‘Why Kerry, It Profit a Kennedy Nothing To Betray a Brother For the Whole World. . . But For Joe Biden?’

/ Jack Marshall / 36 Comments

Kerry Kennedy, one of RFK’s gazillion offspring, is proving that not only does bias make you stupid, bias plus Trump Derangement makes you a lousy sister.

She has allowed herself to be co-opted by the Biden campaign to undermine her own brother’s maverick Presidential run. It is planning on using Kerry Kennedy and other family members to condemn RFK Jr. in swing states if he makes it onto their ballots (despite the DNC’s conscerted efforts to block him. You know: democracy!) “I’ve told the Biden campaign that I’ll campaign wherever they want me to go,” she told the New York Times. For its part, the campaign says, “We’re honored to have the Kennedys’ support, and we look forward to working with them to spread the message on the campaign trail about how the president is carrying on the Kennedy legacy,” in the words of Lauren Hitt, a campaign spokeswoman.

How exactly would Joe Biden carry on “the Kennedy legacy”? Youth and vigah? Dazzling exchanges with reporters? Throbbing charisma? Bedding young women instead of just sniffing them? Exciting oratory? Solidarity with campus protests? Maybe Hitt means the legacy of Joe Kennedy Sr. when he was a doddering fixer for his scandal-addicted sons.

Continue reading →

Well, At Least He Didn’t Get Shot: Observations On An Unethical Confrontation On All Sides

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Reginald Burks’ vehicle was pulled over for speeding in Alabama last December as he was driving his two children to school. The officer told Burks that he had exceeded the speed limit, but when Burks asked how fast he was going, the officer said he wasn’t sure because his radar gun was broken. He told the motorist that he had used his cruise control to estimate the speed.

Burks replied that the officer “ was full of crap” because he didn’t believe the cop could clock a car’s speed by cruise control. The officer gave him the ticket anyway, and was standing stood in front of Burks’ car. Burks said he asked the officer “politely at least twice” to get out of the way; the officer told Burks to go around him.

So Burks said, “Get your ass out of the way, so I can take my kids to school. That’s why y’all underpaid because y’all act dumb!”

Oh, good one.

Burks has already paid more than $200 to resolve the speeding ticket. A judge, however, has ordered him to apologize to the police officer in writing, and Burks refuses, calling it compelled speech and a First Amendment violation. Judge Nicholas Bull of the Ozark Municipal Court in Alabama says he’ll put Burks in jail for up to 30 days if he continues to refuse to write the ordered mea culpa letter.

As EA”s periodic columnist Curmie might say, “Oh bloody hell!”

1. Let’s assume arguendo that Burks was speeding. With kids in the car, that is unacceptable—it’s unacceptable without kids in the car. Speeding justified the officer pulling the car over. If his radar gun was broken, depending on the speed, a ticket might be successfully challenged in court. Maybe the officer was just going to issue a warning…until the driver decided to argue with him.

2. It’s unethical to use the process as the punishment, which is what the cop would be doing if he knew cruise control pacing would not stand up in traffic court. (I have no idea if it would in Alabama: it wouldn’t in Alexandria.)

3. It’s bad citizenship to escalate a police stop by telling an officer he’s “full of crap.” Citizens should treat police with respect, even when they are mistaken, or even full of crap. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? Or teach children before they become adults (or juvenile delinquents)?

4. By standing in front of the car, the officer was engaging in conduct I have experienced myself: deliberately inconveniencing a driver to “teach him a lesson.” That conduct is also unethical and unprofessional. It is also daring a motorist to misbehave.

5. OK, the cop was being an asshole. It doesn’t matter: that doesn’t justify Burks’ shifting into full asshole mode himself. Police officers should be treated with respect and civility because of the institution and mission they represent.

6. What a dangerous lesson Burks was teaching his children! He should apologize to them.

7. Burks is correct, however: a judge has no power to demand that a citizen say or write anything. Burks is willing to spend money on lawyer fees and go to jail to fight for this principle. The sound of one hand clapping for that: the judge shouldn’t order him to apologize, but Burks should want to apologize voluntarily.

8. So should the police officer.

Did I neglect to mention that Burks is black and the officer is white? Silly me. Yet why should that change the analysis here?

My exit question: How many lives would be saved if black Americans resolved to obey police orders and instructions (let’s forget about obeying the law for now) without incivility, hostility and resistance regardless of the circumstances?

Ick, Unethical, or Illegal? The Fake Scarlet Johanssen Problem

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

This is one of those relatively rare emerging ethics issues that I’m not foolhardy enough to reach conclusions about right away, because ethics itself is in a state of flux, as is the related law. All I’m going to do now is begin pointing out the problems that are going to have to be solved eventually…or not.

Of course, the problem is technology. As devotees of the uneven Netflix series “Black Mirror” know well, technology opens up as many ethically disturbing unanticipated (or intentional) consequences as it does societal enhancements and benefits. Now we are all facing a really creepy one: the artificial intelligence-driven virtual friend. Or companion. Or lover. Or enemy.

This has been brought into special focus because of an emerging legal controversy. OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT, debuted a seductive version of the voice assistant last week that sounds suspiciously like actress Scarlett Johansson. What a coinkydink! The voice, dubbed “Sky” evoked the A.I. assistant with whom the lonely divorcé Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) falls in love with in the 2013 Spike Jonze movie, “Her,” and that voice was performed by…Scarlett Johansson.

Continue reading →

An “Authority” Looks Foolish Now For Declaring “Monty Python” Unfunny 50 Years Ago…Prof. Jeremy Mayer of George Mason Says “Hold My Beer!”

/ Jack Marshall / 95 Comments

It was Prof. Mayer’s head-exploding op-ed for USA Today that made me start thinking about how often alleged “authorities” stick their whole legs down their own throats. Unlike the late Cleveland Amory’s misfire regarding the Pythons, Mayer’s “expert” analysis of the current 2024 Presidential election scenario qualifies as malpractice, an abuse of authority triggered by an epic case of the Bias Makes You Stupid Disease. It is also another of what promises to be an accelerating stampede of panicked outbursts from the Trump Deranged in the news media and academia.

The headline signals this guy’s lack of perspective and objectivity immediately: “How Biden Can Save America From Trump’s Return To The White House: Drop Out of the Race.” The claim that Trump is an existential danger to democracy is a dishonest, despicable Democratic party talking point concocted on the theory that fear-mongering is the party’s best chance. It did the same thing in 2016, you may recall: I’ll never forget speaking with a formerly rational lawyer friend in Massachusetts who was near tears after the election, terrified for her year-old baby’s future, certain that the Orange Devil would start World War III. Funny: in four years, Trump didn’t get the U.S involved in any wars at all. Biden, however…

The screed continues with equally batty analysis, denial and gaslighting:

Continue reading →

Historical Note: Why It’s A Mistake To Automatically Assume Authorities Aren’t Completely Wrong

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

That old TV Guide review of the then new-to-America “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” was recently posted on “Twitter/X” by conservative writer and commentator John Podhoretz. He implied in his tweet that he didn’t know who Cleveland Amory was, but I do (John’s ten years younger than me). Amory is not just an obscure critic from the murky past: in the Sixties into the Seventies, Amory was a famous writer, critic, media personality and animal rights activist, a ubiquitous public intellectual whose pronouncements were frequently accepted as invaluable contributions to public wisdom because of their source.

These days, I would assume any pundit who chose an image of himself smoking a pipe was a pompous ass, but back then my father smoked one (though never in public) so that bias had yet to be fully formed. Nor was I quite as contemptuous of critics then as I am now, having watched a series of ignorant and biased Washington Post theater reviewers marginalize my professional theater company for 20 years on the theory that no stage work produced before 1990 had anything useful to say to the enlightened and politically sophisticated.

Continue reading →

Worse Than A Mere “Unethical Quote,” Lawrence O’Donnell’s Rationalization For Theft Marks Him As An Ethics Corrupter

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has all sorts of red flags in his resume. He went to Harvard for one thing, and describes himself as a “European socialist.” At Harvard you can’t major in journalism: you work on the daily paper, The Crimson. O’Donnell didn’t do that: he wrote for the fake news satirical student publication, the Lampoon. O’Donnell became an openly biased and agenda-driven MSNBC news anchor by making TV contacts while writing scripts for TV’s imaginary leftist nirvana White House fantasy, “The West Wing.” Later he was Keith Olberman’s stand-in on MSNBC, which should tell you all you need to know.

And yet…much as I fart in his general direction, as he personifies just how vile MSNBC is and just how self-lobotomizing anyone is who uses it to get their “news,” I am shocked at the degraded character and shame-free embrace of ethical relativism O’Donnell displayed yesterday.

The big news coming out of the “Get Trump!” fiasco in Manhattan was that the prosecution’s star witness Michael Cohen, already a disbarred lawyer and a convicted perjurer, further enhanced his credibility by admitting that he had stolen $30,000 from his employer and client, Donald Trump. Here is how O’Donnell described it:

Continue reading →

When Does “Correcting” a Presidential Speech Transcript Become Unethical?

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Mediaite, a political website that has an interesting approach to bias—about 80% of its writers are mouth-foaming progressive, Trump-loathing propagandists, but it mixes in a few neutral and conservative reporters for contrast—revealed that the White House made an unusual number of significant alterations to the official transcript of President Biden’s recent speech to the NAACP.

At the very beginning of the speech, Biden said that President Obama had sent him to Detroit during the “pandemic.” (“When I was Vice President, things were kinda bad during the pandemic…”) ““Pandemic” was changed to “recession” in the White House transcript. Biden then told the NAACP he was “humbled to receive this organization.” No, he hadn’t been given the whole organization, just an award from it. The White House crossed out “organization” in the transcript and corrected it with “award.”

Biden said, “We’re cracking down on corporate landlords who keep rents down,” which was the opposite of what he intended to say, or so we are told. “We’re cracking down on corporate landlords to keep rents down” the White House changed the transcript to state as Biden’s message. Biden also called those who took part in the Capitol rioting “erectionists” which was changed to “insurrectionists.”

Continue reading →

When Ethics Alarms Ring Too Late…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Ugh. On a truly awful day, waking up from a nap I couldn’t take time for but was unavoidable because I was non-functional, I suddenly realized, almost four hours too late, what was the ethical reaction to a situation I encountered earlier.

Today was another day of the sort I have had too often since Grace died: pressured from the opening gun, discovering a festering problem, being trapped in automated phone, consumer assistance, oppressive technology Hell, falling further behind on essential deadlines I cannot afford to fall behind on, and in the midst of it all, dealing with a needy dog. When I reached lunch late (after skipping breakfast), I just couldn’t bear the thought of another serving of left-overs or another tuna sandwich. I decided that I would indulge myself and splurge on an extravagance, or what counts as one in this humiliating chapter of what I laughingly call my life: I would get a “yummy”—sort of— fast food lunch. Not any place good, mind you, like Wendy’s, KFC or Grace’s favorite, Popeyes. Definitely not McDonald’s…but I could still get a few crispy tacos for under 10 bucks at Taco Bell. It was after the lunch rush, too, so even though it was a 10-15 minute drive to the place, it wouldn’t be too much wasted productive time: my “lunch hour” would take just 45 minutes, only a little but more than I typically allow myself.

I pulled into the short line at “the Bell”‘s drive-thru, got one car, then another, then another behind me, and the line just stopped. When I reached the speaker, a woman started to take my order, then said, “I’m sorry, please wait!” and disappeared for 10 minutes. Then she came back, said “I’m sorry!” again, and disappeared again. Finally I put in my order, noticing that the price for the three lousy tacos was now over ten dollars but it was impossible to back out.

It took almost 30 minutes more to get my food. Under different circumstances I would have just left, but I was starving, and I was also trapped in line; the cars behind me were honking. When I got up to the window, I was unrestrained in my annoyance, beginning, “Wait, was I mistaken? Isn’t this “fast food?” An obviously distessed woman in some kind of Islamic attire said, “I’m so sorry, I’m so sorry! I’m the only one here, and I’m serving the counter, taking the orders on the mic and handling the carry-out! I’m sorry!”

I finally got my (overpriced )lunch, resolving I would not have this “treat” again, and paid her saying, “They need to pay you more!” and pulled over to eat before the tacos got cold. By the time I returned home, my carefully planned 45 minute lunch hour had taken an hour and a half. The whole experience made me feel stupid, inefficient, and broke. I tried to do something productive, but the bed beckoned.

When I woke up, I immediately realized that I should have given that poor woman a ten buck tip. I almost drove back, but it was getting to rush hour, and the way my days have been going, she would probably have ended her shift.

Failure all around. Crap.

“Stop Making Me Defend Justice Alito!”—The Stupid Sequel

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I can’t believe the Axis is still running with the ridiculous attack on Justice Alito because his house had an upside-down flag flying after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. I’m this close to resigning from the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers because so many members—about 75% of the organization is Trump-Deranged—are trying to support the claim that the episode represents “an appearance of impropriety” requiring the Justice to recuse from cases involving the election, trump, or future elections.

Ann Althouse somehow dredged up this follow up by a silly substacker named Chris Geidner who claims to be an “award-winning journalist.’ People actually pay to read what this idiot writes? Clearly, I’m doing something wrong….

Continue reading →

Florida’s Unethical Ban on Under 21-Year-Old Strippers

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed HB 7063 which raises the age limit for performers and other employees of adult entertainment establishments—you know, strip clubs— from 18 to 21. DeSantis claims this legislation will “combat human trafficking.” Baloney. It is pure grandstanding, pandering to his supporters who object to sex shows generally on moral grounds, and more to the point, it is unethical age discrimination.

The issue is simple: are 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds adult citizens with all the rights of adult citizens, or aren’t they? (Hint: they are.) Since they are, there is no justification for a state telling them that there are activities, occupations and modes of expression that they cannot engage in until they are 21.

Continue reading →