Workplace

Scott Pelley’s Self-Immolation Proves How Corrupt and Biased the “60 Minutes” Culture Was

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

A year ago I wrote, after Scott Pelley gave a full-Trump Deranged commencement speech at Wake Forest,

“Scott Pelley has long been the most openly biased and partisan of the ’60 Minutes’ team (well, he and Leslie Stahl), and his speech is an instant “It isn’t what it is” classic. His arrogance and fury reveals a destructive, untrustworthy profession beginning to realize that the jig is truly up: they have betrayed their nation and its ideals, and nearly everyone knows it, or as President Trump so wisely observed, our journalists are indeed ‘enemies of the people.’ It is rumored that Pelley is likely to be dumped at CBS: Good.”

Well, it took a year and a turnover in management, but Pelley is finally out. The speech is fun to look back on today, because the pompous Pelley intoned, “America works well when we listen to those with whom we disagree and when we listen and when we have common ground and we compromise….To move forward, we debate, not demonize. We discuss, not destroy.” Yet when a new regime led by New York Times refugee Bari Weiss began the task of reforming the rotten “60 Minutes” Democratic propaganda machine that had embarrassed the network by editing Kamala Harris’s interview a week before the 2024 election to make her seem (sort-of) coherent—not an easy task—Pelley was no longer interested in listening, discussing, or compromising. He was determined to demonize. In a meeting called by Nick Bilton, the new executive producer of “60 Minutes,” Pelley accused Bilton’s boss, Weiss, of “murdering” the iconic Sunday news program. “She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that,” he said, adding, “She has no qualifications for her job; you have slender qualifications for this job. The changes that she’s made at the ‘Evening News’ have been catastrophic, so why should we expect that any of this is going to be any better?”

He went on to mock Bilton’s assurances that he cared about the program. If Pelley had been trying to get fired, he could have hardly done a better job. And sure enough, he got his wish, as Bilton delivered the following “Bye-bye!” letter in short order:

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “What Exactly Are California’s ‘Values’? Can Anybody Explain?

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Sarah B, not to be confused with the other eminent commenter here with a similar handle, put together a two-part comment that provides an overview of the growing problem of sexual predator teachers. Ethics Alarms has done a lot on this topic, but not lately, perhaps because there are so many other things wrong with our education system. This may have been the most recent; I should have had a tag for “predator teachers.”

I should shut up now: it’s a long piece, and worth reading, Here is Sarah B’s Comment of the Day on the post, “What Exactly Are California’s “Values”? Can Anybody Explain?”

***

As much as I hate to defend California, this is hardly unique.  Wyoming has similar policies and we are about as red as they come.  A previous principal in my town harassed/seduced teachers and students who reached the age of 18.  Because all of his predations were of adults (even if only technically), he remained at his job for nearly a dozen years before enough complaints and the loss of too many teachers forced the school board to finally let him go.  Just this last couple of years, a special education teacher was arrested after sexually abusing lots of kids just a few towns over from us.  He had been skirting the edges of the law for years, but finally crossed enough lines that he could be arrested and fired, after abusing at least a handful of kids.

The other stories I know of are teachers who abuse students in other ways, not sexually, but I personally do not see much of a difference between a teacher who sexually harasses students and a teacher who beats students up, since children should be safe and unharmed in the school system if it were any good.  Therefore, I’m picking on a favorite story of mine involving my cousin, since I know many of the particulars that I might otherwise not know in detail.  He worked in one town and was fired for wrestling his students and put a few too many in headlocks.  After being fired for this, he was transferred to another town, where he rug-burnt a few handfuls of his students.  He got fired again, and was hired as the youth pastor at the local Baptist church.  He wrestled a few more kids harshly and is currently not allowed to be the only adult present when the youth group meets. 

Frankly, if one looks at the data, 38% of all students in 7th-12th grade receive sexual harassment/abuse in the public school system from adults, according to some studies in 2017.  I caution that these studies have broad definitions of sexual abuse/harassment, including things ranging from rape to cat-calling to inappropriate jokes and sexual comments.  Of course, the more minor offenses of inappropriate comments and commentary are far more common than the more serious ones.  Grooming behavior is reported separately, but is very common.  The adults also range from teachers to coaches, bus drivers to lunch ladies to janitors, and everything in between.  However, 63% of the behavior nationwide comes from teachers.

Pages: 1 2

The New York Times Is Shocked—SHOCKED!—That Anyone Would Think It Discriminates Against White Males!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

A white male New York ‘Times’ employee has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the paper had discriminated against him by not giving him a promotion despite his superior qualifications, because he is a white male. Yesterday the EEOC filed a civil-rights lawsuit against the ‘Times’ arguing that the paper’s pledge to satisfy its DEI goals are being translated into “unlawful employment practices.”

Which, of course, they are, if the color of one’s skin and one’s pronouns are considered as crucial in determining promotions.

The Times was first to break the news of the suit but did not name the employee who made the complaint. “Reporters at the paper have been scrambling to figure out the employee’s identity, driven in part by bafflement that one of their own colleagues would sell out the paper to the administration, which has used tools of the federal government to attack the press,” says New York Magazine.

Really! So the Times feels that loyal Times workers should support “good discrimination” and allow the paper to skirt the law, even when they are the victims of illegal employment practices, because to do otherwise is to support the Evil Trump administration.

In World War Eleven such people were called “Good Germans.”

This is one sick culture at the New York Times.

Nikita Stewart — the Times’ then-real-estate editor who has since been promoted to metro editor — “deviated from normal hiring protocol” in January 2025 to hire someone without experience editing real-estate coverage to work as her deputy, the suit alleges. The white man who was bypassed had “considerable experience with real estate news,” a requirement included on the public job listing for the position.

Wow. A female editor named Nikita is at the center of his “to each according to their needs” tale! You can’t make this stuff up.

In 2021 the Times announced a “Call To Action,” which stated that “people of color—and particularly women of color—remain notably underrepresented in its leadership,” the suit claims. A company can address that perceived imbalance by recruitment efforts, but—and I speak from experience—placing a racial and gender thumbs on the metaphorical scales is virtually unavoidable.

Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha called the suit “politically motivated.” Gee, what a surprise. “Our employment practices are merit-based and focused on recruiting and promoting the best talent in the world,’’ Ha said in a statement. “We will defend ourselves vigorously.”

You know…like Harvard denied that admitting black students with lower grades and test scores than Asian applicants was discriminatory.

Does anyone believe that the woke, left-biased, victim-mongering, knee-jerk Democratic New York Times, after declaring that its staff was “too white” and “too male” has not been systematically discriminating against whites and men?

Now THAT’S Nepotism!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The Philadelphia Phillies (that’s a baseball team, for those of you tragically unschooled in the Great American Pastime) have fired manager Rob Thomson and named former Yankee star and past major league manager Don Mattingly as interim manager.

The Phils are off to a terrible start, especially for a team that has been a World Series contender for four years and was supposed to be one this season. Firing a manager in April, especially a skipper as successful as Thomson has been, is rare indeed, but the Boston Red Sox just did it. Baseball teams are like that: they tend to get caught up in fads. With this firing, many think the New York Mets will follow suit and fire that team’s manager. The Mets, another expected contender with a huge payroll, have been worse than either Boston or Philly. It may also be germane that all three cities are infamous for having impatient and unforgiving fans.

But I digress. Here is the issue: Don Mattingly is an experienced manager and was Thompson’s bench coach, essentially the in-game strategy consultant. He would make perfect sense as Thomson’s replacement, except for one fact…

Mattingly’s son Preston is the Philadelphia Phillies general manager.

That’s Don on the left and Preston on the right above.

Ethics Dunce: Actor Ted Levine

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I wonder if I should bother highlighting the really foolish things actors and celebrities say when they start talking about social issues and politics. Is it the Julie Principle? “Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, actors think they have valuable things to say about stuff they know little about and are no more qualified to opine on than your average sanitation worker…” Stories like this one make me ponder.

Ted Levine’s most famous role in a successful career as a character actor came early when he played the serial killer “Buffalo Bill,” aka. Jaime Gumm, in “The Silence of the Lambs.” The movie was a sensation, winning both Jody Foster and Anthony Hopkins acting Oscars while its director won the Direction Oscar and the film was Best Picture. Still, Levine’s performance as a mincing, gender-confused psycho (who skinned his female victims to make a “girl suit” was as memorable as either of his co-stars.

Now Levine is in a career slump, or something, so today, thirty-five years later, he says that he “regrets” playing Bill. He told the Hollywood Reporter,

“There are certain aspects of the movie that don’t hold up too well.We all know more, and I’m a lot wiser about transgender issues. There are some lines in that script and movie that are unfortunate… [It’s] just over time and having gotten aware and worked with trans folks, and understanding a bit more about the culture and the reality of the meaning of genderIt’s unfortunate that the film vilified that, and it’s fucking wrong. And you can quote me on that.”

Feel better now, Ted? Were Hollywood Wokies being mean to you because you accepted a plum part as a struggling actor and didn’t anticipate the Transsexual Fever to come in 2026? Will you be acceptable now, after pandering to LGPTQ+ fanatics and activists?

Pages: 1 2

Consumer Alert! Merrick Bank Is Incompetent: Do NOT Get A Merrick Bank Credit Card

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I’ve had it. Some day, before I die, I am hoping against hope that just one month will see all of my online bill-paying take place smoothly and without my having to spend 30 minutes to an hour negotiating a terrible, non-user friendly system, usually made more frustrating by a well-meaning, polite, but nearly incomprehensible non-English speaker. I just went through one of these nightmare experiences with Merrick Bank, which I am forced to deal with because I use its credit card for certain minor expenses. Almost every month, there is some kind of snafu, forcing me to grit my teeth and call customer service. Here is what happened this time:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunce: Sec. of War Hegseth

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Oh come on.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth lifted the suspension of Army pilots under investigation for hovering near Kid Rock’s Tennessee mansion last week to give the rabid Trump supporter a “shout-out.” In a post on social media, Hegseth also saluted the B list rocker and said “pilots suspension LIFTED. No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots.”

Kid Rock posted two videos of him waving to the Apache helicopter as it lingered near the pool outside of his Nashville estate. The musician said, “God Bless America and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.” That’s nice. It doesn’t justify or excuse military pilots using government equipment for partisan demonstrations that were not ordered or approved by superiors.

The Army confirmed that two Apache helicopters from the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Campbell had taken part in the frolic flights and that the crews involved had been suspended pending an investigation “The Army takes any allegations of unauthorized or unsafe flight operations very seriously and is committed to enforcing standards and holding personnel accountable,” Army spokesman, Maj. Montrell Russell said in a statement.

Apparently not seriously enough. Kid Rock pooh-poohed the possibility of repercussions for the pilots, saying, “I think they’re going to be alright — my buddy is the commander in chief!”

Yecchh.

Unprofessional, destructive to military discipline, redolent of special dispensations for partisan loyalty, incompetent, irresponsible, foolish and wrong. I’d love to know the genuine reactions of our military personnel. My late father, the major, who was a stickler for military order and discipline, is probably spinning in his Arlington grave.

Good Guys and Bad Guys

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Huh. Who, if anyone, are the “good guys” in this scenario from Maryland?

A Maryland woman, Karen Travino, has been accused of hiring illegal immigrants to fix her roof, then calling I.C.E. on them to avoid having to pay for the work. Nice.

In the video shot from the roof of the property in Cambridge, Maryland by Bryan Polanco, a worker with legal permanent residency, federal agents are e seen waiting on the lawn in front of the house, ready to arrest Polanco’s co-workers. His voice speaking over the video explains that he and his colleagues had come at teh woman’s request to fix the her roof, then she called ICE to have them taken into custody as soon as they were done, saving herself $10,000. “We came to fix this lady’s house, and she’s the one who turned us in. Fixing up her house and still with hatred in her heart,” Polanco says. “What she did tell me, and I told one of the other guys, is that if immigrants come back again to finish the project, she’s always going to call ICE.”

Six Guatemalan men had driven 70 miles from Glen Burnie to finish the job, being assured that they would be paid.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that if the allegations against the homeowner are true, she could face legal consequences under the Maryland law prohibiting the use of immigration threats to obtain labor or avoid payment. I don’t see that in the fact pattern. Pro-illegal immigrant activists are now claiming that Trevino threatened the men, forcing them to do the work for nothing or face deportation. That makes no sense, and seems contrived. I don’t know if there is any law covering what the homeowner did, although it would seem that the workers might have a civil suit for the money owed to them under breach of contract. Being illegal doesn’t cancel out the right to due process and protection under the law.

Who are the “good guys” and “bad guys” in this incident? I believe that a citizen is only being responsible to assist in the apprehension of illegal immigrants: that’s a civic duty. But to deceive vulnerable workers, running a veritable sting—that’s not admirable or ethical is it? Even less admirable is Karen Trevino trying to take advantage of illegal immigrants before blowing the whistle on them.

Good citizen and cheap home-owner Karen is complaining because she is being flamed on social media. I’m tempted to say she deserves it.

Are there any victims here? Are there any people to admire?

Pam Bondi Is Fired: Good! [Quote Fixed]

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Now, opinions differ regarding President Trump firing Pam Bondi today. The “buzz” is that her botched handling of the Epstein files, saying they were sitting on her desk, then that there weren’t any, then dribbling them out in a manner guaranteed to create conspiracy theories, was the reason. Others, like the Axis news media, claim that she had failed, in Trump’s eyes, to effectively prosecute “the President’s political foes.” Note the emphasis: that framing makes it sound as if these miscreants’ only flaw was opposing Trump. In truth, most of them, maybe all, deserve prosecution. But never mind.

The main point is that Bondi has been fired, and deserved to be fired; indeed, she should never have been appointed or confirmed in the first place. When she was nominated in November of 2024, I wrote in “Breaking: Trump Has A New Attorney General Nominee, and Arguably, She’s Worse Than Matt Gaetz…”:

“Matt Gaetz was an unqualified pick for AG. Pam Bondi is a corrupt one. Out of the ethics frying pan, into the fire. Nice. (I’m sure she’s loyal, though.)”

As it turned out, Bondi was also incompetent. Let’s see: just this past month, we had this and this, plus this embarrassment. And let’s not forget Bondi’s unprofessional behavior in a hearing in February. None of this was a surprise, but I get a Fredo anyway.

Pages: 1 2

A Crucial Baseball Ethics Fix That Worked (and I Missed It!)

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Tyler Kepner wrote today that any baseball fan looking for optimism about next season, which is currently imperiled by a looming player strike or owner lock-out over the lack of a collective bargaining agreement, can look to the results of an under-reported rule change for hope that MLB and the union can find creative compromise solutions that work.

That’s nice, I thought. Wait—WHAT under-reported rule change?

For many years before the 2022 collective bargaining agreement between players and the owners, it was standard practice for a team to keep a promising rookie in the minors until after the date passed that would have given the player credit for a year of MLB service. Since young players are bound to their signing teams for a set number of seasons before they have arbitration rights and finally free agent rights, that extra year of control teams got by leaving a minor league stud in the minors was worth millions to the team who owned him. Never mind that it made the team keeping a potential star down less competitive and gave the team’s fans a lesser product. Never mind that it cheated a rising star out of contract that recognized his true worth: it was all about the team’s money.

But in 2022, a new rule was negotiated to discourage service-time manipulation. If a player finishes first or second in Rookie of the Year voting, he gets a full year of service time no matter how much time he spent on the roster. If such a player wins Rookie of the Year or finishes in the top three for MVP or Cy Young before becoming eligible for arbitration, his team receives an extra draft pick.

There have been only four days of games in the 2026 season so far, and several rookies who in past years would have still been languishing in the minor leagues as they teams played the “he needs a little more seasoning” game came out of the gate blazing. In the first weekend (three or four games for every team), rookies batted .309, compared to .226 for veteran players! They also hit 15 homers with a .622 slugging percentage and a 1.008 OPS. Those are all records since 1900 through every team’s first three games.

The games were better. The teams were better. The rookies weren’t being manipulated by the teams, and the teams have a chance to benefit too. This was a smart and fair compromise that epitomizes exemplary ethics at work: everybody wins.

There is hope.