That video was posted two days ago by Irish filmmaker Ruairi Robinson, who was nominated for an Oscar in the short film category in 2002. He says his faux fight came from a two-line prompt into A.I. bot Seedance 2.0, owned by the Chinese parent company of TikTok, ByteDance.
The video went viral after screenwriter Rhett Reese (“Deadpool & Wolverine”, “Zombieland”) posted dire thoughts about what it portends on Twitter/”X.” earlier this week.“I hate to say it,” Reese wrote. “It’s likely over for us.”
““In next to no time,” he wrote later, ” one person is going to be able to sit at a computer and create a movie indistinguishable from what Hollywood now releases. True, if that person is no good, it will suck. But if that person possesses Christopher Nolan’s talent and taste (and someone like that will rapidly come along), it will be tremendous.” Now Hollywood is trembling in terror.
Free-lance journalist Michael Tracy pointed out on “X” that all of the “victims” who Rep. Jayapal demanded that Pam Bondi apologize to were adults at the time of their claimed victimization by Jeffrey Epstein. Tracy asked if any news organization bothered to mention that rather salient point, especially since the Left’s narrative connecting President Trump to Epstein rests on calling Trump a presumed “pedo”-by-association.
It seems the answer is no. I certainly assumed the hand-raising women at Bondi’s hearing were all sexually exploited as minors.
The Epstein obsession is such an Ethics Train Wreck, and such a dumb one my eye-balls hurt from rolling. If Democrats succeed in the mid-terms because of the duel mendacities of the Epstein innuendos and the even dumber “affordability” talking point (“How dare Trump not lower the prices our incompetence raised?”), I think it will be fair to say that the American public is no longer intelligent enough for a republic.
I recommend a conservatorship.
In an excellent Wall Street Journal piece (which I no longer can find) on what the Epstein files didn’t include, the author wrote that the news media and Democrats are focusing on Trump’s past denials that he ever knew or suspected what his fellow billionaire was doing, when what they should be focusing on was that he alone among the many names being exposed in the files “got the hell out of there,” as soon as Epstein’s teenage girls turned up.
I don’t want to dwell on the headline above from the Times, but this is just another example of how, as in democracy’s death of a thousand cuts, our journalists deceive, confuse and manipulate public opinion. They also think they are clever about it, just as they think they are smarter than they are.
“President Trump on Thursday announced he was erasing the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment, ending the federal government’s legal authority to control the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet,” the Times piece begins. “The action is a key step in removing limits on carbon dioxide, methane and four other greenhouse gases that scientists say are supercharging heat waves, droughts, wildfires and other extreme weather.”
My favorite Valentine’s Day memory comes from when I was a student at Harvard, directing my first show at nearby M.I.T. I had bemoaned to my cast how the holiday was bound to be a lonely one for me, as I had no girlfriend at the time and my room mates, who were all from far-flung states, where certain to be getting copious love notes in their mail boxes while mine would be, as usual, empty. (My home was in Arlington, Mass., a quick bus ride from Cambridge.) When February 14th arrived and the usual morning mail call with it, my room mate who was on mail duty that day announced, “Dick, you have eight cards. Slip, you have two. Mark, you got 12 cards. Worldman [he was Hawaiian], you also have 12. I have three, and Shithead (my room mates often called me “Shithead”) you have…these.”
And he poured out 58 little envelopes on the floor, each containing one of those little Valentines we used to exchange in elementary school. An M.I.T. coed named Nancy Green (not the original Aunt Jemima) in my chorus had persuaded every student in her dorm to write a personal message on one of those little cards, and she stamped, addressed and mailed them. It was a classic random act of kindness. Thanks, Nancy—wherever you are.
This one really troubled me, because it reinforces a public misunderstanding about lawyer ethics and one that many lawyers don’t understand either. [The first two installments of this limited Ethics Alarms series are here and here.]
In Season Two of “The Lincoln Lawyer,” Mickey represented a seductive restaurant owner (above) who was accused of murdering a local real estate developer with whom she had been in conflict.
Sidebar: Mickey had intimate relations with the woman immediately prior to her being arrested and retaining him s her attorney. Not afterwards, however, because it is an ethics violation in most states to have sex with your client. Some randy lawyers have had ethics complaints dismissed by proving that they had already been making whoopee with the client, so the usual reasons for the prohibition no longer applied.
That may be true, but I regard it as unethical (and stupid) for a lawyer to ever represent a client with whom he or she has had…or even wants to have..sexual relations. The restaurant owner was obviously using her lawyer’s attraction to her to cloud his judgment.
A newly released document in the so-called Epstein files reveals that Donald Trump, far from being an eager participant in Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking in and exploitation of young women, was one of the first to alert authorities that Epstein was involved in illegal activities. As the New York Times reports today,
“…one of the first calls the Palm Beach police received was from Donald J. Trump, the local police chief at the time told the F.B.I. more than a decade later.
“Mr. Trump reportedly told the chief, Michael Reiter, ‘Thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this,’ according to a document recounting their conversation that is part of the tranche of Epstein files released by the Justice Department.
“Mr. Trump said it was known in New York circles that Mr. Epstein was disgusting and suggested that the police also focus their investigation on Mr. Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell, according to the memo. ‘She is evil,’ Mr. Trump reportedly said.”
“Mr. Trump also told the police chief that he was around Mr. Epstein once when teenagers were present and that he ‘got the hell out of there,’ according to Mr. Reiter’s account.” The former chief described his conversation with Mr. Trump to the F.B.I. in October 2019, two months after Mr. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, the memo shows. Mr. Reiter told The Miami Herald, which reported on the document earlier, that the call with Mr. Trump occurred in July 2006.”
One of the few reasons I was worried about Donald Trump getting a second term rather than the United States ending up with that incompetent babbling, DEI Doom Machine Kamala Harris in the White House was that I knew with absolute certainty that his second four years in the White House would be exhausting on the ethics front, making it both impossible and absurdly time-consuming to cover the ethics landscape adequately. That has come to pass even more horribly than I dreaded. Trump does stuff (as Presidents are supposed to do) but often does it sloppily or defiantly; he trolls, he jokes, he behaves like a the kid in “The Twilight Zone Movie” who acquires the power of a god; the Axis of Unethical Conduct goes nuts, the Democrats lie, the polls are faked, the news media spits Trump-Hate propaganda, unethical judges throw monkey wrenches into the works, businesses pander, ethics train wrecks pop up everywhere, socialists, communists and idiots demonstrate…
I feel like Newman feels about the U.S. Mail in the “Seinfeld” clip above.
If EA were going to have the impact and thoroughness it needs to have (five commenters are not enough), it would have to be a multi-contributor site like Instapundit, Powerline, Victory Girls or Legal Insurrection, or I would have to be retired like Althouse or work only a few hours a day like Prof. Turley. But the latter options are impossible (forever, for reasons largely, but not entirely, beyond my control) and I have tried to build the former without success.
The brilliant Mrs. Q opted out quickly because of other priorities. Curmie, who brought a different perspective to his carefully curated posts, went Trump Deranged and quit without so much as a “thanks,” a “Bye!” or a “Good luck!” I have a standing offer to one of EA’s dependable contrarians, who has chosen to ignore it. (This is one reason I bristle when someone calls the blog an “echo chamber.”)
Talk about the mail “coming and coming”! I already have several topics on the runway, and this morning I saw about a dozen others that need ethical analysis that know I will not have time to provide, as well as some issues I’ve already discussed continuing to throb. For example, all of the morning shows and the news were concentrating most of their time on the disappearance of the “Today Show’s” hosts’s mother, which is, literally, trivia compared to other developments, like, say, emerging evidence indicating that a member of Congress—a Democrat, of course—may have ties to terrorist organizations. But.. but…a talking head celebrity’s mother is missing!
I just took a brief break from work to have a quick lunch. As I often do, I tried to catch up on the news. I was foiled in this endeavor because CNN, Fox News and MSNBC all spent at least ten minutes each with extensive reporting on the mysterious disappearance of “Today” host Savannah Guthrie’s mother.
This is an unethical waste of journalism resources and breach of the duty for the news organizations not to at least try to report events that citizens need to know to be informed, safe, competent citizens.
600,000 Americans go missing every year, and about 90,000 of them, on average, are never found. If I were a member of the family of one of those Americans, I would be angry and disgusted at the disproportionate attention and resources being devoted to this one woman, Nancy Guthrie, whom I had never heard of before this week. And why should I have? She is not a crucial figure to the nation or society. Her greatest accomplishment is that she is the mother of a celebrity, and one who makes $8,000,000 a year.
The “Today” star has the resources to pay for a private investigation. We can empathize with her, but no more so than with anyone beset with a family crisis.
Absurdly, President Trump posted on Truth Social that he was ordering federal law enforcement to”deploy all resources” to find Nancy Guthrie. Good Lord, why? She is not essential to national security. The nation will not suffer one bit if she has vanished like Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, Ambrose Bierce or Amelia Earhart.
Sure, it would be tragic for the Guthrie family. I could list the important stories that the news media is burying, hiding or ignoring now but it would take up too much of my time or yours. It is true that other disappearances from high profile families became media feeding frenzies: the kidnappings of the Lindbergh baby and J.Paul Getty’s grandson were hysterically over-covered too. But at least they were both children.
The entire spectacle just rubs ordinary Americans’ faces in the ugly truth that they just don’t matter as much as the welfare of the rich, famous and beautiful.
The Supreme Court today refused to strike down California’s new gerrymandered congressional map designed to give Democrats five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and turned down a request from a group of California Republicans that would have required the state to continue to use the map in place while their judicial challenge to the map proceeded. If anyone dissented on the Court, he, she or they kept it to themselves.
This is called “following precedent.”
Two months ago the conservative bloc on the Court, over dissents from the Three Little Maids of Kneejerk Progressivism, granted a request from Texas to allow it to use its new map intended to allow Republicans to pick up five additional House seats in that state. In Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, a lower court had sided with Democratic challengers that the “legislature’s motive was predominantly racial,” making the redistricting unconstitutional. (Once again, crying racism was the Left’s default claim.)The majority reversed that ruling in its December 4 order. Justice Alito issued an opinion (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorusch) explaining that “it is indisputable … that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map…was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
The Republicans who challenged the California map were counting on a lack of integrity from the conservative majority although the issue was exactly the same as in the Texas case. But the six conservative, Republican-appointed Justices declined the bait. They ruled for the Democrats just as they had ruled for the Texas Republicans, which was the legal, ethical, fair and objective result. Even those conservative devils Thomas and Alito!
Another false partisan narrative bites the dust.
If the three Democratic women possessed similar integrity, they would have dissented in this case too, as they had in Abbott. But they didn’t, did they?With their votes, they showed that their principles only hold when their favorite party benefits from them.
The above tweet (Do they still call them that even though it is no longer Twitter? We need a new word. “Xeet”? “Exit”?) is being circulated on social media followed by declarations that the only ethical course is to root for the Seattle Seahawks in this weekend’s Superbowl broadcast. My Facebook friend, an esteemed professor whom I have known in an arts context since 1969, making him also one of my oldest friends, posted it with commentary stating that the contents made it clear that every decent, thinking person should be rooting for Seattle.
My friend calls football “concussion-ball”) and reviles the sport for the same reason I do, though I have extra ethical ammunition against the National Football League, easily the most unethical among the spectacularly unethical professional sports organizations. If I were inclined to watch the Superbowl, the fact that the NFL was so irresponsible as to pick a cross-dressing, open-borders Trump-Deranged performer who will mostly perform in Spanish to lead its half-time show in what was once a non-partisan, All-American event that everyone could watch without feeling political anxiety would end that inclination instantly.
Who decides what sports teams to root for according to whom their owners are friends with, or where their political contributions go? My answer: crazy people. These factors have absolutely nothing to do with the sports, the teams, the players, or the entertainment value of the team’s games.
If one is looking for a professional sports team to favor and one is a wokeness-obsessed loony, it is probably impossible to cheer on any of them. They are all owned by billionaires or consortia including big, bad corporations. They are all privileged tycoon who reliable act as if they can make their own rules, because much of the time, they can. Jody Allen, for example, was sued along with her brother and Vulcan, the holding company she served as CEO in 2013 by five of her former security guards who alleged sexual harassment by Jodie, illegal activity, cover-ups and more, including bribing customs officials to smuggle animal bones out of Africa and Antarctica. The lawsuit was settled out of court, probably because that’s what rich people and corrupt corporations do when they are scared to death of what discovery will uncover. Not that any of that should matter to a Seattle Seahawks fan.
