This Would Be an Ethics Quiz If I Weren’t So Sure of the Answer…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Is it ethical for the Kennedy Center to cancel its “Pride Month” productions?

Yes, it is. Next question?

Oh, let’s bat this one around for a while. The AP reports that “Organizers and the Kennedy Center have canceled a week’s worth of events celebrating LGBTQ+ rights for this summer’s World Pride festival in Washington, D.C., amid a shift in priorities and the ousting of leadership at one of the nation’s premier cultural institutions. Multiple artists and producers involved in the center’s Tapestry of Pride schedule, which had been planned for June 5 to 8, told The Associated Press that their events had been quietly canceled or moved to other venues. And in the wake of the cancellations, Washington’s Capital Pride Alliance has disassociated itself from the Kennedy Center.” The more Trump-deranged and woke “Rolling Stone” put it this way: “The Kennedy Center’s war on the performing arts continues to wage on under the Trump administration as a series of events planned around Pride Month have quietly been canceled or relocated.”

“War on the performing arts”! Nice. It’s “war” when a theater venue that is supposed to represent and entertain all Americans stops pandering to group identity and propaganda.

Continue reading →

Ethics Verdict: It Is Now Irresponsible and Incompetent For the U.S. to Provide Any Further Aid to Ukraine

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

This is ridiculous.

Ukrainian officials say they will not accept any formal surrender of the Crimean peninsula to Russia as a condition of ending the war with Russia. Fine. U.S. officials should say that we will no longer assist in funding a war being fought against a superior military power by a nation that resides in fantasyland and governs by delusion. No other response is justifiable.

Russia has controlled Crimea for 14 years. Ukraine is not getting it back, but maintains that it will not recognize that Russia owns the territory, which Barack Obama allowed Russia to take with the U.S. registering little more than pat protests and a shrug. Read this nonsense from the AP report:

Continue reading →

Important Note on the Newsmedia’s War on President Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Yesterday several sources, citing polls, felt that it was significant that “President Trump’s approval rating after 100 days is the lowest of any President after that period since the beginning of the polling era.”

This is deceit. The distinction is significant indeed, but not for the reasons the news media wants the public to believe.

Every elected President except for Donald Trump in his first term begins with a substantial so-called “halo effect” where a strong majority of the public approves of him because they approve of the institution of the Presidency, its earlier, greatest occupants, and the system of government that put him, and them, in the White House. In his first term, Trump was unethically robbed of this “norm” (Hey, I thought it was Trump who shattered democratic norms?!) by the coordinated attack on his legitimacy and the Electoral College along with the false “Russian collusion” narrative promoted by the Axis of Unethical Conduct.

The President after the 2024 election had something approaching the halo—call it a half-halo—because the public was so disgusted with Joe Biden and because Trump won the popular vote. Nevertheless, his favorability was greatly diminished compared to past POTUSes because the despicable Democratic Party smear that he was a new Hitler-on-the-hoof had a large proportion of the public tainted with hate and fear.

Trump is almost alone among Presidents in that his first hundred days were occupied with substantive action, much of it bold and transformative. As soon as a new President does something, anything, he will likely lose support. Trump has done more in his first hundred days, by far, than any previous Chief Executive with the arguable exception of Franklin Roosevelt, who had the benefit of taking over a catastrophic situation in which doing anything was deemed an improvement over the Depression policies of Herbert Hoover, which could be fairly described as “Be patient, it will all get better soon.”

FDR, therefore, is a distinguishable exception. Other than him, Trump is unique. His Hundred Days have been unusually bold and productive. Of course that loses him polling points.

One of those partisan-biased Presidential historians like Douglass Brinkley could explain this, and if they had any integrity, they would. But they don’t.

Mis-Remembering the Mutiny on the Bounty, a “Print the Legend” Classic

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Today, April 28, is the anniversary of the famous mutiny on board the H.M.S. Bounty, when Fletcher Christian, the ship’s “master’s mate,” seized control of the ship and set its captain, William Bligh, adrift in the Pacific with a small group of sailors who refused to join Christian’s rebellion. The story of the mutiny and its aftermath has become a romantic cautionary tale that inspired three major Hollywood treatments, each with star-studded casts. If you ask the average American what happened on The Bounty, he or she will probably reply that a cruel captain who abused his crew was challenged by an honorable and courageous officer who took over the ship from a monster, and met with tragedy himself. Virtually no accounts of the event support that version of events, but that is the legend, and it persists to this day.

Why? It’s a better story, at least a clearer and more morally uplifting story than the truth, that’s why. Real life is messy and our heroes and villains tend to be more complicated than our emotions can handle, and this is especially true of the Bounty story. You see above the most famous moment from the great John Ford film, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence,” when the old newspaper editor refuses to report the shocking discovery that the heroic deed leading to the successful political career of a famous statesman and U.S. Senator never occurred. Ethics Alarms has discussed the “Print the legend” phenomenon so many times that it has its own tag. None of the examples that I have examined deserve that tag more than the mutiny on the Bounty.

Continue reading →

The Significant Thing About The SCOTUS Oral Argument in Mahmoud v. Taylor Is That The Three Liberal Justices Were Too Biased To Recognize The Obvious…

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

…Which is that there are no good reasons at all to expose elementary-school-aged children to LGTBQ literature and propaganda. This is depressing. While the Supreme Court conservative Justices have shown themselves capable of ruling against extreme right-wing agenda items when the law dictates, the Three Progressive Sisters on the Court increasingly seem incapable of anything but lockstep wokism.

During nearly two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments last week regarding the case of a group of Maryland parents who sued Montgomery County (Maryland) to be able to pull their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ themes, a clear majority of the Justices indicated that they had the better argument. That is that the local school board’s refusal to give them an opt-out violates the family’s religious beliefs and therefore their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.

I find it annoying that the case has to rest on Freedom of Religion at all: why shouldn’t any parents be able to decide that they don’t want their children introduced to these topics before puberty, or exposed to indoctrination on subjects that only parents should handle, within the family?

The parents in the case include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, who are Muslim, Melissa and Chris Persak, who are Roman Catholic, and Svitlana and Jeff Roman, who are Ukrainian Orthodox and Roman Catholic. (Having some Scientologists and Evangelical Christians would have been nice…)

In 2023, the Montgomery County School Board in one of the most Democratic counties in the nation was flushed with the Democratic Party’s totalitarian vigor, and announced that it would no longer allow parents to excuse their children from instruction using LGBTQ-themed books. The parents argued in federal court that the board’s refusal to allow them to opt their children out violated their rights under the First Amendment to freely exercise their religion, since it stripped them of their ability to instruct their children on gender and sexuality and to control how and when their children are exposed to these issues. How radical of them!

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Oh-Oh! President Trump Violated Another Norm!”

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

I confess (and it has been many months since my last confession): I was hoping to trigger this Comment of the Day or its equivalent with my criticism of the late Pope and the degree of influence and respect the position is still accorded by the news media and world leaders. Had I thought about it, esteemed commenter proe32754 would have probably been my top candidate for providing it too.

I will only point out by way of rebuttal is that Pope Francis’s Ethics Alarms dossier is a long as other prominent individuals who I have, fairly and correctly, designated Ethics Villains. Let’s see: he had four official Ethics Dunce awards and a couple more that I chose to frame differently. He has many Unethical Quotes on his record. He repeatedly presumed to meddle in the policies and politics of the United States (but his Holy predecessor during World War II refused to ever condemn Hitler’s Third Reich by name.) I have so many favorite outrages to choose from, but I think my favorite was when he dared to address Congress to pimp for the Democrats’ dream of open borders, despite severely limiting who is allowed to live in his own domain, The Vatican. Normally, anyone with a record like Pope Francis would be the star of a funeral no world leaders would dare to attend, lest they enter Cognitive Dissonance Hell with public opinion.

Yes, I suppose my remarks about the late Pope were “snide,” but I stand by them (and I do believe they were “called for.”) They were even mild compared to what I have written before; for example, here was my introduction to a post after the Pope’s visit in 2015:

I have been touched by the passionate defenses of the Pope during his visit here, by sincere believers who desperately wanted not to see what was going on. If only Pope Francis respected his supporters enough to live up to the ideals they projected on him, which included insisting, against all evidence, that he was merely talking in broad, moral generalities to Congress rather than lobbying for progressive policies, like making illegal immigration legal.

He was, we were told, only showing us where “true North” was according to the Church. I guess he just forgot to bring up abortion, which the Church regards as murder (and Joe Biden too, when he’s not playing politics) as he was lecturing our legislators about “human rights.”

The second he returned home, the Pope threw gay couples under the Popemobile, stating that Kim Davis’s position as a government official refusing to obey the law was a “right.” Again, his defenders insisted that this was just an abstraction. Now we hear from Davis’s lawyers that she had a secret meeting with Pope Francis. Davis says that he hugged her, gave her a rosary, and told her to “stay strong.”

“That was a great encouragement. Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing, it kind of validates everything to have someone of that stature,” Davis said.

Naturally, those who can’t handle the truth will say she is lying. There is no evidence that Kim Davis is untruthful, and her lawyer would be facing discipline if they falsely reported what did not occur. This really happened.

Got that, Popophiles? While a guest in this country, while progressives were tripping all over their usually Christian-mocking selves to proclaim him as a moral exemplar for setting U.S. policy, while he was being honored by the President and treated with more deference by the news media than any foreign leader, Pope Francis was surreptitiously encouraging an anti-gay zealot to defy the U.S. Supreme Court and the rule of law, while withholding the human right to be married from gay Americans.

I have already pointed out that the Pope is a hypocrite and a coward. With this conduct, he showed that he is a sneak as well, and blatantly disrespectful of the laws of the nation in which he was an honored guest. This was a breach of manners, protocol and a betrayal of trust on a massive scale.

I understand that religious faith by its very nature is an exercise in “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts,” and also that organized religion has a traditional and important role to play in maintaining civilization in a world where the vast majority of human beings won’t be civilized on their own. Thus I am not only sympathetic but in some respects encouraged by the passion and the passion and the loyalty of Catholic Church defenders like proe32754, who is obviously more articulate and capable than most.

Here is the Comment of the Day on: “Oh-Oh! President Trump Violated Another Norm!”…

Continue reading →

Another Unethical (But Funny!) Use of AI in the Law

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

In March, the Arizona Supreme Court launched two AI-generated avatars named Victoria and Daniel: thats the pair above. These AI, non-existant personas deliver news of judicial rulings and opinions in the state via YouTube videos. Jerome Dewald, a 74-year-old plaintiff was inspired to say, “Hold my beer!”

Dewald created an AI-generated video avatar to deliver his argument via Zoom in court. Five New York State judges at the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department were anticipating his pro se presentation in an employment case on March 26, but instead of the elderly litigant they saw a young man in a button-down shirt and sweater.

“May it please the court,” said the un-named avatar. “I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices.” Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, interrupted the presentation before the avatar (the avatar’s pronouns were “it” and “it”) could speak another word , saying “Okay, hold on. Is that counsel for the case?” After Dewald confirmed that he had generated the non-lawyer non-person using AI, Manzanet-Daniels ordered the video to be turned off.

Continue reading →

Oh-Oh! President Trump Violated Another Norm!

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

Setting a new low in seeking reasons to criticize the President it and its readers love to hate, the New York Times devoted a full article (“Trump’s Blue Suit at Pope’s Funeral Draws Attention”) to President Trump’s choice of suit to wear to the Pope’s funeral. Get this:

President Trump, it seems, is fully committed to going his own way when it comes to international relations — even during the funeral of a pope. On Saturday, as he joined other world leaders to pay his respects to Pope Francis, he stood in St. Peter’s Square among President Emmanuel Macron of France (who was wearing black), Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain (in black), President Javier Milei of Argentina (in black) and Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni of Italy (in black). Mr. Trump? He was wearing blue.
And not even dark, midnight blue, but a clear, sapphire-like blue, with matching tie. Amid all the black and Cardinal red, it popped out like a sign.
The choice did not grossly violate the dress code for the event (which reportedly called for a dark suit with a black tie for men). Prince William also appeared to be wearing blue, though a shade closer to navy, and former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. wore a blue tie. But Mr. Trump’s look certainly skirted the edges.

Oh, bite me. Skirted what “edges?” This rates a Kaufman on Ethics Alarms. That is a situation where my concern about the controversy at hand equals George S. Kaufman’s famous description of how interested he was in the complaint by aging crooner Eddie Fisher (father of Carrie) that he was having trouble meeting and dating young women. The famous wit and playwright said (on a live panel TV show),

Continue reading →

Pssst! Somebody Tell Sen. Klobuchar That She Needn’t Work So Hard At Embarrassing Minnesota With Gov. Walz Doing Such a Bang-Up Job of It…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

When did “Minnesota Nice” mutate into “Minnesota Stupid”?

Following the charging of a Wisconsin judge who pretty clearly obstructed justice and used her position to prevent an illegal immigrant and criminal from being arrested, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D. Minn), as you can see above, tweeted, “This is not normal. The Administration’s arrest of a sitting judge in Wisconsin is a drastic move that threatens the rule of law. While we don’t have all the details, this is a grave step and undermines our system of checks and balances.”

Remind me to shake that in front of the faces of my various friends and relatives who supported this shallow, foolish woman when she was running for President in 2020. Her tweet is one more smoking gun proving that Democratic officials will find excuses to accuse President Trump of threatening the “rule of law” and “separation of powers” and creating a “constitutional crisis” regardless of what he and his administration does.

Hilariously, Klobuchar admits that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about —“we don’t have all the details”—but in fact the details already made it as clear as Saran-wrap that Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan deliberately set out to interfere with the lawful arrest of an illegal immigrant. Dugan’s bizarre conduct revived memories of another lawless judge with a soft spot for illegals, Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, who was indicted in federal court in Boston on obstruction of justice charges for preventing an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from taking custody of an alien defendant. She delayed ICE while her staff secretly let the illegal escape out the courthouse back door in the Spring of 2018, before Trump Derangement had reached pandemic levels.

The details on Dugan’s effort to thwart law enforcement are worse, as this thread by Prof. Margot Cleveland amply demonstrates. Also hilariously, Democrats are condemning what sure looks like a legitimate criminal charge against a Democratic judge as politically motivated after they spent 2024 applauding lame, contrived and blazingly political prosecutions of Donald Trump while they intoned, “Nobody is above the law.”

Continue reading →

A “Ripley” For MSNBC: It Actually Practiced Journalism!

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Wow. Will wonders never cease…

Yesterday, the continually ridiculous John Kerry must have thought he was in safe territory when he appeared with MSNBC’s Chris Jansing at the Vatican before Pope Francis’s funeral. But Jansing stunned the fake Irishman, pathetic Democratic Presidential nominee and inept Secretary of State under Obama by asking, “You were Secretary of State when Russia annexed Crimea, and I want to ask you…”

“But when they stated they were…” Kerry interrupted.

Oh, right. The Obama position was that Russia really didn’t take over Crimea, it just said it did, because doing so violated “international law,” so occupying the region and refusing to leave doesn’t count. By that logic, Hitler never invaded France.

“When they, when they stated, yeah,” Jansing said, then Kerry insisted, lying as he so frequently does, badly: “We did not allow them to annex it.”

Suuure, John. You hold on to that fantasy. President Obama was asleep at the metaphorical switch, Russia took the region, and Barack’s response consisted of a few weak sanctions. Jansing, endorsed Kerry’s “it isn’t what it is” spin—this is MSNBC, after all—but still pressed Kerry, saying, “Right. But they said that it was theirs.” And Kerry ludicrously replied, “And we stood up against it and called it against international law. Yeah, they said it, but that doesn’t…Under international law, that does not make it theirs.”

See, because Kerry’s State Department and Obama refused to “recognize” Russia’s annexation of Crimea, it wasn’t annexed. Standing up to Russia in Obama-Kerry Land is: Russia: “We’ve got Crimea!” The U.S.: No you don’t!” Russia: “Yes, we really do.” The U.S.: “Uh-uh, not until we say so!” Russia: “How the hell did we lose the Cold War to these bozos?”

The current Ukraine-Russia war is a direct consequence of the weakness projected by Presidents Obama and Biden, and it has cost our treasury billions while destabilizing the region. Kerry, winner of an Ethics Alarms Lifetime Weasel Award, has been an expert at ducking accountability (“I was against the war before I was for it!”) just like the inept (but historic!) President who appointed him Secretary of State despite a lifetime of failure.

MSNBC, amazingly, reminded us. Bravo.