Friday Open Forum!

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

The tweet above exemplifies one of the lessons of today’s sordid, multi-level ethics scandal (as in “the people involved have none”), andwhich is too rich to ignore. Let me comment briefly and then you write about any ethics issues that interest you, as usual.

New York magazine’s high-profile Washington correspondent Olivia Nuzzi is on leave—she’d better be fired, but in today’s journalism, conflicts of interest are no big deal— after admitting to a romantic relationship with (married) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. while covering his campaign. RFK Jr.’s Wife #3 isto Hollywood actress Cheryl Hines; Nuzzi was engaged to Politico reporter and collaborator Ryan Lizza until recently. 

What an incestuous and untrustworthy cabal our political, media and entertainment elites have! But you knew that already, I hope…

Conservative pundit Stephen Miller couldn’t resist tweeting, “I know a lot of people are dunking on @Olivianuzzi right now over the whole Kennedy thing, but as a friend, I’m just thankful that she’s not drowning in the backseat of a car right now.”

Mean. But funny!

Carry on….

You Laugh, But This Tells Us a Lot About China

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

When I saw the story above last night, what I foolishly call my mind raced to two other related matters. One was the failed pseudo-sequel to “A Fish Called Wanda,” “Fierce Creatures,” in which the entire cast of the earlier, far superior comedy reunited to perform a John Cleese screenplay about a corrupt zoo-owner who, among other schemes, tries to pass off a mechanical panda as the real thing. The other was this story….

…from 2011.

Continue reading →

“The Sopranos” Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

HBO has been running a documentary about “The Sopranos”‘creator David Chase. I rewatched his series recently: I wouldn’t call it an ethics drama, for the ethical issues are pretty clear in every episode with the possible exception of the psychiatry ethics conflicts involved in treating a gangster. That, however, is very much a tangential plot line. The series, all seven seasons, is exactly as excellent as its reputation, and Chase, as the creator and show-runner, deserves all the accolades he has received. I just wish he hadn’t stooped to the cheap and typical woke-speak that “The Sopranos” is about America, capitalism, and its decaying “dream.” Ah well. He lives in Hollywood, so I shouldn’t expect anything different.

But I digress…

As Chase talks about the series, however, a stunning fact reveals itself: he doesn’t understand his own creation, particularly from an ethical and psychological perspective. Chase keeps describing his central character, Tony Soprano, as a “bad guy,” “a monster,” and “a sociopath.” Yet the entire premise of the show is that Tony isn’t a sociopath, but a man trapped by his family background, culture and socialization into a lifestyle that only a sociopath can flourish in, and Tony has a conscience. This is why he keeps having panic attacks and is clinically depressed, and why seeks the help of a therapist. It is why he gets emotionally upset about the mistreatment of dogs and horses, and in many cases, the people he is responsible for killing.

Continue reading →

The Teamsters: Saving Democracy By Being Undemocratic

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

…you know, like rest of the Establishment Left.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, one of the US’s largest and most powerful labor unions, declined to endorse a candidate for President. This was widely seen as a rebuke of Kamala Harris, but it also revealed the hypocrisy and ethics rot at the union’s core (and, sad to say, most unions’ cores). The Teamsters, as usual, polled members on their Presidential preferences prior to making an endorsement. The September telephone poll showed 58% of Teamsters members supporting Republican candidate Donald Trump, and 31% said they support Harris. Too close to call? The union justified its decision by citing major political divides among its membership and dissatisfaction with each candidate’s stances on key union priorities; I call BS. Is there any doubt that if the numbers had been reversed, the Teamsters would have endorsed Harris and pointed to a nearly 2-1 polling result to justify their decision?

Continue reading →

Once Again I Have To Point Out That “Imagine” Is Not Ethical Policy

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

I hate to pick on well-intentioned commentary from the resident Ethics Alarms Reasonable Cephalopod, but so be it: I can’t let this pass. Several commenters were lining up to defend this bit of circular argle-bargle from Kamala Harris yesterday:

There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. That there be an ability to have security in the region, for all concerned, in a way that we create stability, and—let us all also recognize—in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability in the region.”

Extradimensional Cephalopod, as always trying to arbitrate, wrote, “Jack, if we separate the statement from the person saying it, the statement itself is fine. It’s a statement of the ideal outcome.”

Continue reading →

Gee, I Wonder Why the Public Is Losing Trust In The Justice System….

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

I am heading to Richmond to do a three hour legal ethics seminar, and in my preparation, I ran across this depressing story. The seminar is called “Legal Ethics Unmasked,” and man oh man, has watching lawyers, prosecutors and judges reveal the creeps beneath been disillusioning.

The ABA headline was certainly clickbait: “Judge settles suit accusing lawyer of threatening to release her intimate photos in bid to scuttle deposition.”

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunces: Rob McElhenney, Kaitlin Olson and the Hacks Who Wrote Their Material For The Emmys

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I usually ignore the Emmys unless something especially egregious happens on this perpetually unexciting and predictable awards show. Even the current topic, the rude and unfunny jibes of two C-list show-biz types at the expense of Meryl Streep during the latest installment, isn’t a big deal, just a provocative one prompting several ethics musings on the state of American culture and society.

Presenting the award for outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series ( Streep was a nominee) Rob McElhenney and wife Kaitlin Olson engaged in this scripted banter:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quiz: Sympathy For Really Stupid Accident Victims”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Sarah B.’s COTD on the ethics quiz regarding the ethical amount of sympathy due a 15-year-old girl who probably crippled herself for life by trying “car surfing” is , as her commentary usually is, clear and in need of no introduction from me. So here it is….

***

I don’t necessarily like blaming this on social media. I think that is putting the blame in the wrong place.

When I was in high school, a kid I had been in school with since first grade made a dumb choice. He killed two women by driving recklessly. At sixteen, he was tried as an adult and went to prison for two counts of vehicular manslaughter. I’m calling him Sam.

While no one can truly understand another’s reasoning, for those of us who knew him his whole life, the reasons for doing what he did were fairly obvious. Sam was one of two fatherless boys raised by their mom and grandma. The grandma, especially, did an okay job trying to raise him, putting him in the Catholic school, and holding to the old time values of respecting your teacher, ladies, etc. However, he never really managed to fit in with the other boys. In order to gain attention and acceptance, he willingly enacted whatever crazy idea the other boys conceived. Maybe it was bullying a girl. Maybe it was doing some silly prank. I was the target of a serious prank that was traced back to him when I was in fifth grade. He was in deep trouble and only avoided expulsion because Sister knew that this would never have come only from him. So when there was a rumor running around that if you drove down X road at Y mph, you could jump the main highway 3 miles east of town, it was logical that Sam would be pushed into trying it out. And try it out he did, with some of his fellows in the car. During third period, he T-boned two old ladies at the junction of X road and the highway at over 100 miles an hour.

Continue reading →

When You Are Running For President, I Suspend the Julie Principal…

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

Kamala Harris’s tendency to answer questions with circular, redundant nonsense, known around Ethics Alarms as “Authentic Frontier Gibberish” in honor of “Blazing Saddles'” Gabby Johnson, was mostly left alone during the last four years due to the application of the “Julie Principle.” The Julie Principle comes into play when an undesirable or annoying  characteristic or behavior pattern in a person or organization appears to be hard-wired and part of their essence.  In judging such a person or entity, it is useful to keep the lyrics of Julie’s song from “Show Boat” (“Can’t Help Lovin’ That Man O’ Mine,” lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein Jr., music by Jerome Kern) firmly in mind, when she sings…Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…I’ve gotta love that man til I die…Can’t help lovin’ that man of mine! To constantly harp on something the individual can’t change ultimately becomes pointless and cruel, and hence unethical.

When one is a major party’s nominee for President, however, Julie Principle privileges must be suspended. When one is a nominee for President who was spared the vetting, competitive nomination process, debates and primaries every other major party nominee has been required to conquer for almost 200 years, Julie Principle privileges really have to be suspended. And when your strategy is to try to avoid as many unscripted, competent and unbiased interviews as possible before election day so voters will know as little as possible about you, Julie Principle privileges really, really, really have to be suspended.

Thus we must ponder how Harris responded to a question at a National Association of Black Journalists panel discussion yesterday, before an audience strongly inclined to support her. Moderator Tanya Mosley of Philadelphia radio station WHYY asked the elevated Veep where she draws “the line between” Israel’s “aggression and defense” in the Israel-Hamas war.

Harris began by saying there was “a lot to unpack” in the question (Translation: “Huminahumina…”) then said that the Jewish state “has a right to defend itself.” Since Mosley was obviously asking how Harris squares that mantra with her demand that there be an “immediate and permanent cease fire,” she pressed Harris for a real answer. And the real answer was…

“No, no, let me finish! It’s important to put it in context, which is what I’m doing, and I’ll get to that. There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. That there be an ability to have security in the region, for all concerned, in a way that we create stability, and—let us all also recognize—in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability in the region.”

Oh.

This is called “faking it,” and not very well at that.

Musings on the “Unethical Quote of the Month” by MSNBC Columnist Steve Brenen

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

“[T]he Trump campaign seriously expects people to believe that Democrats are the “party of violence,” which is among the most ridiculous claims Team Trump has ever made.”

—-MSNBC columnist and producer/constributor to “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Steve Brenen.

I’m not going to dignify that “It isn’t what it is” piece of flagrant hyper- partisan gaslighting with a rebuttal or a debunking. If it isn’t obvious why that statement is deranged, there’s not much an ethics blog can do for you. (You might need a brain transplant.)

The statement, which just came to my attention, knocked a related post out of line by its sheer defiance of reality and the writer’s evident confidence that his addled readers would accept it. Wow. I would hope that you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who could both read and would be that incapable of critical thought. The real number is in the millions.

I was going to write about bitter, old, foiled but still raging ethics villain Hillary Clinton, who told fellow ethics villain Maddow yesterday that Donald Trump was a “danger to our country and the world” less than 24 hours after the second attempt on Trump’s life this year. Heck, it’s just self-defense to try to kill someone or something —you know, like Godzilla—that’s a danger to the country and the world. Everybody knows that!

“Americans need to understand that they have to take Trump both seriously and literally,” she told the ever-smirking Maddow. “He has said what he wants to do. He and his allies with Project 2025, his desire to be a dictator, at least on day one, all of that is in the public record. And I believe that more Americans have to be, you know, willing to endure what frankly is discomforting and to some extent kind of painful, to take him at his word and to be outraged by what he represents. We can’t go back and give this very dangerous man another chance to do harm to our country and the world,” she added.

I have considerable sympathy for Hillary, as I’ve written here before. I can’t imagine what it must be like to lose the Presidency after winning the popular vote, and to become a historical footnote like Samual Tilden because of one’s own stupid choices (like her super-secret server and the decision to stonewall about it rather than just to say, “Yeah, that was wrong. Sorry.”) It would have been nice if she had the character to take those metaphorical lemons and make yummy lemonade, but she has chosen to use them to make acid bombs (and book deals) instead. Too bad.

It also is too bad Hillary can’t elevate her conduct above even lower forms of Democrat Party life like Biden and Kamala by avoiding outright anti-Trump Big Lies, but she’s not up to that either. She actually resorted to that hoary claim that Trump promised to be a dictator because he told Sean Hannity that he would “only be a dictator on Day One”, when he would “dictate” that we close the border and “drill, drill, drill.” That one’s right there next to the “fine people” lie and the others.

I expect better lies from Hillary. Bill needs to coach her.

Other thoughts…

Continue reading →