Republicans—blind followers of the Big Man—often lack even an elementary idea of what’s ethical and what’s not. Take the fact that former daytime talk show host Geraldo Rivera is a bosom buddy of Sean Hannity. The fact of the two’s friendship makes a mockery out of their canned TV “debates.” Differently put, it’s intellectually dishonest to rotate your friends on your opinion show. You shouldn’t hire your friends.
A talker should feature interesting, independent opinion and avoid in-house hires. You could say Geraldo Rivera is a Hannity friend with benefits. Responses to this no-brainer on social media tell me that people no longer grasp elementary ethics.
Ethical practices entail keeping your (journalistic) work and friendships APART—just as you should keep your wife out of the office of the president (Mugabe) and your kids out of the White House (Trump). Avoiding conflicts of interest, and the commitment to intellectual honesty implicit in your relationship with your audience (Hannity’s): These were once understood by people. I think the populace is too dumbed-down and consequently corrupted to have a feel for these finer points.
Certainly when it comes to their guy, Trump (or Bush) voters lack a basic sense of what’s ethical and what’s not. This ethical ignorance and hyper-partisanship guarantees voters will be powerless to detect transgressions in their candidate or collect on campaign promises.
This is terrific news for Deplorables, whether we want to admit it or not. The two New York liberals, a nepotistic addition to the administration, have been a disaster for the agenda which President Trump promised and for which we voted.
Alas, Deplorables, at least on social media, are blaming “dem Jews” for POTUS having largely abandoned his fundamental promise of America First (quit the denial). But Trump has clearly gone neoconservative to gain approval among “con-servatives,” which he’s getting galore. Deplorables aren’t being betrayed by Jews; but by Trump.
We Americans never hold leaders responsible for what they promise and what they fail to deliver. Instead, we retreat to our partisan corners and defend “our” guy (Bush/Trump), no matter what he does to us. He wins; we lose. ‘Tis the American way. The leaders win; the people lose. And everyone seems happy. Not I.
As I see it, a leader is nothing but a hired hand who must deliver on the contract, or else.
American actress Meghan Markle is sure to finish what Lady Diana almost accomplished: destroy the Monarchy. Markle is a divorced, left-liberal feminist out of Hollywood, which, you must agree, screams degeneracy.
Kate Middleton, aka The Duchess of Cambridge, is not only a gorgeous girl; but has turned out to be manifestly stabler than her late mother-in-law (which, I guess, is not saying much, considering that the dodo Diana was a manipulative neurotic, given to histrionics).
A harbinger of things to come, Harry: Markle dominated the little I saw of the couple’s interview.
UPDATE (12/4): Has poor Prince Harry seen this? Meghan Markle was a miserable, humorless, unoriginal scold at age 11, sharing same banal views of 99% of elite establishment.
UPDATE II (3/7/021):
Don’t show Meghan Markle any Dr. Seuss books; that’ll send her over the edge. Or, maybe do?
Young women today don’t know squat about sexism. Women of my generation can certainly speak to it–all the more so when they still interact, on occasion, with male throwbacks: older, paleoconservative or paleolibertarian men. Why occasionally? Because such older men (or men who’ve continued the old “tradition” of sexism) indiscriminately recoil from the odd woman who is as smart as they are or smarter. In fact, these men have a hard time believing such women exist, even as we stare them in the face.
I’m no fan of things distaff, but individualism demands that one treat a female individual (who’s as smart or smarter than you are) with the respect accorded to a male colleague. I, categorically, have not found this to be the case (except with younger men).
In interacting with Old-School codgers or their acolytes, you’ll find these men talk down to you, scold you as though you were a child, and conduct themselves imperially, as if their un-charismatic, long-winded, me-me-me, solipsistic soliloquies are indisputably superior. How can people lack so in self awareness? Easily: Because many older men are pompous, grew up in an era when their superiority was a given, equate a PhD with intellectual superiority. And so on. Moreover, these Old-Timers are still fortunate enough to enjoy personal and professional support systems which reinforce their mindset.
A recent example that comes to mind (asidepersonal relationships which will forever remain personal) is an older radio host who asked this writer to come on his program, but not before severely scolding me for not studying (no less) the “work” of an obscure, unknown dabbler, who had recently written a book about … South Africa. The same host also demanded that the little woman (me) find a partner with whom to appear on his little-known show. Kind of like a “Cheech and Chong” duo, for I could not be expected to hold my own without a partner.
Likewise, I recall how Bill O’Reilly never invited Ann Coulter back on his show after the good lady failed to suppress her intellectual superiority and embarrassed Bill. The Fox News hosts are always more comfortable with younger, mediocre, conventional Millennials, who cannot outsmart the egos in the anchor’s chair. That’s the formula on Fox News.
I don’t praise young men enough. But the young editors coming online more than make up for their lack of literary and editorial sensibilities with a natural penchant for treating women as equals. Younger American men are the best in this regard.
The same thought, albeit applied to music, came to mind when watching the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary. Mary was the talent, the star: she had the voice, the stunning, exotic looks and the stage persona. Compared to Mary Travers’ striking looks and sonorous voice, the two strummers, Peter Yarrow and Paul Stookey, sound and look anemic. Yet in many of the trio’s performances, Mary doesn’t even have a dedicated microphone and is treated as a backup singer. On her death, September 16, 2009, this major talent was still described by the New York Times as “the sex appeal of that group,” whose “voice blended seamlessly with those of her colleagues, Peter Yarrow and Paul Stookey.” Essentially, a backup singer.
Crap. Mary Travers was the star of Peter, Paul and Mary. By comparison, the two men (who?) were just plain, wimpy, bloodless warblers, with an annoying nasal twang, and a very average facility with the guitar.
