I write this in a state of advanced disgust over the predictable but still nauseating reaction by the legal ethics community (as represented on the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, of which I am a member) to the still roiling Fani Willis scandal. This is a, I estimate, a 80%-20% woke profession, and I may be being generous. Not only did group’s hyperactive listserv conspicuously ignore the story despite it being by far the most high-profile legal ethics controversy in many months, but when the topic was finally broached yesterday, it was to brush aside the obvious conflict of interest as irrelevant to the case’s defendants, including Donald Trump. (This is a passionately Trump-Deranged group to the point that vocal dissenters are risk professional blackballing.) This CNN opinion piece by a member has been virtually unanimously praised, despite employing blatant “whataboutism”: “Willis may have engaged in nepotism (as when President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother Robert Kennedy to be US attorney general or when Trump appointed his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner to positions in his presidential administration).” For some strange reason, the legal ethicist association seems to be willing to accept the dubious proposition that even though Willis’s alleged legal lover is profiting greatly from his involvement in the case (and that she may be receiving benefits from that profit in the form of travel and other baubles of affection), this could not reasonably be seen as a factor undermining her required independent judgment in managing the case as his supervisor.
Well, the group is still a valuable resource the 95% of the time that progressive politics aren’t involved…
1. Oh…about that headline! It’s my “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” note of the day. It’s a real headline from a real story, but dates from March 2023. Legal Insurrection wrote about its author here. But I missed it, and as the saying goes, if it’s new to you, it’s still news….
2. And as for the artificial intelligence ethics controversy of the day? George Carlin’s estate, under the auspices of his daughter, is suing the producers of a comedy special that used artificial intelligence to bring Carlin back from the dead, sort-of. The lawsuit filed in California federal court this week complains that the human creators of the special, without consent from or compensation to George Carlin’s estate, used his entire body of work and five decades of comedy routines to train their AI chatbot to write an original, topical humor script. An hour-long special titled George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead, was released January 9 on a YouTube channel in a podcast hosted by Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen. An AI program called “Dudsey AI” created a virtual George Carlin that emulates the comedian’s style. The new “George” makes humorous commentary on modern topics such as the prevalence of reality TV, streaming services, AI itself and other issues Carlin didn’t live long enough to joke about. Kelly Carlin, told “The Hollywood Reporter” that the suit is “a line in the sand.” “This is going to be a fight on every front, with entertainment at the center,” she says.
3. Now THIS is incompetence! A careless engineer left a flashlight inside the engine of a $14 million fighter jet at Luke Air Force base in Glendale, Arizona in March 2023, the same month that LA Times headline ran. (That was some month I apparently missed!) The Pentagon’s investigation of the incident has finally been released. The F-35 jet was undergoing a routine check of its propulsion system, and a metering plug was inserted into an engine fuel line. One of the engineers left his flashlight behind, and when the engine was turned on, it made a sound like the garbage disposal does when you turn it on with a spoon down the hole, but worse. The engine was sufficiently damaged that the whole plane had to be scrapped. The Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigation Board found that the engineers failed to follow correct procedures by checking to ensure that all tools were accounted for before starting the engine. It has not been revealed whether anyone has faced discipline for the episode, but after all, to the Pentagon 14 million bucks is veritable pocket change.
4. Most misreported ethics story of the week? Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying that he intends to defend his state’s border with razor wire despite the 5-4 Supreme Court order allowing the US Border Patrol to take it down if it wants to. Abbott is not defying the Supreme Court, so all those comparisons with President Jackson’s ordering the “Trail of Tears” in direct contravention of a SCOTUS ruling (“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”) are misleading. All the Roberts Court did was to vacate a lower-court injunction prohibiting federal officials from cutting or otherwise removing the obstacles that Texas officials placed along or near the US-Mexico border. Abbott is essentially daring Biden to go forward with the plan to remove the wire, vowing opposition. Right now, it looks as if the Border Patrol will not force a confrontation, as Abbott is receiving such strong public support as well as encouragement from other GOP governors. There’s nothing unethical about bluffing….
5. Museum ethics…The Biden administration is speeding up the repatriation of Native American remains, funerary objects and other sacred items to their appropriate tribes. In 1990 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, was passed, establishing protocols for museums and other institutions to return human remains, funerary objects and other holdings to tribes. Heaps of these artifacts have been in museums for many moons. This month, new federal regulations went into effect giving institutions a five year deadline to “prepare all human remains and related funerary objects for repatriation,” so major museums across the country are closing long-standing anthropological exhibits as they try to determine what they can be shown under the new regulations. The American Museum of Natural History in New York City announced that it will will close two major halls exhibiting Native American objects.The Field Museum in Chicago covered display cases. The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University, where I sometime spent whole days roaming around with my old friend Peter Bena, said it would remove all funerary artifacts (I must say, I always wondered about the ethics of displaying human bodies) from exhibition.
Ethics Alarms 
Regarding #5:
A week ago last Thursday I chaperoned my daughter’s field trip to the Science Museum of Minnesota. Keeping track of 7 Sixth Graders across three floors was challenging, but I was successful (no child left behind).
I was able to peruse the surroundings a bit as I tried to track down errant children. Apart from a “race” exhibit that seemed to be about the science of race (no real distinctions between races) before delving into all of the sociological aspects of race (whites look down on others, red-lining, the US imprisons more people than anywhere else in earth—and mostly black people), the map contained reference to the “Egyptian Mummy.”
Tucked away almost in plain sight was an Egyptian mummy. The entrance to the enclosed area with the mummy had a warning sign (appropriate in my view, as someone who dislikes “trigger warnings”) that respectfully advised that the exhibit contains human remains.
I looked at the mummy. That this was a person with a real history was as apparent as the actual obscurity of that life. I knew nothing about this person and there is no way he would have ever conceived of being in my presence.
Regardless, anthropological and biologically, the process of mummification presents legitimate topics for scientific consideration.
On the wall were a set of correspondence that I seriously considered getting a picture of to send in here. I thought the ethics issue was pretty obvious, but was not sure how to present it here.
It consisted of two letters of complaint from the mid-90’s that the exhibit was “racist” and the mummy did not “consent” to being put on display.
The Director, who was new at the time, explained the history of the mummy. It had been legally purchased by a St. Paul resident in 1926 and exported from Egypt. It was gifted to the Museum shortly thereafter, becoming a popular exhibit over the years, with its absence being noted when it was rotated out of display.
He explained that such a gift would not be accepted at that time (1996), as times had changed in 70 years. He also explained that attempts to return the mummy to Egypt had been unsuccessful, as no one in the Government wanted to take it back.
Much of it sounded like rationalizations. At the same time, it sounded like earnest attempts to consider changing social views, legitimate topics of scientific knowledge, the proper way to respect people, even as they are used as a means to an end, making the best bad decision (if you can’t return the mummy, do you hide it, bury it again, or display it to others so that they might learn.
(On that last point, I am torn. Was this the afterlife the mummy was preparing himself for? Is it better that I sit in the ground with a monument to my name and The dates of my life, being of interest to a few friends and relatives, or that I attract the interest of crowds of people for decades or centuries.
Yeah, I really wish I had taken that photo.
-Jut
I sent this to Jack, but may as well post it here:
https://racketmn.com/theres-a-dead-man-in-the-science-museum
-Jut
#3. The F-35 is probably the most expensive weapon system the Navy/Air Force has purchased, and that’s saying something given the cost of the B2. Fly-away cost for the Lightning is well beyond $75 million per plane (probably more like nine digits per plane after overruns are figured in). Maybe the destroyed engine was $14 million.
Still, as my first boss out of college used to say, “Observancy is the key to success.”
#4. Thank you for your clarification. News reports have been so incredibly one-sided (and as I see now, inaccurate) on this one.