A Federal Judge Gets Benchslapped For An Unethical Times Column

On May 24, 2024, while Supreme Court Justice Jackson was dreaming of playing “Medea,” The New York Times published an op-ed entitled, “A Federal Judge Wonders: How Could Alito Have Been So Foolish?” by Senior Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Judge Ponsor addressed the flying of an upside-down American flag and the “Appeal to Heaven” flags outside homes owned by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a controversy covered thoroughly on Ethics Alarms.

The ethics verdict here was that the controversy was contrived, and that the attack on Alito was politically motivated, biased, and wrong. Judge Ponsor, however, opined that “any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have” recognized that the flag displays were improper because they could be perceived as “a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court.”

Let me inject here, “Sure, by an idiot!” “The appearance of impropriety is a reason-based standard. “Hey, this SCOTUS judge’s wife flew the same flag that began the HBO John Adams series: that must mean that her husband is in the bag for President Trump!” is not a reasonable perception.

Continue reading

Justice Jackson’s Broadway Adventure: Double Ethics Standards…Again

“Here come de judge!”

Above are some examples of SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson making a spectacle of herself in her Broadway turn last weekend in the musical “& Juliet,” a LGBTQ adaptation of William Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet.” Jackson portrayed Queen Mab, described as a “she/her” character on a production poster, in two scenes written especially for her. “I just also think it’s very important to remind people that justices are human beings, that we have dreams, and that we are public servants,” Jackson told“CBS Mornings” prior to the performance. One of her dreams was apparently to be an actress, long ago. (She made the right choice going into law.)

Except that judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, don’t have the option of doing whatever they feel like or dream about, as least if they are conservative justices. All of the criticism of the Roberts Court in the past few years has been over alleged ethical violations by the Justices making up the 6-3 conservative majority. The Justices appointed by Democrats Obama and Biden are, of course, as pure as Ivory Soap. And yet…

Continue reading

Week Before Christmas Ethics Sugarplums, 12/17/24

Just when I thought my holidays couldn’t get any more depressing than they already are, I lost my wallet yesterday and I have no idea how or where. I’m currently without a driver’s license, my credit cards, my insurance cards, and other stuff I need but can’t remember I’m sure. I feel like George Bailey when he goes to Martini’s bar on Christmas Eve to try to pull himself out of his panic and depression and a stranger punches him in the mouth after he begs God to help him find the path out of his dilemma.

On the bright side, nobody has punched me in the mouth. Yet.

The 1992 miniseries Turner Movie Classics produced about MGM has several ethically-inspiring stories. I recently saw it again, and an anecdote that slipped right by me before I started my ethics business impressed me this time. (If you don’t have a hammer, sometimes even a nail won’t look like a nail.) The studio was being torn in the late Forties by an ideological battle between founder and CEO Louie B. Mayer and Dore Schary, who was the head of production. Schary was pushing films with political messages, while Mayer believed that MGM should avoid politics and stick to pure entertainment. (Sound familiar?). Schary had greenlighted a big budget anti-war film, an adaptation of Stephen Crane’s “The Red Badge of Courage,” which Mayer vehemently opposed. The film’s director, John Huston, went to Mayer and said that while he believed in the film, he would pull out if Mayer insisted.

According to Huston, Mayer excoriated him for his willingness to quit a creative endeavor because of anyone’s opposition to it. “I’m ashamed of you,” he supposedly said. “In this business, you have to be willing to fight for what you believe in. I don’t want us to do the picture, but if you believe in it, then fight for it.”

So Huston left the meeting and gathered a mob of actors and writers and tried to take over the executive offices.

Okay, I made that last part up….

In other news…

Continue reading

The Complete “White Christmas” Ethics Companion, Expanded and With a New Introduction For 2024

2024 Introduction

In 2022 I wondered whether the 1954 Christmas movie musical “White Christmas” was on the way out of the Christmas movie canon as anti-white racism took root during “The Great Stupid.”  It is, after all, about as white as a movie can get, even for the Fifties.  The movie has been sort of “cancelled,” it seems, and we will see if it has a resurgence as  the anti-woke backlash many think has arrived does its duty. If it is canceled, the loss will matter. “White Christmas” is an entertaining Christmas romantic comedy and family film with an excellent Irving Berlin score, a brilliant cast and an effectively sentimental and moving climax.

That should be enough; it certainly is better than any Christmas since, although an argument can be made for “The Santa Clause.” In 1954 the movie was a critical and box office hit. If “White Christmas” doesn’t mesh with the cynicism of our current culture, well, maybe that’s our problem less than it is the movie’s. In 2022, I said, “As for the film losing popularity because it isn’t ‘diverse’ and ‘inclusive,’ I will posit this: if there comes a time when an innocent fable about kindness toward an old hero down on his luck no longer resonates because of the skin-shades of the characters, the values and priorities of American arts and society will have reached a dangerous level of confusion.”

In 2024, I must state that American arts and society have reached a dangerous level of confusion (I’m looking at you, Disney!)

I also wrote, “If your children can’t enjoy music, laughter and  sentiment expertly inspired by some of the greatest talents this nation has ever produced, you’ve raised them wrong.” I should backtrack a bit on that. Of the four stars only the women are at their best. Rosemary Clooney, who shortly thereafter had a breakdown that sent her into near retirement for more than a decade, never looked or sounded better, and Vera-Ellen does what she always did in a tragically short career: she danced marvelously, and moved her mouth while someone else sang for her.

Bing Crosby sings wonderfully as he always did, but Bing was best when that’s all he was doing, though he was a deft straight man and actor when the need arose. What he wasn’t was a dancer, and he has far too much moving around to do in “White Christmas.” Bing wasn’t even a hoofer: he could dance passably enough not to be a complete embarrassment, but even so, his feet were community theater level at best. I am in the minority camp that fervently believes that Bing was superior to his successor Frank Sinatra as a vocalist and also as a dramatic actor and comic. Frank could really dance, however.

Danny Kaye, as I will explain in more detail below, was underutilized in “White Christmas.” The movie doesn’t give him much opportunity to display his unique talents.

My commentary on this movie, in contrast to the tone of the ethics guides to “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Miracle on 34th Street,” has been criticized by some commenters. Just this month someone ran across one of the earlier versions and wrote that such “nitpicking” misses the point: “White Christmas” is just supposed to be a light-hearted, feel-good move and it doesn’t have to be ethical or make sense. (Two very close friends who love the film get mad at me every year for posting this.)  I confess: I am not the right audience for “White Christmas.” As a stage director and critic I prize narrative clarity and consistency; as an ethicist I find the usual ethics short-cuts the protagonists in movies often stoop to more distracting than the typical audience member. The film also seems to radiate a certain “we know this movie can’t miss, so we can blow off a lot of stuff” vibe, and that’s unethical—unprofessional and disrespectful of the audience. I expect better of director Michael Curtiz, who, after all, directed “Casablanca.”

But the producers knew they had a hit in the making: a remake of the very successful “Holiday Inn”; a Christmas movie (and also a ridiculous one); a film built around the best-selling record of all time (then and now); a star, Bing Crosby, whose films seldom missed and who was identified with Christmas;  a score by one of the most successful and popular song-writers of his generation in Irving Berlin; a sui generis performer with his own fan base in Danny Kaye, and a very popular Fifties chanteuse at the peak of her popularity and talents in Rosemary Clooney. “White Christmas” was certain to be good enough, but as Bing Crosby groused years later, it could have been great, and should have been. I admire Bing for admitting that. For all his flaws, he was a perfectionist, and had great integrity as an artist. Would that those who wrote and made the film devoted to as high standards. (That reminds me: the other Bing Crosby musical remake, “High Society,” was also a disappointment, and also was the hit movie musical of the year when it was released.) The film-makers were satisfied with making it just good enough, and were confident that the audience wouldn’t notice or care. That ticks me off in the arts and in any other field. It really ticks me off when that cynical approach works.

I also believe that popular culture does effect societal ethics, and movies who portray their heroes as charmingly unethical do real, if unmeasureable damage. I did not find Jim Carey’s “The Mask” funny in the least, because we were supposed to cheer on the hero’s “Mask” alter-ego, and he was a psychopath.

One of the most ethical features of “White Christmas” was behind the scenes, an ethical act that allowed it to be made, undertaken by one of the most unlikely people imaginable, Danny Kaye.  Kaye was a major factor in launching my interest in performing, musicals, and comedy, but my research into the real man, when I was in the process of collaborating on a musical about his relationship with his wife and muse, songwriter Sylvia Fine, revealed that the real Danny Kaye was a miserable, paranoid, selfish, mean and insecure sociopath when he wasn’t playing “Danny Kaye,” which could be on stage or off it. In this case, however—and nobody know why—the abused Jewish kid went to unusual lengths to save a Christmas movie.

“White Christmas” had been conceived as a remake of “Holiday Inn” with the same stars as that black-and-white musical, Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. Fred couldn’t do the project, so his part was re-written for Donald O’Connor, who became ill so close to shooting that there was no time to retool the whole script and have the film ready for its target holiday release. In desperation, the producers asked Kaye if he would play Bing’s sidekick even though it meant 1) playing a support, which Kaye had never done in a movie since becoming a star 2) playing a role that didn’t’ highlight his special talents (for those, watch “The Court Jester”), and 3) subordinating himself to Bing Crosby, who was indeed the bigger star and box office draw, and 4) most daring of all, exposing his own limitations by doing dance numbers created for Donald O’Connor. Kaye was not a trained dancer, just a gifted mimic and athlete who could do almost anything he tried well. Danny demanded $200,000 and 10% of the gross to rescue the project, but he still was doing so at considerable personal risk…and he didn’t need the money, because Sylvia was a financial whiz.

Everyone around Danny Kaye was shocked that he agreed to all of this. Not only did he agree, he also amazed everyone by not playing the under-appreciated star on set, by doing O’Connor’s choreography as well as he did, and by knowing how not to steal focus from the star, something he infamously refused to do on Broadway when he was in “Lady in the Dark” with Gertrude Lawrence. “White Christmas” was the top grossing film of 1954 and the most financially successful movie musical up to that time. Kaye’s uncharacteristic unselfishness and characteristic versatility made that level of success possible. The secret of why Danny was on his best behavior was another one of his pathologies from an abused childhood: he was always in awe of the superstars like Bing Crosby, and felt inferior to them. (He wasn’t.)

The movie works (even I get choked up at the end); you just have to turn off your brain to fully enjoy it the way it was meant to be enjoyed. It has many high points, musical and comedic, for most viewer they justify the flaws, and we will never see the likes of Crosby, Kaye and Clooney again (and Vera-Ellen was no slouch). I miss all of them, which adds an extra bit of wistfulness to my annual viewing

And whatever faults “White Christmas” may have, it’s whiteness isn’t one of them.

Last year I wrote that “White Christmas” brought back memories of happier holidays, which I needed. 2024 said, “Hold my beer!”  Once again there will be no Christmas tree that takes me five hours to decorate, no festive banquet at a table surrounded by family and friends, no stockings or presents…just a big empty house with a needy dog and a lot of scary problems to solve and ticking time bombs to defuse. The sappy Christmas movie that ends with two happy couples, an old man being reassured that his life had meaning and Bing singing “White Christmas” is, as it was last year, just what the psych ward prescribed. I’m trying to count my blessings. What choice do I have?

1. The First Scene

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “Unethical Quote of the Week By One of the U.S. Senate’s Most Unethical Members”

Long-form master Steve-O-in NJ is in top form with this Comment of the Day.

For an end of the ideological spectrum that so recently was slapped with the dead fish of condign justice in the election just completed, progressives sure are being slow to start trimming their hypocrisy and realigning their warped values.The same people who wanted to lock up a courageous rescuer who stopped, permanently, a dangerous and deranged homeless man who was endangering riders on a NYC subway are cheering on a murderous narcissist who shot a man in the back because he wants free health care and his back hurts. I continue to marvel at how our culture spawned such a large mass of confused people. I also continue to wonder how they can be cured.

Here is Steve-O’s Comment of the Day on the post about Elizabeth Warren, one of our most despicable Senators, rationalizing cold-blooded murder:

***

America has always been a nation where there has been tension between the Puritan, seeking to impose a particular morality, and the cowboy, who is all about rugged individualism, self-help, and doing it your way. America has also always been a nation where when the ballot box, the jury box, and the soapbox have failed, we don’t hesitate to turn to the cartridge box. It’s all well and good to talk about the ideals we stand for or write about them, but sometimes, as in 1776, there’s no choice but to pick up a gun and make them happen.

Luigi Mangione was not looking to make freedom happen. He wasn’t even striking back at a healthcare system that had denied a loved one needed treatment and that person had died. He was a rich kid from a rich family who got a severe back injury playing an extreme sport which was advertised as extreme, and medicine could not fix it for him. For whatever reason, he blamed the health insurance system, and targeted one of its leaders. This wasn’t about any kind of lofty ideal, this was a pure and simple revenge killing.

The fact of the matter is that there was really nothing here other than that. There are those in this country who glorify revenge and getting even, and it has become a part of our culture. If you go to the movies, you’re going to see a huge number of pictures that are all about someone being wronged and taking revenge personally on whoever did the wrong. There’s also the whole gangster culture of movies where they glorify organized crime figures who never forgive and never forget, but sometimes wait until the time is right. A big chunk of The godfather series is about Don Vito Corleone seeking revenge against the man who killed his father and forced his family to immigrate. It takes decades, and the building of a business empire, but it is all leading up to that moment when he faces Don Ciccio, who is receiving him as a guest, reveals who he really is, and carves him open like a roast.

We all admit to revenge ourselves, sometimes for stupid and petty things. It’s not for nothing that we say that what goes around comes around and that payback is frequently a bitch. We also all tell ourselves that we are not vengeful people or petty people and that if we do something to someone in retaliation that’s different because that person deserved it.

Continue reading

Friday the 13th Pre-Christmas Open Forum

I guess you can figure out what my mood is like this morning…

Pass along some Christmas season cheer by providing brilliant, trenchant and timely ethics analysis. I’ll be here, reading and poisoning eggnog…

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files:

The New York Post reports that wanted posters targeting CEOs of insurance and other health care companies are appearing in Manhattan. Some say “HEALTH CARE CEOS SHOULD NOT FEEL SAFE” and include the words “DENY,” “DEFEND,” and “DEPOSE,” which are the same words that the cute assassin who shot UnitedHealthcare’s CEO wrote on his bullets. The posters also feature each executive’s salary, and some have appeared with the photos of CEOs of non-health care companies, like Goldman Sachs. ABC reports some posters say “UnitedHealthcare killed everyday people for the sake of profit. As a result Brian Thompson was denied his claim to life. Who will be denied next?”

Continue reading

‘Supporting Terrorism, Hating Jews and Filing Dumb Lawsuits Is No Way to Get Hired by a Law Firm, Kid…’

What an idiot.

2023 Georgetown Law School grad Jinan Chehade had been offered a job as an associate at the prominent law firm Foley & Lardner. The firm’s Director of Diversity and Inclusion told her they “valued and supported” her Arab Muslim heritage, and she took that to mean, “Go ahead and publicly support Hamas,murder,rape and hostage-taking, and it’s fine if you also proclaim your hatred of Jews and your inability to interpret world history too.

Chehade worked as a summer clerk at Foley in 2023 and was slated to join the firm as a full-time associate at its Chicago office two months ago. But following last year’s October 7th terrorist attacks attacks on Israel by Hamas, she began speaking out against Israel on her social media accounts and at a public Chicago City Hall meeting. Chehade appeared at the meeting wrapped in a keffiyeh and spoke out against a resolution condemning the Hamas massacre that started the current Gazan war. Though “the Western Zionist-controlled media machine would have you believe” it was an unprovoked attack, she said, the attack was just because it was the “legal right” of Palestinians to strike back for “75 years of occupation” by Israel’s “apartheid regime.”

Continue reading

Look! “The Ethicist” Has A Real Ethics Question That Doesn’t Involve Trump Derangement!

The New York Times Sunday advice column “The Ethicist” has been indulging itself by joining in the mass Times mourning over the election of Donald Trump and the failure of the paper’s years long propaganda campaign against him. The past four featured questions have been “Is It Fair to Judge a Friend by the Way She Voted?”, “Can Voters Be Held Accountable for Their Candidate’s Behavior?”, “Am I a Hypocrite for Calling Donald Trump a Liar?”, and my personal favorite, “My Mom Voted for Trump. Can We Let It Go?” It has taken a month to get back to genuine ethics dilemmas and conflicts, but at last Prof. Appiah is where he is supposed to be all the time.

This weeks query was “A Guy I Know Had a Liver Transplant. Now He’s Boozing Again.” [Gift link! Merry Christmas!]It raises more than one ethics question worthy of discussion, including:

1. Should alcoholics who have destroyed their livers be eligible for liver transplants?

2. Is the recipient of a liver transplant behaving unethically if he or she returns to the same lifestyle that ruined the first one?

3. Do the friends of the now boozing liver transplant recipient “have an obligation to tell this man’s wife that he’s still drinking?”

The first one came up for debate nationwide when Mickey Mantle, the hard-drinking baseball great, strangely came up at the top of a liver transplant list despite being predominantly responsible for his first liver’s demise. Organ transplant waiting lists are created using several formulas and weighted values, which makes sense when distributing rare commodities. On the other hand, this is a slippery slope that slides directly into punishing people for not exercising enough, eating too much pizza, smoking or favoring dangerous hobbies, like motorcycle racing, and withholding medical care or insurance coverage of the adverse results. Alcoholism, as I learned the hard way, is not volitional though alcohol abuse is, and good luck telling the two apart.

2. The second question is also squarely in an ethics gray area. Once the liver is in an individual’s body, he or she should have complete autonomy. Sure, it’s irresponsible for someone with obligations to others to take unnecessary risks with his or her life, but that’s true with or without a new liver. I can’t define a special obligation to those who did not receive a particular liver that should affect the recipient’s decisions going forward. What happens to the new liver won’t help or harm those who didn’t get it.

3. The third question is the easy one, and Golden Rule 101. Would you want to be told if your loved one was secretly endangering his or her health? Sure you would. However, if the wife in this case has been paying attention to her alcoholic husband, I doubt very much that anyone needs to tell her that he’s drinking again.

But did he vote for Donald Trump????

On “Blanket Pardons” and “Preemptive Pardons”

President Trump says he will pardon the January 6 rioters. President Biden just pardoned his son for crimes we may not even know about yet. “The Nation”—yes, the far Left crypto-Commie rag is nuts, but still—argued this week that Biden should issue a blanket pardon to all illegal immigrants.

What’s going on here?

Continue reading