Morning Ethics Warm-Up. 10/9/18: Ecstatic Because The Red Sox Clobbered The Yankees 16-1 Edition

GOOOD Morning!

1. Unwritten and incoherent rules…During last night’s ALDS Game #3 between the Yankees and Red Sox, won by Boston by the historic score of 16-1, color man Ron Darling, former pitcher and Yale grad, repeatedly alluded to “unwritten rules” that the Red Sox either were or were not observing. Bad, said Ron: a Sox player stealing second when the score was 10-1. Bad: A Sox player swinging away when the count was three balls, no strikes. (Darling: “I’d find that offensive.”) Good: a Sox base-runner at third not scoring when his team was ahead 15-1 and the ball bounced away from the Yankee first baseman. (“A veteran move,” said Darling.) Acceptable: when the same runner eventually did run home when the pitcher threw the ball past the catcher to the backstop. Darling’s concern was the observance of the  professional courtesy not to try to embarrass an adversary once the game was clearly out of reach.

My view: it’s nonsense. The obligations of both teams is to play their hardest at all times, regardless of the score. That means doing nothing different whether one’s team is winning 5-4 or 10-1. On baseball, no game is certain until the final out. Not only have I seen a team lose a game after leading 10-0, I’ve seen the Red Sox do it. What would completely humiliate any team is losing after having such a huge lead, but no “unwritten rule” says that it’s offensive for a team in the Yankee’s position last night to keep trying to pull off a miracle until the fat lady sings.

This is what’s wrong with unwritten rules; people make them up as they go along.

In Darling’s defense, he went to Yale…

2. Confession: I don’t get it. I understand why  Democratic officials and operatives are claiming that the conduct of the Republicans was reprehensible during the Kavanaugh hearings: they were embarrassed, defeated, and exposed, and now are spinning and lying to save face. I do NOT comprehend how any citizen of either party can honestly make similar claims, often in the most intemperate and unhinged manner. (Dave Hogue, a design lead at Google, tweeted, “You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. F–K. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL. I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.” I have previously sane Facebook friends who are only slightly less furious.)

Democrats and their allied protesters tried to disrupt the hearings from the opening gavel. The questioning of the judge by Senator Booker and others was intemperate, unfair, and disrespectful. Senator Feinstein’s handling of the Blasey-Ford letter was indefensible by any logic, and her later demonstration of  contrived outrage was transparent in its dishonesty. The desperate anointment of Dr. Ford indicated that the Democratic Party has officially rejected basic standards of fairness and decency, as well as the core democratic concepts of due process, equal justice, presumed innocence, while embracing the loony idea that “all victims should be believed” as long as they are women and they are accusing men, who, if they deny the accusations, should be disbelieved based on their gender. (This is bigotry, in case you have been confused by #MeToo demagogues.)

In related news, independent voters overwhelmingly disapprove of the Democrats’ handling of the Kavanaugh nomination by a 28-point margin according to  a new CNN/SSRS poll (I know, I know: polls), or put another way, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

3. When ethics alarms don’t ring. How could CNN’s progressive shill Joan Walsh not see how unfair she sounds? In response to the news that the newly confirmed Justice hired an all-female law clerk staff, Walsh said, “I don’t know that it’s going to work to make women who are still upset about the treatment of Dr. Blasey Ford feel any better…It felt a lot like pandering to me.”

Got it. Heads we win, tails you lose: If Kavanaugh didn’t hire female law clerks, it would prove he was a serial rapist and misogynist. Hiring all women just proves he’s pandering, and is insincere. And again: WHAT treatment of Ford? Was Kavanaugh supposed to confess to something he didn’t do to make her feel “heard”?  The woman turned a confirmation hearing into a circus using a three decade-old  episode from high school that she only recalled six years ago, and couldn’t find anyone to support it, but still set out to scar a public servant with an unblemished record anyway. Walsh is another feminist bigot who wants to bestow on women the power to destroy men with nothing more than a pointed finger, and an astounding number of men are perfectly willing to help her do it.

4. Here is why so many people loved President Trump’s speech at the U.N.  The International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week ordered the US to ease sanctions it re-imposed on Iran after abrogating the Obama nuclear deal in May. Judges ruled that the US had to remove “any impediments” to the export of humanitarian goods, including food, medicine and aviation safety equipment. The U.S. says it had already done so, and condemned the Court as “politicized and ineffective.”

It would be a breach of duty for any President of the United States to allow an international body to dictate U.S. policy contrary to the best interests of this nation. Efforts to push the U.S. onto a slippery slope of world government have always embodied utopian naiveté,  the misty-eyed fantasies of pacifists and the pragmatic instincts of people who think “Imagine” is profound.

80 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up. 10/9/18: Ecstatic Because The Red Sox Clobbered The Yankees 16-1 Edition

  1. I think you get it all too well, Jack, and there really isn’t anything all that complicated to “get.” The Democrats think their ends are good, therefore any means are justified to achieve those ends, and the allied protesters are one of those means. That said, $10 says Dr. Ford is going to find herself on the ash heap together with Cindy Sheehan and Anita Hill and all the other pawns that were discarded by the Democratic Party as soon as they were no longer needed or useful. If she’s wise she’ll just try to resume her life like Hill. If she’s gone completely off the rails she’ll turn into a clown who no one pays attention to like Sheehan.

      • David Hogg is up to his usual game of barely coherent gibberish.

        Several of the others have actually admitted to their juvenile naivete and actually now insist on having dialogue with people of differing political opinions.

        And of course, Parkland survivors that don’t believe in gun control as a solution are perennially silenced except via conservative outlets. Interestingly enough, conservative outlets seem more than willing to host non-conservatives.

        I wonder why that is?

    • I wonder after the midterms if Ford gets prosecuted? There is quite a lot of smoke around ‘she perjured herself.’

      We have to start making examples of these progressives or this never ends. Make the consequences PERSONALLY painful, within the limits of the law.

        • Dear God, what that article said. Unvarnished, untempered, and undeniable truth.

          I am not sure we CAN split the nation as the author describes: too many blue areas cannot support themselves without the red. Middle America feeds not only our nation, but the world.

          That leaves us with Civil War 2, already in progress as a cold war. The left does not want to live and let live: they want to destroy the right:

          …if you actually prefer the strife and heartache of sharing your country with the Right – especially the white Right – then there is only one motivation I can think of for that: conquest. You really do want war. You aim one day to annihilate the Right and dispossess and oppress white people until there aren’t any of us around anymore. And if this is indeed the case – as I am afraid it is – then when the civil war comes, we will be perfectly justified in destroying you.”

  2. 2. During Justice Kavanaugh’s ceremonial swearing in last night, I thought I could hear, faintly in the distance, the sound of liberals giving him a 2100 exploding-heads salute. How nice of them!
    Regarding “you can fool all the people….”etc., etc.; As Lincoln well knew, it is only necessary to fool a majority of the people, a majority of the time, to advance one’s political agenda. This seems to be getting easier to do, and is what the Left is banking on.

    • Well, let’s concentrate on trying to keep at least one house of Congress, otherwise, the next two hears will be a never-ending impeachment hearing.

      • Absolutely agree, there is time for only the briefest of deep breaths before we plunge back into the fray. Here in Tennessee, we are seeing the Senate candidacy of Phil Bredesen, who was a very popular Democrat governor, fade steadily as a lot of the Republican crossover voters he was counting on are backing away from sending ANY Democrat to Washington. Now we just have to advance that thought process.

          • Beto? He is being shown as the empty shirt he is. Cruz has been running non-stop ads showing his affinity for sanctuary cities, open borders, disbanding ICE, new taxes, etc. Cruz has been increasing his lead in the polls, too. While Beto has a number of ads running, he is not gaining much more traction. He canceled the second debate with Cruz for reasons not all that clear.


          • Brother Beto did have a campaign rally last evening in Houston at the White Oak Bayou theater. Bun B was his special guest. Bun B. Yeah. That guy. Bun B. Wait. You don’t know who Bun B is? Philistine. Why, he is the reigning hip-hop artist. It’s true. Bun B. Remember him. He is gonna be ‘uge!


          • Dammit, Steve-O!

            Why don’t you know who Bun B is? I mean, really. He most recent smash hit is “Knowhatimsayin” feat. Slim Thug* x Lil KeKe. It is a top 10 Billboard hit.

            Here is his Facebook page:



            *Ed. Note: Truth be told, Slim Thug is a pretty decent guy. I have had the pleasure of meeting him in business settings. He knows what he is doing. Very astute businessman. I don’t know Lil KeKe, though.

  3. Realizing the chances the Yankees would score 15 runs to come back and win the game are extremely slim does not mean they have no chance of doing so. These series are for all the marbles after a grueling 162 game season. Ron Darling should and does know better. It is clear this notion of social fairness is infectious and intellectually debilitating. Go Sawks.

  4. 1. With two teams capable of scoring runs in bunches, I have no issue with either team stealing a base with a big lead, but in other instances late in the game (passed ball) the “unwritten rules” were observed. Finally a position player pitching made the game over offical.

    Angel Hernandez is beyond awful and I am amazed that he has managed to hang onto his job. Three calls overturned in just four innings. That has to be a record.

    Both teams will be in a pitching bind if this goes five games now that the Astors have almost a week R&R.

    Both teams will forget about this game and we have seen that type of pounding before (2–4) only to lose, or for the Yankees in 1960 when they scored a bunch and lost to the Pirates. Baseball is a real game to game sport.

  5. 1. I think the convention against burying the other side has roots in college and other amateur situations where sides might turn out to be hopelessly lopsided. It raises an interesting question: should professionals follow those conventions, because it gives authority to amateurs who would like to give an outmatched opponent a break?

    • My recollection is that it mimics the “10-run rule.” If I recall, it had two forms. In T-ball, you could only score, at most, 10 runs per inning. If you hit that, you would switch so that the other team could have its turn.

      Then, there was the 10-run rule that, if you led by 10 runs, the lead was considered insurmountable and the game was over (but I don’t think it took effect until something like the 5th inning of a 7-inning game).

      Either way, these are kids rules, designed for children who are learning about the game, not professionals.

      (Quick google search says that the biggest comeback ever was from a 12-run deficit, which has occurred a few times)


  6. 4) All news articles regarding the United Nations should swap out the term “United Nations says X” with “Body of failed socialist states, failing socialist states, third world dictatorships, and barely hanging on European powers says X”

  7. 2. The left is fueled by contempt. That means that one’s own behavior is the measuring stick applied to others, so there can’t be a sobering moment where they realize they’ve lost their bearings.

    Bob Hope, on receiving an entertainer award voted by the fans: “I guess Lincoln was wrong.”

  8. Of course, along with all the screeching on the Left, comes the standard rounds of abolish the Electoral College, abolish presidential appointment of judges, now abolish the Senate.

    None of which are demanded when Democrats have majorities.

    • Just remember, the Democrats want a pure, direct democracy, in a unitary form.

      This should terrify everyone, because there are NO protections in such a system. It will devolve into mobocracy and inevitably a nasty populism that will frantically vote in a dictatorial oligarchy under the guise of a benevolent nanny state.

      I’m rapidly coming to the understanding that Democrat leadership KNOWS this is the outcome and therefore WANT such anarchy.

      • The Honor Harrington series by David Weber postulates how such a system comes into being and how it progresses from there. I am not sure if I am more frightened by what the book shows as a plausible outcome, or that the early stages are so close to what we are seeing today in America.

                  • Of course, I have… mostly.

                    Shadow of Victory, book meet wall.

                    You’re not about to fawn over Grayson’s government where the Keys as feudal lords have all the power of a Holy Roman Prince-Elector and there’s a state religion or The Star Empire’s placing the bulk of the power with a hereditary peerage and their house of commons requires voters to pay an, admittedly small, poll-tax? The monarchy on Torch perhaps where her mousity has the power to banish citizens? The Andermani Empire where everyone with power has royal blood? Erewhon, run by three crime families. The enforced eugenics corporate-fascist slave-trading Mesa? Beowulf run by a corporate board where Dame Honor’s uncle Jaques is practically a prince? Oh, I know, the Solarian league overall where each star system has a veto and nothing gets passed ever and they needed a deep state to even function at all.

                    • The new one, Uncompromising Honor, is now out. It is the culmination of the series, supposedly. I have not started it yet because I was in the middle of re-reading the immediate predecessor, Mission of Honor so I can have the events leading up to the Solarian League decision to attack Beowulf fully in mind, the state of technology up to that point, and the state of political play among the major combatants in the upcoming interstellar equivalent of World War III.

                      Shadow of Victory, for those unaware, was the last book of tie-ins of the three major side stories – the creation of Torch aided by the Maya Sector’s impending succession from the League, the discovery, investigation and exposure of the Mesan Alignment by Victor Cachat and Anton Zilwicki, the capture of Mesa by Admiral Michelle Henke and the execution of the Houdini directive by the Alignment.

                      I’m really going to savor Uncompromising Honor. It’s been a long wait.

                    • I never bothered with Shadow, the reviews told me I already know the story.

                      We were discussing the Haven storyline, valky: why did you bother to go into all the other irrelevant systems of government? Your tone was mocking, and I do not understand why?

                      To address the points you DO make (or mock): Weber shows many of the ways humans have chosen to govern themselves. They have some good points, and most have many bad points. I think the exploration of those points is instructive, even if in a ‘warning, this is perilous!’ sort of way. Weber makes you think.

                      Now to my tinfoil hat! You spent a lot of digital ink and neuron fuel to avoid the main thrust of this little rabbit trail: how the Haven storyline mirrors, albeit imperfectly, how our nation is unraveling. Too close to the truth?

                    • Actually, Haven during the Legislaturist period very closely resembles what the Democrats intend for America – a large underclass supported by the government, unmotivated workers, government control of the means of production and distribution of goods.

                      The big difference is the fact that Haven used war to sustain this collectivist economy, much like the old USSR and Nazi Germany. That’s something the left in this country would never do.

                      The successor government to the Legislaturist regime was the totalitarian Committee of Public Safety, a revolutionary government combination of the French Reign of Terror and the Third Reich, where nationalism and militarization was used to move people off the dole and into a more sustainable economy, albeit not anything like the laissez faire capitalism Manticore had.

                      Conquest of smaller star systems was still used to feed the Republic’s economic maw, but the direction of domestic resources changed towards encouragement of employment, better education and production (mostly military) in the name of revolution. It was eventually succeeded by a democratic republic in the mold of the United States.

          • Well, actually it was Rob S. Pierre – not so much revealing as a deliberate device to draw the reader to Maximilian Robespierre and the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution. And he didn’t stop there, adding in the Committee of Public Safety from those same events. Other direct references are Pierre’s second in command, Oscar Saint-Just and his counterpart on the original historical CoPS, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just.

            Weber’s writing is full of such historical Easter eggs, including Honor Harrington herself, who is a modern-day Horatio Hornblower. It’s just lots of fun.

      • No, they want a totalitarian, socialistic state. The only two wings of the Democratic Party I can identify for the last 80 years or so are the Communist wing and the Fascist wing. The destruction of individual rights and the triumph of central government control is the goal.

  9. Re: #2

    (Dave Hogue, a design lead at Google, tweeted, “You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. F–K. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL.

    After you, dickweed.

    Re: 3

    Walsh is another feminist bigot who wants to bestow on women the power to destroy men with nothing more than a pointed finger, and an astounding number of men are perfectly willing to help her do it.

    Because toxic masculinity. Or something.

    Look, I get that self-interest isn’t the only motivating factor, but self-preservation should be by far the strongest instinct in the pantheon of human instincts. Are these crazy liberal guys really willing to let women destroy them with an unproven, even specious accusation?

    I really don’t think so, but the partisan environment being what it is, I think they are entirely self-deluded. Or, they believe their leftist bona fides will protect them, just like it protected Al Franken. Oh, wait…

    Perhaps this is what the death spiral of civilization looks like – men willing to cut off their lads for a cause. Perhaps they will soon become more than just figurative eunuchs. That should be fun.

    Re: 4

    It would be a breach of duty for any President of the United States to allow an international body to dictate U.S. policy contrary to the best interests of this nation.

    I’ll bet former president Obama would’ve prostrated himself, and the country, before the ICC, probably with a deep bow at the waist and a bit of scraping. Thank God we’ll never have to find out, or more importantly, witness it.

    • Jack wrote: “Walsh is another feminist bigot who wants to bestow on women the power to destroy men with nothing more than a pointed finger, and an astounding number of men are perfectly willing to help her do it.”

      Glen commented: :”Because toxic masculinity. Or something.”

      I have the sense that this is part of a larger issue. The desire to ‘topple the patriarchy’ is in operation here but that is not a transparent idea. It is connected to a larger *movement* whose intention is to topple Higher Ideation. I know it sounds implausible, sort of outlandish, but I suggest that feminism in numerous senses expresses a desire to be free of higher ideas as a controlling force.

      The feminist matriarchal rebellion is directed against any hierarchy where men are strongly represented, but which also represent long-standing, intellectual traditions.

      If you follow Bork’s arguments in ‘Slouching’ one impetus in 60s radicalism was to storm the institutions, to dis-invalidate them, to ‘occupy’ them, and to take over the direction of them. Bork describes this rather acidly as a takeover by brattish children. In many ways he is right. (But not in all).

      Rebellions begin through genuine grievances. That is, they arise because the upper echelons fail some responsibility or, at times, abuse them. The lower echelons lose faith, or become consumed by power-struggle issues, and seek to overturn the Old Order.

      Women and woman’s struggles have been politicized and forged into an armament in far-reaching power struggles. I think a good deal of the present MeToo Movement has become a tool for…

      … that is the part that is hard to define. For what exactly? Are their really *ideas* that stand behind Marxian praxis of the Gramscian sort? Do people connect through it to some sort of applicable philosophy? It would seem not. It would seem rather that they are anti-idea.

      In our present, as I think we do clearly see, the idea is simple: that women can, and will, with just an imperious movement of their fingers, topple a man, but then the institutions of man. The battle is against established hierarchies.

      Further, it is part-and-parcel of ‘the heresy of modernism’ or, at the very least, some aspect of this can be seen to be operating. Excuse the cheap cliché but everything is connected. The destructive impulses in the present have definable historical roots and the causal chain can be looked into.

      • Women and woman’s struggles have been politicized and forged into an armament in far-reaching power struggles. I think a good deal of the present MeToo Movement has become a tool for…

        Well, I’d say it’s become a tool to leverage women’s rage, some righteous, some borrowed in the name of the gender. The problem, it seems to me, is the differences between men and women and the way they process information. Female emotions, which are absolutely necessary to the survival of the species and critical to holding families together, have been weaponized by the Left. Kavanaugh was held up as an allegory to all the abuse that some women have suffered in silence for decades. Keep in mind that these stories of abuse are passed around with typical amplification of word-of-mouth that humans invariably perform. Combine that with the less logical and more emotional processes employed by women as a consequence of nature, and you have a bomb that is exploding as we speak.

        What’s happened generally is that biological and mental process differences between men and women have been deliberately skewed to make grievance-mongering not only easier, but emotionally rewarding. Also, it appeals to men’s protective instinct where women are concerned – “Believe the survivor.” Notice that it isn’t “Take the accuser’s charge seriously and investigate it,” but rather demands instant “credibility” of any charge of sexual impropriety, credibility that isn’t legitimately due any accuser.

        We have all seen cases of innocent actions being misinterpreted by females as some kind of sexual thing, and also the obverse – sexual impropriety couched as “I was just joking around!” by men. It’s understandable given the legitimate sexual abuse many women have suffered over the years, but when we lose the ability to investigate because we must “believe the survivor” uncritically, we effectively reject the American concept of fairness and embrace a kind of sexual totalitarianism driven purely by an emotional connection and absent any reason.

        The Left is using the #MeToo meme to attack their enemies, but they surely must realize that men of the Left are as vulnerable to this attack as those on the right. The hope is that by being sufficiently strident when they are on the attack, the Left can co-opt the “movement” as their own, and claim credit for its success against their enemies and downplay their own problems. It’s a classic case of misdirection; “Look at how horrible they are – nothing to see here.” Conservatives allow this at their peril.

  10. “You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. FUCK. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL, I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.”

    Strangely, I think I distinctly noticed that once the Kavanaugh episode had been decided (and of course no substantial critical analysis of the reaction to Kavanaugh was written about in the Times) suddenly the front page has shifted back to Global Warming Hysteria which, to me at least, seems to be a form of substitution.

    So, we have various Hysterical Tools that, depending on the needs of the moment, are brought out and put to use. Hmmmmm.

    The sentiment of *condemnation* is a rich one. It must have its function if examined psychologically. There is something seductive in clamoring against a whole class (white Republicans) and the underpinning of it all is in the emotional state of the hysteric. It surely must serve a function for the individual?

    I guess having something to hate has a use similar to having something to love

    But then, almost as a turn on a dime, the engineered sentiment shifts (back) to fear of atmospheric phenomena, and psychologically-logically this fear must lead to *blame* for those causing the terrifying winds to blow. [Rumble thy bellyful! Spit, fire! Spout, rain!]

    Obviously, the white Republicans are affecting the Atmospheric Gods and rousing them to feel what the Hysterical Demos feels. I guess that is fitting insofar as these Republicans are, in fact, demons.

    Pretty elemental sentiments, I’d say! I recommend sacrificing just over one half of the present US Government into the terrifying lips of a Volcano… that should solve the problem!

    • ”suddenly the front page has shifted back to Global Warming Hysteria ”

      Whence it never should have deviated, but there’s a reason for everything, which oftentimes reason knows nothing of.

      Anywho, a recently completed, and LONG OVERDUE, audit of the criminally insane UNIPCC horrendously ascientific sloppiness is troublesome to say the least, unmercifully damning to say the most.

      Never one to employ much varnish, the talented Joanne Nova’s summation is somewhat less-than-flattering:

      ”Thanks to Dr John McLean, we see how The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.”

      Your inclination for thorough, between the lines analysis at EA is the stuff of legend.

      Your assistance in restoring the Global Warming That’s Here And Worse Than The Models Predicted to its rightful place in the public’s eye (scaring them riiiiiiight up to the point of inconvenience and just shy of their checkbooks) would be inestimable!

      And remember: IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!

  11. Re: polls, apparently most didn’t want Kavanaugh confirmed and disapproved of the Republicans’ handling as well. You can thank the Democrats’ media machine for that, I’m sure. I truly hope Kavanaugh is able to overcome the damage done to his reputation, but I imagine every news report involving him will bring up Blasey Ford’s allegations for year to come. I get a sinking in the pit of my stomach.

  12. 1. Congrats to the Sox. ANYONE against the Yankees, but the Sox are especially gratifying. Darling is simply ‘in the tank’ for the Yankees. Things they might do (and have done) are fine, but should not be done against them. Kind of like Democrats.

    2. Dave Hogue can BITE ME. As can all such blind partisan faux outraged progressives who think their ‘feez’ trump the Constitution, our laws, and civility. NVD*

    3. I think Walsh falls into #2 above.

    4. We just disassembled NAFTA, which was a globalist endeavor. We need to leave the UN and kick them off our shores. Quit paying them.

  13. “The obligations of both teams is to play their hardest at all times, regardless of the score.”

    I had an observation this week while watching my son’s soccer team. There was a girl who just stood there. Did nothing. Didn’t move at all. The coach played her, took her out, played her again. Again she just stood there. I know why the coach did it. It is 6-8 year old league. However, my son’s team lost. At least two of those points might have been prevented if she went after the ball.

    At the end of Rudy, when Norte Dame is winning, the coach says “play the seniors.”

    If the Red Sox were winning by a lot, would it be unethical to let the less experienced players play? By defination you are no longer trying your hardest?

    • I still have a problem with letting position players pitch, regardless of the score. What managers are saying is it is over even when it isn’t. I just think that’s wrong. No wonder Holt hit for the cycle for the first time in the history of post season play. Who’s ever heard of a team conceding a playoff or world series game? Crazy.

  14. “t would be a breach of duty for any President of the United States to allow an international body to dictate U.S. policy contrary to the best interests of this nation.”

    Exactly what the Chinese might say about an international court trying to dictate Chinese policy re their military build up in the South China Sea.

  15. Jack,
    Didn’t you write an article ona similar issue involving (I believe) that involved a college basketball game in which one team gained some incredible points advantage? It may have been on the Scoreboard.

    • Jack,

      You did:
      The Ethics of a High School Football Rout (10/10/2006).(

      After re-reading the article, I realize it dealt with high school football, not college basketball, and the ethical issues considered also involved a coach trying to break a touchdown record. Still, I’d be curious if you feel these issues have the same ethical considerations, or does the over-zealousness of the coach change the ruling?

      • Actually the ethical thing to do when it’s clear that your team is completely outmatched is to throw in the towel and admit defeat in that game so the team is not humiliated.

        I don’t care one bit what anyone says about this topic; I don’t believe for one moment that it’s the winning teams responsibility to do less than their best to protect the self esteem of the loosing team.

        Team competition is not about preserving the opponents self esteem it’s about doing the best you can do – always!

        • “Actually the ethical thing to do when it’s clear that your team is completely outmatched is to throw in the towel and admit defeat in that game so the team is not humiliated.”


          Justify the elevation of “avoiding humiliation” above “knuckle under and give your all”.

      • Neil Dorr,
        In your usual effort to troll Jack this time with a perceived gotcha, you missed the real core of Jack’s previous post which was the coach’s scheme to use an obviously inferior team to unethically boost McCoy’s yardage. This was terribly unethical!

        “McCoy is a student, and his teacher taught a bad lesson.” Jack Marshall October 10, 2006

        • Furthermore, the ethical thing for that High School coach to do would have been to pull his 1st string players, all of them, so all the other players could get extended field experience; after-all, those 2nd and 3rd string players are the future 1st string. That what an ethical coach would have done, it’s not to protect the self esteem of the losers but to gain valuable experience for less experienced players. That coach taught his team that he believed that one player was more important than the team and that is a terribly unethical message to send to the the team, it is anti-team-work!

        • Neil,
          I might have jumped the gun a little after reading your sarcastic remark to me below and that may have biased my reply to you here. Maybe you didn’t completely miss Jack’s point but it sure seemed like you blew over them to imply that Jack has some kind of double standard.

          I stand by my core comments about the ethics of the comment but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about your purpose for bringing this up.

  16. “I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate that’s when civility can start again.” Hillary Clinton

    Straight from the lips of the Democratic Party spokesperson, Democrats can only be civil when they are the party in control.

    Got it.

    “You heard how the Republican members, led my Mitch McConnell, the President, really demeaned the Confirmation process, insulted and attacked not only Dr. Ford but women who were speaking out.” Hillary Clinton

    Can anyone with a sane mind believe she said those words publicly?

    Hillary Clinton is either literally delusional or a pathological liar. Is it possible to be both?

    • That Hillary Clinton interview with Amanpour might require a dissertation to talk about all the delusional propaganda spewed forth by Clinton and Amanpour didn’t make her correct anything, she just sat there nodding as if it was all 100% fact.

      After watching that interview in full I’ve now got to go throw.

        • Neil Dorr wrote, “You’re so smart.”

          So nice of you to troll my comment with that sarcastic ad hominem. It seems that lately you are leaning a bit towards being a Hit & Run Troll. Sad.

          Do you really have nothing at all to say about the Hillary Clinton’s words I quoted or the overall propaganda tone of her interview?

      • In that blog post I shared earlier, I wrote that…

        2: Regardless of the outcome of the mid term elections; there will be a massive wave of propaganda, accusations and innuendo against the GOP and government institutions decrying massive corruption.

        3: Look for a noticeable uptick rhetoric that implies or states outright that “they’re evil”, rationalizations that will include implications or statements that anyone associated with the evil they oppose is also evil…

        I also wrote in a thread here on October 1, 2018 at 1:50 pm…

        The left is so far gone that there is no way they are going to pull it back now or anytime in the foreseeable future, they can’t, they clearly have momentum. If a particular side wants serious social change in a society they must first create social chaos, blame their opposition for everything, paint their opposition as evil, build momentum towards their desired outcome, and brainwash the public into believing that their way is the only way out of the social chaos; how do they do this – propaganda.

        Clinton is proving my words to be true.

        It’s sad that this kind of tactic was so easy to predict from the political left.

    • Absolutely despicable.

      The woman who would be President, joining the ranks of other senior DNC leadership calling for anti-civility and misconduct towards those who have differing political opinions.

      The Democrats are becoming a dangerous organization.

  17. Off Topic
    Anyone want to discuss Nikki Haley’s resignation?

    I think she resigned now so she can start speaking tours and media pundit activities, get plenty of speaking experience on the campaign trail stumping for Trump, and set herself up as a major candidate for President in 2024.

    • Your proposition makes as much sense to me as any other, Z. I cannot fathom why she quit, unless the official story of needing a break is true. Heck, both could be true at the same time.

      I would like her to run for POTUS, should the stars align: she does not suffer fools gladly, and is willing to show her ire. She is showing loyalty to Trump, and that speaks to traditional American values. How deep of a Swamp creature she is, I cannot say. Maybe not at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.