Case Study:”When Ethics Fail, The Law Steps In”— The 2023 Major League Baseball Season

After the Arizona Diamondbacks win tonight, everything but the World Series will has been settled in the 2023 MLB season. (The Texas Rangers had already defeated the cheatin’ Houston Astros for the American League pennant, thus proving that the Baseball Gods read Ethics Alarms.) The season will be most noted in history notable for the fact that several game-changing new rules were introduced, all designed to cut down on dead time and speed up the games, which had gradually stretched out to an average of more than three hours.

MLB had tinkered around the edges of the rules in recent years in an effort to fix the dragging games problem. It (finally) banned one-batter mid-inning pitching changes, a curse visited on baseball by a combination of statistics-obsessed managers and the rise of left-handed pitching specialists, by requiring relief pitchers to face a minimum of three batters. It also made intentional walks automatic, with batters being sent to first with pitchers actually having to throw four balls outside the strike zone (that one shaved about 3 seconds off the average game time, maybe).

These new rules had little measurable effect, however, so for 2023, baseball dropped The Big One by instituting a pitch clock that limited the time pitchers had to throw a pitch to 15 seconds with the bases empty and 20 seconds with runners on base. Rules were attached limiting the number of time-outs a batter could call during his at-bats to one and requiring batters to step up to the plate when a pitcher was ready to throw the ball, thus ending psychological stalling tactics. Baseball had always taken pride in the fact that it was the one major sport without time limits, but that virtue had become a liability as players increasingly abused the privilege. Another rule stopped more tactical abuse: pitchers had begun throwing alleged pick-off throws to first base sometimes for no apparent reason, again, stalling to compose themselves are to unsettle the batter. Starting in 2023, a pitcher got three shots at trying to pick-off a baserunner, and if the third failed, the runner advanced to the next base anyway.

Continue reading

David Mamet On The Self-Destructive Opposition To Israel By American Jews

I have concluded that there are three categories of Americans calling for a cease-fire in Gaza and blabbering on about a “peaceful and humane” resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. First, there are the anti-Semites, who willfully pretend that the plight of Palestinians isn’t tied to the group’s stated determination to wipe Israel from the map. Then there are the Lennonites, whose brains have been turned to mush by the fantasies of John’s “Imagine.” They want to eliminate war, and stubbornly think that is possible when terrorists and evil-doers like Hamas have forced a reckoning from the beginning of nations. Finally, there are the idiots, ignorant of history, distracted only by loyalties, biases, mob passions and emotion.

It is fascinating to speculate which of these three categories explain Jewish American peace activists like the thousands who marched on Capitol Hill, where they carried Palestinian flags and called for support of “Palestinian rights.” In a related display, hundreds of activists held a sit-in inside one of the Capitol buildings, organized by Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, who claim to want a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Playwright, screenwriter and author David Mamet has written a deft analysis of the phenomenon called “How the Democrats betrayed the Jews: The sick thrill of antisemitism has a price.”

Mamet is thoughtful commentator whose mind is usually occupied with ethics problems (almost all of his plays and movies have ethics at their core), and who is currently unpopular with the artistic left ever since he proclaimed that nobody but him had any business deciding what was a good enough reason to buy a gun. Do read the whole piece, but here are some jewels…

Continue reading

Alternate Titles: 1. “Coke Says ‘Never Mind!'”; 2. “One Down, Thousands To Go” 3. “Black Lives Matter? We Have No Idea What You’re Talking About!”

This is what George Will likes to call “condign justice.”

Coca-Cola was one of thousands of corporations large and small to leap onto the George Floyd Freakout bandwagon and endorse Black Lives Matter even though it should have been obvious that the group was 1) racist 2) Marxist 3) violent and 4) a scam. Now is reaping the consequences it so richly deserves, as BLM has, naturally, come out in support of Hamas’s terror attack on Israel.

Many who were disgusted (like me) at the transparently cynical and opportunistic toadying by the corporate sector when it realized bashing police and demonizing whites was cool have been quick to point out Coke’s transgression. Here’s an example:

Coca-Cola’s reaction, cowards and ethics-free louses that they are, has been to quietly remove all references to BLM from the company’s website, where it once boasted of its financial support (now doubtless being used to fund one or more of the BLM leaders’ extravagances). Here’s the page: no mention of Black Lives Matter in sight.

Continue reading

Ethics Tip: If You’re Illiterate And Front A Literacy Foundation, Don’t Go On “Wheel Of Fortune”

Former NFL running back Rashad Jennings faced the board above on last week’s episode of “Celebrity Wheel of Fortune.” He was playing to win money for the Rashad Jennings Foundation. announcing the right letter would win the game and nearly $5000 for his foundation, whose mission is to “ignite students with a passion for reading and literacy through offering incentives for their efforts.”

Rashad stared at the board, considered the options for __UENTIN, and announced, “P!” The ex-athlete was well-advised to make light of the embarrassing episode, and posted the video of his gaffe on Twitter/X, but if The Rashad Jennings Foundation doesn’t re-brand itself quickly, with the name of someone whose major exposure other than NFL games is failing a basic literacy test that a 5th Grader should pass, its leadership will be breaching its fiduciary duty.

Continue reading

Housekeeping Note…

Yikes. I just rescued seven comments from spam, a few of which were first-time commenters. That shouldn’t happen, and I’ll pursue it with WordPress. A few were a couple of weeks old. Please, if your comment doesn’t post, email me. I hate to see comments lost. This was a record.

I apologize to all.

Warped Dog-Owner Ethics From “The Atlantic”

Ann Althouse, who reads a magazine I gave up on when it went full Trump-Deranged, flagged an article called “Too Many People Own Dogs: If you love dogs, maybe don’t get one.” Ann belongs to a dog-loving family so she has some credibility in the area, but the author, Rose Horowitch, who talks about ethics a lot in the article, is seriously confused, and I’m surprised Ann doesn’t see it.

The article begins with a discussion of dogs on Prozac and how anxious people make their dogs anxious. First, the average dog owner is not going to put a dog on Prozac. It is true that dogs, being natural empaths, often mirror the moods of their owners; on the other hand, dogs without behavioral issues make anxious people less so. Dogs also want a job, and if keeping an anxious adult from freaking out is their role, that’s fine with them.

Continue reading

“Do You Know Who I Am?” Yes. You’re Under-Educated Knee-jerk Progressive Celebrities Under The Delusion That Your Opinion Is Special

What makes a washed-up child star like Alyssa Milano think that her analysis of the Hamas-Israel war should carry any special weight with the President of the United States? What makes any of the other acting Leftists who signed the statement—this predictable crew—

—think their letter should be taken any more seriously than, say, one signed by 60 or so dog-walkers or 7-11 clerks? It shouldn’t, you know. I know lots of actors; some of my best friends are actors, really and truly. But with notable exceptions, their political views are the product of working and socializing in a bubble where there are virtually mandatory political beliefs. Most of my acting friends–“artists”–would watch an hour of MSNBC and say, “Sounds good to me!” because they lack the historical perspective or depth of understanding to challenge the woke orthodoxy of their peers and employers.

Alyssa’s screed goes off the rails immediately. There is no “Palestine.” People who elect a terrorist group to represent them are responsible for the predictable consequences. As one wag neatly put it, Hamas “pearl-harbored” Israel: that’s a brutal act of war, and demands a response that will teach the lesson forever that you can’t do that, and if you do, the results will be dire. Hamas uses Gaza’s children as human shields, and that tactic must never be allowed to work. Calling for a cease fire when the piper is about to be paid makes Hamas’s intolerable conduct practical. Calling for Palestinians to benefit in any way as a result of the terror attack validates terrorism.

Continue reading

Unethical (And Stupid) Quote Of The Month: Eric Levitz, Who Ironically Enough Writes For NY Mag’s “Intelligencer”

Last night, I asserted that this report indicated that babies were beheaded. This was an overstatement. I should have said that the report established that babies were found headless, a fact that lends plausibility to claims of beheading, but which does not prove them.

—New York Magazine reporter Eric Levitz on Twitter/X, going for the all-time record in Hamas-excusing spin.

Oh. What?

Yes, it’s come to this: a progressive reporter, naturally inclined to make excuses for the Palestinians because they are “of color” and supposedly oppressed, twists reality and his brain into pretzel-shapes in order to discredit the confirmed reports of Hamas terrorists beheading Jewish babies.

Let me see, what else could explain baby carcasses with missing heads? 1) Maybe they never had heads in the first place. 2) Maybe their heads just fell off, like the coughing jaybird’s head in the old song. 3) Maybe the heads were still attached, but these were turtle-human hybrid babies, and they just pulled their heads inside. That’s about all I can think of. You?

Old friend (and one of my board members at the American Century Theater) John Podhoretz caught this one, commenting, “I suppose there has been a worse set of sentences ever written but I can’t quite imagine what they might be.”

Where Have You Gone, James Donovan, Our Nation Turns Its Fearful Eyes To You…[Updated]

Woo woo woo.

Yesterday, I was moved to re-watch “Bridge of Spies,” the excellent Spielberg and Coen Brothers-told tale of James Donovan, the lawyer (portrayed by Tom Hanks) who negotiated the release of Francis Gary Powers in exchange for convicted Soviet spy Rudolf Abel. Maybe something in the deep recesses of my mind was triggered by yesterday’s post about the rigged prosecution, trial and conviction of the four Minnesota police officers involved in George Floyd’s death. What was striking about the movie was that Donovan is shown being recruited by his law firm to defend Abel, described as “the most hated man in America” at the height of the Cold War, to demonstrate to the Soviets that we guarantee a fair trial and zealous legal representation to everyone accused of a crime, irrespective of public opinion and the nature of the crime. Everyone has the same rights.

Donovan did defend Abel, even though it is made clear in the film that the judge was determined to see him convicted and that Donovan himself as well as his family were endangered by his taking the case. After Abel was convicted despite the fact that the evidence used by the prosecution should have been excluded as the “fruits” of an illegal search, Donovan appealed the result all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, defying his firm’s opposition to him continuing the case. His partners argued that the unpopularity of Abel risks alienating clients. Donovan’s initial representation sent the required symbolic message, they said, and even though the conviction may have been unjust, there was no reason to be obsessed with those due process and rights details, not for an enemy spy who might have been facilitating an enemy’s nuclear attack.

Continue reading

Ethics Dunces, Incompetent Elected Officials, And Aspiring Totalitarians: Anti-Free Speech And Free Thought Congressional Republicans; Ethics Hero: Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

1. The Fox News headline reads, “Democrat blocks Hawley’s resolution to condemn antisemitism on college campuses.” That’s not exactly fair and balanced. The gist of the headline, of course, is to make it sound like Democrats enable anti-Semitism. BAD Fox! BAD. That Democrat is Maryland Senator Chris Van Holland, and he wasn’t blocking a generic Senate resolution condemning anti-Semitism, which like a resolution condemning police brutality, would be virtue-signaling with little significance. This was something else.

Conservative Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri called upon all of his colleagues to give unanimous consent on his resolution condemning Hamas, pledging support of Israel, confirming that nation’s “right to exits” and condemning the pro-Palestinian statements and demonstrations by student groups on college campuses. It is clear, however, that what the resolution was really targeting are students. Hawley’s resolution begins with the usual list of “Whereas’s,” with nine of the thirteen referring directly to student reaction to the October 7 Hamas attack.

“Almost as disturbing as the facts of these terrible attacks themselves is the response of some people in this country. On our college campuses in this country who promptly took to the streets, to the courtyards of these campuses, the airwaves, to broadcast their support for this genocide against the people of Israel,”said Hawley on the floor introducing his resolution. “Students at Ohio State praised the heroic resistance in Gaza. Heroic — it’s now heroic to massacre Jews in cold blood. It’s now heroic to try and carry out a genocide against Jewish people. Calling for the death of Jewish people is not just another opinion. Calling for the genocide, celebrating the genocide of Jewish babies is not just another opinion. Celebrating the assaults on Jewish people in this country is not just another opinion, and the Senate should be clear and stand with moral clarity and say ‘this is wrong.'”

Ringing words, except that the same kind of argument could be raised against students opposing the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision or in support of affirmative action. Hawley’s resolution should give pause to anyone under the delusion that only Democrats are hostile to free speech and expression when it doesn’t please them.

Continue reading