
You really didn’t think I was only going to write about baseball today, did you? Now, if I operated like CNN and the other networks, I might skip the current baseball ethics story entirely, since it’s not what my audience wants to hear about, obviously. But it is, in fact, the newest, most generally revealing and best ethics story out there, and Ethics Alarms isn’t here for profit or popularity. ALSO obviously.
Unfortunately, this has some unintended consequences, like my choice, 25 years ago, to concentrate my professional efforts on ethics. Despite all lip service to the contrary, law firms, Fortune 500 companies, professions, local governments and businesses generally don’t regard ethics as a high priority, so when the lock down made these and other entities cut “non-essentials,” ethics training was one of the first to go. ProEthics has weathered this period better than it might have thanks to legal ethics consulting and expert witness work, but right now we’re in our worst and scariest cash crunch ever, thanks to a wave of unexpected expenses arriving at exactly the wrong time. The reason there were no posts up yesterday afternoon and this morning is that I have to solve this problem, and the time and effort it requires risks interfering with Ethics Alarms.
Like William Saroyan, I resent that the need for money conflicts with doing what we want to do in life, but then, having chosen ethics as my vocation over many more traditional and lucrative options open to me (except theater: ethics is a lot more lucrative than theater), I set my self up for the Hyman Roth lecture: “This is the life we have chosen…” I give myself that one at least once a week.
But enough about my problems. On to Not Baseball!
1. Are you sick of this unethical narrative? I sure am. On today’s NYT front page, we are told that then-President Trump, “defying norms”—there’s that phony “norms” charge again—urged the Justice Department to investigate “false claims” of election fraud after the 2020 election. Well.
A. There is no norm for what a President should do if he genuinely believes that an election was rigged, stolen, or that there is a strong possibility that it may have been. The office is charged with protecting the Constitution, and such entreaties to the DOJ seem to me to be absolutely consistent with a President’s obligations.
B. The Times cannot say such claims are false, because the Times doesn’t know they are false.
C. As Nate Silver noted recently in another context, the constant refrain that a claim is false by those implicated in that claim without an accompanying desire to investigate the matter raises a rebuttable presumption that the claim may not be false after all.








