Christopher Armitage, a far Left scholar whose anti-GOP, anti-Trump positions are cloaked in respectability, came up with this one. He describes himself as “independent.” Strangely, his work “has been cited by the Brookings Institution and covered by NPR, PBS, Mother Jones, and The Nation.” Those are all infamous Leftist propaganda organs, with Mother Jones and The Nation on the extreme end of the spectrum.
Judge Zia Faruqui, a D.C. magistrate, apologized to White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooter Cole Tomas Allen. Allen is the “alleged” would-be assassin of President Trump and other officials. This is one of the more ridiculous use of “alleged”: technically appropriate because he is “presumed innocent,” ridiculous because he was caught on camera, apprehended at the scene, and wrote a message describing what he intended to do and why.
Judge Faruqui apologized for what he called the “legally deficient” treatment Allen received in jail, where the shooter was placed on suicide watch, separated from other inmates, and denied access to a Bible.
“Whatever you’ve been through, I apologize,” the judge said, adding, “Right now, it’s not working. It’s insufficient. I think it’s legally deficient.”
Jeanine Pirro, United States attorney for the District of Columbia, wrote on X, “Welcome to Washington, DC, where U.S. Magistrate Judge Faruqui believes a defendant armed to the teeth and attempting to assassinate the President is entitled to preferential treatment in his confinement compared to every other defendant.” Faruqui compared Allen’s treatment with that of the January 6, 2021 rioters at the US Capitol, as he claimed they were treated more fairly despite displaying what the judge called comparable conduct. “I’m fascinated and disturbed,” he said.
So am I. That anyone could compare a failed Presidential assassin to those drunken fools who stormed the Capitol is indeed disturbing. The suggestion reeks of the false Axis “insurrection” narrative. There is no valid comparison to be made. As many have pointed out, Allen’s pre-attack message made it clear that he was expecting to die in his planned assault. Suicide watch was an obvious precaution, and so was keeping him isolated. Actual and would-be Presidential assassins who died before trial have caused confusion, conspiracy theories and chaos.
Suggesting an equivalency between angry MAGA boobs who thought they were trying to stop a corrupted election result and someone out to murder the President is smoking gun evidence of wild partisan bias. “You right-wingers trespassed and fought with the police, and we Trump Deranged tried to murder the President and his Cabinet. What’s the difference?” Ask Abe Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and Jack Kennedy, jerk.
We have a frightening level of incompetent, biased, unethical judges in the U.S. Surveys show that public trust in the judiciary is cratering. That’s a dangerous trend, but based on how judges have been behaving lately, it is a justified one.
In one SCOTUS case after another, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a demented President’s irresponsible DEI selection for our highest court, has demonstrated an absence of judicial integrity, or, in the alternative, intellectual ability. Her questions in oral argument have been incoherent, and her legal reasoning is regularly polluted by obvious partisan bias. She is, in short, an embarrassment to the Court, the nation, the judiciary, the law, her race, her gender, and her party. Finally, following an extreme example of Jackson’s incompetence, Justice Samuel Alito came as close to calling her an idiot as a Supreme Court Justice can within the limits of professional civility.
It’s about time.
The Supreme Court last night granted a request to lock in its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, discussed on EA here and here, where the Court struck down a congressional gerrymander as racially discriminatory in breach of federal law. The decision allows Louisiana to draw a new map in time for the 2026 mid-term elections. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter in the 8-1 decision to eschew the delay. Jackson’s fatuously argued that the Court’s ruling “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”
Yes, chaos is often the result when a state is trying to do something unconstitutional and is blocked.
I watched “The Caine Mutiny” last night with a friend who had never seen it. I realized that I had written during Donald Trump’s first term about how the rebuke Navy lawyer Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer) delivers to the acquitted mutineers fit 2019’s “resistance” like the proverbial glove. It fits today’s Axis of Unethical Conduct even better. I’ll have some brief comments after the post.
* * *
Turner Movie Classics ran “The Caine Mutiny” again last night. It reminded me of what I wrote two years ago, when I really didn’t think that the “resistance” and the Democrats would continue on the destructive path they have for this long. I even wrote, foolishly, “This is the last time I’m going to try to explain why the fair, patriotic, ethical and rational approach to the impending Presidency of Donald Trump is to be supportive of the office and the individual until his actual performance in the job earns just criticism. Attempting to undermine a Presidency at its outset is a self-destructive act, for nobody benefits if a Presidency fails.” Of course, it was far from the last time I returned to the topic. In my defense, how could I know, at a point where the term “the resistance” hadn’t even surfaced yet, that the unparalleled assault on a President would not only continue, but escalate to the point where a newly minted Congresswoman would announce to a cheering mob, “We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!”?
Watching the movie, however, was striking. I know it well; I can recite many of the lines from memory. Yet the parallel with the Trump Presidency struck me smore powerfully than ever before, and sent me back to that previous post, in which I wrote,
“In The Caine Mutiny, a film version of the stage drama and novel “The Caine Mutiny Court Martial,” Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart), a man whose war-shattered nerves and self-esteem problems have rendered him an erratic and an unpopular officer, falters in his command during a storm. His officers, frightened and already convinced that their captain is unfit for command, mutiny. At their military trial, their defense attorney causes Queeg to have a breakdown on the witness stand, winning the case for the accused mutineers. Later, however, at the post trial victory party, the lawyer, Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer), shames his clients. He represented them zealously, but he tells them that they were, in fact, at fault for what occurred on the Caine:
Ensign Keith: Queeg endangered the lives of the men.
Greenwald: He didn’t endanger any lives.You did. A fine bunch of officers.
Lt. Paynter: You said yourself he cracked.
Greenwald: I’m glad you brought that up, Mr. Paynter, because that’s a very pretty point. I left out one detail in court. It wouldn’t have helped our case. Tell me, Steve, after the yellow-stain business, Queeg came to you for help, and you turned him down, didn’t you.
Lt. Maryk: Yes, we did.
Greenwald: You didn’t approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn’t worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged on him, you made up songs about him. If you’d given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you think all this would have come up in the typhoon? You’re an honest man, Steve, I’m asking you. You think it would have been necessary to take over?
Maryk: It probably wouldn’t have been necessary.
Keith: If that’s true, we were guilty.
Greenwald: Ahhh, You’re learning, Willie! You don’t work with the captain because of how he parts his hair…you work with him because he’s got the job, or you’re no good.
Exactly.
Or you’re no good.
Donald Trump is in over his head. He knows it, I think. Maybe, just maybe, with a lot of help, a lot of support and more than a lot of luck, he might be able to do a decent job for his country and the public. It’s a long-shot, but what’s the alternative? Making sure that he fails? Making him feel paranoid, and angry, and feeding his worst inclinations so he’s guaranteed to behave irrationally and irresponsibly? How is that in anyone’s best interest? That’s not how to get someone through a challenge, especially someone who you have to depend on.
Giuliani is one of the lawyers hit with bar association discipline for representing Donald Trump in the wake of the highly suspicious 2020 Presidential election, or perhaps I should say the way they represented Trump and his contention that the election was “stolen” or “rigged.” I have written two posts about the D.C. Bar and New York Sate Bar’s proceedings against Rudy here and especially here. My conclusion in then latter piece, in part. :
“This case has been the subject of much debate by my legal ethicist colleagues of late, with a depressing near-consensus that Rudy is getting what he deserves. This is because, I detect, the vast majority of lawyers cannot see through their political biases and Trump hate. At the most simple level,… contrary to the Court’s certitude, all of the evidence is not in, though the claim that there was widespread election fraud and that the election was “stolen” has for many months been pronounced “a lie” by Democrats and the mainstream media with suspicious vigor. While the opinion makes a convincing case that many of Giuliani’s statements, including some made to courts and government bodies, were careless, sloppy, badly sourced, unprofessional and wrong, it cannot know at this point that his (or Trump’s) general claim is false. If it is not false, then raising doubts among the public cannot be called dangerous to the public. It is more dangerous to keep opinions, arguments and ideas from the public’s awareness “for their own good.”…Giuliani, like so many other victims of the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, is being punished by a double standard predicated on the hatred of Donald Trump. That’s unethical.”
Esteemed law professor Brad Wendel, who belongs to the same, almost totally anti-Trump legal ethics specialist association that I do, has published a contrarian analysis following California’s disbarment of John Eastman (above), who was one of the principal architects, along with Kenneth Chesebro (who was disbarred in New York after pleading guilty in Georgia to charges of election interference), of President Trump’s legal assault on the 2020 election. There are plenty of tells in Prof. Wendel’s essay that he is far from a Trump admirer (for example, he refers to the “scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election.”) However, he writes,
A high school student in Philadelphia made series of videos, posted on TikTok, showing how exposed how some of his classmates could not read well nor comprehend relatively simple sentences. “whatthevek” posted a video showing single high school-aged students was unable to read the sentence, “She wore a silhouette of clothes that were extraordinary but somewhat gauche.” He made a follow-up video a day later in showing students unable to make sense of the sentence, “The colonel asked the choir to accommodate the governor’s schedule.” The videos were filmed at the city’s Preparatory Charter School of Mathematics, Science, Technology and Careers.
How surprised are you? I’m not.
The two videos went “viral,” accumulating 1.7 million likes and thousands of comments. The student says he won’t be posting a third, however. “I would post a part three, but the school board is trying to expel me, stop me from going to prom, and stop me from walking at graduation,” he revealed on Instagram last week.
South Philly-based Prep Charter has yet to conform or deny this. State test scores show that just 53% of students at the school tested proficient in reading, and 19% were proficient in math. Roughly 71% of Philadelphia’s fourth-graders cannot read at grade level, according to statistics from Philadelphia-based social justice group Achieve Now. The group also holds that about half of all adults in Philadelphia are functionally illiterate, one of the highest rates among large US cities.
Let us assume that the student, whose name is not yet known, is indeed facing punishment for his videos.
In the weekend’s interview on The Steven Speirer Show, I explained the distinction between morality and ethics in part by noting that ethics, unlike morality, is constantly evolving over time, and thus requires constant reflection and reassessment. This was the theory behind my now defunct professional theater company in Northern Virginia, The American Century Theater, which revived older American plays and musicals now considered “dated” by the theater community. Old art is never dated, because we have to know where we have been in order to understand how we got where we are and where we are going.
A fascinating time capsule in this vein is “Bye Bye Birdie,” the 1963 film of the hit 1961 Broadway musical. That show, the “Grease” of its generation, was a current events satire of the rock idol phenomenon, inspired by the cultural uproar when Elvis Presley, at the peak of his first wave popularity, was drafted. The Broadway show launched the careers of Dick Van Dyke and Paul Lynde, and included several hits songs (“Put on a Happy Face,” “I’ve Got a Lot of Living To Do,” and others by Adams and Strouse, who later wrote “Applause” and “Annie”) as well as one of the most famous opening numbers in musical theater history, “The Telephone Hour.”
For a number of reasons, I was moved to watch the movie again for the first time since I saw it in a movie theater. Naturally, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I’ve got some other tools to evaluate performance art, but the ethical issues raised by the film are many.
Most notably, the casting of Janet Leigh in the role of Rosie DeLeon, struggling songwriter Dick Van Dyke’s long-suffering girlfriend, would be castigated today. The role on Broadway was played by Chita Rivera, and this was considered a break-through: no Latina had ever played the romantic lead in a musical before. Rivera was already a major stage star and was nominated for a Tony for her performance as Rosie, but while Dick Van Dyke and Lynde from the original cast were carried over to the film version, Rivera was replaced by Janet Leigh of “Psycho” fame, in an unbecoming black wig.
Leigh was a movie star and considered good for the box office, and Rivera was not movie close-up beautiful by Hollywood standards. Nevertheless, this would be called “whitewashing” today. Rivera was crushed by the decision, but such injustices in the translation of shows from stage to screen were and still are standard practice, one of the most famous being Audrey Hepburn taking Julie Andrews’ place as Eliza in the movie version of “My Fair Lady.”
2. If you want to see this orgy of hate and violence without the annoying commentary, here’s a link I couldn’t embed.
2. How does a mush-mouth like Topping have the gall to host a show of any kind? Jeeeez, whatever your first name is, get a coach! Learn to speak clearly. Slow the hell down. Not only are you hard to understand, your speech pattern is excruciating to listen to. This is malpractice.
Why hasn’t anyone told him?
3. Look at the hate on this crazy old bat’s face! What could possibly justify that?
4. There are several places on the web where one can purchase Trump pinatas. Here, for instance.
5. The onlookers cheering her on epitomize the description “angry mob.” The Axis of Unethical Conduct made them this way, hammering away at “Trump is a Nazi” and related slander and libel, day after day, for ten years. And it has caused brain damage. The remedy to speech is, we have decided as a nation, more speech, and “hate speech” is still protected speech. Inciting riots, however, is not protected speech. Nonetheless, inciting riots in slow motion, over long periods of time, by repeating demonizing and violence-triggering propaganda and rhetoric over and over again until it is embedded in weak minds, is legal. It is also unethical.
6. Do you think the crazy woman doing this while wearing a shirt that extols kindness on the front and the Golden Rule on the back recognizes the double standards she is embracing? It it intentional satire? Is she just an idiot?
7. Democrats cheer on this kind of lunacy while insisting that their “8647” rhetoric plays no part in the repeated assassination attempts. The only President I can find whose avatars were subjected to such vicarious and symbolic violence was Abraham Lincoln during protests like the draft riots in New York. (Confederate equivalents don’t count.) True, he wasn’t…
Oh. Right.
8. I react emotionally to people attacking and defiling images of the President of the United States. just as I do to flag burning. It is an attack on my nation, its institutions, its history and its values. The conduct shows civic disrespect that cannot be rationalized away.
Naturally the New York Times did its best to make the case that the 6-3 majority decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which I wrote about last week here, was an example of the political Right denying the reality that the United States remains a racist society requiring special protection (and privileges) for African American citizens. Its “best” was pathetic; indeed I’m amazed an editor didn’t 86 the piece because it was so self-refuting.
The headline is “Behind Voting Rights Case, a Clash Over the Reality of Racism” (Gift link!) The subhead reads, “The Supreme Court ruling said there must be proof that a racial group was “intentionally” disadvantaged. The dissent called it ‘well-nigh impossible.’” How anyone could objectively think the wan, confirmation bias argument Times reporter Richard Fausset puts forth could be persuasive to a reader who hadn’t already made up his or her mind that the decision was, as one of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends wrote, a disastrous blow to “legal provisions that for 60 years have helped ensure that you could not be denied political representation because of your race” is beyond me.
The mordantly amusing question Fausset poses to frame his analysis is “Has anti-Black racism eased, or has discrimination against African Americans simply become more subtle, disguised as a web of rules embedded in regular partisan politics?” It’s risible because he correctly describes the Southern racism that the 1965 Voting Rights laws thusly: “Senator James Eastland, a Democrat from Mississippi who wanted to kill the landmark legislation, once openly stated that Black people were an “an inferior race.” During his 1963 inauguration speech, Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama, a Democrat, infamously declared, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” In the early Sixties, black churches were burned and the KKK was still active in parts of the South. Three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi in 1964.
To put a final period on this fiasco, we should recall that Trump’s idea was tried before.
The Hall of Fame for Great Americans was established in 1901. It was the country’s first hall of fame, inspiring the Cooperstown baseball hall and all the rest. For a while, it was a tourist attraction. Located at the uptown campus of New York University (now Bronx Community College), there were bronze busts of Presidents, generals, scientists, artists and scholars. Then it fell out of date, new inductees were not inducted, and The Hall of Fame for Great Americans was ignored and forgotten, as were many of the names on the busts. Who, for example, was Sidney Lanier?
There are 98 busts in the Hall. How many can you idientify? (And yes, Robert E. Lee is among them…)
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Jane Addams
Louis Agassiz
Susan B. Anthony
John James Audubon
George Bancroft
Clara Barton
Henry Ward Beecher
Alexander Graham Bell
Daniel Boone
Edwin Booth
Louis Brandeis
Phillips Brooks
William Cullen Bryant
Luther Burbank
Andrew Carnegie
George Washington Carver
William Ellery Channing
Rufus Choate
Henry Clay
Grover Cleveland
James Fenimore Cooper
Peter Cooper
Charlotte Cushman
James Buchanan Eads
Thomas Edison
Jonathan Edwards
Ralph Waldo Emerson
David Farragut
Stephen Foster
Benjamin Franklin
Robert Fulton
Josiah Willard Gibbs
William C. Gorgas
Ulysses S. Grant
Asa Gray
Alexander Hamilton
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Joseph Henry
Patrick Henry
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Mark Hopkins (educator)
Elias Howe
Washington Irving
Andrew Jackson
Stonewall Jackson
Thomas Jefferson
John Paul Jones
James Kent
Sidney Lanier
Robert E. Lee
Abraham Lincoln
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
James Russell Lowell
Mary Lyon
Edward MacDowell
Horace Mann
John Marshall
Matthew Fontaine Maury
Albert A. Michelson
Maria Mitchell
James Monroe
Samuel Morse
William T. G. Morton
John Lothrop Motley
Simon Newcomb
Thomas Paine
Alice Freeman Palmer
Francis Parkman
George Peabody
William Penn
Edgar Allan Poe
Walter Reed
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Augustus Saint-Gaudens
William Tecumseh Sherman
John Philip Sousa
Joseph Story
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Gilbert Stuart
Sylvanus Thayer
Henry David Thoreau ]
Lillian Wald
Booker T. Washington
George Washington
Daniel Webster
George Westinghouse
James Abbott McNeill Whistler
Walt Whitman
Eli Whitney
John Greenleaf Whittier
***
I rate this selection, despite being 125 years old, as far better than the proposed members of Trump’s “Garden of Heroes.”
Ethics Alarms 