My major theatrical project, in the works for three years, the revue honoring the 50th anniversary of the musical theater organization I inadvertently founded at Georgetown University Law Center, was completed last weekend and judged a success. It is the only student operated theatrical organization at an American graduate school, and alums of the school and the group traveled to D.C. from all over the country to be part of the celebration. If they wanted to be in the show itself, I promised that I would find a way to let them do it, meaning that the production never had a single rehearsal with the entire cast available, a handicap that extended to the individual numbers, some of them quite challenging. Naturally I’m still exhausted, desperately trying to catch up, and now I’m sick. (But the infected leg is much better, thanks.)
At the end of the gala after the final performance, an alumnus of the group who was in several numbers, a lawyer in his 30s whom I had not met before the show, pulled me aside. He pointed out two two young children playing outside in an enclosed area outside the party space, and said, “Those are my kids. My wife and I met during one of the shows here, and it changed every aspect of my life. If you hadn’t started this wonderful organization that kept me sane during law school, my children wouldn’t exist, and I just wanted to say thank you.” Then he shook my hand, gave me a hug, and walked away.
Meanwhile, in the “I’m smart!” Fredo category, I was amused to see that Pajamas Media columnist Stephen Kruiser this morning virtually duplicated my post from last night about Kamala’s book excerpt, not that my analysis took much thought since its conclusions should be obvious. But I was reminded once again about how often the rebuttals from the Trump Deranged when I’m debating with them consist of saying “Oh, you’re just reciting [Fox News/ some other conservative news or opinion source/Trump’s] talking points” when as far as I know they are just echoing my analysis. Kruiser’s Morning Briefing column is often an amusing read, and his link farm is, if single-minded, informative. Here’s a head-exploding story I might have missed: Hizzoner: ‘Law Enforcement Is a Sickness’ In Chicago I Will ‘Eradicate’
ADDED: On the other hand, Ann Althouse beat me to the punch regarding Harris’s fatuous musings on the VP choice that never was, and was spot on.
Enough from me: I have to take some DayQuill and go back to bed….It’s all up to you what this space is covers now, as long as the topic is ethics.
Ethics Alarms 
one right wing activist has come out swinging against the left’s both sides argument.
ethical? Justified? Dangerous? Curious what the commentariat thinks.
[Wow, three untrustworthy, irresponsible pundits that I have no respect for in a single discussion!]
Would it be fatuous of me to point out that both sides complain to me about “both-sides-ism”? As far as I can tell, both sides see the other side’s position as indefensible, and display no interest in looking for reasons that might not be the case. Instead, they look for the worst in each other and the best in themselves. I suspect it’s a defense mechanism, since they see controversial issues as zero-sum, win-lose. They can’t afford to lose, so the other side must deserve to lose. Otherwise they’d have to feel guilty.
After all, if one side is selfish, stupid, and violent, then you can automatically ignore any policy arguments associated with them. Their actual positions, the concerns, the situations they face… those don’t matter anymore. They are owed nothing but contempt. They’re not even human. Anything that hurts them must be good.
Both sides deny doing this, of course.
And of course, you are indulging in “both-sidism” with that comment. That both sides make the same compliant doesn’t prove that one side isn’t correct and the other side is projecting. I’ve spent a great deal of time and objective analysis on this. Only one “side” attempted to disqualify an elected President from the start of his term in an unprecedented fashion. Only one side tried two illicit impeachments simply because they had a majority to do it. Only one side tried to contrive four criminal cases to try to derail their major political opponent, and used a Presidential speech to declare opposition to the party in power an existential threat to democracy. Facts are stubborn things, as the saying goes.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
Here’s a followup point that may help clarify why the first point is important: If you don’t like the messenger, don’t shoot the message.
But it doesn’t, EC. The message has to be fact-based before the corruptness and lack of honesty and reliability of the messenger can be ruled irrelevant. For example, one side is writing and saying repeatedly that Charley Kirk was an agent of hate and racism. That’s not a valid position, and the messenger has established itself as being untrustworthy and willing to lie outrageously for an agenda. One side, as a group and a planned strategy, told the public that the other side was an existential threat to freedom. Just because you like to believe that there are always two arguable sides to every dispute doesn’t make it so. This is your own bias.
The problem here is that there aren’t two sides. The leaders aren’t the same as the followers, and the followers aren’t the same as each other.
“The Left” didn’t kill Charlie Kirk in the same way that “The Right” didn’t break into the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. (The fact that the latter is a lesser crime is irrelevant to the point I’m making, but I can find a more damning example if you insist.)
“The Left” and “The Right” are actually millions of individual people, most of whom are making assumptions they don’t realize are untenable, and most of whom have concerns that still need to be addressed one way or another.
For example, just because Charlie Kirk was not an agent of hate and racism doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address people’s concerns about hate and racism. It just means the way to address those concerns isn’t what people assume it will be. What people demand isn’t the same thing as what will actually satisfy them.
Furthermore, I think there’s a misunderstanding about what it means for every side in a dispute to be “arguable”. Hopefully my upcoming article will clear that up.
Concerns about hate and racism seem to be exaggerated
That may very well be the case. The first step to solving the problem is defining the problem, which starts with understanding your own values. Why do you consider it a problem if concerns about hate and racism are exaggerated? What bad outcomes do you see it causing?
I am glad you asked this question.
Remember the Ok symbol panic?
Remember Emmanuel Cafferty?
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/
The origins of cancel culture, the Great Stupid®™, and the Racial Reckoning®™ had its origins in this.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2015/11/08/the-university-of-missouri-football-players-boycott-and-the-campus-race-conflict-to-come/
So, I’ve been watching a series called ‘Franklin and Bash’ on Netflix recently. I kept finding myself wondering what you would think of various episodes. It seemed like something you would either enjoy or hate, and I wasn’t sure which. It’s a legal drama/comedy series, so they’re loose with the actual rules, but the idea of zealously defending a client with bizarre legal theories is a common theme.
Ever watched the series? Would it actually be ethical for lawyers to willfully accept contempt charges to present something that successfully wins the trial for them?
I watched one episode and hated it. I don’t really feel qualified to judge it based on that one episode.
I am, however, fascinated by the idea that we might occasionally, as our host sometimes does, analyze the ethics of a particular television show.
Jack, what conservative voices do you consider trustworthy and popular enough to have an effective voice in the public debate? I will give you JD Vance, since he became VP.
Ethics is individual, affecting public behavior requires a platform/audience/leverage to matter.
Andrew McCarthy. Jonathan Turley. Sen. Kennedy. Ted Cruz. Prof Adrian Vermeule. Molly Hemingway. Glenn Reynolds. Prof. Jacobson.
Jonathan Turley is a Democrat and a classical liberal, no?
Or is that so middle road that it is the new conservative these days?
By today’s standards, Turley is a conservative.
Absolutely. He’s horrified by what the Democrat party has become and has said so many times. Additionally, the fact he’s despised and insulted by the vast majority of his commenters (lefties), he’s not one of the cool kids.
Jack, which liberal voices do you consider trustworthy and popular enough to have an effective voice in the public debate? You already mentioned Turley as a liberal, I am going to add Fetterman, Manchin, Dershowitz, Stephen A. Smith as candidates, however I have doubts because none of these are popular on the left.
This reminds me, what do you think of the VP hosting Charlie Kirk’s show, instead of appearing as a guest for someone else? Somehow it feels improper to me.
I think that concern went out the window when Bill Clinton played the saxophone on late night television and answered the “boxers or briefs” question.
Here is an article worth discussing.
https://cwbchicago.com/2025/09/days-before-fatal-mag-mile-crash-and-grab-accused-man-posed-with-governor-at-peacekeeper-event.html
C’mon, man! It ain’t so bad! He was only wanted in four states! Haven’t you ever been wanted in a state? And anyway, felons are a sought after demographic for growing the Dem base. And the photo shows Pritzker’s devotion to diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s a big tent. Even smash and grab gang members are included!
It is like the only crimes that they care about are school shootings.
I wonder how the family of that man feels about humanity.
They aren’t interested in anything but taking guns away from conservatives so they can kill us all. Any crime that doesn’t support the gun grabbing narrative doesn’t exist, or if it does exist is probably a good thing.
This Progressive Insurance campaign has always annoyed me:
Bing Videos
Wouldn’t it be a good thing if young people turned into their parents?
Speaking of the show, here is a picture of our illustrious host on stage, taken by yours truly:
{ Now crossing my fingers that this embed works like I hope it will . . . . }
<img src=”https://www.zechman.com/pics/JackMarshall.png” />
{ . . . and if not, here’s the link: }
<A HREF=”https://www.zechman.com/pics/JackMarshall.png”>Jack Marshall on stage!</A>
–Dwayne
. . . and I see that WordPress is squashing all HTML-isms on comments, which is not surprising. Hopefully you guys can figure out what to do with what you see above.
–Dwayne
I was so glad you came, Dwayne. My pants were less wrinkled the next performance…
Here’s take two:
–Dwayne