Author: Jack Marshall

Mets Announcer Gary Cohen Was Right and Cubs Rookie Matt Shaw Is…What, Exactly? And What Am I?

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Chicago Cubs rookie third baseman Matt Shaw skipped the Cubs’ game against the Reds on Sunday after receiving a call from Charley Kirk’s widow. Instead, the player attended the memorial event for the assassinated activist at State Farm Stadium in Arizona. Shaw is not just a Kirk admirer: Shaw had something of a personal relationship with Kirk that he described as important to him, though they were not close friends.

During Tuesday’s Mets-Cubs game at Wrigley Field, game, Mets play-by-play announcer Gary Cohen said, “Shaw had Cubs world in a tizzy this weekend when he was not here for the Cubs game with the Reds — a game they lost (1-0) and in which his lack of presence was felt. It was later revealed that he had been given permission to attend Charlie Kirk’s funeral.”

Cohen added, “I don’t want to talk about any of the politics of it, but the thought of leaving your team in the middle of a race for any reason other than a family emergency really strikes me as weird.”

Naturally, Kirk-worshiping Mets fans erupted on social media, with some pledging to boycott any games announced by Cohen and others insisting that he be fired. Now, Cohen didn’t say anything negative about Charley Kirk at all. Moreover, he was 100% right. It is very weird, although weird would not be my word for it. Skipping an important game in the waning days of a baseball season when your team seeks your services is selfish and unprofessional. Shaw is a rookie and “only” makes the MLB minimum of $760,000; nonetheless, that salary commits him to being available to play if he is healthy. This wasn’t his wife giving birth or a desperately sick child or the death of a parent—the MLB Players’ Union bargained for special leave for such events.

Some wags have pointed out that the rookie is hardly a star: he’s about a league average hitter, though his fielding at third is outstanding. That misses the point. He was obligated to play baseball, not to go to a memorial ceremony. An actress bailed on an ethics program she was supposed to assist me on, with almost no notice, because her grandmother died. ProEthics, as in me, blackballed her after that, and I told her not to bother auditioning for any professional shows in the D.C. area I directed. Woody Allen said that 80% of success is just showing up, and I couldn’t trust this alleged professional to do that.

Continue reading →

The Trump-Epstein Statue Mini-Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

[Before I return to my own blog after circumstances beyond my control left me unable to post for most of yesterday, I want to thank the EA commentariate for coming through with a stellar performance on yesterday’s emergency Open Forum. I expected nothing less, but the range of posts and topics was dazzling.]

I missed the Mall statute controversy until this morning. Here is the statue, which was only on display for a day before the National Park Service took it down:

Nice.

A permit for the thing was approved on September 16, and originally authorized the disparaging statue to remain on display at the National Mall until 8 p.m. ET this coming Sunday. A plaque beneath the bronze figures of the late convicted pedophile and sex trafficker and the President of the United States read: “In honor of friendship month, we celebrate the long-lasting bond between President Donald J. Trump and his ‘closest friend’ Jeffrey Epstein,” followed by a silhouette of two hands making a heart shape. The stated purpose of the artwork was “to demonstrate freedom of speech and artistic expression using political imagery.” That was deceit. The purpose of the statue was to promote the desperate Axis talking point that President Trump was involved in Epstein’s criminal activities, of which there is no evidence whatsoever and has never been any evidence.

Again, nice.

Continue reading →

Sunrise Open Forum & a Few Topics To Consider [Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 51 Comments

I’m in Richmond, preparing to do a 3 hour legal ethics CLE seminar for one of my last remaining live presentation clients since the stupid Wuhan virus lockdown ruined my business, along with oh, so much else. (Thanks, CDC! Thanks, teachers! Thanks, Democrats! Thanks, “science.” Thanks, fear-mongering news media! Assholes….) I barely have time to wake up after a long drive in the wee hours last night from Alexandria, so I’m going to have to rely on you, dear readers, to keep things lively while I am otherwise occupied.

One thing to look forward to:EA will launch a new regular column authored by our alien philosopher, Extradimensional Cephalopod! We have had two other attempts at a regular column to inject diverse (ooo, that word!) ideas and opinions here beyond the guest posts and Comments of the Day, both evaporating for various reasons, in the case of the most recent contributor, incipient insanity. “Curmie’s” Trump Derangement proceeds apace: in his latest post, he declares that “There is no such thing as free speech if a state employee can be fired for saying something someone in power finds distasteful.” This is nonsense, as the Curmie I knew would have quickly pointed out. “Distasteful” is a deliberately and deceitfully vague term: any 12-year-old could probably imagine dozens of “distasteful” comments that a government employer could justifiably decide are intolerable from an employee. The courts agree, you know.

In other news, France and other U.S. allies decided to make terrorism great again, rewarding Hamas for its October 7 attack on Israel by “recognizing” the non-existent Palestinian state. President Trump correctly excoriated those nations at the U.N.

Meanwhile, in more important news, Major League Baseball announced that the new robo-strike calling system will indeed be instituted next season. It’s about damn time. In the game I listened to on the way to Richmond (Boston defeated Toronto, 4-1), the announcers admitted that the home plate umpire was missing calls all through the game. “Well, that pitch was well off the plate, but that’s how he’s been calling strikes all night!” Boy am I sick of that.

Finally, a “The Unabomber was right” note. My new Apple smartphone wouldn’t allow me to set an alarm for this morning as insurance against the hotel skipping my wake-up call until I signed up for its “health app,” which took 8 screens, and ended up telling me that I shouldn’t get up when I wanted to.

Well, wish me luck. I have about 150 Virginia lawyers to make ethical this morning, only 14 of them in person. %$#@!& lockdown….

Added: Oh, I forgot: Disney relented and let Jimmy Kimmel back on the air last night. Oh, so what? If ABC wants to have a late night show hosted by a not-too-bright, occasionally funny, progressive scold lose money, that’s their choice. The President should shut up about it; he just gives Kimmel significance and attention that his meager talent doesn’t justify. And threatening ABC for its broadcast content is beyond stupid, as well as unconstitutional. Trump’s thin skin regarding criticism is a serious weakness, but as with the others, he appears incapable of ameliorating it.

Ethics Quiz: The Lawyer’s Facebook Post

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Insurance litigator Bradley Dlatt was fired by law firm Perkins Coie and has been erased its website after he posted on Facebook,

“Charlie Kirk got famous as one of America’s leading spreaders of hatred, misinformation and intolerance.The current political moment—where an extremist Supreme Court and feckless Republican Congress are enabling a Republican president to become a tyrant and building him a modern-day Gestapo for assaulting black and brown folks—is a result of Charlie Kirk’s ‘contributions’ to American media and politics. Hell, Kirk would likely be flattered by the underlying claim. His Turning Point USA began as a sort of Misbehaved Young Republicans and eventually overshadowed traditional right-wing organizations like CPAC in dictating the shape of American conservatism. Not to diminish Donald Trump’s media instincts, but when polls suggest young men turning more conservative helped get Trump to this point, that’s all Kirk. And he can take credit for all that flows from that, including the current Supreme Court making a straightfaced proclamation that forgiving student debt is executive tyranny and then deciding that sending people to South Sudan without due process is just “practicing executive authority the right way.” It’s not “celebrating” a murder just because you decline to whitewash Kirk’s legacy by acting like he “was practicing politics the right way” as Ezra Klein belched out onto the pages of the New York Times. Klein apparently believes saying that the guy who tried to murder Paul Pelosi with a hammer should be bailed out by some “patriot” or responding to the murder of George Floyd by calling him a “scumbag” is “the right way.” It’s a stunning display of pathological centrism brain: a compulsion to champion an angle that almost no one in the real world shares and then preen as though being an outlier is a sign of genius. Because while liberals didn’t think Kirk practiced politics the right way… neither did conservatives! If they’re being honest with themselves, the highest compliment conservatives give Kirk is that he broke politics. He saw the dusty, genteel norms of the post-War political divide and tossed them aside to build a following. He took Rush Limbaugh’s model and pushed it beyond its limits. That said, no one in this country should be murdered for their political speech. Wishing comfort to his wife and children in this difficult time. “

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day: Continue reading →

The Irrational Premature Death Response

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

At least I am consistent. The phenomenon of public figures and celebrities immediately having their influence and perceived importance and value elevated by a sudden death that they had no control over has always bewildered me. I got my first taste of hostility for bucking conventional wisdom when I wrote an editorial for my junior high school newspaper questioning the fairness of the rush to rename airports, highways and buildings after President Kennedy in the aftermath of his assassination. “Honor Him…Quietly” was my title, and I questioned whether it was responsible to strip names honoring other worthy Americans from various landmarks because Lee Harvey Oswald happened to have access to a warehouse window in Dallas. Since I was living in a Boston suburb at the time and Kennedys were considered just short of deities, this was not a popular point of view.

When his rival and frequent adversary Truman Capote drank and drugged himself to death at 59, Gore Vidal famously said, “Good career move!” Nasty as that assessment was (and was intended to be), whether at the the hand of another or the public figures themselves, early death is almost always a good career move.

Continue reading →

Most Fascinating Ethics Quote of the Year: President Donald Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

“He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

President Trump, in his eulogy for assassinated conservative activist Charley Kirk at the massive memorial service in Phoenix

Can a quote be both ethical and unethical at the same time? You have to hand it to Donald Trump: his statement above at the Kirk memorial service had progressive heads exploding all over the map, and some conservative heads too. It was a genuinely provocative line, rich with contradictory meanings and implications. Did the President intend it that way? Who knows? They will be arguing about Trump’s brain in history and psychology tomes for a hundred years. I find myself hearing Wilford Brimley’s voice echoing through my brain in his iconic scene from “Absence of Malice”: “Mr. Gallagher, are you that smart?” Except in this case, it’s “Mr. Trump.”

Of course the line triggered the Trump-Deranged into self-identification, as with this guy…

But Trump didn’t say he hated half the country. Now Joe Biden came a lot closer to doing that when he accused Republicans of being fascists who are existential threats to democracy, though it was in a national speech to the nation not a memorial service. (I think that’s worse, myself.) We can’t be sure whom Trump regards as his “opponent.” Those who want him dead, as about a quarter of all Democrats according to one poll? Those who tried to impeach him twice and put him in prison using contrived prosecutions? Those who call him Hitler? The journalists and pundits who have been lying about him since he was elected in 2016 and before? Continue reading →

Why Fake Ron Howard Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About, The Final Chapter…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

We are finally at the last installment of the Make Fake Ron Howard Eat His Words Ethics Alarms Challenge, and it is the longest and most thorough of all. Again,I would be impressed greatly if one of our progressive-minded readers would rise in “Ron’s” defense, but “his” facile, talking-point besotted declaration of liberal pride is as indefensible as much as it is pandering to the Left’s fondest delusions—as the four posts including this one demonstrate. Fake Ron’s manifesto is here; rebuttal #1 is here, #2 is here, and #3 is here.

Now you have #4, a thorough fisking by John Paul, masterfully done.

Take that, Fake Ron!

***

I’m a liberal, but that doesn’t mean what a lot of you apparently think it does.

Good for you? But I’m willing to bet 95% of the time, I know exactly what it means. Studies (I can cite them if you want) often show I know you a lot better than you know me. The big problem with a statement like yours is that your views are often highlighted and celebrated, while republican views are not.

Because quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for.

The same, but see point one. If you don’t like this characterization, maybe you should do a better job of reigning your side in. If people actually cared about things, they should spend more time looking inward than outward.

 Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:

True. No one is the same. But giving where this is going, I’m having a hard time not seeing you about to do what you accuse us of doing.

I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.

Great in theory….You do know republicans do this? But that really isn’t the issue. The issue is how it should be done. The biggest question: Who’s gonna pay for it?

I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that’s interpreted as “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.”

No, its not. As far as I know, never in human history has it been. Since you’re claiming it is, the burden of proof is on you. You can’t just make a statement. Also PERIOD? What are you five?

“I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.” This is not the case. I’m fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it’s impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes “let people die because they can’t afford healthcare” a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

Strawman. Has any republican ever said this? There was a lot of (justified) critiques of the ACA (not to mention subterfuge). Also, if you don’t know better critiques of cheaper healthcare, you’re not listening to them. Additionally, everyone has access to it. You can walk into any ER and get anywhere in the country, but that’s not what you’re talking about, is it? I bet you’re also talking about Hormone therapy and abortion. But I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me how you would get healthcare cost down without making someone do their work for cheaper/free. This is going to be a problem with one of your later arguments.

I believe education should be affordable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I’m mystified as to why it can’t work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

Setting aside the big problem with a significant number of colleges, the short answer: it can be. Trade schools, community colleges, military, are alternative methods to higher education that don’t break the bank. I’m willing to bet 999/1000 an employer doesn’t care where you went to college, only if you can do the job. I know one of Charlie Kirk’s talking point was almost 50% of people working aren’t in a field they got their degree in (I’ll admit, I don’t know if this is true). Still, this is you’re talking point. I also understand (Maybe I’m doing exactly what you accuse me of doing earlier) that colleges are one of liberals sacred institutions. If you think there is a problem, maybe, as I suggested earlier, you look inward towards a solution instead of asking for the government to step in and fix it.

Continue reading →

On Re-Watching “The Magnificent Seven” and Finally Realizing What It’s About

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

I am trying hard to write about something other than the Charley Kirk Ethics Train Wreck despite the din making even thinking about other ethics issues difficult. Naturally, my default solution is the Great American Ethics Genre: the American Western.

I have been bringing a younger friend up to speed in his cultural literacy pursuits, and recently had him view the original John Sturgis-directed version of “The Magnificent Seven,” a great ethics movie and one of the ten best Hollywood Westerns ever made, a tough field. I have written about the movie several times on EA, but I am abashed to say that it never quite sunk in what the film was really about until that last viewing.

The film is about professionalism. Once that bell rang, I couldn’t believe that I hadn’t realized it before. It is a filmed course in professionalism—the quality of justifying the trust a particular practitioner of an occupation dedicated to public service must maintain to be considered a professional. I would love to teach a professionalism course using the movie as the centerpiece.

Years ago, retired EA commenter Bob Stone-–I hope he isn’t Trump-Deranged now—wrote a piece for his own blog about how the film illustrated the difference between law and ethics. He wrote in part,

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “It’s Come to This: a Majority of House Democrats Chose To Avoid Angering Their Radical Trump-Deranged Base Over Appealing To Sane Americans”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Certain long-form comments on Ethics Alarms (most blogs don’t get them or don’t allow them: I love ’em) just scream “Comment of the Day.” This one, by emerging Ethics Alarms commentariate star CEES VAN BARNEVELDT, was one of those. It concerns the decision by about half the Democrats in Congress to eschew a symbolic vote condemning political violence because apparently they couldn’t bear endorsing any sentiment complimentary to Charlie Kirk, whom their radical base considers a an evil fascist (mostly because Democrats said he was.) Here is that Comment of the Day, on the post, “It’s Come to This: a Majority of House Democrats Chose To Avoid Angering Their Radical Trump-Deranged Base Over Appealing To Sane Americans”:

***

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a moment of absolute moral clarity. And almost all moments of absolute moral clarity have a villain. I became aware of the Charlie Kirk assassination via Ethics Alarms. When I switched on the television the news was that Charlie Kirk had died. Soon thereafter the news changed to “Republicans pounce after the death of Charlie Kirk,”following the main stream media.

But as everybody with two eyes and a couple of braincells can see, the real news since that day has been “The left goes mental after Charlie Kirk’s assassination”.

American history had more moments of absolute moral clarity. The most recent one with similar significance is the attack on the World Trade Center at 9/11/2001. Another one is the lynching of Emmett Till, among many more that are related to Jim Crow and the struggle for civil rights.

The one moment that strikes me as most comparable is another famous example of political violence. In May, 1856 Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to denounce the use of force and fraud to plant slavery in the territory of Kansas. This speech is known as the “Crime Against Kansas” speech. A couple of days later, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, with two other Southern Representatives, entered the Senate Chamber and gave Sumner such a beating with a cane that he nearly died. The other Southern Representatives made sure that the Senator could not get any help. The Southern newspapers praised the attack, and blamed Sumner for bringing his fate on himself. The cane had broken in two, and Southern supporters made sure that Preston Brooks got a new cane. An attempt to oust Brooks from the House of Representatives failed.

In 1856 the country was deeply polarized about the issue of slavery, even more polarized than today. Sumner used words and debate to persuade; however Brooks, with full support, used force and violence in order to extend their power and way of life, which included an oligarchy supported by slavery.

The caning shocked the conscience of the United States of America. The Southern Democrats had let their mask slip; they stood exposed for the entire nation as a party that disdained free speech and republican norms, and instead chose force and violence to get their vision realized.

Continue reading →

Why Fake Ron Howard Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About, Part 3

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

Four EA commenters took up my challenge to fisk the possibly AI bot written screed explaining why liberals/progressives are the salt of the earth and are completely reasonable as well as thoughtful and compassionate. “Ron Howard’s” name was attached to the thing though it is well-established that he didn’t write it. As promised, I am posting all four, each of which is persuasive and effective in its own way.

I was hoping that at least one of the lurking progressives out there, maybe even AWOL Curmie, would enter the fray to try to rebut one or more of them, but so far, no takers.

If you missed it, Fake Ron’s manifesto is here. Fisking #1 is here, and #2 is here. Below is #3, an epic take-down of the”renewable energy” obsession so dear to the Left. The fisker is Sarah B, and she leaves fake Ron, the fiskee, in shreds as you will shortly see…

***

To no one’s surprise, I’m sure, I’m going to pick apart #15.  If I find extra time in my schedule, I’ll work on some others, but 15 is in my area of expertise and my favorite soapbox. 

I will also note that the reason people throw out lists like this is to make attacking the ideas difficult as it takes a lot of time and effort to debunk even one point, and 16 points is a lot to get to.  I believe the term for a verbal list like this is a Gish Gallop, but I could be wrong.  However, I have to spend as much time and paper, or more on one item than they did on all 16.  Sorry, it’s long, but you asked us to fisk this.

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so that they can change jobs.  There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil.  Sorry billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

“Ron,” you say that you want to fund sustainable energy.  Now, part of the definition of sustainable is that it can sustain itself.  Dumping a few billion or trillion dollars into something is great, but only if it starts paying for (sustaining) itself.  We will discuss that in more detail below.

Continue reading →