…double ugh. I’ll listen to and read my Trump Deranged friends  when they say these things because at least they aren’t paid for it and are just bloviating emotion-based opinions. But these guys…

Who can keep reading their junk and its ubiquitous equivalents? (OK, I skimmed a bit and learned that they all think the stupid “No Kings” protests were wonderful.) More to the point, how dim and confused do you have to be to take this discussion as anything but sour grapes from a sad, elite sector of our culture that wildly overplayed its hand, got its bluff called, and was exposed as the sinister charlatans they always were?

Althouse just threw this raw meat to her readers without making any statement herself: I’m sure she knew what would follow. You should check out the red-pilled comments, which almost entirely drip with contempt.  

You can read the exchange here (gift link) if you like. Me. I’ve got a sock drawer to organize.

Confronting My Biases: Episode 23: Anyone Who Would Post or Sign or “Like” This Social Media “No Kings” Screed

This certifiably awful, annoying, hysterical, factually wrong, ignorant, stupid, smug and inarticulate thing turned up on my Facebook feed last night for the first time. Except for the nice, once intelligent friend who posted it, none of the signatories—there are hundreds—were known to me, but I’m sure that will change now.

I had to wrestle with myself longer than usual not to append a sharply worded comment to it: I would have been the first one. As we have established here in the many posts (too many, I suppose) I have written about the tragedy of Trump Derangement, it is futile to argue with these people, as they are beyond enlightening or reason.

But I know, I KNOW, that many wonderful people I respect, admire and care about will blindly sign on to this statement, manifesto, letter, whatever you want to call it, and that some of them would turn on me viciously if I ventured to point out the document’s undeniable flaws. So I want to treat this as I would a giant wart on a friend’s nose, a birthmark, a stutter, an annoying speech pattern or habitual bad breath, but boy, it’s hard.

So behold the monstrosity!

Continue reading