Month: June 2025

Harvard Tries To Save Face; the Problem Is That It Is the Ethics Villain Here, Not the Trump Administration

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

We are learning that in spite of its grandstanding and feigned defiance of the Trump demands that it stop engaging in left-wing indoctrination, allowing an anti-Jewish environment to fester on campus, and engaging in viewpoint discrimination in hiring (along with other unethical conduct), Harvard is quietly (it hopes) negotiating some level of reform along the lines of the Trump Administration’s letter of April 11.

Quietly, because Harvard’s overwhelmingly leftist, totalitarian-tilting, progressive activist faculty wants to have their campus advance only one world view, the “right” one, and because of the sinister influence of that faculty, its student body overwhelmingly believes likewise. In the Trump Deranged world where most academics, scholars, journalists, lawyers and, of course, Democrats dwell, publicly deriding and defying the President of the United States is simply opposing fascism and the forces of darkness, even if the least intellectually crippled of them recognize deep down that President Trump is on the correct side of an issue. He is on the right side of this one.

Continue reading →

Snap Open Forum!

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I have an early morning legal professionalism seminar I am holding on Zoom (yuck!), so I don’t have time to put up a competent post. I’m opening up the floor for topics, debates, whatever: just be civil and brilliant.

Here’s party favor: I discovered a free GAI detector, here. I haven’t tried it, but then a bot may have written this…

Popeye Time: I Am Finally Forced Into Responding To Woke Nonsense on Facebook…

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

A genuine, respected and dear friend re-posted this on Facebook:

Dr. Kristina Rizzotto created that thing; she is apparently a professional musician, so her doctorate isn’t in philosophy, public policy, law, or, clearly, linguistics. Shut up and play, Kristina.

Like Popeye, that was all I could stands ‘cuz I can’t stands no more, and I finally posted, after a good ten minutes of self-wrestling, this in response:

“Ugh. I don’t even want to wade into this, but come on. DEI is not the equivalent of three ethical virtues in a vacuum, and sure, diversity is nice; not not necessary or necessarily beneficial: the NBA doesn’t seek out white and Asian players to make it more “diverse,” because diversity doesn’t win basketball games. “Equity” means fairness, but the nation is built on equality of opportunity, not guaranteed equality of results, which is what “equity” means in the context of DEI. “Inclusion” is also nice, if it means the absence of deliberate arbitrary exclusion. If it means inclusion for the sake of inclusion, who said that’s virtuous or sensible? Who made that rule?

“Dr. Kristina is ducking the issue with intellectual dishonesty. Inclusion should be based on merit. Excluding anyone who would qualify for inclusion on merit, based on their sex, ethnicity, skin color, sexual orientation or physical characteristics is per se bias and illegal discrimination, and playing word games to deceive the inattentive and gullible into thinking otherwise is unconscionable. Similarly, black lives matter, but Black Lives Matter is a racist movement and a scam organization. Do better, Dr.”

I’m sure I’ll regret it.

I’ll Say This About Social Media: It Is a Useful Window on Trump Derangement and Progressive Fantasies…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Here you go…

How do you like that one?

1.3 thousand “likes” and all those re-posts, including by three of my soon-to-be-lobotomized Facebook Friends. Outside of “We’ve bombed Iran,” nothing in the post is true or even logically supportable. About 2,000 FBI agents are assisting ICE out of more than 13,000, and 37,000 FBI employees over all. Calling Hegseth a “drunk guy” is certainly fair, don’t you think? And the grand finale is the head-exploding “it isn’t what it is” fiction, part of current DNC cant, that the only reason Kamala Harris lost is because of her sex rather than her myriad other problems, like being an inarticulate idiot, picking an even bigger idiot as her ticket mate, running a spectacularly inept campaign, and representing a Soviet-style puppet government that loused up virtually everything it touched.

Now here’s one of the approving responses it attracted:

Wow.

Wow. The only way anyone could write that Hillary Clinton was “one of the most qualified’ Presidential candidates is to have literally no knowledge of the American Presidency at all, which raises the question of why one would make an assertion like that in a public forum knowing you had no basis for it whatsoever. Saying the same about Harris is, against all odds, even more absurd.

And Another “Good Illegal Immigrant” Sob Story From the Times…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I feel constrained to post this after someone suggested that in the Bret Stephens essay I was bestowing Ethics Hero status on the Axis media’s top propaganda mouthpiece. The op-ed by professional illegal immigration romanticizer Isabel Castro (above) is a far more representative piece in a genre the Times is particularly fond of: demanding sympathy for individuals facing deportation entirely because of their own choices and conduct.

The title is a hoot: “How the ICE Raids Are Warping Los Angeles.” It is like a Chicago paper during the Prohibition and Capone’s zenith publishing a column called “How the FBI is Warping Chicago.” A sample..

Continue reading →

Further Thoughts On “Icons” [Corrected and Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I know this is a tangent; its (attenuated) connection to ethics is my contention that members of the culture and society have an obligation to maintain at least minimal cultural literacy, without which it is, I beieve, impossible to be a responsible, competent, engaged and credible member of society. A DC Bar set of legal ethics opinions (370 and 371) regarding social media made an equivalent point. No, a lawyer doesn’t have to use social media in his or her practice or participate in it, but a lawyer must know what it is, how it works, the various varieties, and more because it is a major feature of modern life and American society.

I was re-watching the excellent (and tragically truncated) Netflix series “Mindhunter” over the weekend. At several points, the brilliant, well-educated FBI research consultant played by Anna Torv reveals a total ignorance of sports, at one point, for example, confusing minor league baseball with the Little League. The major sports in the U.S. are too central to American history, entertainment, language, culture and passion for a competent citizen to be that clueless….and an amazing number of people, especially women, are that clueless. You don’t have to know the infield fly rule, but if you don’t know the names and at least basic facts about Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Shoeless Joe Jackson and Jackie Robinson, you have some homework to do.

In the wake of the “Jaws” post, the comments it sparked and the provocative Comment of the Day on it, I have some further thoughts about icons.

Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Surprise! NYT Columnist Bret Stephens

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I did not see this coming. Has any New York Times pundit ever written anything regarding Donald Trump that wasn’t pure venom? Has there ever been a Times opinion piece that said, “Wow! President Trump handled this problem perfectly”? If so, I must have missed it.

True, if any one of the Axis-biased Times stable of progressives, Democrats and the Trump Deranged were capable of such a composition, it would have to have been Stephens. Along with David Brooks he is one of the token sort-of conservatives on the staff usually displaying symptoms of the Stockholm Syndrome. Brooks is beyond hope now, but Stephens is at least unpredictable. He’s a weird sort of conservative, having opined once that the Second Amendment should be repealed, and he takes part in annoying transcribed anti-Trump snark-fests with Gail Collins, which reads a bit like what the old “Point-Counterpoint” would have been like if Shauna Alexander and James J. Kilpatrick were secretly boinking each other. (Gotta get THAT image out of my brain, quick.) Still, I am pledged to give credit where credit is due.

Today Stephens’ name was under a column headlined, “Trump’s Courageous and Correct Decision.” It begins,

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Jaws Ethics”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

The “Jaws” post, predictably, set off a lively debate about cultural icons, though, significantly, nobody yet has tried to maintain that “Jaws” isn’t one. Along comes halethomp with this Comment of the Day exploring the matter of whether Disney’s Marvel movies, now in decline, qualify as “iconic.” Personally, I don’t think so. There are iconic super heroes to be sure, but perhaps because they were late to the party, no Marvel character qualifies to stand next to Superman and Batman. No single film qualifies either in that genre by my standards: I think TCM host Ben Mankiewicz nailed it when he compared the Marvel film franchise to MGM musicals. Both genres have intense, loyal devotees, but neither has produced a societal- and culture-wide icon. Maybe “Singing in the Rain,” qualifies, but its a close call. Icons create lasting images, quotes, values and lessons that cross generations, ideally gaining vigor over time and becoming powerful cultural influences. Personally, having been familiar with the principle that great power confers great responsibility from other sources, I have been surprised that Spiderman’s Uncle Ben has been getting credit for it. No, I don’t think resuscitating a classic maxim that younger generations missed because of galloping illiteracy should qualify one for icon status, but that’s just me.

Here is halethomp’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Jaws Ethics.”

***

Two quotes within the original post and the comments stood out to me as examples of the cultural arrogance that Jack often laments, both applying to the Marvel franchise (I include the various streaming series in this). “A competent, curious, responsible member of society wants to see “Jaws” because 1) it is famous 2) it is a cultural touch-point 3) one should understand why people remember and care about it and 4) when the public embraces anything so completely,” and “Marvel movies like their predecessor print comics are just good versus evil with different characters.”

First, regarding cultural impact, there are few as great as the line “With great power comes great responsibility” which Uncle Ben tells Peter Parker just before dying. I believe a great cultural reference is one that most people know regardless of whether they know its origin. It is not necessary to have ever read a comic book or seen a superhero movie or cartoon to know that quote: in fact, it has been applied and misapplied by many people for generations. In Jack’s own words, Marvel must be recognized as a cultural touch-point.

With regard to this blog, Marvel movies and television shows should be required viewing for their ethics implications. I have not watched all of the Marvel programs. I have no interest in Ant Man, Doctor Strange, Ms. Marvel, etc. However, the best ones represent not just conflicts between heroes and villains but within individuals and society at large, and provide a visual, cultural reference to real conflicts that have existed in our society in parallel with those of the comics and screens.

Continue reading →

Lest We Forget: This Was the Most Unethical and Indefensible Partisan Act of 2025 So Far

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

The Democratic Party seems hellbent on self-destruction, but the Axis media burying, under-reporting and generally spinning its worse transgressions may slow the process a bit. This week, there was a scantly reported act by the party that cannot be defended—-if you have a defense to propose, please send it in—but it came in a week so saturated with consequential news both ethical and otherwise that I’ll wager most Americans missed it.

Senate Democrats refused to participate in the first Congressional hearing regarding the cover-up of former President Joe Biden’s mental decline while in the White House, the question of whether his “autopen executive orders” and appointments were valid, and the potential Constitutional breaches these represent. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) attended the first Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the topic this week. Then almost immediately Durbin, the ranking Democratic member, walked out in protest with Welch behind him, with a lame and cynical whataboutist call for the committee to investigate President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to respond to illegal immigration enforcement rioting in Los Angeles. (The courts took care of that one, Dick, despite the attempts of your party’s captive judiciary.)

Then Durbin blathered, “The Republican majority on this committee has not held a single oversight hearing despite numerous critical challenges facing the nation that are under our jurisdiction.” Desperately, he cited the assassination of a state lawmaker in Minnesota, now pretty authoritatively proven to be the act of a lone wacko, and last week’s handcuffing of Sen. Alex Padilla at a DHS press conference, when the grandstanding jerk was properly treated according to Secret Service protocols. “Apparently, armchair diagnosing former President Biden is more important than the issues of grave concern, which I have mentioned,” Durbin said.

Continue reading →

The U.S. Bombing of Iran Is Not an Ethics Issue

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

It’s a leadership issue.

I generally don’t want to wander into policy debates unless there is a clear ethical component. Competence. Honesty. Responsibility. Results, as we discuss here so often, are usually the result of moral luck. All we can do, in situations involving high-level leadership decision-making, is evaluate what the basis of the decision was, and the process under which it was made. What happens after that is moral luck, chaos, essentially. As an ethicist, I try not to base my analysis on whether I agree with the decision or not from a policy or pragmatic perspective.

In military and foreign policy decisions, the absence of clear ethical standards are especially rife. There are some who regard any military action at all except in reaction to an attack on the U.S. as unethical, and sometimes not even in that circumstance. They are absolutists: war is wrong, killing is wrong, “think of the children,” and that’s all there is to it. Such people are useless except as necessary reminders that Sherman was right.

President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities is a matter of leadership, not ethics. Leaders lead, and are willing to make tough, often risky, decisions. The U.S. Presidency requires leadership, and strong leadership is not only preferable to weak leadership, it is what the majority of Americans has traditionally preferred. The Constitution clearly shows the Founders’ preference for a strong executive branch, particularly in the area of national defense. Yesterday, the President took advantage of the Constitution’s general approval of executive leadership when national security is involved.

Continue reading →