Palm Beach has re-named its airport the President Donald J. Trump International Airport. I don’t know why this was felt to be necessary or desirable, but I don’t care what airports are named, and those who do, I believe, have deep emotional problems as well as strange priorities.
But in a gobsmacking bit of virtue-signaling to the Trump Deranged, United Airlines has announced a new policy offering passengers free flight changes if landing at an airport named for the current President of the United States is too traumatic. Anti-Trump wackos can now reroute to Fort Lauderdale or Miami at no extra charge so the Palm Beach airport’s name won’t cause such fliers permanent psychic damage.
A United memo to reservation agents reads,
“If a customer does not want to fly to the airport, use your empowerment to offer acceptable alternatives such as Fort Lauderdale Airport (FLL) or Miami International Airport (MIA), [telling the customer] ‘I understand that you’d rather not fly to this airport anymore. We can look at nearby airports like Fort Lauderdale or Miami instead. Is that an acceptable alternative?'”
To be fair to United, which is hard for me because I detest that airline, there were a ridiculous number of crazed reactions made the airport’s online contact form after the airport was renamed last week. Such as,
- “How do we continue to get on our knees for such a narcissistic criminal so-called president?”
- “I am writing to assure you that as long as you are calling this airport anything closely related to ‘TRUMP’ I will NEVER FLY INTO THERE. NEVER! You have 100% lost all my family’s business. Despicable move!”
- “Hopefully you’ll have plenty of airbags to catch the barfs from people as they drive up.”
Yes, this is clinical. Maybe United is basing its pandering on the American with Disabilities Act.
Now it’s your turn…you pick the ethics topic, I sit back and enjoy.
Ethics Alarms 
I too wanted to fair to United when I read this post, at least until you mentioned that it is United Airlines.
We were on a flight with a toddler and a stewardess threatened to report us to child protective services if my child who was in my lap and had been in my lap for the entire flight did not sit down and sit still.
I have never flown United after that incident. I drive.
I have had nothing but awful experiences on United. Cabin crew are routinely rude and dismissive.
Re: President Donald J. Trump International Airport..
Isn’t this deserving of a Kaufman? Talk about a proverbial tempest in a tea pot. The real question is whether the airport provides (at least) a modicum of competent service. I don’t know if the commentariate is aware of Buc-Ees. It is a gas station/convenience store (it is kind of overwhelming because the stores are frickin’ huge and sell everything from gas, food, clothing, beverages, and small children) that started southeastish of Houston. It prides itself on the cleanest bathrooms around and courteous customer relations. And, quite frankly, a number of commercial enterprises could learn a thing or two from them.
I recently had to pick up my brother-in-law from Houston Intercontinental Airport (George Bush International) and had to use the facilities. Well, leaving out the gory details, I was appalled by the conditions. I mentioned that Buc-Ees might provide some insight into restroom maintenance to the guy leaning on the mop but he just looked at me. I know he heard me because he reacted when I commented, frowned, and continued leaning on the mop.
jvb
We stopped at two Buc-ee’s last week on our road trip. Best public restrooms in the country. And great snacks for the road, too.
It’s my understanding they’re the size of a Walmart. They’ve just opened one in west Phoenix. Maybe worth a trip but I doubt it.
The air-fried potato chips are spectacular. Oh, and the fudge. Simply delicious.
jvb
Of course, things are bigger in Texas.
Well, Trump is a president and he flies in and out of West Palm because that’s the closest major airport to Mar a Lago. Presidents get stuff named after them. Like, oh say, JFK or Reagan National or, as John mentions, George Bush.
a
That said, I may be missing something. Could I request some independent eyes on our conversation to let me know if I’m making sense or if there’s a problem with my approach? https://ethicsalarms.com/2026/07/08/my-legal-ethics-association-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-906412
(Reposting comment because WordPress did not respect that I undid an accidental change before submitting. That’s quite the bug. Jack, feel free to delete the original.)
I think Jack’s approach for dealing with the lawyers circling their wagons around alcoholic colleagues is unnecessarily antagonistic, and he would be much more persuasive with a systematic approach based on understanding and addressing people’s concerns, even though as professionals they should theoretically do that for themselves. (We work with the audience we have, not the one we want.)
That said, I may be missing something. Could I request some independent eyes on our conversation to let me know if I’m making sense or if there’s a problem with my approach? https://ethicsalarms.com/2026/07/08/my-legal-ethics-association-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-906412
First, who said Jack was “trying to win?” Maybe he did, but I didn’t see that. He expressed a concern and they rejected it / him. What Jack’s goal was beyond that he would need to state for the record. Either way, you didn’t seem to provide (or I didn’t see) a clear alternative path yourself. Whether active alcoholics or former alcoholic with a history of relapse should be forthright with clients regarding their condition is the key question. Whether it should be expanded to serious clinical illnesses, drug addition (legal or illicit) etc., whether it should be voluntary or compulsory, and how to define and operationalize the risk-disclosure threshold, are details that follow — if the key question warrants. Your argument was all over the place, like a dozen cartons of eggs that spilled in aisle 7. Jack’s not a stock boy. So, show Jack in simple, clear, economical terms that the operationalization of is idea would be too messy, with multiple “concern vectors” and non-feasible thresholds, and then push him to produce something feasible and tangible if he thinks you’re wrong. Then the unstated reasons behind the objections of that group might be clearer, or they might be proven to be biased idiots. (We already know they’re biased idiots, but they may not be wrong — they just didn’t make a good case one way or another, and neither did you.) So, try again.
Sorry for the delay. I appreciate the response.
I am making the assumption that Jack wanted to inspire serious consideration of a de facto policy change (that is, he wanted people to start behaving in accordance with an official code of ethics that already exists). I consider this a reasonable assumption, since Jack expressed severe disappointment in the results that he reported. He then appeared to protect his ego by moving the goal posts closer to himself, claiming that his approach was working when it obviously isn’t persuading anyone and will discourage people who agree with him from speaking up in support. (I am forced to assume his approach was obnoxious, since he still hasn’t posted what he actually said here. However, when someone disagrees with something he considers obvious, he invariably responds with arrogance and dismissiveness, so I consider this assumption reasonable as well.) Regardless, his implied goal is still to inspire a change in behavior.
Beyond being in denial about how alcoholism works, people want to know that their friends, relatives, and colleagues aren’t bound to commit career seppuku. In theory, they should accept the truth and come up with a solution themselves, but most humans aren’t intellectually honest enough for that. We could try browbeating them into doing what we think they ought to, but I find that rarely works. It’s more effective to hand them a solution that lowers the stakes for admitting the truth.
As a workable solution, I suggest that alcoholic lawyers who are in recovery can display a statement of how long they have been sober. This will give potential clients information without putting an undue stigma on the lawyers themselves. I think it’s fair to say that alcoholic lawyers who are not practicing sobriety should not be practicing law until at least they get help and go into recovery.
As a matter of responsible preparation, all professionals should have a plan to hand off their clients and responsibilities in the event that they are incapacitated, whatever the reason. Maybe they can also display information about any outages they have had within the past year, or mistakes they’ve made (in general terms). That would not only help address the alcoholism issue, but address general competence. I’m not sure how realistic it is to list one’s own mistakes or many lawyers would go for that, but posing it as a question opens the door for discussion about reputation, transparency, and track records in professional businesses.
Does that answer your questions?
First, I just commented on your new substack site. I like it! I wish you all the best with it.
You: I am making the assumption that Jack wanted to inspire serious consideration of a de facto policy change (that is, he wanted people to start behaving in accordance with an official code of ethics that already exists).
Me: The parenthetical clarifier doesn’t logically match what it’s trying to clarify.
You: I consider this a reasonable assumption, since Jack expressed severe disappointment in the results that he reported. He then appeared to protect his ego by moving the goal posts closer to himself, claiming that his approach was working when it obviously isn’t persuading anyone and will discourage people who agree with him from speaking up in support. (I am forced to assume his approach was obnoxious, since he still hasn’t posted what he actually said here. However, when someone disagrees with something he considers obvious, he invariably responds with arrogance and dismissiveness, so I consider this assumption reasonable as well.) Regardless, his implied goal is still to inspire a change in behavior.
Me: It’s been a while so I might have missed it, but I don’t remember Jack declaring victory on this one. And I wouldn’t make any assumptions about Jack’s style in his conversation with that group because we weren’t privy to it. In general, one catches more flies with honey than vinegar, but a policy of that level of importance is not going to change by a sweet smile and batting of one’s eyelids. And if that is what was required, then that says something about the group dynamics and ethics. More importantly, if you toggle between Jack’s ideas and his style like they’re interchangeable, I don’t think that’s a logical approach. And then the same argument you just made comes back to you: what are you trying to achieve when you do that?
You: Beyond being in denial about how alcoholism works, people want to know that their friends, relatives, and colleagues aren’t bound to commit career seppuku. In theory, they should accept the truth and come up with a solution themselves, but most humans aren’t intellectually honest enough for that. We could try browbeating them into doing what we think they ought to, but I find that rarely works. It’s more effective to hand them a solution that lowers the stakes for admitting the truth.
As a workable solution, I suggest that alcoholic lawyers who are in recovery can display a statement of how long they have been sober. This will give potential clients information without putting an undue stigma on the lawyers themselves. I think it’s fair to say that alcoholic lawyers who are not practicing sobriety should not be practicing law until at least they get help and go into recovery.
As a matter of responsible preparation, all professionals should have a plan to hand off their clients and responsibilities in the event that they are incapacitated, whatever the reason. Maybe they can also display information about any outages they have had within the past year, or mistakes they’ve made (in general terms). That would not only help address the alcoholism issue, but address general competence. I’m not sure how realistic it is to list one’s own mistakes or many lawyers would go for that, but posing it as a question opens the door for discussion about reputation, transparency, and track records in professional businesses.
Does that answer your questions?
Me: I didn’t have any question per se. I tried to answer your question. Anyway, my thoughts on this last part are mixed. I think all your idea have some possible merit, so I’m not criticizing the effort. It seems to me that these proposals raise many of the same practical concerns you attributed to Jack’s: “Oh, look, the sign on his door says he’s been sober for 3 weeks now! Let’s hire him!” I’m not sure you have a winning formula here, but I think you made a good effort.
But I’ve gone from answering your question about how to get a good response from Jack to giving you a proxy for his response, which I haven’t had time to think about and I’m not one of the involved parties. So, Jack is the one who can enlighten you. I was just trying to help break the communication logjam.
I’ll cop to being obnoxious. I was disgusted, frankly. That was the third time on recent months that the group of alleged legal ethicists ducked an important ethical issue in the profession that I raised. The first: the corrupt mass tort practices involving predator law firms and financial interests manipulating litigation, a problem I know a lot about, perhaps more than anyone in the group. The second: the failure of bar associations to discipline corrupt lawyers, which is a matter of record. Then this one: the duty of alcoholic lawyers to inform potential clients. The first response I got was a sarcastic, nasty, dismissive one, and in my reply, I called it what it was. What followed was another nasty post claiming that I was falsely impugning alcoholics. (Every alcoholic I consulted, including lawyers, said that the profession shields lawyer with thw addiction to the detriment of the public. I responded to the two critics who misstated the nature of teh disease by saying they did not know what they were talking about…which is true. Then another member said that my suggestion violated the ADA. A lawyer said that. The ADA does not apply to individual contracts for services. When I stated that this was an excuse not to do the right thing, the president of the organization reprimanded me for “suggesting that members reject the rule of law.” Again, the law in question is irrelevant to the issue. In the exchange, the mob was permitted to use bad faith debate techniques and I was reprimanded for calling them on it.
While I have occasionally posted on EA single posts from the listserv, I decided that posting a whole thread that only involved about ten members without attribution would violate the spirit of the listserv, and posting the pile-on comments after I was ordered to stand down—I was muzzled and the group continued to attack and mock me—wasn’t right either. Screw them. I raised the issue for a rational debate: I see the problem. I recognize the dilemma. What I will not accept is a “there is no problem” lie, and a “how dare you?” outcry.
Again, in this matter EC is wearing blinders. If an adversary refuses to begin with respect for a position and focuses on mockery, denial that there is a problem, and ad hominem attacks, there is no common ground there. And the listserv is literally a single-minded clique, with most participants from California and woke in the extreme, with more moderate members keeping quiet…which I have not. I was going to ask why nobody on the listserv thought the ABA President’s unethical performance on behalf of the best known bar association warranted discussion, but a) the answer is res ipsa loquitur and b)I would be accused of causing trouble again.
I viewed the response I got by politely and inoffensively raising the issue to be the equivalent of “Shut up” or a punch in the mouth. To react to either meekly is not in my character or DNA, and I’m proud that it isn’t.
Thanks! Glad you like the Substack! I don’t see your comment, so maybe it didn’t go through. Which article was it on?
To clarify the parenthetical, my understanding is that “de facto” means “effectively, but not officially”, like a de facto leader. If an unenforced policy starts being enforced, that’s a de facto policy change. The batter clock issue that Jack posted on was a de facto policy change, as I understand it.
I didn’t think I was mixing up Jack’s ideas with his approach, but maybe I wasn’t drawing a clear enough line. My goal is to help Jack stop making the mistakes it seems like he’s making which are causing him such frustration and preventing him from promoting good ethics.
Thanks for the clarifying responses!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a bunch of gas station/convenience stores in the southeast changed their name to “Obama” in honor of President Obama. I know at least two conservatives who had a good laugh about it – my wife and I – but I don’t recall any gnashing of teeth amongst Republicans or squawking about how “I’ll never set foot in an ‘Obama’…that’s despicable!”
I think Republicans don’t die on these kinds of hills because…well…we have jobs, and lives, and families…things we care about far more than an airport’s name or whether a gas station is named in honor of a Democrat.
If you have nothing else going in your life other than to weep about an airport named after President Trump, get something else going in your life!
There’s is one down the street from my house. My mother-in-law who came to visit from Canadia and was quite proud of it. She has an Obama magnet on her refrigerator as well
There are eight commercial airports named after US presidents and at least another four non-commercial airports/fields. Such a renaming honor is standard these days.
I detest the Clintons but would not change my travel plans to avoid the airport named after them, because I am not crazy. The divisiveness fomented by the left beginning with the Obama administration has reached insufferable, worrisome heights and actually is driving Americans crazy. Things are about to get very bumpy.
What are people’s opinions on an alcoholic going into a care home? Of course the care home response is going to be to cut them off. I’m now facing this situation with yet another relative. He’s 93 years old, amazing for an alcoholic for most of his adult life. I already know how this is going to go when he goes in, it is going to be a miserable battle. To a degree I really feel “what’s the point of putting him through withdrawals in the last moments of his life?” It’s not like he’s ever getting out, nor are we particularly looking to extend his life. We’re looking to make what’s left comfortable, and withdrawals will be anything but.
I predict Jack’s response on this, knowing his history with alcoholics.
Putting a 93 year old through withdrawal is insane. It’s as likely to kill him as drinking is, maybe more so. I saw my wife have a seizure after quitting for four days, and it scared the daylights out of me…and she was just in her 50s.
Yikes. I just had a flashback by even mentioning that…
Fees vs Taxes
Colorado has discovered the tax disguised as fees plot. My latest vehicle registration actually uses smaller font to list all the fees associated with it, I suppose it makes it look better.
Is it ethical for the state to add fees towards items like this? I suppose you could argue it’s more transparent, but the fees include items like age fee, clerk and recorder fee, materials fee, and many, many more. Don’t forget the “convenience fee” that is charged for using the online payment system or any payment method besides a check plus another $20 fee if you’re doing business outside of the county you live in.
What do you think?
Regardless of where or how money is taken in by an entity (public OR private), the entity is (and must) take in money to cover expenses of the services it provides (or sells).
I for one am almost convinced by what could be characterized as radicalism on price transparency. I really like the attitude behind this picture:
When it comes to government “taxes” vs “fees”, I don’t necessarily have a problem with “fees” covering particular services. I suppose the ethics boils down to how a particular government “advertises” a service it provides. If it claims the service is paid for completely by taxes, then fees aren’t unethical, but the claim the service is paid for already is a lie and that’s where it’s unethical.
The price of any good or service can be paid for, generally speaking, in one of two ways – a line by line break down of what every single component of the service cost, separately, plus “fees” that determine exactly what behind the scenes tasks supported those *individual* components. In this case, which strikes us as most ethical and most transparent, the user knows exactly how much of the company’s effort their demand costs the company and how much they owe to cover that cost.
The other method is a user pays for the service with an overhead mark up applied to that service that typically takes an entire company’s overhead costs, divides this by anticipated total services rendered and applies *that* cost proportionally to services rendered. In this method, some users of a service may end up footing a larger proportion of a company’s costs than another user, and the reverse, some users of a service may end up footing a smaller portion of a company’s costs than another user.
This *feels* unethical, until you realize that service providers have to make time saving trade-offs to get accurate-enough pricing to consumers. A company can try to go the first route and find itself spending so much time analyzing behind the scenes costs that they end up having to raise pricing across the board to cover that complexity.
All that being said – the more a service provider *can* subdivide the cost of overhead appropriately to each sold task without incurring price-increasing complexity – it should.
The “fee” at the DMV could be read as just that.
As for my radical stance on price transparency (which I’m not fully convinced of just yet):
Genuine transparency, where a service provider breaks down every last minutiae of why the service you’re selling costs so much, would go a long way towards, among other things-
Understanding that companies are very rarely profit heavy entities.
That a lot of costs are arbitrary government driven requirements.
One – there’s a common accusation that companies are swimming in profits and the price of their service could be a lot less if they just “weren’t so greedy”. But alas, given a thorough breakdown of the price of anything someone buys, they might be surprised to know that most profit margins are slim. And while the average profit margin is something like less than 10% of the price of a service, that number is held *up* by a few wildly profitable business sectors with most other businesses *barely eking by*.
Two – Given a fair break down then of the price of a service after profit is removed, that is, a business’s actual expenses, on average, depending on type of business (goods-heavy vs service-heavy), we end up realizing that arbitrary government requirements eat up to 5-25% of the cost of anything. That’s NOT including the final sales tax.
Merely seeing a break down, with full transparency, would go a long way to forcing people to think “man, is that government requirement really worth the expense this company has to transfer to me? Maybe not.”
As well as to force people to think “oh, ok, that’s fair, 40-60% of this price represents several other human being’s livelihoods and either I complain that they don’t accept a lower standard of living on my behalf or I realize that my own standard of living is beholden to other people buying the product that I sell…so guess I’ll shut up now”.
I do recognize of course, no company is going to want to reveal this level of detail in how they price anything.
As for the Colorado DMV, if the fee covers their expenses that have to be covered, the next question really is “did Colorado tell me my taxes completely covered all interactions at the DMV?” then the question after that is “is this service worth the price and should I start advocated to oust the politicians raising the price on me?”
It didn’t post the picture….
The main airport in Milan, Italy, is called “Malpensa”, which loosely translates as “Bad Idea”. Now that’s an airport I’d think twice about flying into.
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/2079638808811671905?s=46
Wikipedia articles, when they cover politicians who switch parties, noticeably change their narrative about the politicians in such a way that left to right switchers articles take a negative tone after editing and articles about right to left switchers take a positive tone after editing.