War and the Military

The 2025 Complete “White Christmas” Ethics Companion, With a New Introduction

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

2025 Introduction

In the 2022 introduction 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.”  I wrote, “If there comes a time when an innocent musical 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.”

I have been rather blue of late, and a dear friend (and old love) ordered me to watch “White Christmas,” her favorite movie, as a tonic. She was right, as usual: it helped. She had expressed annoyance with earlier versions of the Ethics Companion, arguing that a lot of my complaints were (and are) petty for a feel-good Christmas movie. I think she was right about that, too.

I think I enjoyed the movie more this year than in past viewings because I watched it with a house guest who had never seen “White Christmas” before, and hadn’t experienced the brilliance of the four stars, Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen often enough to take them for granted. “Wow, what a voice!” he said of Bing. “Nobody dances like that any more!” he said after watching Vera-Ellen tap her way through “Mandy.”An ex-Marine, he got choked up when the old General gets the surprise of his life with many of his old comrades showing up at Christmas Eve to fill his struggling Vermont Inn.

Last year I noted that Bing Crosby had complained that the movie could and should have been better than it was. I agreed with him in my comments last year; now I’m not so sure. How, exactly, could it have been better? The cast was perfect; the sentimental ending works today as much as ever: my house guest was quietly tearful at the end.

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 knows 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 to do 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.)

Yes the movie works ; 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.

This is another sad Christmas for me.  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? I have no sheep.

1. The First Scene

Continue reading →

On Pearl Harbor and American Moral Luck

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Guest post by Steve-O-in NJ

[This excellent commentary by Steve-O was waiting in moderation when I woke up this morning, and I immediately decided to move it directly into a guest post–JM]

The Japanese knew themselves, or at least those with any sense knew, that after the attack they had about 6 months to win an overwhelming victory and force the United States to the peace table before the American production machine ramped up to full capacity and overwhelmed them. Their fatal mistake at Pearl Harbor was not to order the planned third strike which would have targeted repair facilities, fuel facilities, and so forth. As already pointed out by many it was only by great good luck that the carrier fleet was not present.

The damage to the battle fleet was extensive, but not total destruction. USS Pennsylvania was in dry dock and was hit by only a single bomb that caused moderate damage. Tennessee and Maryland occupied inside berths and so could not be hit by torpedoes; they received only moderate damage from two bomb hits each. Both were back in service before the end of 1942. USS Nevada took one torpedo hit, but was also back in service before long, although she rather quickly found herself moved to the Atlantic where she covered the Normandy landings. California and West Virginia were the real miracle repairs, both having sunk onto the mud and West Virginia having been hit by seven torpedoes. Oklahoma, which capsized, and Arizona, where a magazine exploded, were the only US battleship losses in World War II. Arizona accounts for almost half the American casualties at Pearl Harbor, including Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, the highest ranking officer killed.

The following days were the darkest for the Allies, as the Japanese also sank two British battleships, forced the surrender of Hong Kong, and took Singapore and the Philippines. The Americans were fighting back with outdated equipment, a consequence of FDR’s understandable focus on domestic issues since his election in 1932. You don’t hear much about that, and only sometimes do you hear about how near a disaster Midway was, with almost the complete failure of torpedo bomber attacks.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce, Unethical Quote of the Month, Incompetent Elected Official of the Month—Wow, What An Idiot!—Sen. Tammy Duckworth

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

If you can watch Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth in that CNN segment without your head exploding at the 3:43 mark, you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

After stating that the the so called “double-tap” bombing of alleged Venezuelan drug-smugglers was a war crime and murder, Duckworth is asked by Dana Bash, inadvertently practicing journalism, whether the Senator in fact knows what the hell she is ranting about, and gets the equivalent of “no,” “I just know what I’ve read online” and “I only know what I read in the newspapers.”

What Duckworth answered can be fairly translated as “I don’t really know anything the average channel-surfing short-order cook knows about this, and maybe less only I just tuned in to MSNBC, but I’m a Democrat, we have to criticize anything the Trump administration does, and I’ve got some talking points that my staffer was emailed from the DNC—maybe the same ones you were sent, Dana—and I’m just going from those.”

Duckworth was on CNN to discuss the incident as a purported expert: she’s built her entire political career by relying on her Army National Guard veteran status and losing her legs when her helicopter was hit by a missile during the first Iraq War. It’s an insult to viewers for her to go on the air and accuse the Department of War of “murder” without doing more than checking “what’s available in the media,” whatever that means in her case. I bet she got a summary of “what’s available in the media” and what she “knows” is double hearsay.

If I am asked on a radio show to give my opinion as an ethicist about, say, a law firm firing a member for a social media post denigrating Charlie Kirk and President Trump, I’d better have read the various analyses by my colleagues in the field, looked at the relevant ethics rules and legal ethics opinions, kno what the fired attorney wrote, and be ready to provide some trustworthy analysis other than “I only know what I read on ‘Above the Law.'”

This is the very epitome of political hackery. The Senator goes on CNN with no preparation at all, and spews a predetermined and predictable position because Trump Bad, while not even pretending to have any special insight into what occurred.

Pearl Harbor Day, 2025

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Remember.

I have nothing unique to add about the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor on this date in 1941, except to note that the lack of mention of it in the news media today is disheartening and, I believe, inexcusable. I’m estopped from complaining too much however: to my amazement and shame, Ethics Alarms has never devoted an entire post to the event since I began writing it 16 years ago. I’ll begin my amends now.

Here is the History Channel’s article on the attack, one of the rare, epochal  events of which it can be said without dispute changed everything….

On December 7, 1941, at 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, a Japanese dive bomber bearing the red symbol of the Rising Sun of Japan on its wings appears out of the clouds above the island of Oahu. A swarm of 360 Japanese warplanes followed, descending on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in a ferocious assault. The surprise attack struck a critical blow against the U.S. Pacific fleet and drew the United States irrevocably into World War II.

With diplomatic negotiations with Japan breaking down, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his advisers knew that an imminent Japanese attack was probable, but nothing had been done to increase security at the important naval base at Pearl Harbor. It was Sunday morning, and many military personnel had been given passes to attend religious services off base. At 7:02 a.m., two radar operators spotted large groups of aircraft in flight toward the island from the north, but, with a flight of B-17s expected from the United States at the time, they were told to sound no alarm. Thus, the Japanese air assault came as a devastating surprise to the naval base.

Much of the Pacific fleet was rendered useless: Five of eight battleships, three destroyers, and seven other ships were sunk or severely damaged, and more than 200 aircraft were destroyed. A total of 2,400 Americans were killed and 1,200 were wounded, many while valiantly attempting to repulse the attack. Japan’s losses were some 30 planes, five midget submarines, and fewer than 100 men. Fortunately for the United States, all three Pacific fleet carriers were out at sea on training maneuvers. These giant aircraft carriers would have their revenge against Japan six months later at the Battle of Midway, reversing the tide against the previously invincible Japanese navy in a spectacular victory.

The day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt appeared before a joint session of Congress and declared, “Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” After a brief and forceful speech, he asked Congress to approve a resolution recognizing the state of war between the United States and Japan. The Senate voted for war against Japan by 82 to 0, and the House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 388 to 1. The sole dissenter was Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, a devout pacifist who had also cast a dissenting vote against the U.S. entrance into World War I. Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war against the United States, and the U.S. government responded in kind.

Comment of the Day: “On the Venezuelan Drug Boat “Double-Tap…”

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

As I have stated periodically here, few things make my heart soar like a hawk more than when I awaken feeling punk and have the comforting knowledge that a worthy Comment of the Day awaits to be posted, giving me precious hours to become coherent, if not wise.

Thus I am thrilled to post 77Zoomie‘s invaluable and informed commentary on the controversy surrounding the deaths of two apparent drug smugglers. [I am sorely tempted to note that the Axis of Unethical Conduct is routinely outraged at the well-earned fates of illegal immigrant criminals and drug runners, but have been oddly reluctant to express similar concern for the many citizen victims of illegals who never should have been allowed enter and stay in our country. But I won’t…

Anyway, here is 77Zoomie’s Comment of the Day in response to “On the Venezuelan Drug Boat ‘Double-Tap’ Controversy”…

***

Former JAG here–I’ve taught the Law of Armed Conflict and Operational Law to active duty special operators at one of our special operations schools, as well as advised on use of force to some local commanders. A couple of observations:

I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this appears to be some kind of shaping operation directed at not just the President, but members of the armed forces. The original report of this incident was back in September in a publication called “The Intercept.” That report lay dormant until the National Lawyers Guild, a far left legal organization, published an information piece on the military’s obligation to disobey “unlawful” orders, on November 11. The tendentious video by the six congressmen followed shortly thereafter, followed immediately by the posting of billboards outside several major U.S. military installations urging soldiers to question the legality of their orders. This was immediately followed by the pick-up of the Intercept story and its publication by the corporate press.  Draw your own conclusions.

A key point in this discussion that seems to have been omitted by most if not all commentators is that we are engaging our military forces against a state-sponsored narco-terrorism operation. The Maduro government is supporting, sponsoring, and profiting from drug importation into the US, and is working hand in glove with Venezuelan cartels.  In other words, this is not a law enforcement operation but rather a state-versus-state confrontation involving what are effectively unlawful combatants on one side.

Continue reading →

On the Venezuelan Drug Boat “Double-Tap” Controversy

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments

President Trump’s controversial policy of destroying vessels from Venezuela smuggling drugs into the U.S. is now the latest example of the Axis of Unethical Conduct’s desperation search for bogus issues with which to impugn the President and his administration. Let’s see, we have: not “bringing down prices” that cannot come down after the last Administration caused 9% inflation; “cruelly” deporting illegal immigrants, including criminals; improving the White House with a long-needed ballroom; the President saying exactly, if intemperately, what six Democrats did by urging the military to defy its Commander-in- Chief; the Department of War requiring journalists not to leak sensitive information illegally provided by Deep State operatives…I’m sure I left out some. Now the Trump is defending the legality of a September 2 attack on a boat in the Caribbean Sea where a second missile strike was ordered that killed survivors of the first strike.

Continue reading →

On the Shooting of the Two National Guard Members [Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

As you doubtless know by now, two members of the West Virginia National Guard were shot in an ambush-style attack in Washington, D.C. before Thanksgiving. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, has died; the other victim,
Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in critical condition. The shooter is Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national.

He shouldn’t have been here. Simple as that.

It is mordantly entertaining to see the despicable Axis news media spin like dervishes to try to somehow blame the President and Republicans for what is 100% the result of progressive madness. The presence of the National Guard in D.C. can’t reasonably be blamed for violent attacks on them, but Democratic rhetoric irresponsibly describing their deployment as the equivalent of a hostile occupation or an autocratic fascist take-over can be held responsible, and should be.

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations on “Seditious” Video’s Unethical Aftermath

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The Pentagon has announced that it is investigating Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona regarding possible breaches of military law when the former Navy pilot joined other Democrats in the recent video calling for troops to defy “illegal orders.” A federal law allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the Secretary of War for possible courts martial. Kelly’s statements in the video may have interfered with the “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces…A thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures,” the statement said.

Ethics Alarms already explained what was unethical about the video. It was a cheap political stunt, unethically implying that what had not occurred and will not occur had occurred or was in danger of occurring. It was clever, Machiavellian and, as the late Harry Reid would say, “It worked!” The stunt lured Trump into behaving like an ass, overstating the issues involved, and giving the Axis more metaphorical sticks to beat him with. Even with the admissions by some of Kelly’s co-conspirators that they didn’t know of any illegal orders by Trump that justified the “public service announcement,” it still was a net public relations loss for the President, who doesn’t need any more of them. Now Pete Hegseth is joining the botch. Terrific.

Observations:
1. Haven’t Republicans heard of the Streisand Effect? Making such a fuss over the video is just guaranteeing that it stays in the news, along with the typically biased and inflammatory news coverage, like “Trump calls for EXECUTION of members of Congress!” Hegseth’s investigation could be justified, but with an irresponsible and partisan news media, there is no chance, none, that the public will understand the issues involved. With those as the conditions that prevail, the announcement of the investigation is incompetent.

Continue reading →

Regarding That “Seditious” Democrat Video…

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Who’s kidding whom?

You know that six former members of the military who by chance happened to be Democrats didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to “remind” members of the military that they are not supposed to obey “illegal orders.” They know that: every member of the military is taught the principle, though few have the fortitude to actually defy a superior officer on that basis. (My father did it at least three times during World War II while in the infantry.) This fake public service message or whatever you’d like to call it was a cheap, deceitful, underhanded way of advancing the Democratic Party’s “autocrat”/”threat to democracy”/”end elections” narrative to smear President Trump while exacerbating the brain fever of Trump Derangement Victims. Oh, it’s clever in the same diabolical way the “It’s OK to be white!” signs were, or the whole Black Lives Matter scam, or “Let’s Go Brandon!” Wink-wink. nudge-nudge, you get what we really mean, don’t you?

Continue reading →

From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: The President’s Quick Quip

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Two permanent fixtures of the Trump Derangement narrative are:

  • President trump has no sense of humor.
  • President Trump is slipping into dementia (like Joe Biden), and should therefore be removed via the 25th Amendment.

Both of these are demonstrably false, even absurdly false. Demented people don’t have the quick wit to pick up on a straight line like that. And Trump even had the sense to “go out on the big laugh,” as the old vaudevillians used to say. When you get a big laugh, it’s time to end your appearance.

That incident today doesn’t prove that this President is wise, right, responsible or even well-intentioned. But the fact that the Axis of Unethical Conduct that has been working without pause to destroy Donald Trump since 2016 may be explained by another fact: that their hate and bias makes it impossible for them to avoid underestimating their foe.

As Sun Tsu said (but in Chinese), “There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent….Never underestimate your opponent or your enemy. Looks can be deceiving. You really don’t know what your opponent knows or what kind of skills he or she may have.” In the same vein, Machiavelli’s writings also repeatedly warned against underestimating an opponent, and to assume that your adversary is “always capable and cunning.”

The ethics values at issue here are competence, prudence, objectivity, professionalism, respect, fairness, and perspective.

Morons…