So Was Biden Lying, or What?

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

The word “lie,” one of the more basic terms in the ethics field, has been thoroughly blurred by a malign combination of ignorance, poor analytical skills, and partisan rhetorical dishonesty. A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts and truth in order to deceive. Genuine mistakes aren’t lies. Deliberate hyperboles made for effect but still obvious exaggerations are not lies. Jokes are not lies. Delusions aren’t lies. Opinions are not lies. Asserting a belief that one cannot reasonably know to be true is not a lie. A broken promise is not a lie if the promise was made sincerely. A prediction that does not prove accurate is not a lie. One contradicting what he or she once asserted as a strongly held belief does not prove hypocrisy—a variety of lie—if the individual has generally changed his or her belief in the interim.

In his brief interview with The New York Times last week former President Biden said that he orally granted all the pardons and commutations issued at the end of his term. Those who have suggested that the Presidential autopen was used without his knowledge by aides for such edicts are “liars,” Biden said.

“I made every decision,” Biden insisted.

What value is that interview? First, we know that Biden lies to enhance his own reputation: surely he wouldn’t admit that he was a cardboard cut-out POTUS if that is indeed what he became. Given what we know about Biden’s mental state, he may believe he made every decision, even if he didn’t. If fact, how would he know one way or the other?

Ethics Quiz: The Non-Star All-Star Game Selection

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is fun: a different kind of MLB annual All-Star Game ethics controversy! We’ve never seen this one before: usually the controversies over baseball’s “mid-summer classic” (This is All-Star Game week, with the teams taking a break around Wednesday’s game televised on Fox News.) involve fairness in the selections (there are always more deserving players than the limited rosters can hold, whether every team should have at least one representative even when that means selecting a mediocre player having a so-so season, whether there was bias in the selection of the reserves, whether aging great players should be included on the squad because they really are the players the fans want to see, whether the fan voting system is absurd, stuff like that. (Some past controversies are discussed here,)

Never this, however: MLB added Milwaukee Brewers rookie Jacob Misiorowski to the National League All-Star team last week. “Who?”you well may ask? Misiorowski is a highly touted rookie who has only been in the major leagues for about a month. He’s been the starting pitcher in just five games, and now holds the record for fewest games ever played in by a player making an All-Star team—by a lot. Wails Yahoo Sports,

“The main goal of the Midsummer Classic is to recognize the players who have performed at a high level through the first half of the MLB season. With that, it also allows fans to see the stars of the game they might not watch on a regular basis. But by adding Misiorowski to the NL All-Star roster, MLB has sent a message to players that not only does the game not matter, but performance doesn’t matter, either.”

Misiorowski is what baseball jargon refers to as a “phenom.”

He’s viewed as a future superstar, and has looked like it, beginning his career with 11 perfect innings, no hits, no walks. Nobody had done that in the history of the game, He regularly tops 100 mph on his fastball, which has been clocked as speedy as 103. Yes, he’s an exciting newcomer who may do great things…eventually.

But picking him for the All-Star Game is like, oh, let’s pick an absurd hypothetical, like giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a newly elected U.S. President before he’s actually done anything related to peace at all. Not that such a thing could ever happen….

Your Ethics Alarms All-Star Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Is it unethical for Misiorowski to be selected for the All-Star Game?

Continue reading →

“Trump Is Having an Unethical Week” Sunday Continues With This Foolishness…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Wait, what? If this is accurate, and I hope it’s not, someone has gone loco at the State Department. Reports say that the State Department, presumably with the assent or at the behest of President Trump, has sanctioned Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur for Palestine.  This freezes any assets Albanese has in the US and restricts her travel to the U.S.

As justification for the sanctions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “We will not tolerate these campaigns of political and economic warfare, which threaten our national interests and sovereignty.”

Albanese is an affiliate scholar at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University and teaches a course on “humanitarian, legal and political responses to the Palestinian forced displacement” as a non-resident professor at a number of foreign universities. Albanese worked for  two years at the UN Development Programme in Morocco as well as four years in Geneva as a human rights officer with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Outside of the UN, she provides research and legal assistance on migration and asylum seekers for the think tank called “Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development,” and co-founded the Global Network on the Question of Palestine, a group of experts and scholars engaged in the issue of Israel and Palestine.

Continue reading →

Ugh. Is This The Most Unpresidential, Unethical and Stupid Trump Outburst Ever?

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Is it the most unpresidential and stupid outburst by any President ever?

There is no excuse for this. I guarantee the Trump Deranged on my Facebook feed will be wetting themselves over this. It’s proof that Trump is senile! It shows that he’s insane! It proves he’s Hitler! No, it only proves once again that Trump has a flat learning curve and no self-restraint, that he’s his own worst enemy, that he’s petty and foolish and can’t resist demonstrating just how petty and foolish when it suits his mood.

The nation doesn’t have time for his silly feuds. He doesn’t have political capital to throw away like this, either. That post isn’t just punching down, it’s punching WAY down: Rosie O’Donnell is nobody, a has-been, washed up, irrelevant. And she’s in Ireland! Trump gives her the publicity she craves by pretending that she’s significant: surely he understands the Streisand Effect by now.

Trump can’t take away anyone’s citizenship on a whim; he sounds like an idiot when he announces fantasies like this. Ann Althouse writes, “If it’s a joke, he shouldn’t be making that joke. He has too much power. If it’s not a joke, it’s terrible. I know he’s much more confident — to the point of overreaching as political theater — the second time around and after his 4 years in the wilderness, but he needs to channel himself toward true greatness, not get entangled in this kind of smallness.”

Yeah, that too.

Regarding the Stupid Epstein Client List: the Phrase “Hoist by Their Own Petard” Comes to Mind…[Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Observation the First: Morons!

More…

1. So…Director of the F.B.I. Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino are throwing public hissy fits over the Justice Department stating in an unsigned memorandum that there is no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein, the dead convicted sexual predator, had a client list and used it to blackmail elected officials, celebrities, and other powerful people. The memo also declared that Epstein committed suicide. Patel and bongino are behaving this way because they are unprofessional and untrustworthy, though everyone should have known that already. The professional manner in which to demonstrate a serious disagreement with one’s superior, organization or client is to resign, stating why to the extent permitted by the terms of your job. The President should fire both of them immediately.

2. I don’t care about Jeffrey Epstein or his alleged client list. Nobody should at this point. He was a walking, talking ethics train wreck, and now he’s dead. Good! A collection of documents, including emails and schedules revealed by The Wall Street Journal showed, among other things, that Woody Allen frequently socialized with the billionaire. Gee, what a surprise. So what are we supposed to do with such information? We already know that Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, creepazoids both, were pals with the sex maniac (I’m talking about Epstein, now, not Woody…). Other than as tabloid fodder, what value does such intelligence have? I have the Red Sox winning streak to worry about and a sock drawer to alphabetize. Shut up.

Continue reading →

There’s No Crying In Tennis!

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Poland’s No. 8 seed Iga Świątek beat the U.S.’s 13th seed Amanda Anisimova 6-0, 6-0 in the Wimbledon women’s final yesterday. That’s a slaughter in tennis, ending Anisimova’s feel good story as an underdog in humilation.

Świątek is one one of the best players in the world; though this is Świątek’s first Wimbledon title it’s her sixth Grand Slam title. She was favored to win, but no one has won the Women’s finals 12 games to none in a Grand Slam tournament since 1988. Anisimova’s wipe-out is being attributed to nerves; if she were a male player, the explanation would be “choking.”

Worse, however, is that after the match Anisimova started weeping, covered her head with a towel and left the court. When she came back to a huge reception from the crowd, she was still sobbing. After receiving the runners-up’s plate at center court, she cried some more as she addressed the crowd.

Continue reading →

An Incomplete Preview of Coming Attractions (Or Upheavals, or Reforms, Depending on One’s Point of View…)

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

I have hinted here at various times recently of a major ethics project that I am working on relating to a growing and so far barely recognized scandal in the civil justice system. It is time to reveal a few details.

There are corrupt tactics and practices in the legal world centering on the litigation of mass torts. They are responsible for losses totaling billions of dollars inflicted on the victims of injury, plaintiffs, corporate shareholders, and taxpayers. These have metastasized over the last decade, spread by the opportunities created by too-loosely regulated law firms being allowed to include non-lawyer partners (in D.C., Arizona, and Utah), the rapid explosion of litigation financing provided directly to lawyers and law firms after a century of being regarded as an unethical practice to be avoided, and a tsunami of unethical and deceptive maneuvers that have been largely ignored by or unreported to the legal profession’s ethics watchdogs.

Quite by accident, I became aware of these practices in my legal ethics practice, frequently by being retained by lawyers and law firms who were the victims of them, and whose clients were at risk as a result. I was stunned at the depth of ignorance of this scandal among most lawyers, which, of course, is one major reason why it continues unabated. I began having regular discussions with legal ethics authorities, and, upon finding a whistleblower who had been an architect of many of these practices, began assembling a coalition, still growing, to expose the bad actors, tighten up the laws, regulations and legal ethics rules that have allowed them to thrive, and to overhaul the system itself that is neither trustworthy nor safe.

Continue reading →

Switching Jobs Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

A Guest Post by

Alex

(From this week’s Open Forum)

Here are some real life ethics ruminations I’m going through as I’m switching jobs in the next month…

  • Two-week notice: In general, this a good and professional practice. In the past I even extended it to three weeks because of a high-priority project my team was dealing with. This time around it ended up being closer to a week because I had a planned vacation where my last day would have fallen, my current employer provides “unlimited” PTO and did not want to abuse the privilege of extra pay days at the tail end of my tenure. Thoughts?
  • Working for a competitor: In the past I’ve worked for $BIGTECH and seen people who are escorted out of the building because they are going to a company that is remotely involved in the same matters. This time around I’m going to a direct competitor, and yet, my manager, my management chain and HR all seemed fine with me working here until the last day. I’m a professional; in no way would I use the extra time to get access to information I should not or collect data for the new company. Seems like the prudent thing would be for management to cut my access immediately, as there is a balance between getting a good handoff of responsibilities (and actual work) vs. the risk of having someone with broad access. I’m happy the way things are turning out for me – even gives me a chance to say my goodbyes—but at what point is the risk too much for management to accept? (In this case I think the fact that we are not a public company is making the difference)
  • No poaching for a year: All my previous employers had that in the employment contract. This one does not. I don’t plan to try to bring anyone over (it’s a small industry) in the short term, but what does one do when a former coworker expresses interest in coming to the new place?
  • Throwing your own farewell party! This one is on a lighter note. There is a prohibition of using morale budget for farewell parties (understandable), so I’m sort of narcissistically organizing a small pizza get-together for my direct team and coworkers. I don’t need or plan to ask for contributions, but what would be the correct etiquette for that situation?

Anyway, it should be a fun week (as we are also trying to meet a very tight deadline).

“The 1% Contingency of Bad Management and Bad Luck”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

That’s a quote from the late futurist Herman Kahn, the smartest person I ever talked to (which is saying something). Herman was always optimistic about the future, but regularly warned that his rosy predictions were always subject to being derailed by the 1% contingency of bad management and bad luck. Indeed virtually every disaster in history can be explained by that 1% contingency.

I thought about this today as I read the infuriating Washington Post story, “Kerr County did not use its most far-reaching alert system in deadly Texas floods…Local officials used the system more than two days after the recorded height of the floods.”

The short version is that officials had at their disposal the technology to turn every cellphone in the river valley into a screaming alarm, but, inexplicably didn’t use it before river levels rose to record heights, causing widespread destruction and killing more than a hundred people. Why? So far, nobody is talking. Two days after the rain storm that caused the river to rise 30 feet, Kerr County officials used the system to warn residents that there could be another round of river flooding. This is akin to Pompeii officials going house to house to warn survivors that Mt. Vesuvius might erupt again. But no county officials have responded to emails, texts and other requests from The Post to explain what happened. State and local officials said in a statement that county leaders have been focusing on rescue and reunification and are “committed to a transparent and full review of processes and protocols.”

Continue reading →

On the Supreme Court, Conflicts, and Cashing In

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Embarrassing and hyper-partisan as it was, Senator Whitehouse’s rant on the Senate floor last week was not entirely without its valid points. He is right that the U.S. Supreme Court has been having too many ethics breakdowns (the leaking of Justice Alito’s draft of the Dobbs opinion was one of them) and as I noted in the EA piece, (AGAIN) there is no defending Clarence Thomas. He is not, however, the only Justice with some ‘splainin’ to do, as Ricky so often said to Lucy.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson published a memoir shortly after being placed on the Supreme Court as a DEI coup, though she hadn’t really done anything to justify such an ego trip. “Lovely One” is now going for half-price on Amazon, but Jackson received a $893,750 advance for the book reported $2 million in profits last year. Since there is no indication that the memoir is flying off the shelves, the numbers are puzzling. Penguin Random House will soon be publishing Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s book and it paid her a $2 million advance. Why? The majority of the country can’t name a single Supreme Court justice, but the ones who are willing to cash in are receiving celebrity level book advances. [Full disclosure: the book I co-authored with Ed Larson was also published by Random House, in 2007. We received approximately $6.78 each as our advance…okay, a bit more than that.]

Continue reading →