Some Perspective on the Ignorant “Things Are Worse Than Ever!” Lament

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Almost 14 years ago, I was directing a play in Arlington Virginia about the dance marathons that were held during the Great Depression. I wrote a post about what I had discovered in researching the show, which became one of the projects I am most proud of in my parallel career as a stage director. The essay began,

“Jews sometimes are criticized for evoking the Holocaust at every opportunity. Their explanation is that we “must never forget,” an argument I once thought was bizarre. “Who could forget the Holocaust?,” I wondered. Something so unique and horrible would be impossible to forget; it would be like pretending the Grand Canyon didn’t exist.

“That was ignorant of me. Nations, religions, cultures and groups of all kinds are stunningly effective at forgetting historical episodes which challenge their self-image and most cherished illusions. Jews are rightfully and wisely vigilant at reminding the world of what was done to them as the rest of humanity passively looked on in the 30’s and 40’s, because their extermination at the hands of the Nazis is a prime candidate for history’s memory hole, where good and sensitive people, along with their nations, communities and cultures, dispose of memories too ugly to remember. Once the memories are gone, they no longer haunt us, it is true. They no longer teach or warn us, either. The ethical course of action is to remember our worst moments, and evoke them as often as possible. We can only be our best by admitting our worst.”

I also feel that recalling “when things were rotten,” to evoke one of Mel Brooks’s lesser efforts, is to remind ourself how resilient our American culture is, and how our virtues and values as a society sometimes fail (because our society is made up of human beings), this nation has been remarkable in its ability to recover, slap itself in the face, regroups and get back on an honorable, ethical path. The foes of American culture don’t acknowledge this. It serves their agenda to deny that the United States has ever learned or reformed, though that quality is among our greatest strengths. So I feel that it is a propitious time to again remind readers here of the horrors that were the dance marathons of the 1930s. Most people have no idea how cruel and brutal they were, almost as cruel and brutal as the economics conditions that spawned them.

Pages: 1 2

Breaking!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

….and Savannagh Guthrie’s mother is still missing.

I know I’m harping on this, but it needs to be harped on. The news networks are still giving breathless reports on this single disappearance of a woman the American public knew nothing about 11 days ago, and whose only claim to importance is that she is the mother of the Today Show’s hostess, which doesn’t even mean as much as it did a decade ago.

The Today Show made Dave Garroway, Tom Brokaw, John Chancellor, Barbara Walters, Jane Pauley, Joe Garragiola and Bryant Gumbel national figures; also Willard Scott and J. Fred Muggs, a chimp, once upon a time when most American actually watched the morning show. Now? I bet more Americans listen to Bad Bunny recordings than had a clue who Savannah Guthrie was before CNN, MSNBC and Fox News started spewing this story up our metaphorical noses like Navage.

Yet there are already specials being aired about Mrs. Guthrie’s disappearance, which makes no difference to the fate of the nation, the state of the union, or the welfare of the public in any way, shape or form. The coverage, which now resembles the endless obsession with the Malaysian airline disappearance (but a lot more than one woman vanished with that mystery), is preventing the public from learning about other events and issues that are genuinely important to more than a single family. It is also helping the news media bury stories its political bias causes it to want buried.

(I find myself fighting the impulse to hope that Mrs. Guthrie was abducted and eaten by a trans female illegal immigrant Gavin Newsom supporter, who had been arrested and released 12 times by the Biden Administration.)

This episode does have importance, however. It is important because it proves that our journalists are not journalists. They are greedy, irresponsible hacks who hold the same ethical standards as drug dealers and organized crim: prey on people’s base needs and addictions, because it’s so profitable. Hey, everybody loves a mystery, right?

Sure…and the tale of Savannah Guthrie’s mom, however it turns out, will make a dandy “48 Hours” episode. One. Last night we were getting breathless updates about an arrest. The guy’s been released: now the mystery is whether he is a DoorDash driver or not.

It would all be funny if it wasn’t so damning. The people we rely on to inform us so we can be competent citizens in a republic are silly, greedy, irresponsible and untrustworthy hacks. We shouldn’t need this ridiculous spectacle to convince us by now, but how can anyone doubt it after this?

Ethics Dunce and Unethical Quote of the Week: John Kasich

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I confess: there was a time when I considered supporting John Kasich to be the 2016 GOP nominee for President (anyone but Trump…well, okay, and Dr. Ben Carson). Then I started listening to him. After he wiped out in the primaries, Kasich became a committed NeverTrump fanatic like the revolting Lincoln Project scamsters, left politics after being a wishy-washy Governor of Ohio, and then began being an anti-Trump “contributor” on Fox News, then CNN, NBC and MSNBC (the tell: he’s a liar) during the first Trump administration.

Kasich enthusiasticly supported Joe Biden in 2020, saying, in an endorsement that has aged as well as Walter Donovan in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”..

….“I’m sure there are Republicans and independents who couldn’t imagine crossing over to support a Democrat. They fear Joe may turn sharp left and leave them behind. I don’t believe that because I know the measure of the man. It’s reasonable, faithful, respectful.”

The tell: Kasich is an idiot.

This diagnosis was proven spectacularly correct when Kasich tweeted, following the NFL’s cynical Bad Bunny halftime show:

“Love the halftime show which celebrates the wonderful Latino culture. Great pick and great show. Bad Bunny hit a grand slam home run!”

Apparently the ” wonderful Latino culture” is celebrated with lyrics like these…

…which Kasich either sat there getting aroused by because he’s a dirty old man, or had no freaking idea what Latinos were hearing. I tend to think that he didn’t even watch the half-time show but defended it anyway because Kasich hates Trump to pieces, so he has done so often in the past decade, Kasich proceeded to make a fool of himself.

There are some admirable aspects to Hispanic culture indeed, like devotion to family, entrepreneurism,a strong work ethics and religious faith, but twerking and a crotch obsession arenot among them. Kasich praised Bud Bunny because Trump Derangement has eaten his brain, such as it was.

Oh…and the tweet also proves Kasich is a dork. Who but a dork uses a baseball term to describe a Super Bowl half-time show?

Catching Up With “The Lincoln Lawyer” Part 3

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

This one really troubled me, because it reinforces a public misunderstanding about lawyer ethics and one that many lawyers don’t understand either. [The first two installments of this limited Ethics Alarms series are here and here.]

In Season Two of “The Lincoln Lawyer,” Mickey represented a seductive restaurant owner (above) who was accused of murdering a local real estate developer with whom she had been in conflict.

Sidebar: Mickey had intimate relations with the woman immediately prior to her being arrested and retaining him s her attorney. Not afterwards, however, because it is an ethics violation in most states to have sex with your client. Some randy lawyers have had ethics complaints dismissed by proving that they had already been making whoopee with the client, so the usual reasons for the prohibition no longer applied.

That may be true, but I regard it as unethical (and stupid) for a lawyer to ever represent a client with whom he or she has had…or even wants to have..sexual relations. The restaurant owner was obviously using her lawyer’s attraction to her to cloud his judgment.

Pages: 1 2

A Lot of People, Including A Lot of Friends of Mine, Owe President Trump an Apology. Will They Apologize? Or Even Admit They Were Wrong?

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Of course not.

And therein lies their tragedy, and ours.

A newly released document in the so-called Epstein files reveals that Donald Trump, far from being an eager participant in Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking in and exploitation of young women, was one of the first to alert authorities that Epstein was involved in illegal activities. As the New York Times reports today,

“…one of the first calls the Palm Beach police received was from Donald J. Trump, the local police chief at the time told the F.B.I. more than a decade later.

“Mr. Trump reportedly told the chief, Michael Reiter, ‘Thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this,’ according to a document recounting their conversation that is part of the tranche of Epstein files released by the Justice Department.

“Mr. Trump said it was known in New York circles that Mr. Epstein was disgusting and suggested that the police also focus their investigation on Mr. Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell, according to the memo. ‘She is evil,’ Mr. Trump reportedly said.”

“Mr. Trump also told the police chief that he was around Mr. Epstein once when teenagers were present and that he ‘got the hell out of there,’ according to Mr. Reiter’s account.” The former chief described his conversation with Mr. Trump to the F.B.I. in October 2019, two months after Mr. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, the memo shows. Mr. Reiter told The Miami Herald, which reported on the document earlier, that the call with Mr. Trump occurred in July 2006.”

That’s years before Epstein’s first conviction.

Pages: 1 2

Gee, Who Could Have Ever Predicted That Marijuana Use Would Become a Problem? Me, For One…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I really try not to get emotional over ethics stories, but the current Editorial Board declaration in the New York Times headlined, “It’s Time for America to Admit That It Has a Marijuana Problem” makes me want to run screaming naked into Route 395.

The U.S. had a marijuana problem a half century ago, when an earlier wave of The Great Stupid washed over the land and all manner of important lessons a healthy and functioning society needed to remember and institutionalize were deliberately tossed away because a lot of passionate, anti-establishment assholes were sure that they knew better than anyone “over 30.” I fought this destructive development from college, when I watched one of my room mates suffer short term memory loss from getting stoned morning and night; in law school, when the student running my lightboard for a production of “Iolanthe” erased all the light cues that we had taken six hours to set up because he was higher than the moons of Jupiter, all the way onto this blog. I put up with the mockery of classmates and dorm mates over the fact that I would not “try” pot (“It’s illegal” wasn’t a winning argument, so I settled on “It’s stupid and destructive.”). I drew a line in the sand with my addiction-prone wife, a former pot-head who was already an alcoholic. My fellow lawyers quickly learned not to get stoned around me because they knew I regarded buying and selling pot when it was illegal grounds for reporting them to bar authorities and respected my integrity enough to have reasonable doubts that I might not pretend that I didn’t know what I knew.

I carried the battle onto Ethics Alarms as the relentless pro-stoner propaganda was heading to victory, resulting in the legalization of the drug, the inevitable result of which the assholes who edit the New York Times have the gall now to tell us “Oopsie!” about after being a significant part of the mob mentality that inflicted it on the public, probably forever.

Back in 2011, I drafted a post that I never finished titled, “To My Friends the Pot-Heads: I Know. I’ve Heard It All Before.” It began:

“I take a deep breath every time I feel it necessary to wade into the morass of the Big Ethical Controversies, because I know it invites long and fruitless debates with entrenched culture warriors with agendas, ossified opinions, and contempt for anyone who disagrees with them. War, abortion, religion, prostitution, drugs, torture, gay marriage…there are a lot of them, and all are marked by a large mass of people who have decided that they are right about the issue, and anyone disagreeing with them is stupid, evil, biased, or all three. Contrary to what a goodly proportion of commenters here will write whichever position I take, I approach all of these issues and others exactly the same way. I look at the differing opinions on the matter from respectable sources, examine the research, if it is relevant, examine lessons of history and the signals from American culture, consider personal experience if any, and apply various ethical systems to an analysis. No ethical system works equally well on all problems, and while I generally dislike absolutist reasoning and prefer a utilitarian approach, sometimes this will vary according to a hierarchy of ethical priorities as I understand and align them. Am I always right? Of course not. In many of these issues, there is no right, or right is so unsatisfactory—due to the unpleasant encroachment of reality— that I understand and respect the refusal of some to accept it. There are some of these mega-issues where I am particularly confident of my position, usually because I have never heard a persuasive argument on the other side that wasn’t built on rationalizations or abstract principles divorced from real world considerations. My conviction that same-sex marriage should be a basic human right is in this category. So is my opposition, on ethical grounds, for legalizing recreational drugs.”

Instead of finishing and posting that essay, I posted this one, which used as a departure point a Sunday ABC News “Great Debate” on hot-point issues of the period featuring conservatives Rep. Paul Ryan and columnist George Will against Democratic and gay Congressman Barney Frank and Clinton’s former communist Labor Secretary Robert Reich. [Looking back, it is interesting how all four of these men went on to show their dearth of character and integrity. Ryan proved to be a spineless weenie, rising to Speaker of the House but never having the guts to fight for the conservative principles he supposedly championed. Frank never accepted responsibility for the 2008 crash his insistence on loosening mortgage lending practices helped seed, preferring to blame Bush because he knew the biased news media would back him up. Will disgraced himself by abandoning the principles he built his career on in order to register his disgust that a vulgarian like Donald Trump would dare to become President. Reich was already a far left demagogue, so at least his later conduct wasn’t a departure. I wrote in part,

Pages: 1 2

Catching Up With “The Lincoln Lawyer” Part 2

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

In this limited series of as yet undetermined length, I’ll be examining the legal ethics issues raised by the Netflix limited series of as yet undetermined length based on the Michael Connelly character, fed through the filter of the ubiquitous David Kelley.

I’m not going in strict order chronological order because why should I? This issue is a rich one, and arrived in Season 3 of the show. A prostitute whom Mickey had advised and had testified to help a client in Season 2 turned up dead, and he agreed to represent the man, her cyber pimp, accused of killing her before he realized she was the victim. Mickey liked and sympathized with the victim; whether he was officially her lawyer is a bit vague, but she seemed to think of him that way.

Can a lawyer represent a defendant accused of killing a lawyer’s client? Sure enough, this has happened; there’s even a Supreme Court case about it.

Pages: 1 2

F. Scott Fitzgerald Thinks Mayor Brandon Johnson Is Brilliant. I Think He’s an Unethical Lying Idiot…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” Fitzgerald didn’t know Chicago’s incompetent and dishonest Democratic mayor (the latest one, Brandon Johnson), but nonetheless: anyone who witnessed Johnson’s recent example of holding two opposed ideas in what he optimistically calls his mind must conclude that 1) Johnson is far from brilliant, being an advocate of the “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts” school of logic; 2) the Mayor believes that Democrats are dummies, which on the topic at hand, illegal immigration and law enforcement, is a good bet, and 3) Fitzgerald wasn’t all that swift either.

Mayor Brandon Johnson went on MSNOW’s “The Weekend” yesterday to opine on President Trump’s remarks to reporters at the White House that Trump’s actions had lowered crime in the Windy City. “We just had numbers from Chicago where Chicago crime has gone down pretty good,” the President said, ungrammatically. Wrong, said Johnson. “Where ICE and federal agents were present, we actually saw an increase in violence. In other words, the tension and the chaos that federal agents bring to cities in America, it actually is counter-productive.” 

Then, seconds later, he said, “Yes, we saw a 30 % reduction in homicides, shooting, shooting victims, all down.”

Johnson did not explain that the so-called increase in violence due to I.C.E. being present was entirely due to illegal interference with and attacks against the federal immigration officers from Chicagoans interfering with law enforcement as a result of being incited by elected officials like Illinois Governor Pritzger and others calling I.C.E agents Nazis, Gestapo, and “occupiers.” Johnson had claimed Trump “literally declared war on American cities.” Literally! Ah, how I remember POTUS signing that declaration of war in the Oval Office….

The likelihood that removing criminal illegal aliens from Johnson’s “sanctuary city” while clearly sending a message that the jig was up, in stark contrast to the previous administration’s policies, had something to do with the reduction in violent crime never occurred to the Mayor. Yet in 2024, Chicago earned the title of America’s homicide leader for the 13th year in a row. 

Naturally, nobody at NSNOW cared to point out that Johnson’s argument was self-refuting, or even ask him if he was a Fitzgerald fan. And so they all beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past…

Catching Up With “The Lincoln Lawyer” Part 1

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Netflix’s “The Lincoln Lawyer” series has dropped its fourth season. This gave me an excuse to revisit the first three seasons of the legal show, based on the Matthew McConaughey film, itself based on Michael Connelly novels, about sketchy a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney whose office usthe backseat of a chauffeur-driven Lincoln town car. The series—it’s Netflix after all—has DEI’ed the movie, with Micky Haller, the central character, being transformed into a Mexican-American who speaks Spanish frequently (though not as often as Bad Bunny) and is played by Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, a Mexican actor who only plays Hispanic roles when he appears in U.S. movies and TV shows. He was, for example, the gratuitous Hispanic father in the ostentatiously “diverse” “Jurassic World” franchise addition last year (the worst of them all, in my opinion). That is not to say he isn’t an appealing, intelligent, entertaining leading man in “The Lincoln Lawyer.”

The show makes a point of highlighting legal ethics dilemmas, as Mickey habitually tightropes along ethical lines to zealously represent his clients. A fellow legal ethicist thinks the show is unusually good in this realm. I’m not quite so enthusiastic. I will examine some of the legal ethics dilemmas that surfaced in the first two seasons over the next couple days.

Today’s featured problem:

Pages: 1 2

The N.F.L. Is Helping Chuck Klosterman’s Prediction Come True [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 45 Comments

I was going to get this up before the Super Bowl, but it turns out that the issue was further crystalized by the game itself. As happens approximately 50% of the time with this annual spectacle, the game was a yawn, and much of the news coming out of the contest involved the NFL’s deliberate transformation of what was once considered a unifying family cultural event, like Fourth of July fireworks, into a partisan, progressive statement about how America sucks, with expensive TV ads extolling capitalism and patriotism at the same time. That’s message whiplash, and ethically irresponsible.

As the New York Times explained, without criticism, the NFL took a hard turn Left when it put Barack Obama pal Jay-Z, the rap star and impresario, in charge of the Super Bowl halftime show after the 2018 Super Bowl had triggered anger from fans over players “taking a knee” during the National Anthem. The Times, spinning as usual, says that the kneeling was intended to “draw attention to police brutality and social justice issues.”

As Ethics Alarms pointed out at the time, none of the kneelers, including its cynical originator, over-the-hill quarterback Colin Kaepernick, ever explained coherently what they were kneeling about. What “police brutality”? Oh, you know, Mike Brown, whom Black Lives Matters still says was “murdered” on its website. What social justice issues? Oh, you know: it’s time for white people to be discriminated against to make up for slavery. The left-turn was a greed-induced mass virtue signal to blacks, clueless young fans, and Democrats. (It helped that President Trump vociferously attacked Kaepernick and Co., so the kneeling appealed to the Trump Deranged too. (See Dissonance Scale, Cognitive)

The Times:

Pages: 1 2