Year: 2013

Reese Witherspoon Uses The Pazuzu Defense

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments
What's that, Reese? You say your head spun around? Ok, then I take it back--that really wasn't you talking...

What’s that, Reese? You say your head spun around? Ok, then I take it back–that really wasn’t you talking…

Actress Reese Witherspoon interfered with police in the process of their arresting her husband  for DUI, and got arrested herself as a result…but not before displaying the tell-tale mark of an arrogant celebrity, the old “Do you know who I am?” threat. As the officers tried to handle her allegedly drunken hubby, Witherspoon interjected, “Do you know my name?” When the officer said, in effect, that he couldn’t care less,  the star of “Legally Blonde”  retorted with “You’re about to find out who I am … You are going to be on national news!”

Now, in the light of day, sobriety, and the realization that her Q points may be in danger, Witherspoon has responded with a Full Pazuzu (Pazuzu is the demon that caused poor Linda Blair to say all those awful things in “The Exorcist”), saying:

“…I was disrespectful to the officer who was just doing his job. The words I used that night definitely do not reflect who I am. I have nothing but respect for the police and I am very sorry for my behavior.” Continue reading →

Tales From The “Ick” Files: Should We Take Eggs From Aborted Babies?

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments
"Mom???"

“Mom???”

At the annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Madrid, it was revealed that researchers from Israel and the Netherlands have kept ovarian tissue from aborted fetuses alive in the laboratory for several weeks.The chief researcher in the project, Dr. Tal Biron-Shental, said it was “theoretically possible” that with extra hormone treatment they could have produced mature eggs suitable for use in in vitro fertilization. Female fetuses develop ovaries after as little as 16 weeks in the womb, and harvesting eggs from them could be a boon for infertile couples.

But horrors…

Dr Tom Shakespeare, director of the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Institute at Newcastle University, told the Daily Mail that he was “deeply uneasy'”about the idea of using aborted fetuses as a source of eggs, saying, “My personal view is that it is wrong. Partly because it would cause widespread revulsion and partly because you would have somebody born who is the child of someone who never lived. We need to consider the welfare of the child and the impact of finding out that your mother was aborted.” Continue reading →

The Ghostwriting Ethics Scale

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

ghostwriting

The ease with which former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ op-ed denigrating opponents of the Manchin-Toomey background check provision was accepted as her words and sentiment has prompted me to focus again on a persistent ethics issue of long-standing: ghost-written articles, op-eds, articles and other printed statements. This is the epitome of a slippery slope issue, because finding the dividing line between what is acceptable ethically and harmfully deceptive is so difficult, most people don’t even bother to try to make ethical distinctions. We have to, though, and the Giffords piece shows why.

A published opinion piece by a prominent individual can have several uses, intentional and otherwise: Continue reading →

“The Ortiz Standard,” With An Ethics Note To High Appointed Officials: If You Can’t Say Something Responsible And Intelligent, Please Shut Up!

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments
Gee, thanks, guys. Fuck.

Gee, thanks, guys. Fuck.

Apparently April is officially “Let’s Make The U.S. Permanently Vulgar and Uncivil Month.”

We’ve had a University of Maryland sorority lovely ream out her charges with a rant that would, in the words of Henry Higgins, “make a sailor blush.” Kmart launched a potty-minded commercial based entirely on the hilarious similarity between the phrase “ship my pants” and “shit my pants,” including two happy seniors boasting how they “shipped our pants.” In Bismarck, North Dakota, a local station’s brand new anchor man’s very first words to the audience were “…fucking shit!” because he didn’t know his mic was live.  And, of course, given the honor of representing his team during the Boston Red Sox’s pre-game ceremony honoring the heroes of the past week in their terror-besieged city, slugger David Ortiz told 35,000+ spectators, including many children, and a large TV audience, also including young children, watching the event, “This is our fucking city!” He was then unanimously praised for his passion.

Not to be left out of this full-throated endorsement of public incivility and locker room banter as the new normal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sent out a tweet for those wondering how Ortiz’s outburst would be received by the FCC, which has previously threatened fines of networks that didn’t take sufficient precautions against live obscenities. He wrote,

“David Ortiz spoke from the heart at today’s Red Sox game. I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston – Julius.” Continue reading →

Funny But Inexcusable: The Unethical and Unprofessional News Team At Philadelphia FOX 29

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Observe this video, please, in which who Philadelphia news anchors interview, and then mock, Olympic swimmer turned reality TV star Ryan Lochte:

Inexcusable. Inexcusable!

These two clowns should be fired, and run out of the industry.

Sheinelle Jones and Mike Jerrick are allegedly journalists. Lochte, dimwit that he is (and who didn’t already know that?), was their guest. Ridiculing him like a couple of “cool” junior high kids humiliating the boy who stutters is so far below minimal professional standards for broadcast journalism that it would take light years to reach it.

Why were they interviewing a reality star anyway? That is their fault, not Lochte’s.  His intellectual deficiencies are well known; that’s why he has a show. If you star in such  barrel-bottom fare, you are either a pathetic object of derision (Anna Nicole Smith, Scott Baio), desperate (Tatum O’Neil and her father), a freak ( Honey Boo-Boo) or a monster (the Kardashians, dance moms, Roseanne)—what were the anchors expecting, trenchant witticisms? Ambrose Bierce?

Their job is to treat all interview subjects with equal respect and fairness, and dissolving into laughter the second an inarticulate, preening boob is off the air does not meet this easy standard. Lochte’s comments were no less idiotic, just different in style and content, than what regularly comes out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Michael Steele, Michele Bachmann, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Rep. Maxine Waters, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, to name just a miniscule percentage of the celebrity and public figure dolts who regularly afflict the airwaves, but these two counterfeit journalists would never dare treat any of them with similar derision….not because they have professional standards, but because they are cowards. They only pick on those who they know won’t fight back.

Jones and Jerrick were cowardly, cruel, rude, offensive, disrespectful and wildly unprofessional. They were also bullies. There are no excuses, no rationalizations. Professional journalists must not be permitted to act like this…indeed, nobody should think it is ever appropriate to treat anyone, anywhere, the way they treated Lochte. They should apologize, on the air, and then start their new careers in the mail room.

Ethics Hero: Neil Diamond

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

 

Kansas City Royals v Boston Red Sox

The pop singer whose ear-worm of a 60’s hit, “Sweet Caroline,” inexplicably became a Fenway Park crowd sing-along tradition made a surprise appearance at the Red Sox-Royals game this afternoon, apparently voluntarily and at his own expense, to contribute to the festivities as Boston celebrated the end of a violent and frightening week. The song has been played at other ballparks in recent days, even at Yankee Stadium, in a show of solidarity with the besieged city and its residents.

Neil Diamond flew to Boston and contacted the Red Sox slightly before game time, saying he was eager to sing along with himself in the seventh inning. Surprised club officials assented. So he wandered out onto the field, looking paunchy, old and happy, and sang into a microphone while his ancient record played—since this was all impromptu, there was no other accompaniment available. And the crowd loved it: you can watch and listen here.

Unlike David Ortiz, Diamond didn’t have to resort to obscenity to give his appearance emphasis. He gave an unsolicited  gift to Boston and Red Sox fans, lending his talents to the celebration without compensation because it was a caring and classy thing to do. It didn’t matter that singing along with his 44 years younger self was hardly flattering, or that the sound was lousy, or even that “Sweet Caroline” is hardly Gershwin or even Billy Joel (I always preferred “Cracklin’ Rosie,” myself).  A big, wealthy recording star simply helped the city’s  healing along by a generous gesture when there was nothing in it for him.

Neil Diamond is a good guy.

 

Unethical Quote Of The Week: Boston Red Sox Star David “Big Papi” Ortiz

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

“This is our fucking city!”

—Boston Red Sox designated hitter and icon David Ortiz, aka “Big Papi”, representing the team in a pre-game ceremony at Fenway Park honoring Boston in the wake of the past week’s violence, heroism and travails.

"Big Potty-Mouth"

“Big Potty-Mouth”

I love you, David, and you got us past the Yankees in 2004, but your choice of words  was classless, crude and unnecessary.

There were children in that crowd and watching on TV, as I was. You are a role model, and locker room language belongs in the locker room, not in public events. Your obviously calculated incivility moves the culture one more step away from public manners and toward obscenity as standard expression.

I’m disappointed in you, and you also embarrassed your sorority sisters at Delta Gamma.

Ethics Dunce (Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck and U.S. Public School Incompetence Divisions): Logan Middle School in Logan, W.Va.

/ Jack Marshall / 42 Comments

Sigh.

Send him to the re-education center...

Send him to the re-education center…

I’ll stop flagging the unethical conduct of anti-gun hysterics during the Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck when they stop abusing kids and law-abiding citizens in their deranged determination to turn America into a gun-free zone through fear-mongering and intimidation. I’m genuinely sick of writing about this stuff, but not as sick as I am of the idiocy that produces it. Has any sane, prominent, respectable voice from the gun-regulation side registered strong objections to incidents like what happened in Logan? If so, I must have missed it. That’s illuminating, don’t you think?

Jared Marcum, an eighth-grader boy at Logan Middle School in Logan, W.Va., was suspended and arrested by police for wearing a pro-NRA T-shirt that depicted a firearm and the phrase “Protect your right” to class. He was charged with “obstruction and disturbing the education process.” It appears that his teacher asked him to remove his shirt, and he refused, prompting the arrest. Marcum was on solid ground, and his teacher was not.  The school dress code reads in part: Continue reading →

Let Me Explain It To You, Ruth: It Is All About Trust

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

zombies-anti-gun-560x335

Washington Post editorial writer Ruth Marcus gave us a jaw-droppingly arrogant and willfully obtuse lament yesterday. She is in despair. Why would such a sensible, unthreatening gun control measure as the Manchin-Toomey background check amendment fail to pass the Senate? Poor Ruth just can’t understand it. The Senators voting against the bill were so “impervious to logic.” It just didn’t make sense!

What is ruefully amusing and telling about Marcus’s “how dare anyone disagree with us?” rant is that her essay answers its own question.  It is stuffed full of the elements that completely justify Senators or anyone who respects gun-ownership, the Second Amendment and guns opposing any proposals at all that come out of the post-Sandy Hook exploitation campaign by Marcus and her political compadres. It all comes down to trust, Ruth, and you are one of those who is untrustworthy on the topic of guns. Your column proves it, just as President Obama’s petulant outburst of contempt against gun rights absolutists proves his untrustworthiness. Continue reading →

The Dilemma of the Oblivious Questioner

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments
"Where was I? Oh, right...so what you were saying about client perjury reminds me of a trial in the Boer War...well, it wasn't a trial exactly; that was what Churchill's cousin called it---wait, not Churchill's cousin...the other guy, the one who was such a good canasta player. Nobody plays canasta any more..."

“Where was I? Oh, right…so what you were saying about client perjury reminds me of a trial in the Boer War…well, it wasn’t a trial exactly; that was what Churchill’s cousin called it—wait, not Churchill’s cousin…the other guy…no, it was a girl, I misspoke… the one who was such a good canasta player. Nobody plays canasta any more…”

I launched a new legal ethics seminar today. This is always nerve-wracking, because it has to last exactly three hours, has to cover the topics I’ve included in the printed materials, and the programs are interactive, meaning that the degree of attendee participation is unpredictable. After I’ve done a program a couple of times, I usually have a good idea about which segments prompt a lot discussion and which don’t, so I can time my own comments accordingly. The first time, however, it is pure guesswork.

This one, a country-music themed program, was going to be tight, but was close to schedule until an elderly lawyer burdened with various medical paraphernalia raised his hand. I called on him by reflex, and then realized that he was the same attendee who had blathered on earlier in the program, telling an irrelevant and pointless anecdote that ate up five minutes. Sure enough, the second he got his hands on the mic he was off again, this time making an obscure and convoluted comparison between what I had been discussing and Japanese war crime trials, but it was even worse. He went on tangents; he forgot names; he backtracked; he never made any coherent point. Some people got up and left. It was easily a ten minute filibuster, and permanently killed any chance I had of covering all my material. He finally reached the end, never making clear what the story had to do with anything. I went on to the next segment.

Now I wonder if I handled the situation properly and made the right ethical call, which was to tolerate his clueless intrusion and not embarrass him by cutting him off. Continue reading →