Author: Jack Marshall

Ethics Hero: Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

I admit it: this post is putting the cart before the horse. I need to complete a post about the leftist lawyer freak-out over Trump targeting ostentatiously anti-Trump, anti-Republican, pro-Axis law firms by handing them the just desserts for their abandonment of legal ethics and core professional principles to pander to the Democratic Party’s cabal over the past 15 years or more. But I am a bit short of time and energy right now, and Professor Vermeule, that rarity of rarities, a conservative Harvard professor, has done some of my work for me.

Last week, more than ninety members of the Harvard Law School faculty issued a joint letter supposedly concerning the “rule of law,” but actually embracing the same double standards and anti-Trump bias I have been witnessing from my lawyer friends on Facebook and especially in the online discussions among members of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. It said in part,

“The rule of law is imperiled when government leaders:

  • single out lawyers and law firms for retribution based on their lawful and ethical representation of clients disfavored by the government, undermining the Sixth Amendment;
  • threaten law firms and legal clinics for their lawyers’ pro bono work or prior government service;
  • relent on those arbitrary threats based on public acts of submission and outlays of funds for favored causes; and
  • punish people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern.

While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described….”

This is disingenuous posturing by partisan academics pretending to be neutral patriots. Professor Vermeule called them out on their pretense, writing in part in an open letter to his own to students and the public,

Continue reading →

NPR and PBS Spin Their Heads Off Trying To Protect Their Indefensible Taxpayer Subsidies

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Last year constituted a zenith of sorts for the exposure of National Public Radio’s flagrant partisan bias and untrustworthy reporting. Ethics Alarms discussed the developments here, here, here, here and here, among other posts. Critical essays about PBS are more spread out and less numerous on Ethics Alarms, but the conclusions have been similar.

Way back in 2011 I asked, regarding PBS, “How can otherwise intelligent and honest people continue to plead that the national budget should be squeezed one more milli-micron to broadcast junk like this? How can anyone watch such programming and argue straight-faced that PBS isn’t aimed at a narrow demographic?” Of NPR I wrote, last year, “The only people who didn’t realize that NPR has been strongly biased leftward over the last, oh, two decades or more would be those who agree with that bias, so naturally think the taxpayer funded radio network is just ‘telling it as it is.’” Remember, I was a periodic “contributor” to NPR for several years until I was blackballed because a host felt that I was defending Donald Trump. Can’t have that on NPR!

If the Corporation for Public Broadcasting isn’t finally stripped of its federal funding after last week’s hearings, I don’t know what hope there is of carrying through on any of the DOGE cuts. The usual threshold argument for keeping the progressive indoctrination and propaganda efforts of NPR and PBS in the budget is that the outlets don’t get that much money, which is idiotic logic and pure rationalization, though we are also getting the same nonsense in defense of all of Musk’s targets. The money isn’t the real issue anyway. The issue is that PBS and NPR aren’t for “all Americans,” but only for the group of Americans Joe Biden didn’t accuse of being fascists—you know, progressives and Democrats, plus those who seem like promising targets to convince that the Left’s policies, leaders, and personalities are wonderful….by any means necessary.

Continue reading →

Weekend Ethics Spring Bouquet

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

I recently noticed that one of my Facebook friends of long-standing whom I respect greatly is now officially bonkers, thank to the Trump Derangement pandemic. I find this more than sad: it’s terrifying that a lifetime of critical thinking and rational, balanced analysis can be unmoored simply by having too many friends and associates who are ignorant hysterics and not realizing that the news media you frequent every day is mind poison.

Lawyers and ethicists are being hit especially hard; the fact that almost all of my theater associates are freaking out is less of a shock, for most of them have always been this way. My legal ethics specialist listserv is in the process of melting down over a few well-reasoned objections to the most of the opinions being offered residing more in the realm of progressive politics than legal ethics. But Trump is a threat to the rule of law! There wasn’t any concern whatsoever expressed on this same platform when Donald Trump was being targeted by Democratic prosecutors so that their party could continue to hold power. If Merrick Garland or Joe Biden were even mentioned there in four years, I must have missed it. I was amused to see one of the loyal “non-partisan,””objective” ethicists defend the group’s obsession with Trump by quoting the “Man for All Seasons” speech about giving the Devil the benefit of the law (Guess who the Devil is!) as another resorted to the hoary “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out..” quote from Martin Niemöller. Trump’s not the Devil, he’s Hitler! My friend, a retired partner in big D.C. law firm, is just about as impossible to argue with now as this idiot. Watching him devolve is like seeing a zombie movie…

Meanwhile,

Continue reading →

Institutional Ethics Dunce: Tampa International Airport

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Ugh. It’s April Fool’s Day time again. Way back when Ethics Alarms was just a little newborn ethics blog, I called out a New York defense lawyer for posting a fake announcement on his blog on April 1. Apparently he was in the habit of doing this, but the New York Times didn’t notice the date and printed his announcement as news. I wrote that it was unethical for a lawyer, who is by definition a trusted professional, to publish fake announcements even as an April Fools joke.

I was immediately pounced upon by several blogging lawyers, whose argument was that if the fake post didn’t call into question the blogger’s fitness to practice law, it wasn’t unethical. Ah yes, the old compliance vs. ethics confusion! My fault: I should have clarified the distinction in the post. No, doing a joke blog entry does not reach the level of “dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation and deceit” prohibited in Rule 8.4, “Misconduct,” in all the various jurisdiction rules, so it is not technically unethical. Nonetheless, for a lawyer, who is a member of a profession that must have the public trust, to play such games is 1) irresponsible, 2) damaging to the profession’s public image and 3) a really bad idea, aka. incompetent. It fails the basic utilitarian test as well: is the result worth the cost? Hardly. But I wasn’t sufficiently clear enough in defending my position—which was correct—so I finally concluded and admitted that no, the fake blog post was not unethical by the standards of the Rules of Professional Conduct, legal ethics. What I should have said was that the conduct was unprofessional. Professionalism is legal ethics above and beyond the rules.

This is to introduce the unethical publication of the above silly fake announcement by Tampa International Airport. I would say “needless to say” here except that apparently it does need to be said, at least for the benefit of the administrators of that airport: the public neither wants not expects April Fools gags from airports. Air travel is serious business, especially lately, which is a fact I would have assumed that an airport’s staff would be especially sensitive to.

Predictably, some social media followers took the announcement to be genuine. ‘”Is this real? This feels like the most petty post I’ve ever read,” one person wrote on Twitter-X. “I’m confused, I fly to Tampa every year from Pittsburgh when headed to Clearwater. Is it closed?” another ‘X’er wrote. “I don’t know what’s going on, but my wife just lectured me about flamingos, Lakeland, and a closing airport in Tampa” was another comment. “Does this have something to do with TDA privatization?” another reader queried. “What’s up with Tampa airport?” wrote a concerned traveler.

Oh, lighten up! We’re just joshing! the airport’s wags revealed in a follow-up message from a spokesperson:

Continue reading →

Least Shocking Scandal of 2025…

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Jonathan Turley reports,

“[A] long-withheld report from the Biden Administration directly contradicted the claims of climate change used to limit increased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The suggestion is that this was an knowing effort to cap carbon admissions rather than carbon emissions. The impact that new U.S. LNG exports have on the environment and the economy was reviewed by U.S. Energy Department scientists and completed by September 2023. It appears that neither President Biden nor Secretary Jennifer Granholm liked the science or the conclusions. Rather than “follow the science,” they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts…The draft study, “Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports,” found that, under all modeled scenarios, an increase in U.S. LNG exports and natural gas production would not change global or U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It further found that it would not increase energy prices for consumers. Biden and Granholm reportedly buried the report and then announced a pause on all new U.S. LNG export terminals in January 2024, citing the danger to environmental and economic impacts.”

Gee what a surprise.

But seriously folks, anyone who is even faintly surprised at this development hasn’t been watching, listening or paying attention to either the “science of cliamte change” or the debate over energy policy. What is far from “settled science” is deliberately presented as a consensus. Policies that harm the U.S. economy and consumers have been regularly inflicted on the nation as pure virtue-signaling to the Left, with full knowledge that they can’t possibly have any effect on the world’s climate, present or future. And revealing that the Biden Administration engaged in public deception….well, this is a group that regularly manipulated government employment figures, Wuhan virus pandemic statistics and social media to control public opinion as much as as possible.

Heck, this is a group that hid who was really wielding power in the White House! Hiding a study that doesn’t support a Democrat-Progressive world view? Totalitarianism 101, and the Democratic Party is poisoned by a totalitarian-trending political culture now, as we repeatedly saw during the last four years.

My only problem with Turley’s analysis is that it is thinly sourced, because apparently only Fox News has covered the story so far. I searched for it at the New York Times site: nada. If the story is somewhere in the Times, then the news story is being buried like the study itself…or this is another example of the partisan divide in our unethical “journalism” making it impossible for the public to find out what’s really going on.

That wouldn’t be shocking either.

Pop Ethics Quiz: What is a Fair, Competent, Civil and Ethical Response to This Woman’s Rant?

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

Personally, I found myself praying that she is a brilliant satirist and impersonating the most arrogant, indoctrinated, biased Dunning-Kruger victim in medical history, in which case I want her contact information so I can direct her in a one-woman show. If she were a character in a Monty Python skit, it would end with Michael Palin shooting her in the forehead point blank.

It could also be a parlor game, where one takes a drink every time she says something stupid as if it’s an obvious conclusion.

Ethics Alarms Presents: The Shortest Commentary on a Question to “The Ethicist” Yet…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

The Question: The inquirer’s 15-year old son is dating a 15-year-old girl. The parents just found out that the girl’s parents, who are immigrants and from another culture, do not want their daughter dating yet. The boy’s parents want to know if they should tell the girls’ parents about the relationship or, perhaps, tell their son not to date her. The ultimate question: “I’m worried I could get my son’s girlfriend in big trouble or even put her in danger. Can I just supervise them at my house and absolve myself of enforcing her parents’ rules?”

The Shortest Answer from Ethics Alarms: No.

The Slightly Longer Answer from Ethics Alarms : It’s the Golden Rule, dummy!

The More Detailed Answer: Tell your son that he may not continue dating the girl against the will of her parents, and that if he does, you will be forced to blow the whistle on her.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Remind your son the “Romeo and Juliet” is just a play.

[I didn’t even bother to read The Ethicist’s answer before I wrote this when I saw that Prof. Appiah took over 500 words to explain the easiest of ethics calls. I did notice that he mentioned “Romeo and Juliet,” however.]

Ethics Quiz: The Emotionally Damaged Tesla Owner

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

A North Texas Tesla owner has filed a civil lawsuit against  Rafael Hernandez, arrested and charged with keying the plaintiff’s Model X earlier in March while it was parked at Dallas Fort Worth Airport.

The suit seeks $1 million in damages for property damage, lost wages and “emotional distress.” So far, the Tesla owner has been identified only with his initials. “It’s a fine line between civility and anarchy,” said Majed Nachawati, managing partner with the Nachawati Legal Group in Dallas. That’s the firm that represents the keyed car’s distressed owner. “This matter has nothing to do with his political persuasions or affiliations. He happens to believe that Tesla, his Model X, is one of the best cars he’s ever owned. And he enjoys driving it, plain and simple.”

Oh, well..if the attack on his car lessened his enjoyment, I’m going to sue Major League Baseball for inflicting the “zombie baserunner” on the game.

The Rules of Professional Conduct governing the legal profession declare “frivolous lawsuits” unethical and ground for a lawyer’s discipline. Rule 3.1 states,

“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day….

Is the $1,000,000 civil suit against the asshole who keyed the Tesla ethical?

Continue reading →

Ethics Verdict: The Signal Chat Ethics Train Wreck Is Hopeless

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Perhaps none of the revolting incidents of the past several years showing how partisanship and confirmation bias have made public agreement on reality impossible—Can we agree that this is not a good thing?—is more clear cut than the Signal Chat Ethics Train Wreck.

I am morose.

On the Trump-Deranged, Axis pounces! side, we have Hillary Clinton’s op-ed for the New York Times. It is archived, for some reason: if that link doesn’t work, I put the whole thing in a comment here. The fact that Clinton, of all people, would have the utter gall and lack of self-awareness to write the thing is damning enough; that the Times would print it and that its mostly Trump deranged subscribers would read it without ending their subscriptions, going into shock or hurling themselves out the nearest window supports Humble Talent’s Comment of the Day (#2!) posted last yesterday. Note his title.

I’m going to quote the appropriately uncivil conservative assassin Ace of Spades on this for two reasons. He writes of Clinton’s critique,

“This drunken Satanic sow illegally used her own server so that her communications would be protected from exposure by records retention laws. This was a secret server until someone discovered it — she did not disclose it so that the federal government could copy all of these messages. She did not disclose it so that people fililng FOIAs would even know what records to request. And she sits her in Her Satanic Hubris and accuses others of using Signal to “avoid records retention” laws. By the way, in case you don’t know this, Biden approved the use of Signal for communication precisely because it was more unhackable than the easily-hackable federal systems.”

Reason #1 is that Ace is right, and the venom is appropriate. Talk about ethics estoppel! The fact that Donald Trump and the Electoral College saved America from this vile, dishonest, sinister and destructive woman should alone ensure the former a place in the pantheon of national heroes and the latter enshrinement in the “Best Ideas of the Founders’ Hall of Fame.”

Reason #2 is this final sentence: “By the way, in case you don’t know this, Biden approved the use of Signal for communication precisely because it was more unhackable than the easily-hackable federal systems.” Here is Ace attacking Clinton for her ridiculous hypocrisy, and in the same post citing Biden as an authority to justify the Trump team’s use of Signal, which blew up in their collective faces! For years, Ace has derided Biden as a drooling puppet, but now, when it is convenient, he cites one of “his” “decisions” to excuse the Trump Administration for a security breach, when the whole thrust of the administration since inauguration day has been to reverse, condemn or remove as much of what was done or decided during the last four years. Wow—Flagrant hypocrisy while justly pointing out flagrant hypocrisy! How can anyone trust the Right when it covers a story like that? The Trump Administration should trust in absolutely nothing the Biden Phantom Presidency left behind until it has been tested, verified and tested again. The Biden team used Signal? That doesn’t excuse Hegseth and Waltz having a high level meeting about a military operation using the platform, it makes it worse.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Unethical Quote of the Week: Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY)”

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Humble Talent Comment of the Day Day continues with a stand-out post in a stand-out thread, which you can and should read here if you missed it. Here is HT’s second featured Comment of the Day on the post, “Unethical Quote of the Week: Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY)”:

***

“The left tends to have more anxiety disorders”

Complete non-sequitur, but I’ve always been fascinated by this. It’s true: People who self-identify as being left of center on the political spectrum also tend to disproportionately report all varieties of mental illness. And when I say disproportionately, I mean disproportionately… The numbers change based on the type of mental illness and the methodology, but they all point the same way: The more extreme to the left you are, the worse your mental health is, and the further to the right you go, those issues are less reported. My impression is that mental illness rates of extreme progressives tracks at about 150% of average.

Thing is, everyone seems to have an opinion on why that is.

The low hanging fruit would be if there was a reporting problem; If people right of center were more loathe to report mental illness because of social stigma, that might account for some this. The problem with that argument is that the single largest classification of mental illness is depression, and if you look at happiness studies, they tend to find the same correlations. As an example: Both the mental health disparity and happiness disparity is strongest among young women in low income brackets. All that leads me to believe that while there might be some amount of reporting bias, the reality is probably that conservatives are generally happier people, that probably has positive mental health outcomes, and following that, I think the disparity is real.

Once you arrive there, the question becomes: 1) Does holding progressive values degrade your mental wellness? Or 2) are mentally unwell people more drawn towards progressivism?

I think the answer is probably “both”.

  1. I think that progressives tend to care about big issues that they can’t control. Climate Change, The War in Ukraine, Palestine… They view these as existential problems, which means that their temperature, their stress on these issues is always high, and to make it worse, these issues are also entirely outside of their control. Caring deeply about things that aren’t going the way you’d prefer them to while simultaneously being incapable of effecting change can’t be good for your mental health.
  2. Progressives seem to value victimhood… They’d balk at that, but the reality is that you have people in the progressive movement who fake their victimhood because it has social currency. People caught faking victimhood are treated similarly to how the right treats people who have stolen valor. As a general rule, they’re more welcoming, more affirming, and more enabling, to people with disabilities, and so I don’t think it should surprise that when someone is faced with some kind of mental health issue, the might tend to gravitate towards the group with arms wide open.

So uh…. Be conservative. It’s good for your health.