Post-Labor Day Ethics Laments, 9/7/21


You could yesterday, September 6, “Moral Luck Day.” On that date in 1901, President William McKinley was shaking hands at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo when a 28-year-old anarchist named Leon Czolgosz approached him with a pistol in his hand wrapped in a handkerchief, and fired two bullets into the President’s chest. Touchingly, McKinley’s immediate thoughts were of his wife, Ida, who was in poor physical and emotional health. “Be careful how you tell her!” he whispered to an aide. Eight days later, McKinley was dead. But what Czolgosz intended as a strike to the heart of America’s government had the opposite effect, making Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican considered too independent, radical and uncontrollable (unlike McKinley) by his own party to be in the White House, exactly what GOP leaders never wanted him to be. Teddy made the United States a world power, greatly expanded the power of his office and the government itself, and was, in short, an anarchist’s nightmare.

1. Baseball ethics: The Boston Red Sox recently completed a disastrous collapse that dropped them from first place in the American League East to third. As they went into battle with the two teams now ahead of them, their hottest hitter, Alex Verdugo, vanished on a four game paternity leave. Shortly thereafter, another hot hitter, Hunter Renfroe, was lost for five days on bereavement leave after his father died of cancer. T’was not always thus: in the days before the Players’ Union bargained to add such mid-season leave as a new benefit, if a player’s wife was in labor or a loved on died, it was at the team’s discretion whether he would be permitted to leave the team. OK, I can appreciate the need for the benefit, but both players abused the right. These guys both earn millions of dollars a year. They both routinely talk about the team’s quest to win the World Series, yet when their team really needed them, they absented themselves for many days because they could. That’s a betrayal of the team, team mates, and fans. I’ve been there. My grandmother, a major influence in my life, died while I was in tech week for a major production I was directing. I flew to Boston for the wake, and flew back early the next morning. I couldn’t do anything for my grandmother. My family didn’t need me as much as the show did.And I wasn’t being paid a cent for directing that show, never mind millions of dollars.

2. Curtis Flowers is suing. Good! Curtis Flowers, whom I wrote about here, filed a lawsuit last week against Montgomery County District Attorney Doug Evans, who prosecuted him six times for the killings of four people at a small-town Mississippi furniture store. He was finally released in December 2019, about six months after the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out the conviction and death sentence from his sixth trial, which took place in 2010. Justices said prosecutors showed an unconstitutional pattern of excluding African American jurors in the Flowers’ six trials, which kept him in prison for 26 years despite never being found guilty in a fair trial. This wasn’t a prosecution, it was a vendetta. I would like to see a bar prosecution of Evans, who abused the ethical duties of a prosecutor.

3. Also good: Time’s Up’s time appears to be up. Time’s Up revealed itself as a hypocritical, toothless and partisan champion of sexual harassment victims when it refused to back Tara Reade after she accused Joe Biden of a decades old sexual assault charge after supporting the dubious sexual abuse allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. That was signature significance, but the group’s fans ignored the hypocrisy since Abortion Good and Orange Man Bad. But even they couldn’t ignore the blatant betrayal of the organization’s mission when it was discovered that Roberta Kaplan, the chairwoman of the anti-harassment group as well as a co-founder, reviewed a draft of an op-ed letter that was designed to discredit Lindsay Boylan, the first woman to accuse Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The group’s CEO, Tina Tchen, also advised Cuomo.

Time’s Up also had a series of financial improprieties, but never mind: the mainstream news media along with the group’s female celebrity donors—like Oprah Winfrey, who lobbied the group in 2020 into dropping support for the HBO Max documentary “On the Record,” detailing the sexual assault allegations against music mogul Russell Simmons, a Winfrey pal—was happy to carry on the fiction that it cared about women more than politics.

But over the weekend several celebrity supporters officially withdrew from the organization. Shonda Rhimes, Eva Longoria, and others including Time’s Up’s interim board chair Nina Shaw with a statement posted to the organization’s website over the weekend. Five other board members including actress Ashley Judd said they would remain on the board for just a while longer “to help ensure a smooth transition.”

4. From the “Books I Think I’ll Skip” Dept...Harvard philosopher Lee McIntyre has written “How to Talk to A Science Denier,” and it is nicely mocked in a review by scientist Tom Chivers here. He writes in part,

McIntyre constantly wants to make a clean distinction between “science deniers” and non-deniers. So, for instance, he says that there are five “common reasoning errors made by all science deniers” [my emphasis]. They are: cherrypicking, a belief in conspiracy theories, a reliance on fake experts, illogical reasoning and an insistence that science must be perfect. If you don’t make all five of those errors, you’re not an official McIntyre-accredited science denier. Hang on, though. A “belief in conspiracy theories”? McIntyre spends a lot of time talking about the tobacco firms who manufactured doubt in the smoking/lung cancer link, and the oil firms who did the same with the fossil fuel/climate change link. He says that the spread of Covid denialism through the US government was driven by Republican desire to keep the economy open and win the election. Aren’t these conspiracy theories?…[T]here’s not some clear line between “real conspiracies” and “conspiracy theories””

In short, the critic concludes,

McIntyre’s big question, as mentioned, is asking: What evidence would it take to change your mind? But at no point does McIntyre ever ask himself what it would take to change his mind…the near-total lack of introspection renders the whole grand project largely meaningless. I am right, you are wrong, the only thing we need to discuss is how to make you realise how wrong you are.

5. I hate to repeat myself, Charles M. Blow really is an embarrassment to the Times. The official Times op-ed race-baiter and anti-Trump hysteric’s latest is so transparently dishonest and unhinged that even Times editors should be able to tell they to hold an intervention. In his latest effort, he compares supporting Donald Trump to supporting the Ku Klux Klan. Blow, blowing…

“Many of his supporters view America not as a grand idea, malleable and expandable, but as a white man’s invention in which the displacement and slaughter of Native people and the enslavement of Africans was a necessary evil.So they demand a strict deference to that idea of America because, to them, it promises a society bowing at their feet, a nation defined by its reverence for whiteness….At one of the Klan’s initiations, members were told to say, “All men in America must honor that flag — if we must make them honor it on their knees!” Anyone else remember how Trump supporters treated Colin Kaepernick?”

He goes on to find exact equivalent between the Klan’s hatred of immigrants and Trump’s dedication to ensuring that those who immigrate here do so legally, and between the Klan’s anti-Semitism and Trump’s wariness of Islamic extremists, since they, you know, have a tendency to kill non-believers.

This kind of illogical, fact-free and distorted reasoning would deserve an F in an 8th grade essay, and yet the Times gives it to readers every week.

21 thoughts on “Post-Labor Day Ethics Laments, 9/7/21

  1. “Unhinged” is a good description of anything I have ever read by Blow. His writings reflect derangement as serious as that affecting any of the few dozen Klansmen and hangers-on that I investigated back in the 80s. Hate and ignorance frequently overpower reason and integrity. But again, it is convenient to be reminded just who is plotting the overthrow of our country.

  2. Czolgosz was later not only electrocuted, but had his body dissolved in acid in his coffin before burial. A fitting end for a terrorist, which is what he was, and assassin.

    1. That’s a tough one. As an Italian-American, I believe in family first. I also work in a profession where adjournments are pretty regularly granted for things like this. When the time comes for my old man, I’ll adjourn whatever, even if I’m in the midst of a trial (unlikely) take the three bereavement days I am allowed and see to the arrangements. Then I will get back to work and begin the difficult process of dealing with that loss. My family, most of whom still also work, get it, and those who are retired also get it. Being with your wife when she gives birth is another matter. She’s supposed to come first in your life, and will never let you forget if you fail to be there for her.

    2. Guilty or not, he was entitled to a fair trial. He didn’t get it. The legal process is NEVER a tool for some prosecutor’s obsession with getting one particular defendant.

    3. We’ll see. The faces may change, but as long as there is money and influence to be had, the organization will continue.

    4. Yup, I’d say pass that one like the remnants of your last meal.

    5. Speaking of bowel movements… I don’t know which is more shit, the writer or the writing.

    • 1. Steve-O, you are absolutely right, though your statement is getting less and less common, or so it seems to me. I hear plenty of people talk about how unimportant it is for the dad to be available for a while after the birth of a new baby and it grinds my gears. I expect my husband to be there when I have the baby, and for as long as feasible afterwards. This isn’t just my baby. He took action to make the child. He gets to be part of their life, from birth (which is REALLY hard and his presence actually helps me immeasurably) and for the while after the baby is born. It is hard work being a new mother (a new father too). The first baby is really hard to learn to deal with, and a subsequent child requires a huge amount of attention which means that of the dad is present, the other children benefit greatly. Bonding with the baby is great, and adjusting to the new normal of another kid is helpful for the whole family. Not to mention that the healing up process is very taxing on a woman’s body, energy, and health. Even a natural birth has serious healing necessary, and if there was a C-section, it is even harder to heal and care for children. I cannot say that if you have the money and job security, taking time off is reprehensible in the slightest. Instead of letting the team down (which he probably is) he is putting his priorities in the correct place. It is better for the marriage and the kid to have a father who sets his priorities rightly, and no man who gets married and has kids can ever have priorities set correctly if he is not putting wife and kids before anything but God. Of course, having that paycheck and being able to support the wife and kids (who, of course, must also balance their own wants and needs with his) is a major part of right priorities.

    • Verdugo was there, and I have no problem with that. And he stayed for four days, while his team was losing one-run games. His family and new son are the beneficiaries of the millions he gets to win games and titles with the Red Sox. It’s not as if the priorities aren’t linked.

      • The priorities are linked, but still need to be ranked and four days is nothing. Heck, if my husband only got four days after the birth of our children, unless his absence from me would literally cause someone to die, I’d give him the choice of his job or his family. If we want men to step up and be good husbands and fathers (which would do amazing things for our society) we need to let them do that. Considering what a woman’s body goes through with the birth of a child and the incredible amount of healing she must do after the fact, four days barely lets a mom get home from the hospital (having had complication-free natural births has led to us getting to go home on day three at my hospital) and set up a good feeding schedule for the first kid (my best kid so far took two weeks before we got the bugs worked out enough for their health and mine). Subsequent kids require so much more because of the need to care for the older children too. The fact of being in high levels of pain for every action and dealing with incredible dizziness for days lead to a new mom being a literal danger to herself and the baby (not to mention any other kids) if left alone. According to my OBs, that condition is totally normal, even expected. Due to the danger, new moms are forbidden from lifting their own child or walking with the child in their arms in my hospital. My hospital also asks about the support a mother can expect for at least two weeks post baby before they will even let the child go home with the mother. Sure, a lot of us rely on other family members for that second (or third or fourth week), but the dad has to be there in the beginning if he wants to start himself off on a good foot of proper prioritization of responsibility. Most marriages I have seen where a dad does not give totally of himself for 1-2 weeks after a baby are at best strained. The mother needs support, and who is best able and most desired to give that support, but the father of the baby? If MLB cannot give new fathers a week away at minimum, they need to require that their players are celibate while on contract, so no babies come about. If a multimillion dollar contract is enough to abandon a wife and kid for at a time of great need, it should be enough to abandon sex for. Family is the primary responsibility, and all the more so at the birth of a baby.

        I wouldn’t give this MLB player an ethics hero award, but he’s close. He behaved nearly the way we should expect all men to behave. We can’t say we want present fathers and good husbands to combat major societal decline and then complain when a man actually tries to be one.

        • Whoa. Would a general be able to take four days off in the middle of a battle? My production week example is similar: if I leave for four days in the week before a show opens, I put the whole project at risk. Four games in a baseball season can (and might) make the difference between a championship and none, employment for hundreds of contractors, tourism to the city and business, plus a tangible effect on the careers—and lives!—of team members and THEIR families! Against that you’re balancing a father whose presence is mostly moral support and self-indulgence. The logic and ethics don’t hold up.

          • I would probably grant your point in the example of the general (an exception I believe I covered in saying that I would excuse him for someone’s literal death). And of course, generals are usually of an age where they are not expectant fathers. But to say that a father’s presence is moral support and self-indulgence is ignoring a lot. A father’s presence decreases maternal complications and infant mortality by a significant factor. It also decreases maternal mortality, but that amount is smaller. I wasn’t joking about how dangerous it is for a mother to be left alone with a new baby, especially in that first week. It may be moral luck that she kills the kid by passing out on the stairs so she can get the food she needs to function, but if that is a real risk (it certainly is in my house) then I don’t see precautions as “self-indulgence”. Depending on what interventions are needed at the birth, the health of the mother, the health of the baby, and a host of other items, the requirements can be higher. It also begins the whole family on the right foot for an involved father. Moral support is actually really important for kids, and kids ARE the future. The family is the building block of society. It is not self-indulgent for a father to put his family above everyone else, as that makes that building block strong. Strong families lead to strong kids, who become strong adults, who make good societies. We can see the opposite in our society today.

            Indeed, is it self-indulgent of a woman to demand help from her husband when she is throwing dozens of dime sized blood clots (anything under a quarter-half dollar size is normal so she will have to just deal with this), so dizzy she cannot get the child safely from the bassinet without aid, and dealing with a child who screams non-stop two out of every three hours around the clock? This is exactly what he signed up for the instant he dropped his pants, helping his wife with these kinds of normal baby issues. I cannot see the logic that makes it ethical to say a man can abandon a woman he claims to love to deal with this alone while her body is healing from a major endeavor, especially in the beginning when the effects are strongest. Even the easiest of births and the calmest of babies require a father’s presence to help his wife. This responsibility overwhelms all of a man’s other responsibilities. Indeed, despite being pretty much a pro-life/anti-abortion/anti-choice (or whatever you want to call me) absolutist, this is one of the, in my opinion, strongest arguments for abortion on demand. Pro-choice advocates claim that men in our society cannot be counted on to help with child rearing when they are most needed. I do not believe that justifies killing the child, but can see their point about men getting to treat us as nothing more than sex toys if they will not take on the responsibility that comes with the sex. The solution, as I see it is not racing each other to the bottom of the barrel as they seem to hold, but forcing ourselves upwards toward a high expectation of virtue.

            Everyone has a life that affects others and everyone makes choices that affect people far away from themselves. I will give an example of my own. A man has a job where he is required to be present at a major project. If he is not present, it could cost the company millions of dollars, and threaten the jobs of hundreds of people. There is no replacement available for him. Right before the project is scheduled to start, the company demands he do something unethical, a betrayal of sorts, regarding one of the people whom he supervises. His choices are to do that unethical thing that harms one of his subordinates, possibly mildly, possibly with lifelong consequences, or quit the company, cost the local economy millions of dollars, and cause lots of harm to all the several hundred people employed by the company and their families. What is the ethical option here?

            Now, if a job is so important to society that a man needs to not be distracted by the needs of fatherhood then it should be expected that he be unmarried and practice celibacy. This is the reasoning behind the priestly celibacy required by the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Another option is to have age requirements that leave childrearing by the wayside. If Major League Baseball is really that important, then celibacy should be a part of the contract or potentially reversible chemical castration should be required. If a man cannot be allowed under at least FMLA to take time off aid his woman in these problems, then he cannot be allowed to impregnate said woman. This was understood at least as early as 19th century feminsists/sufferagists who demanded that either men were held to the higher standards biology expected of women, or that voluntary motherhood (periodic or total abstinence in today’s vernacular) was required of husbands, preaching that they often practiced themselves. Either we value fatherhood, or we encourage the breakdown of family. I cannot see a middle ground here.

            As a final note, I’m perfectly ok with him not getting paid for the days he doesn’t work, unless his employment contract says otherwise. Taking sick leave or paid vaction for this is fine, or using FMLA without pay are all options.

            • Anyone making millions per year can hire personnel to monitor maternal health and provide assistance when needed. Placing maternal mortality at the feet of an absent father is unfair. Not all fathers get paid for FMLA (which is only a legislated leave of absence to prevent dismissal or have sick or vacation time. Consider the issue of the plumber, trucker or handyman – no work no pay. Now the bills pile up and now the choice is to pay for food or housing. These are choices that affect ordinal ranking of priorities. The irrefutable fact that societal and gender roles which worked well for the nuclear family unity for eons have changed significantly within the last 75 years. To assume that means roles must change in complete synchronicity with changing women’s roles in society suggests that the male’s role in society as well as in the child’s life is subordinate to the female’s role.

            • Comment of the Day, Sarah, and thanks for this. I may repeat some of this reply when I post it, but a couple of points:

              1. The argument that family trumps all when a parent has made a commitment to others and is not a fungible factor in it doesn’t stand scrutiny. If you accept the general as an exception–that’s wise, since leadership might determine the victor in a critical battle that affects millions, nations, and civilizations, then you have to accept a whole lot more. No judge would allow a lawyer to leave mid-trial with a jury because his wife was giving birth. A heart surgeon who abandoned a patient with a serious malady he was prepared to address in an operation few others could perform would be asking for a malpractice suit for himself and his hospital. A lead star actor who ditched opening night at the last minute would risk killing the show, the investment of millions, and the livelihood of many people a lot less well-off than he is. All are not just unethical, but unconscionable.

              As for the husbands post birth role in preventing problems for the mother or the child—I assume you’re not evoking some study that claimed to find the value of the mere presence of the father, even if he just smiles, coos and takes pictures—is a bit of a cheat. The MLB minimum is nearly 600,000 a year, for six months work. But no player making the minimum would be considered irreplaceable. The kind of players I was writing about make a million a year up to 30 million a year. They can and should hire top private nursing help. Nor is it unreasonable to ask a family with a father who knows or even suspects that such a conflict might arise to make plans accordingly—like having a family member ready to provide necessary support.

              • Jack,

                I just have one question. Are you being serious when you talk about a father’s role in giving birth as smiling, cooing, and taking pictures? I had assumed you weren’t totally serious with the moral support and self indulgence comment earlier. However, your saying this for the second time makes me think you have a vastly different notion of what happens during labor than reality. Am I misreading this with a serious tone when a sarcastic or joking one is meant?

                In case I am right that you are actually serious, my husband has literally saved one of my children from either death or severe brain damage and, in another pregnancy, probably my own life, but at least my brain. In both of those cases, I do not believe another person, even my mother (who was busy taking care of our other children) could have caught it.

                • If a husband is necessary in a hospital setting to save the mother or an infant, something is seriously wrong, and also abnormal. A husband should not be necessary to deliver a baby if a medical team is on hand. Your experience, which is unusual, obviously tilts your perspective here, and if I were you, it would have the same effect on me. But there is no medical NEED for a father to be on hand during birth. So yes, I am completely serious. If a couple seeks to have an alternate child birth method than the basic “let the experts do their work” variety, there are midwives. If a father chooses to take on that role (without expertise, training or experience) that’s a choice, all right, and one that puts the baby at risk.

        • It used to be that grandmothers assumed the role you believe fathers so take now. Maybe you are right but today’s grandmothers are career women who do not want or cannot professionally step up and play that role.
          From my take on this issue those arguing for the dad to stay home fail to consider that not all occupations can have someone be an equivalent substitute for the new dad. Cancelling appointments for two weeks is easier for a doctor, lawyer or other professional than it is for a one of a kind employee whose existance in the group determines success or failure.
          For most people family leave does not affect the success or failure of the organization but to assume everyone can stop working for the benefit of the new mom is establishing priorities without understanding the tradeoffs involved.

          • I have a husband who cannot be replaced at his job. His importance at the job he does holds lives in his hands and is worth millions of dollars. He provides an excellent life for us with this job, but I did not marry a man to be second string to the almighty dollar, nor should any woman. That is not what life is about. Children and family are what life is about. I know exactly what trade offs I am asking for. I am asking for a man to step up and be a father if he takes action to be a father. My husband and I plan our potential baby making activities around when he can and cannot be gone from his job as best we can, though no one can see the future. In an attempt to handle that, we avoided a certain activity during a certain time frame of several months to make sure he would be present when he had to be for his job. I am not asking of others what I do not live. I am saying that we can either promote fatherhood or stop whining about the degradation of society. If we want to complain about abortion on demand, if we want to talk about black father absenteeism, if we want to talk about kids with decreased education and morals, if we want to talk about most of the problems plaguing our society today, we need to accept that men (and women) need to step up and put the future generation first, starting at prenatal care and birth.

            • First off I can agree with the need for a nuclear family unit. I can also agree that fathers must be allowed to play an equal role in a his child’s life and not simply be the resource provider. However,
              not everyone has the luxury of planning life’s events around their livelihood. To assume that all people have the same resources is faulty reasoning. Candace Bergen’s Murphy Brown character created the illusion that all women are self sufficient professionals capable of single motherhood. That set the stage for so many other women to pretend they can have it all: great job; kids; grand social life without the headache of a husband limiting their ability to soar to great heights. You are fortunate to live a well resourced life and may not have to consider if you have enough money to pay the car insurance and get the brakes fixed at the same time. We no longer live in a one income world for most families. You are lucky to have the choices available that many lack.

              • I really dislike the word lucky for this. It denies the choices made. I am lucky that my husband makes what he does. That is true. However, before he made the kind of money he does, before all of his promotions won with hard work, we still, at somewhere around a third of what he makes now, lived off one income. We made choices, very frugal ones, to do that. In addition, I have a job (or three and applying for a fourth) because I enjoy providing those services to people. They are part-time gig work that make only a small amount, that can easily be worked around homeschooling and multiple small children, but that is because child care is insane where I live, so I save a chemical engineer’s salary (I know, I was one) in being a stay-at-home mom for our family. In addition, I ran a back of the envelope calculation on two minor choices my husband and I make that differ from our average neighbor and we save $2,000 a year up front. Add in the bigger choices we make as compared to them, and a second job becomes utterly unnecessary. A man I respect greatly just retired early with several million dollars off of an $370/wk pretax job (with alimony and child support for most of his life). He did, for the last few years, make double that, which helped. However, he made choices that made that happen, between saving money, investing wisely, and living well below his means. It is true that there is luck involved, but instead of luck, choices are far more important.

                As a couple of notes to another comment you made, I was unaware that ANYONE got paid for FMLA. Most people I know, especially those who make less than what we do, use vacation, sick leave, comp time, personal time, or some combination of all of the above plus FMLA for the seven straight days (so 4-5 days off total depending on job) of caring for their wife and child.

                You mention plumbers, truckers, etc. Most of those folks make what my husband does or more (plumbers usually make at least 1.5 times what he does). They can (and do in my experience) easily take off that much, since babies are more important than hunting season, where they always (again, in my experience) take off 2-4 weeks. Heck, a self-employed glass repairman (fixes windshields and windows) took a month off with his wife and four kids this year to tour the south-eastwrn US (including some Disney time), then took another two weeks off after that. My husband can only dream of that kind of time away.

                You and I must come from very different backgrounds, because 75+ years ago, grandmothers did not perform that task. Most of my forebearers were on another continent, on the opposite side of this one, or in the ground when their daughters had kids, reaching back to my great grandma’s great grandma. In the best case scenario, the family was estranged. Women had their husbands and if they were lucky, maybe a sister, but usually not. Grandmas helping out seems to me to be a new phenomenon, since WWII. This seems to be a commonality in many lives of my friends too.

                I do not think that anything about child rearing is fair, but fair has little to do with anything. Absent fathers do increase infant mortality and maternal complications. Mothers face health risks for bearing children. Choices matter and life isn’t fair. Millions of dollars and a benefit package that allows a man to be with his wife don’t change that. Sure, he could hire someone, but playing a game doesn’t last forever and he might want that marriage and that relationship with his kid(s). Cue “Cat’s in the Cradle”. Again, I see nothing wrong with a man, irreplacable at his job or not, prioritizing his wife first, kid second. That is the first century prioritization that Catholics (at least) have been called to follow.

                I have made my choices and strongly feel that they would improve the lives of most people. The fact that nearly everyone else I know who has had good relationships with their spouse and kids, at least concerning the birth of their children, have made the same choices, enhances my view. Everyone I know who made opposite choices has gotten divorced or has a very strained relationship with spouse and children. Of course there are more choices than this, but getting one right helps get more right along the way. There are studies (not much better than polls, I know) that support the fathers presence, and OBs and pediatricians seem to agree. Given that a happy marriage almost always leads to better children and a happy life for both husband and wife, I again see no reason to get after this man.

      • Critical race theory asserts that conditions on the ground in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s are still extant in contemporary America. That’s the goofy foundational belief of critical race theory. Therefore, because the Klan existed, it still causes harm today. Dumb.

  3. 4. [T]he near-total lack of introspection renders the whole grand project largely meaningless. I am right, you are wrong, the only thing we need to discuss is how to make you realise how wrong you are.

    This succinctly describes the entire current day Left. Remember when Obama would say “we need to have a discussion about fill in the blank” or “this is a teaching moment”?

  4. Re: No. 3; Time’s Up for Freddo.

    I wonder much longer Chris Cuomo will be employed by CNN. His ratings have tanked, and his brother is done in NYC and likely beyond. Freddo gave direct access to his brother, Randy Andy. But, Freddo is not use to CNN, now. I give him 6 months.


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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.