Why No, I Didn’t Know That!

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Free-lance journalist Michael Tracy pointed out on “X” that all of the “victims” who Rep. Jayapal demanded that Pam Bondi apologize to were adults at the time of their claimed victimization by Jeffrey Epstein. Tracy asked if any news organization bothered to mention that rather salient point, especially since the Left’s narrative connecting President Trump to Epstein rests on calling Trump a presumed “pedo”-by-association.

It seems the answer is no. I certainly assumed the hand-raising women at Bondi’s hearing were all sexually exploited as minors.

The Epstein obsession is such an Ethics Train Wreck, and such a dumb one my eye-balls hurt from rolling. If Democrats succeed in the mid-terms because of the duel mendacities of the Epstein innuendos and the even dumber “affordability” talking point (“How dare Trump not lower the prices our incompetence raised?”), I think it will be fair to say that the American public is no longer intelligent enough for a republic.

I recommend a conservatorship.

In an excellent Wall Street Journal piece (which I no longer can find) on what the Epstein files didn’t include, the author wrote that the news media and Democrats are focusing on Trump’s past denials that he ever knew or suspected what his fellow billionaire was doing, when what they should be focusing on was that he alone among the many names being exposed in the files “got the hell out of there,” as soon as Epstein’s teenage girls turned up.

But that wouldn’t be “advocacy journalism.”

The Fantasy Headline

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I don’t want to dwell on the headline above from the Times, but this is just another example of how, as in democracy’s death of a thousand cuts, our journalists deceive, confuse and manipulate public opinion. They also think they are clever about it, just as they think they are smarter than they are.

“President Trump on Thursday announced he was erasing the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment, ending the federal government’s legal authority to control the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet,” the Times piece begins. “The action is a key step in removing limits on carbon dioxide, methane and four other greenhouse gases that scientists say are supercharging heat waves, droughts, wildfires and other extreme weather.”

Well.

Pages: 1 2

A Shocking Ice Dancing Judging Scandal at the Winter Olympics

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

You can read the details of this completely predictable and in general ridiculous ice-dancing judging scandal here, here, and here. I’m not going recount the details because the details are misleading.

The ethics story is that the American ice dancing team of Madison Chock and Evan Bates lost the gold to the French team of Laurence Fournier Beaudry and Guillaume Cizeron because a French judge, Jezabel Dabouis, favored Beaudry and Cizeron by nearly eight points (make that “points”) over the three-time world champions in the free dance, a margin inexplicable when compared to the scores of the other judges, and so large that if her score were removed entirely, Chock and Bates would have won the top prize easily.

Pages: 1 2

Friday Forum: Just Don’t Talk About Valentine’s Day, Please…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I’m dreading tomorrow. I have a lively, interesting and strange life, but in almost two years since Grace died, I have concluded that 1) I really hate being single, 2) I didn’t tell her how much I loved her enough, 3) I see no possible path to ever having serious female companionship again, and 4) it is amazing that I had the four serious romantic relationships I did have, since all of them were started by the women involved, because in that realm, I am and have always been the ultimate weenie.

The compensating factor is that I have known, admired and loved an amazing group of brilliant, talented, powerful, funny, strong, tough and challenging women over the years—my mother and younger sister qualify—and all of them either married someone else, or scared off men so much that they never married at all.

But enough whining: Last night I was musing about how to find more reliable, non-ideological news aggregators. There may not be any. Ann Althouse likes memeorandum, which I have come to realize is as partisan as the old Drudge Report. Mirabile dictu, I woke up this morning and without even searching for it, stumbled over an article from last spring titled, “10 Great News Aggregator Websites You Should Check Out in 2025.” I use some of them, including #10, which despite its ostentatious leftward bias is great source of marginal news, but I was not aware of many of the others, including The Morning News, #8.

Longtime reader Fred spent a couple years being my ethics story scout, and while many of you regularly send me links and suggested stories (and I am duly grateful), I’ve never felt like I have been close to covering my dauntingly vast (and important) topic since Fred went on other pursuits.

Now please, make some noise. I’ll be listening…

Catching Up With “The Lincoln Lawyer” Part 4

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

I like the show in general, but its writers need to catch up with the Rules of Professional Conduct and their interpretation.

Twenty years ago, in “The Sopranos,” Tony and his wife Carmella were having marital problems—gee , I wonder why?—and Tony was tipped off that she was looking for a divorce lawyer. So Tony contacted every major divorce lawyer he could find to tell them all about his marriage on the pretext that he was considering retaining one of them.. The idea was to conflict them all out of representing her, because they had received confidential communications from Tony.

Rule 1.18, relatively new at the time, held that lawyers had to keep the confidences of even potential clients, making such a dastardly tactic possible. But not long after that episode of “The Sopranos” revealed the loophole in the rules, courts and legal ethics opinions closed it with the sensible holding that someone only consulting a lawyer to create a conflict and not as a good faith effort to seek legal representation was not a genuine potential client.

Nevertheless, in the current season of “The Lincoln Lawyer,” Mickey’s newly minted lawyer associate (and ex-wife) says she got her first family law client because the woman had been frozen out of hiring the established divorce lawyers after her louse of a spouse had pulled Tony’s old trick.

True, it’s not always easy to prove that an estranged spouse is seeking conflicts rather than a lawyer. Nonetheless, lawyer TV shows are ethically obligated not to deceive the public. Tony Soprano’s method is unlikely to work now, and hasn’t been viable for at least a decade.

In one area, “The Lincoln Lawyer” deserves praise for properly representing a lawyer’s duty that Hollywood almost always ignores. Whenever Mickey Haller, “The Lincoln Lawyer,” is presented with a plea deal or another offer from the opposing attorney, even if Mickey makes it clear that he thinks the offer is ridiculous, he always says, “I’ll run it by my client,” which he has to do. But even in some of the most celebrated legal films, like Paul Newman’s “The Verdict,” the lawyers don’t do that. As a result, many clients don’t know their attorney can’t reject or accept a settlement offer without consulting them. That misconception can cause real harm.

The previous installments of these legal ethics commentaries on the streaming series can be found here, here, and here.

Pre-Valentines Day and Lincoln’s Birthday Ethics Warm-Up, Feb. 12, 2026

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Stop me if you’ve heard this one…

My favorite Valentine’s Day memory comes from when I was a student at Harvard, directing my first show at nearby M.I.T. I had bemoaned to my cast how the holiday was bound to be a lonely one for me, as I had no girlfriend at the time and my room mates, who were all from far-flung states, where certain to be getting copious love notes in their mail boxes while mine would be, as usual, empty. (My home was in Arlington, Mass., a quick bus ride from Cambridge.) When February 14th arrived and the usual morning mail call with it, my room mate who was on mail duty that day announced, “Dick, you have eight cards. Slip, you have two. Mark, you got 12 cards. Worldman [he was Hawaiian], you also have 12. I have three, and Shithead (my room mates often called me “Shithead”) you have…these.”

And he poured out 58 little envelopes on the floor, each containing one of those little Valentines we used to exchange in elementary school. An M.I.T. coed named Nancy Green (not the original Aunt Jemima) in my chorus had persuaded every student in her dorm to write a personal message on one of those little cards, and she stamped, addressed and mailed them. It was a classic random act of kindness. Thanks, Nancy—wherever you are.

Meanwhile…

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The I.C.E. Endorsement

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Sarai Jimenez, a special education teaching intern at in Pajaro Valley School District’s Watsonville, California-based MacQuiddy Elementary, endorsed the presence of I.C.E. officers in her town in a comment on Facebook last month.

“Yay!!! We need ICE in Watsonville!! It’s been getting out of hand,” Jimenez wrote, as you can see above. But the parents in Pajaro Valley Unified School District, where 84% of students are Hispanic and, given California’s sanctuary state aspirations, might belong to families with one or more illegal immigrants, considered Jimenez’s support for ICE….that is, enforcement of U.S. law…unconscionable. Many complained, and Jimenez was placed on leave from her job in Pajaro Valley School District. It appears that she will be fired, if she hasn’t been already.

“You can’t just tell the world how you feel and not expect repercussions from people because of how they feel about I.C.E.,” local parent Jorge Guerrero said. If I were awake completely, which I’m not, I would compose several alternate versions of this statement with provocative substitutes for “I.C.E.”

Jimenez tried to save her job by groveling a politician-style denial rather than an apology,“I’m sorry that the comment was taken out of context,” she told reporters. “But my actions speak so much louder than all those hateful bullies’ words.” The hateful bullies are the ones who bombarded her with threats and insults until she took down her Facebook page. “You are a shameful disgraceful disgusting woman,” one critic wrote.

Predictably, though apparently not by the interning teacher, the school administrators sided with the bullies if not their methods (although firing someone for supporting law enforcement is a lot more harmful than insulting her).

MacQuiddy Elementary Principal Sara Pearman said in a statement that Jimenez’s comment “does not reflect the values” of the school or district.

Hmmmm…

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is it ethical to fire Jimenez for expressing support for law enforcement officials doing their jobs?

I think this is a close call. Some points:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Observations On Atty. Gen. Bondi’s Appearance Before The House Judiciary Committee

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I will stipulate here that Bondi is unethical, unprofessional, incompetent, and a hack attorney who was arguably the worst of Trump’s Cabinet appointments once Matt Gaetz withdrew. Nothing that occurred at today’s embarrassing (to everyone, including me) hearing altered any of that. Furthermore:

1. Being rude and confrontational to members of Congress is demeaning to our government, however much our terrible elected representatives deserve it. Bondi’s boss might enjoy a “fiery” hearing, but it is disgraceful and unnecessary. Being cool under fire is what Americans should expect from their top lawyer. If Democrats like Rep. Jayapal and Rep. Raskin want to act like hyper-partisan assholes as they so frequently do, the best way to expose them is by contrast.

2. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! CNN actually had the gall to write, “It seemed Bondi was playing to the “audience of one” — Trump. But that came potentially at the expense of appealing to an American public that really does want answers.” If the public “wants answers,” it is incumbent on Congress to run hearings that are substantive and involve genuine matters of concern, rather than throttle a contrived scandal that was supposed to embarrass President Trump but that has behaved more like a boomerang. The Democrats on the committee seemed to only be interested in “gotcha!” questions, attacking the President, and deflecting from their own President’s absolute inertia on the same matter they were criticizing Bondi for her lack of zeal regarding. Had the committee members delivered a fair and professional inquiry, or even attempted to hold one, CNN blaming Bondi for failing to sufficiently enlighten the public would be valid. But they didn’t, and it isn’t. The CNN commentary once again just proved again that the news media is interested in partisan advocacy above all else.

Pages: 1 2

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

/ Jack Marshall / 5 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 / 12 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?