The Rest of the Story: The Brandan Sorsby Debacle Has The Predictable Domino Effect, and Where It Stops, Nobody Knows…

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

In this post I wrote about the dispiriting tale of Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby, an admitted gambling addict whom a ADA-addled judge ruled could not be banned from playing Big 12 football this season. I wrote then,

“The larger issue is what kind of society this will become if the progressive obsession with empathy and forgiveness for all wrongdoing continues on its current path. Sorsby is an addict, not a bad guy! He shouldn’t be prevented from doing what he loves just because his addiction makes him likely to cheat. It isn’t his fault that he has this affliction! And really, aren’t all criminals just addicts or emotionally damaged in some way? They shouldn’t be in prison. This is why “restorative justice” is the only caring way to deal with our fellow human beings who deceive, cheat, rob, and harm us.”

Meanwhile, the loopy decision was throwing all of football into chaos. After the excessively empathetic judge granted a temporary injunction that allowed Sorsby to return to the team with a slap-on-the-wrist two-game suspension, The Big Ten considered a ban on playing Texas Tech altogether. Athletic directors at other schools erupted in anger. Kansas State AD Gene Taylor called the judge’s ruling “fucking bullshit.” “I think there needs to be serious conversations about not playing Texas Tech in any sports,” University of Georgia athletic director Josh Brooks said. “We cannot in good conscience put our student-athletes on a field where the competitive integrity of the contest is compromised and overridden by the courts.”

This month, Sorsby came to his senses and Texas Tech finally realized the school, its reputation and its athletic program would suffer more than any quarterback was worth if he wasn’t gone. Sorsby dropped his lawsuit against the NCAA and opted to enter the NFL Supplemental Draft, ending his Texas Tech affiliation. But yesterday the NFL announced that it was cancelling its 2026 supplemental draft, and that the decision was entirely because of Sorsby,. The NFL doesn’t wantito have to deal with the controversy. As of now, however, the player is still eligible for the 2027 NFL draft.

The gambling in sports pathogen is not going away, and will continue to spread because of greed, stupidity and the fact that most of the people running collegiate and professional sports, especially football and basketball, have no ethics alarms at all.

Snap Ethics Reactions To The Morning Headlines

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

1. Never mind! Elon Musk isn’t a trillionaire any more. Does that mean that all of the vile characterizations of him don’t apply any more? If you base your attacks on him on that label, aren’t you obligated to retract them when it no longer applies? If not, doesn’t that prove that the alleged basis for your attacks was a dishonest pretense?

2. So all of the New York communists won in last night’s primaries. New York City is doomed, and the only question is whether the evidence will be out there in time for Independents and non-brain-dead Democrats to smell the smoke. Based on some frightening polls, however, it seems like the last few decades of leftist indoctrination in the public schools and universities have yielded this metaphorical poison fruit. Lazy and complacent conservatives, Republicans and parents allowed this to happen right in front of them. They were all irresponsible citizens, and whether it is too late to reverse the disastrous trend is open to debate.

3. Wait, what? Did those headline like the New York Times “40 People Drown in France Amid Scorching Temperatures” puzzle you? They puzzled me. There’s a basic causation fallacy here. It wasn’t the heat that caused those deaths, it was people being foolish and jumping into rivers when they should have taken a cold shower or just endured the discomfort. “Among the fatalities was a 13-year-old girl who had gone for a dip with her family in the River Seine at Fontaine-La Port on Sunday evening, although she did not know how to swim” is one of the tales.

Pages: 1 2

There Is So Much About This Story I Don’t Understand Except For The Basics…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

…which is that this woman should never have been hired to fill a responsible position, and deserved to be fired.

Angie Báez, 40, was caught on video emptying a full special New York Knicks public trash can on the street during the Knicks championship parade and then stealing it. This was all caught on camera, as was the idiot on the subway as she brought her souvenir home, grinning happily…

She was the Executive Director of Community and Industry Engagement for Card and Connected Commerce at JPMorgan Chase, but is no more. The bank’s leadership investigated the incident after the pictures hit the web. A bank spokesperson told the media, “This employee is no longer with the company.” Good.

Still, I don’t understand what the woman was thinking. She made a mess, and stole city property. The amazing arrogance and sense of selfishness behind such public behavior is hard to comprehend, as is the fact that such a creep could get hired in a succession of executive positions. She previously served as Executive Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at New York-based review website The Infatuation, which Chase acquired as part of its expansion into lifestyle and experiential content. Earlier in her career, Báez worked as Diversity & Inclusion Program Lead at Squarespace and also held positions as diversity and inclusion chief at Saks Fifth Avenue, Hudson’s Bay, and Saks Off 5th.

What does a DEI executive do? What qualifies someone for such a job? Professional discrimination experience? Baez also co-founded a queer and black, indigenous and people of color-owned talent agency. That figures, I guess. Her bio on The Infatuation’s website says that “dedication to making a positive impact shines through in every aspect of her work…Angie’s efforts have helped position [The Infatuation] as a trailblazer in the pursuit of a more equitable and relatable food media industry….As a vibrant mosaic of Dominican heritage, Bronx roots, and a passion for storytelling, creativity, and culture, Angie continues to lead the way towards a more inclusive and equitable future for food media, leaving an indelible mark on The Infatuation and everything she touches.”

Like that trashcan, I guess.

There is a sense of entitlement that the whole DEI delusion creates within people who are not as special as everyone keeps telling them they are. Baez decided it was okay for her to steal city property because 1) she is a Knicks fan, 2) is “of color,” 3) is represented by one of the letters LGBTQ and 4) is a “vibrant mosaic of Dominican heritage, Bronx roots, and a passion for storytelling, creativity, and culture.” She dumped trash on the street and stole the receptacle while bystanders watched. No shame, no sense of embarrassment.

Nobody in her career noticed the character deficiencies that were behind this conduct, or did they just not care? I don’t understand…

Ethics Quiz: “The View”

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

The recent visit of Vice-President J.D. Vance to “The View,” one of the rare occasions when the panel of ignorant, Trump-Deranged women deigned to host a non-progressive that they weren’t ready to drool over, brought into sharp focus what is so wrong with the ABC “news” program. Here are “highlights” from that episode on June 16. Note the thoroughly professional and even-handed attitude of the “news commentators”:

[Vice President J.D. Vance was beginning to answer a question from co-host Sara Haines]

ANA NAVARRO: And you actually say in the book – You talk about this. You talk about this struggle in the book.

VP J.D. VANCE: I do. Of course.

NAVARRO: You talk about moral tradeoffs that result in favoring a strict migration policy without dehumanizing anyone. But listen, over 50 people have died in ICE custody. There are thousands of children, 6,200, that are being held in places like Dilly Detention Center that people that have visited — I don’t know if you have — talk about the subhuman, infrahuman conditions, the lack of clean water, the lack of medical attention, lack of education. I would urge you as a Christian and as a father to visit those detention centers where the children are being held, and make sure that the conditions are up to the values that we hold in this country.

JOY BEHAR: Let him answer.

[Applause]

VANCE: You have thrown a lot at me and I see we have 30 seconds left here, but let me say –

NAVARRO: You are the vice president. You can go long.

VANCE: I’d like to pick up on this theme because I think it’s really important. We do have to strike a balance, of course, between enforcing our laws. We don’t want to dehumanize people. That is the balance. Look, law enforcement – What I’d say about this: law enforcement is always inherently not a very pretty process. Especially when you dealing sometimes with violent people, with people who are resisting arrest. Some of the people that I have been told by the media were completely peaceful, have never violated any laws, you look actually look into the record and find out that those people were actually being violent or they did have a criminal record. They had a sex traffic conviction.

SUNNY HOSTIN: The majority people don’t have criminal records, the majority of people that ICE is rounding up and taking out of their homes from their families, they are separating families, they’re using children as bait, the majority are not criminals!

[Applause]

VANCE: But can I respond to that? Guys, let me just say this. Okay. So, you talk about the children. Here’s what I’d say: do we know that during the last administration we had tens of thousands of children who were sex trafficked by the cartels, who were brought into our country in profoundly dangerous and predatory conditions —

HOSTIN: Talk about this administration!

VANCE: But here’s the point, unless you enforce the border, you invite that conduct. You think that our immigration policies are inhuman based on the reporting of one person with a political bias. What I’m telling you is that it’s inhumane –

NAVARRO (interrupting): It’s not one person.

VANCE: – to allow cartels to sex traffic people across our border.

[Crosstalk]

NAVARRO: And you guys have done a great job of closing the border.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Please hold on.

VANCE: I appreciate that.

(…)

[Loud crosstalk as Vance finishes an answer to a question from Goldberg]

GOLDBERG: No, no! Let me do my follow-up! Let me do my follow-up! Because you were talking about people. What did black people do to this administration that has allowed it to really stigmatize folks of color? And you know how hard it is. You have folks of color in your family.

VANCE: Sure.

GOLDBERG: So, when you see things — the Emmitt Till stuff coming down or them doing all kinds of removal of information of black heroes, how do you — how does that sit with you?

VANCE: What exactly are you talking about, Whoopi because you just –

GOLDBERG: I’m talking about –

[Audience reacts negatively]

VANCE: Emmitt Till was the kid –

GOLDBERG: I can tell you —

VANCE: No, no. I want to know what she’s — I want to respond to your actual point.

GOLDBERG: In a lot of the – um

HOSTIN: Museums?

GOLDBERG: Museums –

[Crosstalk]

GOLDBERG: There’s so many. You know, where they’re taking down the actual history that happened in this country. Slavery happened. All kinds of stuff happened. And it seems that it has been very easy for this administration to remove that and also to denigrate black folks who have worked their behinds off to get this American dream. How – I mean, you know better!

[Applause]

VANCE: Let me – So, Sunny, that was actually very helpful intervention because I think the story you are talking about is where allegedly the administration is holding back the appointments of people based on skin color.

HOSTIN: I’m talking about a host of things. I’m talking about black history getting erased from public spaces. Black voter districts are being dismantled. Black leaders are being sidelined from our ranks. Where do Americans of color fit in this vision?! Because it doesn’t seem like we fit!

VANCE: I think, Sunny, my view –

[Applause]

NAVARRO: And if I may, since October of last year there’s been something like 6,668 refugees allowed in the country. All but three were white South Africans.

HOSTIN: South Africans.

VANCE: So, first of all, I’m very skeptical of that number because we have a lot of different immigration pathways in the United States of America. But let me just address Whoopi’s point. Look, first of all, you asked the question; and maybe you don’t believe this coming from me, but I think everybody is welcome in our political coalition. Frankly, even if you didn’t vote for us, everybody is welcome in our country so long as you are an American citizen, with the duties and the legal obligation and rights to be here.

GOLDBERG: Right.

VANCE: But let me just give you an example. Okay, so you say we’re anti-minority or anti-black —

GOLDBERG: NO, I didn’t say that! I asked. See.

VANCE: Okay, fine. Fair. Fair.

GOLDBERG: Don’t start any stuff with me man. Don’t get me in trouble.

[Applause]

Don’t start that stuff with me.

VANCE: I misinterpreted your question.

GOLDBERG: That’s all right.

VANCE: But let me answer your actual question there. What I’m saying, I think — Okay, look at Washington, D.C. One of the most Democratic and one of the blackest – by share of population – blackest cities in the United States of America, has seen a radical decrease in violent crimes and sexual assaults and murders. We have tried to take the crime issue seriously in part because we believe everybody, whether you are black or white or rich or poor, deserves to live in a safe neighborhood.

GOLDBERG: But why was – why does the crime – where does the crime step in? This is not about crime. This is about —

HOSTIN: 300,000 black women lost their jobs!

[Crosstalk]

GOLDBERG: This is about human rights, sir.

VANCE: What you are saying is, we have to do more on the economy.

HOSTIN: And black history has been erased from public spaces!

VANCE: Black history is not erased from public spaces.

HOSTIN: That is true.

VANCE: That is not right.

[Crosstalk]

VANCE: I’m telling you, we celebrate black history. We celebrate all American history in this administration. You guys might be skeptical of this, but I promise you it’s true.

NAVARRO: Can I ask you about a specific piece of black history?

GOLDBERG: He’s gotta – I gotta –

NAVARRO: Do you think the attack on Michelle Obama –

GOLDBERG: I have to go to break! [Claps her hands] ANA, GOD PLEASE!

NAVARRO: – should have been condemned by the White House?

GOLDBERG: We have more with Vice President J.D. Vance when we come back.

Don’t do that!

(…)

VANCE: I do think — in a subtle sometimes, sometimes in a more profound way, I think our country has become more anti-family and more anti-child. It’s harder to travel. It’s harder to go to restaurants.

[Crosstalk]

BEHAR: All right, we only have 10 seconds, do you want –

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Mr. Vice President, we know you grandchild is – or your CHILD is arriving.

VANCE: No grand babies yet.

FARAH GRIFFIN: Not yet. We’re very excited for you and Usha, and we wanted to give you a View onesie!

VANCE: Thank you. I appreciate that. We will put this on. We’ll send you guys the photo.

GOLDBERG: His new book Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith is available now. Scan the QR code on your screen to purchase a copy. And we will be right back.

VANCE: Thank you, guys.

Pages: 1 2

Afternoon Ethics Delights…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I should have included these in this morning’s post…

1. How desperate are Trump Deranged? This bad: a veteran lawyer, scholar and all-around good guy whom I admire and will continue to despite his extreme Trump Derangement symptoms, just wrote on Facebook: “Today’s column by Heather Delaney Reese hits the mark perfectly. The rats are increasingly deserting the Trump moral sinkhole. Not because they’re not rats, but because rats are survivors and they know a sinking ship when they see one.”

Can you guess whom he (and the columnist) is referring to? Yes, it’s Tucker Carlson. He has not been a supporter of Trump for quite a while, and has always been a dishonest, revolting hypocrite and self-serving weasel. It would be hard for me to imagine anyone who would be a worse example to cite in claiming that President Trump’s “moral sinkhole” has cost him or the Republican Party valuable support. Carlson leaving the Republican Party is approximately as much of a blow to the GOP as George Wallace leaving the Democratic Party was in 1968.

Meanwhile, this qualifies as breaking news over at the New York Times: “Images circulated by an activist group reveal bare marble where President Trump’s name once resided. The Kennedy Center previously told a federal judge it had been removed.”

2. Can someone tell me how fake caller IDs being used by robocalls and other pests are legal? I know they are unethical. The same “senior benefit” peddler has called me under false names including “Verizon,” “USMC,” “Department of Agriculture,” and “CVS,” just to name a few.

Pages: 1 2

Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 6/23/26: The Dangers of Pickleball, and More

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Being surrounded by raging, reflecting pool-obsessed people seems to be driving everyone around them nuts as well.

A 47-year-old woman was playing pickleball with a man on May 31 at 10 a.m. when they had an argument over who was supposed to get the ball. Subsequent to the game and the dispute, the woman, a registered nurse, jumped between her adversary and her son, who were arguing over the game and the man’s behavior. She then began throttling the man on the head and face with her racket, ostensibly to “protect her son.” She was charged with using “a weapon that can cause serious bodily injury or death,” which is a felony.

It’s crazy out there and getting crazier. Be careful. If pickleball isn’t safe, what is?

Meanwhile:

1. The rest of the story: As I expected but was hoping to be wrong, the 90% woke members of the legal ethics listserv responded to the same hypothesis I posted here with insults, ridicule, denial and ignorance. I particularly upset the mob when I told an angry California lawyer that he comments on alcoholism indicated that she didn’t know what she was talking about, because she didn’t. (She kept referring to “recovered alcoholics” as if the illness can be cured. It can’t, and everyone educated about the disease, including sufferers, know it.) Another wrote that I was “insulting” and “discriminatory” for even raising the topic, and that she wanted me banned from the listserv. (As we know, censorship is the last refuge of those who are out of facts.) I wasn’t banned, but the group’s president contacted me last night and warned me that I had been “disrespectful” because, for example, I pronounced a group of ethicists metaphorically sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting “Nananana I can’t hear you!” damning. So now the list can insult me and denigrate my position while I am effectively silenced…and that’s what they are doing. The freak-out is because alcoholic lawyers are victims, see, and need to be protected like all other “differently-abled” people. The fact, and it is a fact, that an alcoholic lawyer who does not duly inform clients of their enhanced risks when they retain him is setting those clients up for a potential disaster doesn’t trouble these hypocrites one bit. The myth is that the ethics rules exists to protect the public. They really protect lawyers by creating the illusion that the legal establishment polices its members.

I’ll keep monitoring the listserv to track emerging legal ethics issues, but I’m through trying to stimulate discussion or commenting there.The Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers is overwhelmingly partisan, biased, dominated by California lawyers, and hostile to non-conforming positions.

2. Oh…if you are wondering, alcoholic surgeons are similarly handled in kid-glove ways that reflect denial by the medical profession and that put patients at an unnecessary risk. As with alcoholic lawyers, it is considered cruel and unfeeling to hold that an alcoholic surgeon should not be permitted to practice without being tested for alcohol before every procedure if not being removed from that role completely. If you read carefully, this page makes it clear why alcoholics pose an inherent risk in sensitive jobs: “most addicted physicians have high levels of denial and are usually not receptive to interventions from colleagues.” In other words, they try to cover-up their disability and will often lie. As with all enabling groups like my legal ethics colleagues, the medical professionals deliberately blur the issue by lumping alcoholism in with other addictions. This is in the same class as confounding illegal immigration with immigration, has similar motivations.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Observations on Negative Commentary On The U.S. That A Critic Is Ethically Estopped From Making…

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

…or, “Shut the hell up!”

Ann Althouse today pulled the following quote from “Happy birthday USA. But is America’s revolution unravelling? When the USA turned 200, the nation came together as one. Fifty years on, what are the chances of the same thing happening under Donald Trump? A special series from The Sunday Times Magazine is dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USA”:

“And beneath the bluster, Trump’s limited view of the American Revolution is very familiar… it reflects, like so much else about him, the mainstream culture of the Cold War era, when museums and films did indeed tell a relentlessly upbeat story of American accomplishment — in vivid contrast to the plodding drudgery of communism. The leftist radicals of the 1960s and 1970s dissented noisily from this cozy view, but the majority accepted it unquestioningly. Since then a more extreme view has taken root: those who see the revolution not as the start of an unfinished project but as a fixed source of authority, a 250-year-old set of final answers. But as the US blows out its birthday candles, does it still have the capacity it once had for political renewal, while retaining its founding principles? It is always easier to start revolutions than to end them. This is why so many Americans have believed theirs was superior to others: it had been brought to an elegant conclusion by the constitution of 1787. Americans, it seemed, had escaped the spirals of radicalism and authoritarianism that beset France, or Latin American republics….”

I’m going to take a bit of time off from having to fend off insults, protests and rationalizations from the alleged legal ethicists who are furious at me for raising this issue to point out why I couldn’t be less interested in a Brit’s critique of the U.S.

Althouse summed up one excellent reason concisely with her sole comment on the article: “That’s the London Times. The view from the losing side.” That losing side has seen its empire collapse, its culture overwhelmed and destroyed by unrestrained immigration, the right of free speech trampled, its women brutalized, and its economy disastrously mismanaged while the country stands as a cautionary tale regarding the false promise of socialism. Its Prime Minister just resigned, the sixth leader of the government since the beginning of 2016: a seventh will arrive before the year ends. Meanwhile, its revered royal family is riddled with scandals and embarrassments, for King Charles’ pedophile brother to the obnoxious expats grifting off of their titles in the U.S.

Where does this rotting country get off criticizing us?

Pages: 1 2

Logic, Common Sense and Legal Ethics: The Pro Se Divorcing Lawyer Problem

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I know these technical legal ethics issues don’t interest a lot of readers, but it is my field, and this one is an all-time oldie-but-goodies.

A lawyer is in the midst of a divorce. He represents himself (a “pro se” representation); his wife has a lawyer. In all jurisdictions, Rule 4.2 or its equivalent declares that a lawyer may not meet with an adverse party in a matter without that party’s attorney present unless that counsel has been alerted and consents. The self-representing lawyer meets with his wife, whose attorney hasn’t learned about the meeting.

Is the lawyer-husband violating the rule?

The Supreme Court of Texas held last week that Rule 4.2 (Texas 4.02) does not prohibit a pro se lawyer from communicating directly with opposing party in a divorce . Ruth v Commission on Lawyer Discipline, 2026 WL 1699920. But in Missouri, the recent opinion regarding the exact same issue was the opposite. Here is that whole opinion, Informal Opinion Number: 2026-02, April 21, 2026:

Question:  Lawyer is divorcing Spouse.  Lawyer is pro se in the dissolution.   Spouse is represented by counsel.  Lawyer and Spouse had reached an informal agreement about the division of property before filing the dissolution action.  Lawyer and Spouse continue to reside together while the dissolution is ongoing.   Spouse discussed with Lawyer repairs needed at the marital home and payment for the repairs.  Spouse initiated the conversation.  After Lawyer spoke with Spouse regarding the repairs, Spouse’s lawyer advised Lawyer that all communications concerning the dissolution should be made through Spouse’s lawyer.  As a party, Lawyer believes Lawyer has a right to communicate directly with spouse.  Lawyer bases this belief upon a reading of Rule 4 dash–4.2 and Comment [4] to the Rule.  Rule 4 dash–4.2 prohibits a lawyer who “is representing a client” from directly communicating about the subject of the representation with any other represented party.  Comment [4] to the Rule provides that parties may communicate directly with each other.

  1. Is Lawyer correct in the interpretation of the rule and its comment?  
  2. Is the interpretation the same, regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or Lawyer has engaged counsel to represent Lawyer?

Answer 1:  No, Lawyer’s interpretation is incorrect.  Interpretation of the Rule and Comment [4] require consideration of both the Rule’s plain language and the policy purposes behind the Rule.  The Rule protects a represented person against overreaching by other lawyers, interference with the client-lawyer relationship, and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation.  See Comment [1] to Rule 4 dash–4.2.  Direct communications between a represented party and a pro se lawyer create the same risks that Rule 4 dash–4.2 was designed to prevent.  So, the pro se Lawyer is considered “self-representing” or, i.e., “representing a client,” and direct communication with the spouse regarding the dissolution is prohibited.  See Informal Opinion 2011 dash–03.  This is true even if Spouse initiated or consented to the communication.  See Comment [3] to Rule 4 dash–4.2.

Answer 2: The same risks exist with direct communications for the represented party regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or has counsel. Consequently, Rule 4 dash–4.2 prohibits direct communication between the parties unless counsel for the parties consent to direct communications or the communication is authorized by law or court order.

The consensus among legal ethicists is that the Texas approach makes sense and the Missouri version does not. A spouse in the midst of a divorce should not be prohibited from talking things out with his partner if she consents just because he happens to have a law degree. The non-lawyer party can always say refuse the meeting. I would add, however, that best practice is for the pro se lawyer to advise his spouse to check with her attorney before agreeing to the meeting.

Are you with Texas or Missouri, or me?

The Kennedy Center and the Reflecting Pool: If You Really Think These Are Worth Protesting, You Suffer From….

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

You know how to finish that headline.

I’m trying to think back on whether any President was so hectored, attacked and criticized over matters as tangential to Presidential performance in office as Donald Trump regarding these two “scandals.” I rank both of these on the level of Harry Truman criticizing the Washington Post music critic who criticized his daughter Margaret’s singing: fodder for future Presidential trivia and oddities, but ultimately non-substantive.

So why did former CNN full-time partisan anti-Trump agent Jim Acosta go into raptures over the removal of Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center’s front, “This is very much like watching the Berlin Wall coming down. It is a sign that mankind, humankind can stand up against tyranny“? Because, dear friends, these sad, confused, hysterical people have lost all sense of proportion and reason. As I have had to point out on EA too many times already for such a silly episode, the President’s take-over of the Kennedy Center was petty, vindictive, intentionally obnoxious (aka “trolling”) and gave his worst enemies a metaphorical stick to beat him with. But it was also an act that literally had no impact on matters concerning the American public, since it involved an elitist art venue unaffordable or inaccessible to all but about .0001% of Americans, and is an aging, excessive monument to the second most over-rated U.S. President in U.S. history (the first being Barack Obama).

One wag on X responded, “I missed the time when people were SHOT DEAD trying to get into the Kennedy Center for 40 years. What a clown.” That clown was permitted to be CNN’s official representative at White House press briefings for Trump’s entire first term! If that isn’t a smoking gun regarding the state of our mainstream media’s objectivity, I don’t know what is. The Trump Deranged are so crazed that they get ecstatic over the slightest foiling of any Trump project, policy or initiative, big or small, wise or foolish, right or wrong. These are lives whose values are governed by the cognitive dissonance scale, which is emotional, not rational. It has been suggested in jest that Trump louse up Democratic primaries by endorsing the Democrats he wants to see lose. It’s a great idea. Democrats and progressives are so batty that it would work.

And then there is the Reflecting Pool.

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Quote of the Week: Bob Greene, Board Chair for Rocky Mountain PBS

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

“A nice stroke that turns him into a drooling, pooping blob in a wheelchair unable to speak.”

——Bob Greene, Chairman of the Board of Rocky Mountain PBS, on the station’s X account when asked about his birthday wish for President Trump, who turned 80 last week,

Nice! On the Rocky Mountain PBS website, Greene is described as “an experienced senior executive with over 35 years in sales, marketing and operations in the entertainment, interactive and broadband industries” who is “responsible for developing new revenue platforms and partnerships that leverage and enhance the global scale of Liberty.”

Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! Responding to this pure verbal hate, a spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Public Media said that it had “only recently become aware of this post in question” and that it violates their social media guidelines, which state that “Personal views and political positions should be kept separate from the station’s content, and should not appear on any RMPM-operated platform or dedicated page/stream” and ” that “when using the internet or social media in your personal life, please make it clear and conspicuous that all of your statements are on your own behalf and are not RMPM’s. Disclaimers such as ‘opinions are my own’ should be used whenever appropriate.” And Greene’s post magically disappeared.

But the official disclaimer doesn’t change the fact that the individual at the top of the station’s management pyramid felt comfortable posting his vile opinion because it was completely consistent with the bias and toxic culture at the station. Hiding that kind of deranged hate doesn’t solve the problem of programming being filtered through such attitudes and such irresponsible leadership.

The episode serves as a vivid reminder of how much NPR and PBS deserved to have their Federal Funding eliminated. I had another discussion with a Trump Deranged friend who was bemoaning the loss of the two Leftist propaganda organs, which bring essential services to remote rural communities, or so the story goes. All NPR and PBS had to do was be fair, objective and non-partisan to have a strong argument that they performed an important function for the public regardless of citizens’ political affiliations. They couldn’t do it. They allowed themselves to be co-opted and dominated by progressives and Democrats who proved unable to restrain their objective of using NPR and PBS to advance a partisan agenda and to indoctrinate listeners. Greene openly expressed that bias, which he was supposed to keep under wraps like the rest of the staff. Yet the NPR and PBS broadcasts are evidence enough.

These people have such contempt for the intelligence of Americans,

Exit Question: Has any previous POTUS been the object of such unrestrained verbal calumny?