Facts don’t matter, history doesn’t matter, logic doesn’t matter. All that matters to “these people”—I say “these people” because I don’t want to be associated with them in any way—is to mislead and confuse dimwits and know-nothings into not trusting the President and his administration regardless of the policy or decision.
Lincoln fired five generals leading the Army of the Potomac, one of them twice (McClellan), before finding the one he needed to win the Civil War. As a Marine veteran of of combat said succinctly when I told him about the Atlantic’s nonsense, “During a war is when firing generals is most important.”
But I digress. Write about any of the gazillions of ethics issues out there.
I have to watch Opening Day at Fenway Park now…
Ethics Alarms 
There were Generals fired during World War II as well. There is nothing “unprecedented” about it. Admiral Kimmel was fired after Pearl Harbor. George Patton was placed on leave and probably should have been fired (though he was later re-instated) for his violent outbursts against soldiers. A quick search also turned up General Fredendall, who was fired (and I think demoted) after the U.S. disaster at Kasserine Pass in North Africa. I forgot about him.
Let’s see…Harry Truman (a Democrat) fired Douglas MacArthur – a five-star General – rather early in the Korean war.
Any reporter for “The Atlantic” having read just one “overview” book of WWII would have known most of what I just typed. In fact, it’s likely a 3-minute internet search would turn it all up. Unfortunately, most reporters are interested in a narrative, not actual facts.
Chicago Bulls guard Jaden Ivey was released this week for conduct detrimental to the team after he posted on social media calling the NBA’s Pride Month “unrighteousness.”
Jaden Ivey claims he is discriminated against because he is a Christian:
“That is a lie. I was a good teammate to those around me. I was a good teammate on the floor. I made the right plays. I did exactly what the coach asked me to do on a daily basis. Whatever was needed, whatever was required of me to do, I was willing. So, my conduct was not detrimental to the team.“
Ivey said he was only cut because he was preaching “the word of God.”
“It is strictly because I spoke the truth of the word of God and was preaching the Gospel,” he continued. “That’s why it was detrimental to the team. I witnessed to many on my team the truth and those things“.
“Everyone has their beliefs. Everyone believes in something. If someone can speak and curse and speak about unrighteousness about whatever it may be, then I can speak the truth and that’s because my God says to speak the truth the lost, to those who don’t know Jesus, to those who are not born again.“
Here is Jonathan Turley’s view on the matter.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/04/03/poison-ivey-chicago-bulls-release-forward-after-he-speaks-out-against-pride-month/
My questions are:
My personal take is that sports teams should focus on playing sports, and public companies should focus on creating value for customers and profits for shareholders. If a company wants to weigh in on a cultural matter (e.g. by celebrating Gay Pride month), that should not preclude an employee from publicly speaking out against the cause that company is championing.
The function if a business, certainly a corporation, and including a sports team, which is all of the above, is to generate money. A corporation has a duty to provide profit to the investors. So, obviously, a business is by its nature dedicated solely to values of that order. But so-called “Constitutional rights to free speech”, granted to individuals, are ipso facto violated by businesses and corporations whose sole reason for existing is that of “generating profit”. And here is the larger fact though I guess (?) this is controversial: America is no longer a “Constitutional republic” innthe former or original sense but a governing system largely controlled and determined by businesses: corporations and constellations of corporations.
It is a curious issue, that of the origin of the American corporation. I think it was all worked out in about the 1870s (?) A corporation is an entity granted “personhood” on a par with a natural person. It is a charter granted by the governing authority, and technically therefore a charter granted by the people of the Republic, but it is very easy to see that a corporate charter, and a corporate person, has been granted power far over that of any person. This “fictitious person” never dies, and it cannot hardly even be killed since no matter the crime (of corporate persons) their charters are never revoked. A person can be jailed and even executed for crimes, a fictitious person can escape all of this by crafty legal manouevres.
I think it true that “corporations run the government” and they are ultra-powerful in determining the “public sphere” through money-power and extraordinary powerful public relations (propaganda) manipulations.
Therefore, one can only try to consider the power of advocacy of masses and clusters of such corporate individuals and their determining power in nearly all areas. So the former “republican values” and something of the “essence” of people’s determining power has long ago been encroached upon, violated and in any case manoeuvred around.
In this sense (if viewed from these angles) the Business Class of America (and of extra-national corporate entities) long ago subverted what was and is “original to America”. This is why I say that it was “the Reagan class” that substantially gutted US industries and sent the factories to (communist!) China and demonstrated that those interests did not in any sense “care gor the people”.
This is one reason why that strange pájaro Tucker Carlson has relevance in our present. Consider his show dealing with Paul Singer’s “vulture capitalism”.
If you think about it, this exposition is totally out of character for Fox News journalism because it exposes something kept well hidden.
It is not surprising that a business (a team in this case) has far more power than a mere individual: the subject of the more powerful entity.
The potentially uncivil judge who berated the IT guy.
When is it professionally acceptable to express anger, and did the judge have a point? My initial impression was that the judge let his frustrations with technology overtake him. Plus, the judiciary probably needs to maintain an appearance of fairness even more than a lawyer would since they have so much power.
I personally would feel uncomfortable if I had to deal with a legal issue and this guy was my judge.
Then another lawyer has sent the judge an e-mail saying he was rude. Did that lawyer cross any ethical lines?
My entire IT career has revolved around technology and user support, and I expect judges demand an outsized standard of care for themselves here the same way physicians do in the medical field.
Verbially dismissing and expressing doubt about the customer’s concerns is not appropriate no matter the customer. The fact the technology was working at the time the tech arrived means nothing about the condition causing it being resolved other than its more difficult to troubleshoot.
Started reading the thread to find this point, and after the third post attributing racism as the reason for the judge’s reaction, I just rolled my eyes and no longer care about it.
Fair point, and some older styles of manners suggest that sarcasm and being too jokey can be considered bad form. If the judge sees the court as the place where “high manners” reign, that could explain his irritation.
The old manners also say to be benevolent and not express too much outward emotion either, so everyone probably falls if you follow that logic.
Racism just didn’t seem to be an issue, at least to me.
Came across a lawyer discussing this more, who also found additional clips of the judge’s…. Judgement. There’s also a confusion of terminology between the tech and the judge, tech labels the problem “false negative” meaning although no problem observed now (negative) it’s a false indicator of no problem. Judge hears and repeats back “false alarm” which is another thing entirely.
“I have to watch Opening Day at Fenway Park now…“
During which you witnessed:
Democrat Gov. Maura Healey, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu BOOED At Red Sox Home Opener
“I have to watch Opening Day at Fenway Park now…“
During which you witnessed:
Democrat Gov. Maura Healey, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu BOOED At Red Sox Home Opener
MONEY QUOTE: (During a pregame ceremony) (T)he 36,000-plus fans in attendance showered the Democrats with relentless boos.
Ethical or unethical display of…um…opinion to a captive audience?
PWS
To put Atlantic story about firing generals in context I will start by quoting Andrew McCarthy, with the link at the bottom of the comment:
“When America loses a war, it is generally because of political reaction at home, notwithstanding smashing success on the battlefield. Winning is not just about achieving military goals; it entails selling the American people on critical national security aims and then unmistakably achieving them. If the president doesn’t do that, a win can be made to look like a loss.”
The big challenge in the war against the IRGC is public opinion and lack of political support in the United States. The main stream media and the Democrats are fierce opponents of this war, as they are obstinately against anything Trump does. I think it is safe to say that the MSM and the Democrats see Trump as enemy number one, and not the IRGC in Iran. The IRGC knows that, and the best strategy to survive is to wait Trump out until the election of a more favorable President and Congress. This war will do the economy harm, which is precisely what Trump does not need for the midterm elections. A “victory” that leaves the IRGC regime in power will be very hard to sell politically as a real victory; it will more look like a removal of only 95% of a malignant tumor. Trump’s address to the nation has not taken away the doubts about the final war objectives.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/04/the-fog-of-war-against-iran/
The big challenge in the war against the IRGC is public opinion and lack of political support in the United States. The mainstream media and the Democrats are fierce opponents of this war, as they are obstinately against anything Trump does. I think it is safe to say that the MSM and the Democrats see Trump as enemy number one, and not the IRGC in Iran. The IRGC knows that, and the best strategy to survive is to wait Trump out until the election of a more favorable President and Congress. This war will do the economy harm, which is precisely what Trump does not need for the midterm elections. A “victory” that leaves the IRGC regime in power will be very hard to sell politically as a real victory; it will more look like a removal of only 95% of a malignant tumor. Trump’s address to the nation has not taken away the doubts about the final war objectives.
But the regime in Iran is not a threat to the United States. That is a rather typical narrative that has been used over and over. Some serious people make this case. If true, one has to go deeper and seek other reasonings for engaging in it.
Also, this time was not, is not, the time to launch such a consequential war. If only because this is not the platform he ran on. So if sectors of his base feel betrayed, they have sound reasons to be so. Since Trump did not take this into consideration he a) does not seem to care and b) is pursuing an objective of his own (which does not look like it can be successful).
Every balanced person should have significant doubts about the sensibility of Trumps aggressive postures. It might play well in the TeeVee mind of Americans, but his choices and his stances do not play at all well in the world’s eye. Smarter players will exploit these stupidities. They (like Russia, like China, the adversaries of the US) will simply wait and continue support of Iran. And as everyone is noticing, Iran wins for not losing. As Mearsheimer said: Trump stepped into a trap. It sure looks like that.
The country is pathologically divided. What same politician would risk a war of such dangers, and before a super-consequential midterm? It does not require TDS to say: A total idiot.
Some say that this war must be seen in conjunction with larger plans. An attempt to secure oil reserves by use of brazen military operations. A desperate manoeuvre by a nation in serious economic and strategic condition. But how could such an enterprise really work (or be pulled off)? It may well arouse too much opposition in the long run. If this is true it makes Trump look ridiculously short-sighted.
Facts must be faced: these aggressive acts look like late-empire blunders that runnthe risk of failing. If that occurs, the conflicts in the US will intensify.
However, there might be some rather slim chance that the war is “won” and Trump cones out more a hero than a loser.
I have appeared before that judge. His behavior in the video with IT guy – and others – show he lacks competence to serve as a judge. He is abusive toward attorneys and is not overly bright. The judge seemed to react to an off-hand comment made by the IT guy, taking it ask an insult so he berated him in open court.
jvb