Friday Open Forum: Time To Play Ethicsball! Share this:TwitterLinkedInFacebookRedditPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading... Related March 31, 2023March 31, 2023 / Jack Marshall / 60 Comments
60 thoughts on “”
Supposedly the NYPD has told every officer, regardless of rank or assignment, to show up in uniform tomorrow, in anticipation of potential protests after the bad-precedent-setting indictment of Trump. Funny, I don’t recall any orders like that going out after the death of George Floyd, although common sense would indicate you would have mobilized every officer you could, get them into their SWAT gear and have them ready to go BEFORE the protests start. Oh, I forgot, protesting racism is so damn important it trumps all other considerations.
Authoritarian dictatorships do like their shows of force.
An answer to a future trivia question: https://apnews.com/article/opening-day-mlb-rules-changes-violations-520024261f330e6af4c595f6cbf7cc2d
The two “pitcher disengagements” rule surprised me. As in “what the hell is it?” Pitchers can only throw to first twice during an at bat? So after two throws to first, it’s off to the races for base runner? That’s weird. Maybe they want more stolen bases which will get more runners in scoring position?
I love the faster games. J.D. Hernandez didn’t even step out of the box between pitches and didn’t have time to do his big shoulder raising breathing. Yay! Stil had time to kiss his thumb though. The guy can hit, but he’s a strange dude.
And just fifteen added balls and strikes? That’s nothing. That’s one game’s worth of bad balls and strikes calls by Angel Hernandez or C.B. Bucknor.
That is exactly what I thought: two throws to first and the runner can just lead off halfway to second.
That is not accurate though. If the pitcher throws to first a third time and does not get the runner out, the runner gets to go to second. I don’t know if that counts as a steal, but it does keep the runner close to the bag.
I guess MLB management is not THAT stupid.
Jut, I’d say that’s too high a risk to justify throwing over a third time. I’d say the rule basically says two throws and then it’s off to the races. Which is a really major change, more so than the pitch clock and even no more shifts. (Personally, I’m thrilled to see the mega shifts banned.)
Actually, the third throw rule virtually assures the runner of getting a free pass to second!
We will see. It could keep the runner close enough to the bag. If the runner thinks he can lead off extra far to get a free base, he has a greater chance of getting thrown out.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot after watching a Sox reliever yesterday hesitate to throw to first the second time and allowing three stolen bases in a row without even a throw from the catcher.
1. It will put a premium on catcher throwing-arm strength.
2. Pitchers are going to have to manage stepping off the rubber to hold the runners close with the pitch clock. Not sure how.
3. Snap throws to first by the catchers are more important now—no limits on those. See #1 above.
4. Pitchers had better learn real pick-off moves now. Most don’t have one.
5. Skilled base-stealers will run wild. Imagine what Ricky Henderson or Lou Brock would have done with this rule.
5. Yes. Maybe MLB wants guys on second base at all times, kind of like in extra innings. I always think of Maury Wills when it comes to speed demons on the base paths. He’s kind of forgotten. I guess Ricky caused that. Speaking of old Dodgers, Sandy Kofax is 87, could pass for 67 and was at Dodger Stadium last night. Good for him.
Again, I think this rule is the hugest change to the game and it’s been given no attention whatsoever. The other stuff is all minor. This will have a huge impact.
Then, there is this critique: https://www.outkick.com/mlb-pitch-clock-speeding-up-games-but-theres-a-major-issue-lurking/?fbclid=IwAR1iVsVb1kM_7cMVTa_YKiDEVma3YzUWxCj4unGQj1K4ZSCdzlRAcaTWMQc
I disagree with the guy’s point. Every pitch is important. If they drop the clock in the late innings, games will turn into the last three minutes of a basketball game. Yuck. It’s a ball game. These guys aren’t negotiating world peace.
When it comes to free speech, their words don’t match their actions.
I know a blogger that tells us his views about free speech not once, not twice, not three times but six times in one single post. Talking about free speech in this post he informs us in no uncertain terms, what’s not in his book as it related to free speech, what differs starkly from his point of view about free speech, that he puts free speech first, what good things come from the freedom to think and express your thoughts, how to logically sort the ideas expressed with free speech, and lastly how having the maximum freedom of expression is the heart of classic liberalism and the very meaning of freedom. These are all very good things to promote in our society, the problem is that the blogger literally does not practice what he preaches.
I know people can do what ever they want to do with their blog as it relates to comments posted by others, but what about having a verifiable history of doing this…
This particular blogger has a verifiable history with me of allowing comments that agree/praise his blog post but censors all other comments all while he makes statements about how he supports free speech.
Clearly this is unethical censorship and bald-faced hypocrisy, right?
One of the blogs Steve references (Caffeinated Politics) allowed the following Post-Modern-Neo-Lefty-Illiberal Schrödinger’s Douchebag Hate Screed:
I have marched against the death penalty, but I’m willing to make an exception here.
MARCH 30, 2023 AT 10:54 PM
Perhaps some of the EA commentariat would like to pay Deke a visit and weigh in…?
(In case anyone wonders, WordPress had learned a new trick: it refused to allow me to post the title of this post above the graphic no matter what I did. This has never happened before. Drives me nuts…)
That’s weird! I haven’t had that happen, yet.
I was wondering why the title looked funny. It is not necessarily WordPress that learned that trick. It could be the browser(s) implementing new handling for CSS that broke it. CSS is handled slightly differently in all the browsers, and makes front end programming great fun. Thank goodness Internet Explorer is dead.
It appears as “(no title)” in your Recent Posts list.
I know. I tried everything. It’s a choice between looking terrible on the page, or looking good but not registering a title.
Reid blows up the filibuster in 2013, Trump gets three SCOTUS picks.
Bragg indicts a former president…nothing good can happen.
Trump – if he can shut up about DeSantis & the 2020 election – will become the Republican nominee. Biden, if he doesn’t die beforehand, will be the Democrat nominee.
I would vote for Trump a 3rd time, but I don’t want another Trump presidency.
Democrats will be even more activated to destroy Trump with acceptable massive collateral damage to America, allowing like-minded domestic terrorists to keep those who disagree quiet.
A 2nd term for Biden would be worse for America, but the riots will not be as bad & the destruction will start at the anti-free speech campuses.
I guess I’m the half-full sort.
How should Republican prosecutors get even, now that there us this indictment?
Not so fast, Brendan. There’s the Georgia prosecution and the January 6 prosecution waiting patiently in line. The DOJ is evidently pissed off at Bragg for jumping the queue with a weak case and taking the thunder away from the cases next in line. The Dems are just getting started.
Isn’t letting Joe back for another zombie term tantamount to appeasement? Will we have political peace in our time? Frankly, I don’t think so. The Dems want single party rule. Nothing short of that will satisfy them. Ask any of your lefty acquaintances. They hate Republicans.
Gee, maybe “long Covid” wasn’t … I don’t know what. https://slate.com/technology/2023/03/long-covid-symptoms-studies-research-variant.html I haven’t read the article in detail but it looks like, “Gee, maybe we alleged experts over-reacted.”
What is the best way for Republican prosecutors to retaliate against Democrats?
Indict every democrat that they can who has committed insider trading, taking bribes, influence peddling or other forms of corruption. Indict the friends and family they use to launder the money. Indictments for everyone!
They must not let the Constitution, law, or ethics stand in the way.
Hurting Democrats should be their only priority.
Whew, I guess “no one is above the law” broke the Dem’s talking point generator. Should read, “No Republican is above the law.”
Didn’t anyone else notice the brazen signature significant anti-constitutional portion of Pelosi’s statement?
“…everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.”
No Pelosi you ignorant constitutional deficient hack, in the United States of America we are “innocent until proven guilty” NOT “guilt until proven innocent”!
Pelosi is a fucking moron.
Oh. She’s not a moron. At this point Hanlon’s Razor isn’t fair to apply to single comments by democrats. They know what they are about. This isn’t ignorance. It’s malice.
Michael West wrote, “Oh. She’s not a moron. At this point Hanlon’s Razor isn’t fair to apply to single comments by democrats. They know what they are about. This isn’t ignorance. It’s malice.”
Maybe so, but it was moronic to post it for everyone to read and therefore reveal that which they don’t what revealed, they’re anti-constitutional and therefore anti-American.
Pelosi should be censured and no one should let Pelosi or any other lefty rationalize her statement.
I don’t think democrats care. It’s increasingly apparent they’ve been in end game mode since the election of Obama. Trump’s election was a mere blip in their plan.
But it was a blip that showed a large body of Americans are not on board with the radical revolution the democrats envision. But the democrats can’t punish red America en masse. Yet.
But they can punish Trump as the representative of that rejection of their plans. And not a single bit of their attitude since the election of Obama would work in any party that cares about the Constitution.
But they are reasonably certain they will never lose power in any meaningful sense and since their goal is to ultimately undo the constitution they really don’t care what open language they use.
But. Hubris is a deficiency.
This is encapsulated by this comment by someone who used the online handle “Maraxus”
We have people like “Maraxus” extolling criminal prosecution as an acceptable political tactic. And “Maraxus’s” ideas are the rules now. I wish they were not, but they are.
What must be done is to get even. and that means every Republican prosecutor must set aside the Constitution, law, and ethics to prosecute Democrats- their leaders, their donors, and their spokesholes. Nothing is more important than taking democrats to court, regardless of how outlandish or nonsensical the legal arguments are.
Any Republicna prosecutor who refuses to do so should resign in abject remorse and shame.
I am extremely concerned with this “right to a trial to prove their innocence.” I feel that this was not the comment of a moron. This is what she wants us to have instead of justice system.
At least for Republicans.
If you’re a lefty, you don’t even get charged.
I am sure there are a few creative legal interpretations the Florida Attorney General can come up with to obtain indictments against leftists.
She should have started on this last night.
Does the expression “cheap, two-bit dictator of a banana republic” mean anything to you?
There’s now a “context” note attached to her tweet referencing that. Lefties hate this new feature that lets the community point out their lies.
Yep. Rep. Pelosi got that exactly backwards. It’s telling, isn’t it? Then, the Lincoln Project ridiculed Trump, saying, “if you’re so damned innocent, then what do you have to fear?” Here is the tweet:
I just posted this reply on Twitter to Pelosi’s tweet…
I saw that. It should disqualify her from Congress. If that were the case let’s have Bill Clinton prove his innocence against Paula Jones’s accusations and Joe Biden should be indicted for sexual assault on Tara Reid and influence peddling If, that is to say, no one is above the law.
Am I the only one who can’t see a title link in the main Ethics Alarms feed for this post? I had to back door my way by clicking the comments link.
See Jack’s note above, Michael.
Ah. Maybe if I’d bother to read. I’m in the penalty box now.
TV show recommendation. I know Jack enjoys TV shows that have an ethics component, and I have one. A British drama series called Line of Duty. It’s six seasons, relatively short seasons. The premise is internal affairs officers investigating various wrongdoings of their fellow policemen in an anonymous mid tier English city. It is intense, great acting, and the lengths ethical bankruptcy the villains go to is fascinating. It’s also quirky to see the workings of the British justice system. Overall, I think you would enjoy it. Also, one thing I find interesting is the fact that there are no squeaky clean characters, lots of gray area, and even the internal affairs officers sometimes do some questionable things.
Bingo: I love “Line of Duty.”
Tangentially, I ran across another current day “Law and Order.” Whew, was it ever terrible. Awful script, completely predictable. Cardboard characters. Low or no energy acting. Sam Waterstone looks like his Madame Tussaud’s wax figure. It should be shut down. In a New York minute.
Ashley Moody needs to start on working on indicting Democrats, no matter how outlandish the underlying legal arguments are.
If she fails to do so, she should resign in abject remorse and shame.
I still think Trump should not surrender in New York. He should make the New York police send their fugitive warrants squad to Palm Beach, or have the Palm Beach County police arrest Trump in a SWAT raid of Mar-A-Lago. Maybe at night, with helicopters and Stun/Flashbang Grenades and a CNN crew in attendance. Then he should fight extradition to New York. And be held in Palm Beach County jail, along with his Secret Service detail in the same cell. Play this for all it’s worth.
According to Dan Bongino, an ex Secret Service (protective service) agent during Obama the Secret service will protect the ex-president against any violence no matter who. Not sure if this is true in this case but it would make for an interesting stalemate.
An ethical and competent Biden-appointed judge (no, really!) rules against a Minnesota law restricting firearms ownership, even though she agrees with the law’s aims.
Guess I was unaware of this controversy:
Me too. I wonder why. I’m posting on it right now. Thanks.
Give me a few minutes and I’ll send you an unredacted full size version of that comic.
Just sent the unredacted comic via email.
Thanks, I already found it and the post is up!
Yeah, he got into trouble for that, but somehow was not completely cancelled, like Scott Adams. He often veers more into the realm of political editorial cartoons than strictly entertainment. He’s also a jerk; went into an online snit once when I suggested that he stay in his lane on Second Amendment commentary.