Ooh, Apparently The New ABS Challenge System That Stops Umpires’ Wrong Ball and Strike Calls From Changing The Outcomes Of Baseball Games Has Hurt Umpires’ Feelings…

Tough. Do your job better.

The major MLB baseball rules addition this season, and one that is, as I so sagely predicted many years ago, both popular and beneficial to the game’s integrity, is the ability of players to challenge ball and strike calls instantly and have a computer image almost immediately appear that either confirms or overturns the home plate umpire’s call immediately. The results of many games have already been affected by the new technology. Of course umpires hate it, especially bad umpires, like the infamous Angel Hernandez, who is an embarrassment to the game. For the best umpires, the system is mostly beneficial, because it shows how accurate they are. Umpires in general have tightened up their pitch calling because of the technology. In the past, they used to defiantly talk about “my strike zone.” The ABS system makes it indisputable that there is just one strike zone, and that’s the one in the rule book.

In yesterday’s game between the Washington Nationals and the Boston Red Sox in Fenway Park, Boston’s best hitter, Willson Contreras, was called out on strikes after the first base umpire Nick Lentz ruled that his attempted check-swing had indeed crossed the plate. That call is (currently) unappealable and entirely within the umpires’ discretion. But as Contreras walked away from the plate to the dugout, he tapped his helmet in the manner in which a player signals that he is challenging a ball or strike call. Lenz threw him out of the game.

Contreras and Red Sox manager Chad Tracy were shocked, and came out of the dugout to argue against the ejection. Red Sox broadcasters were initially confused, since Contreras hadn’t said anything to the home plate umpire. (There are a few “magic words” that will guarantee a player’s exit). Then they saw that the video showed Lentz indicating the ejection and tapping his head to explain why.

“I called him out on appeal for the check swing, and as he was walking back to the dugout, he started gesturing, tapping his helmet, like he wanted to challenge something that is not a challengeable call,” Lentz explained to reporters. “And so [it was] disrespect, and again gesturing towards what he thought was an incorrect call, got him removed from the game.” The umpire claimed that it is an automatic ejection if a player makes that gesture in a mocking way. “It’s a lot like drawing a line in the dirt,” Lentz said.

No, it’s really not. Players standing at the plate and drawing a line to show how far a ball was out of the strike zone was obviously an attempt to show up an umpire and always resulted in an ejection, as did a batter curling his fingers around his eyes to say “you need glasses.” Those gestures neverfhappen any more, because the computer settles the issue. Most fans in the stands didn’t even notice Contreras’s gesture, nor did TV viewers, because the camera wasn’t on Contreras when he tapped his helmet.

Lentz added the gesture is “on the list for items for removal from the game.” If it is, I can’t find it, and if there was a memo, the players didn’t get it. Here is the current criteria for an umpire ejecting players:

It’s Time To Play That Exciting Game Show, “How Stupid Do They Think We Are?”!

Hello everybody! I’m your host, Wink Smarmy! [APPLAUSE] Welcome to “How Stupid Do They Think We Are?,” the popular ethics game show where our panelists try to puzzle out just how stupid the usual suspects—we all know who they are, don’t we?—-think we are based on their lies, poses, flagrant misrepresentations and embarrassing efforts to deceive! [APPLAUSE] 

Welcome panel! And here’s today’s challenge…

UC at Berkeley has announced that it is launching a nonpartisan academic institute in the political science department will become a hub for research, teaching and civic engagement.

The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy, or NPI, will be a hub for research, teaching and civic engagement rooted in a shared commitment to advancing the public good. Through faculty research initiatives, undergraduate courses and a visiting fellows program, the institute will explore what impedes progress and how best to solve political problems, from polarization to the future of artificial intelligence.

Chancellor Rich Lyons said the institute aligns with Berkeley’s commitment to fostering civil discourse, advancing democracy and preparing students to lead with integrity. 

“The purpose and impact of the NPI will be defined and strengthened by Berkeley’s ability to bring together world-class faculty and extraordinary students and by our commitment, as the country’s preeminent public university, to advancing the greater good,” Lyons said. “We intend to do more than simply study democracy; we are building this institute to strengthen it.”

Before I throw the challenge over to you, panel, let me ask our resident ethicist, Jack Marshall, just how stupid does UC at Berkeley think we are?

“Thank-you, Wink. I have to say,  to answer your question, so stupid I’m having trouble processing it. To begin with, Berkeley is one of the most left-leaning institutions in the country, as well as one of the most egregiously partisan. One landmark study by “Econ Journal Watch” found that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans at UC Berkeley by a ratio of roughly 9.9 to 1. 

“But putting that beside, Nancy Pelosi was one of the most partisan Speakers of the House in U.S. political history. She green-lighted two impeachments against a Republican President purely because she had Democratic votes to do it, though the intent of the Constitution’s provision envisioned non-partisan consensus regarding actual “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Later, she violated both House rules and Congressional norms by rejecting Republican nominations to participate in the so-called “J-6” Committee, ensuring a purely partisan witch hunt constructed as a political weapon. Pelosi is the only House Speaker to deliberately show disrespect to a President, ostentatiously ripping up his State of the Union speech on camera.

“Calling an institution “non-partisan” that is named after Nancy Pelosi is head-explodingly cynical. Who could possibly believe that, except someone who is completely ignorant of recent political history, or someone who would lose Scrabble game to a mollusk?”

Thank you Jack. I see your point. In light of that, panel, let me re-frame the question a bit. Fill in the rest of this sentence: “Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….

Jack, do you have an example to get us started?

“Hmmm. Okay, Wink, how about this: Claiming  The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as The Kristi Noem Institute for the Ethical Treatment of Pets?

Perfect! OK, panel, now its up to you! how stupid does UC at Berkeley think we are? Answer by finishing this sentence: 

“Claiming The Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy is non-partisan insults the public’s intelligence as much as….???

Good Luck! You have 30 second to come up with the best answer! The clock starts…NOW

This Ethics Story Is Bad Enough, But The Conservative Media Ignoring It Is Worse

The New York Times “breaking news” story from the weekend begins, “Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit: An agreement between the U.S. and Kazakhstan has given a group of American investors with ties to the President and the Commerce Secretary access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten.”

You can read it all here, at a gift link. From my reading, the story seems well sourced and fair, though it is the Times, and the Times has been doing everything in its power for over a decade to undermine Donald Trump. The Times isn’t the only one reporting the story, though: The Nation pounced on it with glee; I’ve also found the story reported by Mother Jones, The Daily Beast, MSN, India Today, various leftist substacks (Paul Krugman loves this story), Yahoo Finance, Mediaite, the Financial Times, and more obscure platforms. I expect CNN, PBS, MSNOW and the alphabet networks to be along any minute.

What I can’t find is any reporting on this apparent conflict of interest and Trump family self-dealing by the conservative media. (As of this moment it is also missing from news aggregator “memeorandum,” I assume because this partisan site is so excited about the Supreme Court upholding the $5 million jury verdict against the President regarding the E. Jean Carroll affair.)

Texas Tries To Thread The “No Bible in Schools” Legal Needle

…or as Samuel L. Jackson so wisely observed:

The Texas State Board of Education has voted to make Bible passages required reading in public schools. The GOP dominated education board voted to pass a new required reading list on last week. Now required literature includes sections of the Book of Exodus for fifth graders, “The Shepherd’s Psalm” for seventh graders, and more. Naturally, Democrats, progressives and Muslims who want the U.S. to become an Islamic society like England and much of Europe are freaking out. And, also naturally, conservatives can’t keep their mouths sufficiently shut to give the law a chance when it gets to the Supreme Court, which it certainly will.

A Republican member of the Texas education board, Julie Pickren, told The Texas Tribune before the 9-5-1 vote that the readings will give students “important insight into the moral and philosophical traditions that have shaped Western civilization. When students engage directly with original writings, speeches, sermons, and foundational texts, they can evaluate ideas and develop a deeper understanding of the principles that have shaped the USA and Texas.”

Them’s fightin’ words to the Left. Board member Evelyn Brooks objected to the list, saying,

“Teachers need to have their autonomy. They’ve been selecting books for decades, for years. This is nothing new. This is not a new concept to teachers. We are simply giving them a mandated list, which I believe is unconstitutional, but regardless of what I believe, let’s not take their autonomy away.”

That isn’t a very persuasive argument either. Democrats and the teachers unions have turned the public schools into progressive indoctrination centers. Today’s teachers can’t be trusted to have “autonomy.” Mandated reading lists are not unconstitutional (Julie’s an ignoramus); even if the Bible section of the list gets struck down, we should take teacher autonomy away from the mountains to the prairie, to the oceans white with foam.

A Fine Example of “Legal But Unethical”: Gwar’s Trump Massacre— The Justice Department Should Know the Difference

Gwar, an American heavy metal band, has been contacted by the Secret Service because it held a mock execution of President Trump onstage. A theatrical “science-fiction musical project” formed in 1984, the satirical band has been doing this kind of thing at its concerts for decades. Fake Trump was “killed” during the group’s performance at Warped Tour in Washington, D.C. this month. There’s a video: someone in a Donald Trump costume walks onstage and is disemboweled by the band, fake blood spurting.

The Band’s mock murders of public figures have offed such prominent figures as former President Barack Obama, former President Joe Biden, Queen Elizabeth, Elon Musk, Hillary Clinton, and Kanye West, and others. This is clearly non-partisan sick humor.

Trump’s Justice Department does itself, Republicans and conservatives no favors when it engages in dumb abuses of process and power like this. It is even more futile and less defensible than arresting James Comey for posting a numerical threat to President Trump written on the beach in sea shells. Demonstrating a sense of proportion as well as humor would be wise as well as endearing. I mean, Gwar’s manager is named Sleazy P. Martini. Reacting with fear as if a theatrical bad joke is a genuine threat makes the Administration and the President look weak, thin-skinned and foolish.

Juicy Sunday Ethics Selections, 6/28/26…

Ethics Quote of the Month: “If you want to hate America, watch the news. If you want to love America, drive through it.” Unidentified German World Cup fan and first time U.S. visitor.

The conservative news media have been writing a lot about the positive reactions of foreign World Cup fans as they finally get to experience our country first hand. Because of our hopelessly biased and partisan journalism, in which one side holds that the U.S. can do no wrong and the other paints the U.S. as a racist, sexist, land-stealing hellhole ruled over by a mad orange king, I have no idea how accurate this “surprise” is. Bill Maher seems to believe it, but then who can trust Bill Maher?

“Freddy” is a young German soccer fan who has become an internet sensation as he joins Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde and Alexis de Tocqueville as heavily-read foreign commentators who documented their first road trips across the United States. His viral social media posts have attracted tens of millions of readers as Freddy has raved about Americana like Waffle House , Taco Bell, Buc-ee’s, Bass Pro Shops, the size of American homes and more. Freddy the German is not the only one, however. World Cup visitors from Europe, Asia, Africa and South America have hit social media with similar shock and awe, full of wonder at Walmart and Costco, small town diners, Texas barbecue, the extravagant abundance in grocery stores and the stunning options and variety we take for granted in the most prosperous country in world history.

Writes the Jewish World Review,

“The average American rarely pauses to consider how extraordinary our country remains today. We gripe about suburban sprawl while living in homes that would be considered luxurious by the standards of much of the world. We roll our eyes at chain restaurants that millions of foreign tourists eagerly seek out. We treat abundance as ordinary because abundance is all most of us have ever known. That familiarity breeds a certain blindness.But the World Cup tourists are not blind. They see an America that remains dynamic, entrepreneurial and welcoming. They encounter strangers eager to offer travel advice. They find communities proud to share local traditions. They discover a country that is far friendlier than the caricatures would suggest.” The America they are experiencing bears little resemblance to the negative stereotypes they had long imbibed back home.”

Yeah, but that Reflecting Pool still isn’t right…

Meanwhile:

1. Somebody sent me the Google AI’s description of this blog. It reads,

“Ethics Alarms is a popular ethics and commentary blog founded by lawyer and ethicist Jack Marshall. It focuses on examining daily news, politics, and pop culture to analyze right from wrong. The site’s name originates from Marshall’s concept of “ethics alarms”—the gut feelings, twinges of conscience, and cautions that trigger when faced with an ethical dilemma. It evaluates current events, politics, pop culture, and sports through a traditional, often conservative-leaning ethical lens.

Criticism: Detractors sometimes find the author’s perspective dogmatic, combative, and inflexible.

The Tone: It is conversational yet highly opinionated, combative, and staunchly “no-nonsense”. The writer is quick to point out “Tales of the Great Stupid” and the perceived decline in cultural reasoning.

The Content: Marshall dissects everything from political bias and sportsmanship to the ethical implications of horror movies like It Follows.

Community & Rules: The site encourages open discussion. The creator has strict Rule Book criteria, often calling out “rationalizations” and logical fallacies used by both public figures and commenters. The sometimes polarizing blog is designed to help readers recognize, debate, and improve their ethical reasoning skills. It breaks down complex moral dilemmas and often features categories like “Ethics Quizzes” and “Ethics Heroes.”

Not bad! I never thought of Ethics Alarms as “popular,” however. And I had forgotten that I had written about “It Follows”!

2. Can “The View” be called a news program when it disseminates false information and rather than informing viewers, makes them less informed? Last week the ladies unanimously claimed that “no one wants voter ID laws.” In fact, a 2025 survey by Pew found that 83% of U.S. adults favor photo ID mandates. Even assuming error because polls are biased, inaccurate and generally suck, I think it’s fair to say that “no one” is untrue. And stupid. The ladies also claimed that “half” of America would be prevented from voting if the SAVE act was signed into law. Whoopi Goldberg led the discussion of the “SAVE America Act,” saying “He [Trump] torpedoed the [housing] bill because he wants another bill signed. And it seems to me no one wants to sign this bill.”

Whoopi never got out of high school, so she can perhaps be forgiven for not understanding how laws get made, but shouldn’t a host on a news show know that? Only the President signs the bills into law. It is unethical to criticize what you don’t understand. Am I being polarizing to say that?

3. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni recently published a report, “A Broadside for the Nation: Preparing College Students for Informed Citizenship,” calling for mandatory college civics courses. Teaching civics before college would seem to be a better idea, since 18-year-olds can vote and not everyone goes to college. The Council claims the requirement would help the nation’s future “schoolteachers, business leaders, professionals, and government leaders.” Gee, ya think?

Trump Derangement Report: “The Great American State Fair Is Terrible Because Trump Is President”

[I suspect that you’re going to see a lot more of that crazy lady who freaks out on Tippi Hedren in “The Birds” over the next few months…]

Let’s see: the hysterical, Trump Deranged Axis of Unethical Conduct is rooting for Iran, calls Israel genocidal because it is fighting Gaza, is supporting a woman-abusing former (?) Nazi admirer who makes the President’s truth-telling skills seem like Honest Abe’s by comparison, has extolled a kid who stabbed an unarmed white teen to death because the killer is black, worships illegal immigrants, cheers the assassinations of Charlie Kirk and an insurance executive who was shot in the back, opposes voter ID, believes that trying to unscum the Reflecting Pool, which has been an embarrassment for decades, as D.C. becomes a national destination for our 250th anniversary as a nation is an outrage and just selected an openly anti-American, anti-Semite Congressional candidate in New York who wants to abolish borders, police, prisons and deportation even for violent criminals.

Did anyone expect the Axis to be anything but critical of Trump’s Great American State Fair, or to even try to exhibit Fair Fairness in a spirit of union, comity and national pride?

The event opened in D.C. three days ago. The weather in the area has been sweltering or rainy. Never mind: the Axis media has already pronounced it a failure. The Daily Beast—ah, how I remember the days when, as with the Huffington Post, that site was a semi-reliable source of useful news and commentary from left-of-center!—pronounced Trump’s fair as “tacky.” All state fairs and carnivals are tacky: that’s why they are fun. The Atlantic grumps, “The Great American State Fair Isn’t Very Great.” Lots of headlines about “sparse crowds”: Gee, I wonder if the rain (the planned Vanilla Ice concert was rained out yesterday), the heat, and the news media telling people to stay away might have some effect on that. This morning, a Sunday when crowds would be large under decent conditions, it’s raining. When the rain stops this afternoon, the Mall will be soggy and hot.

One of the most relentless of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends reposted this whine from a Smithsonian employee:

The Pope’s Views On When Wars Should Be Fought Are Irrelevant To Reality And Not Just Useless, But Harmful

Once again, the position at EA is that the Pope—it doesn’t matter which Pope—is unethically abusing his authority and serving as gum in the works while fostering confusion when he presumes dictate national policy based on idealism and utopianism

A guy I never heard of who was an executive editor of The National Catholic Reporter and who, we are told, “directed coverage of the conclave that elected Pope Leo XIV,” was awarded an op-ed in the New York Times (Gift link, though it’s not much of a gift) to explain why he thinks the Pope thinks that “the age of artificial intelligence undermines the moral criteria for just war.” Ramalama ding-dong! Why is anyone listening to guys who have the luxury of dealing with the abstract and never having the responsibility of keeping a nation and a population safe and secure as they pontificate about the right way to do it? Why is anyone reading the analysis of an obscure functionary who has also never had to face the harsh human, military, geopolitical and practical realities of war as he rationalizes the basis for a Pope’s irresponsible interference with serious international matters?

The New York Times has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fully committed to undermining President Trump, his policies and his popular support. The “just war” blather, another phase of arguing how many angels can gather on a pinhead, suddenly became useful to the Axis of Unethical conduct when it wanted to root for a murderous, anti-Christian Islamic regime while it was fighting the United States of America. Popes never support wars, and it isn’t news when the Vatican condemns one. Infamously, the Vatican refused to take sides in World War II, or take any substantive steps to try to end the extermination of Jews in Europe. Now the Pope doesn’t think a war that has among its goals making as certain as possible that Iran doesn’t have the ability to do what it has been promising to do for decades—destroy Israel— is a “just war,” or to be more precise, that we should redefine “just war” to eliminate Israel’s and the U.S.’s justification for neutralizing Iran.

There’s a damning consistency there, no?

What?? “The Ethicist” Doesn’t Endorse “The Golden Rule”!

Interesting. I’m not sure he can call himself an ethicist, and certainly not THE Ethicist, with that attitude. Based on Prof Appiah’s latest ethics advice column, he doesn’t follow the Ten Commandments, specifically #5, either.

An adult child of an apparently bad mother asks “The Ethicist,”

“Our parents divorced when we were young, and both were neglectful and emotionally abusive. My mother once kicked me out at 17 because her boyfriend told her to choose between him and me. …I see my mother about once every two years and speak to her roughly once a month.Now in her 80s, my mother is showing signs of Alzheimer’s. Her husband recently told me that if he dies first, I will be responsible for her care. I don’t think I can do it. The thought of having her live with me makes me physically sick. My siblings are unlikely to help. Since that conversation, almost a year ago, I have thought about this every day. What, if anything, do I owe my mother?”

I find the NYU philosophy professor’s answer astounding:

“We may owe something to those who raised us, but we have no duty to abandon our own lives to look after them, especially when they failed in their parental duties. Tell her husband that you’re not going to take on her care and that he needs to make the necessary preparations. He should consult with an elder-care lawyer, identify the local Area Agency on Aging and arrange advance directives and other long-term plans while your mother still has the capacity to participate in those decisions. A trustee to manage her affairs once he’s gone should be appointed. These are things you can suggest to him, anyway. They are not things you need to do.”

To be brief:

1. In such a situations it is the shared responsibility of all members of the family to sacrifice as necessary and do their best to care for the mother compassionately. The husband cannot ethically pass the job off on the woman’s adult children, nor can they ethically refuse to participate in her care.

2. One’s ethical obligations to one’s parents are not based on how well they parented. It isn’t a matter of quid pro quo, tit for tat, or just desserts. All children owe a responsibility to their parents unless they left their kids in a ditch to die.

3. “Honor your father and mother” is a cornerstone of a stable and civilized society, even when Mom and Dad are not particularly honorable.

4. The Golden Rule could not be clearer on this issue. Treat your aging and infirm parents as you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.

5. “You were a bad mother to me, so I’m going to be a bad child now, when you need me. So there.” That is not an ethical statement.

Gee, Thanks Airlines, For Finally Warning Us!

I’m adding that memorable line from “Death Becomes Her” to the Ethics Alarms Hollywood Clip Archive. I don’t think I’ll have much use for it—at least I hope I won’t—but it sure fits here.

In that scene, the awful aging star played by Meryl Streep has just paid a fortune to get dosed with a magic formula that restores youth and guarantees immortality. After she downs the glowing blue elixer, the mysterious woman who provided it adds, “And now a warning…”

American Airlines, Delta, and Southwest have issued a warning to flyers to avoid short skirts and shorts when flying. If a flight emergency forces a plane to land and passengers have to use a slide to “deboard,” the friction from the device can rip a passenger’s skin off.

Oh. Funny, I don’t remember people screaming in all of those airplane movies.

The slides have substances in their composition to maximize sliding speed, as the objective is to save lives, not ensure comfort. I am assuming we never heard of this peril before because those slides aren’t used very often. However, airlines have been in many controversies over dress code enforcement: why wouldn’t they use the “if you want to have your skin ripped off, go ahead, fly like that!” response?

Remember this post, about the fitness model who presented herself at the gate dressed thusly….

…?

Heck, if that stuff about the slides is true, after an emergency landing she would have ended up looking like one of the victims in “The Towering Inferno”!

“Better late than never” is often a rationalization (#35. The Tortoise’s Pass), but in this case, it’s nice to finally know the risk of short shorts and short skirts. I’m still wondering what took so long, however.