From The EA Archives: The Trump Presidency And “The Caine Mutiny”—A Reminder

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

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.

Continue reading →

I Hope Rudy Giuliani Recovers Sufficiently To Read This: A Legal Ethicist Neatly Explains What’s Wrong With Bars Punishing Trump’s “Stop the Steal” Attorneys

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Rudy Giuliani is in critical condition in a hospital today, and it reminded me to finish this post.

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,

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Student Exposé

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

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.

Pages: 1 2

Through A Rear-View Cultural Mirror: Ethics Observations on “Bye Bye Birdie” (1963)

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

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.”

Pages: 1 2

Rueful Observations On A Trump Derangement Outburst…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

1. Nah, Trump Derangement is a myth!

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.

______________

Pointer: Steve Witherspoon

In Trying To Show SCOTUS Was Wrong, NYT Proves SCOTUS Is Right

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

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.

Pages: 1 2

Another Really Bad Trump Idea: “The National Garden of American Heroes,” Part III: The First “Hall of Fame”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Part 1 is here; Part 2 is here.

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.”




Another Really Bad Trump Idea: “The National Garden of American Heroes,” Part II.

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Part I is here, and you should read it first.

Warning: My head exploded several times while writing this part. Also: For some reason WordPress insists on listing the names weirdly. I tried to fix it once. I’ll keep trying. Sorry.

One of the stunning aspects of the proposed list of 250, other than its general incompetence, is that there was so much DEI pollution of the various categories. For example, there are very few, if any, respectable legal scholars who regard either Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Thurgood Marshall as belonging among our most admirable jurists. Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice, but that alone doesn’t make him a hero. Why is his trail-blazing credentials sufficient to get him a slot as one of the 250 “heroes,” but Ginsburg gets the nod over the first female Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor? What landmark ruling did Ginsberg produce.

This is a terrible list. I would hope (probably in vain) that a well-educated freshman at a state college could do better. Well, on with the critique…

4. Jurists: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Robert H. Jackson, Thurgood Marshall, William
Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia.

Comment: Ugh. In addition to the absurd inclusions (Rehnquist? Why?), the omissions are striking and unforgivable. John Marshall (no relation) is the most important and influential Chief Justice as well as the longest serving. Marbury v. Madison is the basis of the Supreme Court’s modern power. Where are the acknowledged giants of the Court: Benjamin Cardozo, Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black and both Harlans? Earl Warren was probably the second most influential and consequential Chief Justice, and the Warren Court, liberal as it was, still hold the record for transformative rulings. I’m not a big Oliver Wendell Holmes fan, but even his detractors (like Popehat’s Ken White) would concede that he was a major legal theorist who deserves to be listed among the greats. Moreover, nobody but a legal illiterate would believe that only SCOTUS members are great judges. Judge Learned Hand was dubbed “the Tenth Justice” and “the greatest judge never to be appointed to the Supreme Court.” His opinions and quotes are standard fare in law school. Judge Richard Posner, more recently, was an acclaimed legal thinker; so was Robert Bork, robbed of his place on the Supreme Court when the Democrats decided to violate a “democratic norm.”

Military Heroes and Patriots, defined as “Defenders of freedom who risked everything on the battlefield to preserve the Union and protect the innocent.”

1. Revolutionary & Early Era: Crispus Attucks, Joshua Chamberlain, David Farragut, Nathanael Greene, Nathan Hale, Henry Knox, Tadeusz Kościuszko, the Marquis de La Fayette, Paul Revere, Robert Gould Shaw.

Comment: I see Paul Revere turned up here. If he’s here, so too should William Dawes, who shared the task of alerting town a around Boston that “the British are coming!” Why is Crispus Attucks any more of a hero than the Samuel Gray, James Caldwell, Samuel Maverick, and Patrick Carr, who were also victims in the Boston Massacre? Oh, right, he was black. Got it. Race equals heroism. Similarly, why is Shaw on the list for losing an obscure battle with black union soldiers? Generals Sherman, Sheridan, and Hancock deserve the honor more. So, in fact, does George Armstrong Custer, as I explained here. Andrew Jackson won the most decisive military battle in U.S. history against crazy odds at the Battle of New Orleans. And what are non-Americans doing on the list, when deserving Americans are missing?

2. World War Leaders: William “Wild Bill” Donovan, Jimmy Doolittle, Gabby Gabreski, William Frederick “Bull” Halsey, Jr., Douglas MacArthur, GeorgeMarshall, George S. Patton, Jr., John J. Pershing, Matthew Ridgway, Hyman Rickover, Norman Schwarzkopf, Maxwell Taylor.

Comment: Where’s Admiral Raymond Spruance, who won the Battle of Midway? Where’s Dusty Kleiss another hero in the same battle, as the dive bomber who managed to hit the Japanese fleet with sub-par airplanes? Omar Bradley had far more to do with the U.S. victory than McArthur. Why are the officer heroes of D-Day omitted, like General Theodore Roosevelt Jr, and Gen. Norman Cota? Didn’t Trump watch “The Longest Day”?

2.Medal of Honor & Valor: Roy Benavidez, Desmond Doss, Audie Murphy, Alvin C. York

Comment: I get it, the only Medal of Honor recipients who count are the ones who have movies made about them.

3. Athletes and Competitors (Champions who demonstrated the American virtues of discipline, perseverance, and sportsmanship): Muhammad Ali, Herb Brooks, Kobe Bryant, Roberto Clemente, Lou Gehrig, Vince Lombardi, Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Jim Thorpe, Cy Young.

Pages: 1 2

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Res Ipsa Loquitur: Reuters’ Unethical Headline

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

“Spirit Airlines shuts down, industry’s first Iran war casualty”

Today I was a guest on The Steven Speirer Show, talking about ethics. In the final minutes, Steven, a California lawyer, asked me what I regarded as the greatest ethics issue facing the U.S. today. Without hesitation, I named the corruption of journalism and the collapse of ethics in the journalism profession. Readers here are familiar with that conclusion and why I am confident that it is correct. A republic cannot function with out an informed populace. “Advocacy journalism,” the elevation of the profit motive over integrity, responsibility and honesty, and the increasing intrusion of the techniques of “fake news” into reporting has transformed journalism into a toxic combination of propaganda and indoctrination.

“Professions earn that label by being trustworthy,” I told Steve. “Our news media today cannot be trusted, and those who do trust it are uninformed or misinformed.” My host said that he wished he could disagree, but in good conscience could not.

Then I checked my emails after the session, and saw the link to the Reuters headline above, re-posted on Yahoo! Finance. (Arthur in Maine gets the pointer for the link; my apologies for misidentifying the source in the original version of this post). It’s a classic, typical of how journalism operates today. A story about a company bankruptcy that was long in the works is framed as an indictment of the Iran War, and by extension President Trump.

Pages: 1 2

Another Really Bad Trump Idea: “The National Garden of American Heroes,” Part I. [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

President Trump’s method in some of his madness is to restore and reinforce the core American values that have been eroded, corrupted and in some cases denied by the ethics and cultural rot wreaked by the Far Left’s capture of our national institutions. The motives deserve applause, but his execution in many cases, like his “National Garden of American Heroes” obsession, is often hopelessly flawed. I’m being too nice: the theory that it is possible to create a fair and historically valid list of “American heroes” is, as Sidney Wang (Peter Sellers) so sagely remarks above, is stupid, and ultimately harmful.

The latest plans for the monstrosity include reflecting pools, dining facilities and an amphitheater alongside 250 life-size statues of notable Americans. It will require a significant redevelopment of West Potomac Park in D.C., and the statues alone could cost more than the $40 million approved for the project by Congress. But never mind all that: the fact is unavoidable that choosing just 250 Americans to be honored as “heroes” guarantees exorbitant praise for some prominent Americans and unjust exclusion for others. There are probably thousands of American lives that meet the Ethics Alarms criteria for the public to have a “duty to remember” them. Furthermore, perhaps reflecting President Trump’s limited public vocabulary, not all important and productive Americans qualify as heroes, and not all American heroes had much effect on the country and its history. Is the proposed “garden” intended to honor character, achievements, or both? Finally, the choices of who to honor in such a project will be distorted by bias and politics. In fact, that has already occurred.

The list of 250 that has been published confirms all of these fears; indeed, its even worse than I expected.  Here are the current proposed “heroes” by category; the list is introduced as being categorized by their primary contributions to our national story, representing “the tapestry of American greatness, men and women who, through faith, courage, and hard work, built the United States into a beacon of hope and industry.”

Right.

I’ll comment after each section.

Pages: 1 2