Ethics Dunce: Ty Cobb (No, This Is NOT A Baseball Post)

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

That stylish-looking gentleman above is Ty Cobb III, a descendant of the iconic baseball player, himself a rather infamous ethics dunce. I never quite figured out Ty III’s relationship to Ty the First, but that is neither here nor there. I wish I didn’t have to write this post: I know Ty a bit, for we were in the same class at Harvard (where he already was sporting that handlebar mustache), and I knew many of his friends a lot better than I knew him. He is a nice guy, a funny guy, and by all accounts a terrific lawyer. He may have been the best lawyer ever associated with Donald Trump: Ty joined the White House staff to manage legal matters surrounding the Mueller investigation—yes, the Russian collusion scam run by the Democrats, the FBI, and the news media. He reported directly to Trump, and he was extensively quoted during the media frenzy over that disgusting set-up.

On May 2, 2018, Cobb announced that he was retiring as White House special counsel, and later that year, said that he did not think the Mueller investigation was a “witch hunt,” later saying in an ABC News interview on March 5, 2019, that he thought Mueller was “an American hero.” I almost blew my ethics whistle then; I didn’t: I should have. As a lawyer the public identified with President Trump (though his client was the office, not the man), Ty’s apparent vouching for the investigation was bound to be taken by the public (and certainly the news media) as a hint that someone on the inside with legal expertise knew Trump was guilty. I know I looked at it that way.

Now he’s done it again. Cobb told the news media that the “feds are coming fast” for Trump, and predicted that the investigation into the his alleged mishandling of classified documents will land him in prison. Spewing his opinions like an oil gusher, Cobb said,

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Deceptive Magician

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Well, I just had my CLE program for tomorrow postponed for too few registrations, so I’m drowning my sorrows and salving my bruised ego with a weird ethics quiz. (It’s a really good seminar, too. Sigh!)

This one harkens back to the issue posed by my “David Manning Liar of the Month” feature on the old Ethics Scoreboard. Can someone everyone knows is probably dissembling, exaggerating, mis-stating matters or lying be judged by the same ethics standards as a normal person? The question obviously applies to habitual offenders like Joe Biden, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, but this quiz involves a professional liar. (No, not like Karine Jean-Pierre.)

Magician David Copperfield told CBS Sunday Morning that he sometimes posts fake videos online to mislead people who are trying to figure out how he pulls off his various illusions. Videos that explain how magic tricks work have become popular on the web, and Copperfield says he creates fake “explainers,” as they are called, to intentionally misdirect fans. Asked why, he replied, “Because it’s fun!”

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is it ethically excusable for a well-known magician to post a misleading video on the web, when a similarly misleading video would be unethical for someone else?

Ethics Quote Of The Month: Blogger Andrew Sullivan

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“If gay men and lesbians want to return to liberal politics, to protect gay children, and to win back the sane center, we are going to have to disown and distance ourselves from this nihilist extremism.”

—Legendary Blogger Andrew Sullivan, in a tortured substack critique of the current pro-trans fad and its consequences on children, gays and society.

Sullivan is tortured by a lot of things, being trapped in cognitive dissonance hell as a religious and essentially conservative pundit has been driven into the arms of Democrats by his hatred of Donald Trump and Republican opposition to gay marriage. Nonetheless, he is a smart analytical thinker who writes like an angel, and his essay “The Queers Versus The Homosexuals,” arguing that “the erasure of gay men and lesbians” is going to be the inevitable result of the current trans activism madness, is very much worth reading even in its truncated form, since the whole thing is only accessible to Andrew’s subscribers. (If I had the discretionary funds to pay for any substack essayist, Sullivan would probably be as good as anyone.)

A selection of some of his other points to ponder:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Another “Great Stupid” Milestone: Mayor Adams’ Plan To Stop Shoplifting”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

An April 28 post on “Homeroom,” the official blog of the Department of Education (ED) called on schools to remove the criminal background question from admissions. The post exhorted “institutions across the country” to “re-examine their admissions and student service policies and holistically determine how they can better serve and support current and formerly incarcerated students.” We call on you to ban the box,” it concluded.

“Ban the box” refers to a campaign started by the civil rights group “All of Us or None” in 2004. “The campaign challenges the stereotypes of people with conviction histories by asking employers to choose their best candidates based on job skills and qualifications, not past convictions,” the campaign’s website explains. The fallacy of that characterization should be apparent: it assumes that a criminal conviction doesn’t reveal anything about an individual’s character, ethics, trustworthiness or values, as if committing a crime is just something that happens to people, like catching the flu. On the other side of the argument is the principle that a citizen can “pay his or her debt to society,” and once that debt is paid, the metaphorical slate is cleared.

Ryan Harkins wrestles with these issues in his Comment of the Day on the post, “Another “Great Stupid” Milestone: Mayor Adams’ Plan To Stop Shoplifting”:

***

One thing that seems to be a common theme in decriminalization is the notion that people will just do the right thing if their situations weren’t dire. If people are shoplifting, it isn’t because they think they deserve stuff for free, or get a thrill out of thieving, or think theft is no big deal. No, they have to be shoplifting because that is the only way to acquire what they need. If they can just be shown there are alternatives, if they can just be instructed in the right behavior, and perhaps even the circumstances that is forcing them to steal are mitigated, that’s the true means of decreasing crime. Surely the last thing we want to do is give someone a black mark that will just make his circumstances worse and thereby drive him into even more crime, because then he really doesn’t have any choice but to shoplift. Who would give him the time of day if people knew he had a criminal record?

Continue reading →

Ethics Observations On The Shemy Schembechler Firing

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

What a mess.

Glenn ‘Shemy’ Schembechler, son of legendary Wolverines football coach Bo Schembechler, the winningest coach in Michigan football history who took the Wolverines to 10 Rose Bowls, was was hired as the University of Michigan’s assistant director of recruiting on May 17. Three says later he was fired (well, “forced to resign”). His demise was caused by his habit of “liking” controversial tweets on Twitter.

A statement from the school attributed Schembechler’s forced resignation to social media activity that “caused concern and pain for individuals in our community.” Here’s one of those “liked tweets,” in a Twitter tiff over a quote from Thomas Sowell:

Ethics Observations:

Continue reading →

So It’s Come To This…

/ Jack Marshall / 32 Comments

Now there’s a well-reasoned, articulate, rational, persuasive argument! My rule of thumb is that when advocates have to descend into chanting, shouting and sloganeering, they have no legitimacy, and neither do their positions. (If a position’s advocates can’t do better than that, their position is a fantasy.) They have also forfeited respect and the right to be taken seriously.

Another “Great Stupid” Milestone: Mayor Adams’ Plan To Stop Shoplifting

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

If you are not fully informed in Ethics Alarms lore, the term “The Great Stupid” for the ridiculous period Western Civilization is trying to survive came from a lucky conversation your host had many decades ago with futurist Herman Kahn, then generally regarded as the smartest man alive. One of the topics we discussed was the Sixties, and Herman observed that throughout history there have been periods where whole cultures suddenly forgot the lessons of the past. This resulted in what in retrospect looked like extended periods of stupidity, with people and governments engaging in destructive conduct and embracing wildly foolish policies until they re-learned what they had forgotten, usually after catastrophic results. I am quite confident that Mr Kahn would agree that this is just such a period.

New York City mayors have been major players in the most recent descent of stupidity across the land, and while Mayor Eric Adams couldn’t be a worse mayor than his predecessor if he just lay on his office rug twitching, he certainly tries. Recently, as his city (like so many Democrat-run metropolises) grapples with an exploding crime rate, Adams announced the following plan to deal with rampant shoplifting:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote Of The Week: Jonathan Turley

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“As [the WaPo’s Philip] Bump wrote when he was falsely accusing Barr, “it is the job of the media to tell the truth.” This would be a good time to start.”

—-Prof. Jonathan Turley in an epic defenestration of Washington Post Democratic Party propagandist Philip Bump

The Washington Post continuing to publish columnist Philip Bump’s “advocacy journalism (aka. lies) tells us as much about that once respectable paper as MSNBC continuing to provide a platform for Al Sharpton (and Joy Reid, and Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell, and Joe Scarborough…). Bump distorts facts and sets out to disorient Post readers, which is, I was taught in journalism class, the opposite of what newspapers are supposed to do. “But he’s a pundit, not a reporter!” you protest? Fine: as the saying goes, he is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts.

Continue reading →

“Gee, What A Surprise: Pot Isn’t Good For Teenagers”…The Sequel

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

In the same vein as the rueful post from two days ago, Ethics Alarms offers this excerpt from today’s Sunday Times without further comment, because none should be necessary…

Continue reading →

More On Disgraced Ex-U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins: “The Dark Underbelly Of The Intersection Of Politics And Media”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Fortunately, Boston still has surviving conservative competitor of the dominant Boston Globe—you know, that heroic newspaper portrayed in “Spotlight.” If it didn’t, it’s quite likely no news media sources would publicize the disturbing unholy alliance between the corrupt U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins, a brazenly unethical prosecutor pushed into power by the Democratic Party, and Massachusetts’ most influential news source.

The Boston Herald may be struggling, but it performed a public service by revealing the Globe’s alliance with Rollins, whose fall Ethics Alarms discussed here. The conservative paper cursed to try to survive in a one party city and state reports today,

“No mercy. Finish him,” Rollins demanded to Boston City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo in one of their text exchanges about Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden, whose campaign they were trying to torpedo….The two conspired – with the Boston Globe as willing accomplice – to tilt the Democratic D.A. primary in Arroyo’s favor by trying to smear Hayden to show he was somehow under federal investigation, texts and emails show….The Globe actually ran three stories about Hayden using Rollins as an anonymous source.

...That’s why it’s so important for reporters to know the personal agendas of anonymous stories and to check out everything they tell you. Journalists like to think of themselves as using lofty ethical standards but when it comes to political or investigative journalism the sausage-making can be unseemly. The Rollins probe has slimed an untrustworthy press and feeds into why an already cynical public hates and doesn’t trust the media.

The twin investigative reports about Rollins also showed how dangerous it is for the public and media to glorify and lionize public officials. When Rollins threw herself an elaborate swearing-in ceremony over a year ago at the federal courthouse in Boston, both Democrats and Republicans rushed to praise her as a “trailblazer” – as the Boston Globe called her – and predicted greatness for her.

Amusingly, one of those who was effusive in her praise for Rollins was Massachusetts’ spectacularly unethical Democratic Senator, Elizabeth Warren, aka “Fauxahautus,” who raved, “She has the values, the vision, and the courage to be an outstanding US attorney!” Among Rollins’ values was blatant politicizing of the law for Democratic gain as well as her own.The Herald notes that Rollins would have probably gotten away with her unethical election tampering and remain a U.S. Attorney today if she hadn’t attended a Democratic Party fundraiser where a Boston Herald reporter saw her and reported her presence.That flagrant ethical breach, for which Rollins falsely claimed claimed she had prior approval, triggered the ethics investigations by the Inspector General and Office of Special Counsel that ended her tenure.

Now that she has resigned in disgrace, the Globe is back to playing objective journalism again, issuing stories and columns condemning Rollins. It has not, of course, condemned its own complicity in her machinations.

The lesson of this relatively under-reported scandal is that while the Russian Collusion hoax, as revealed by the Durham Reports, was a national collaborative effort by Democrats, corrupt government officials and the biased news media to tamper with democracy, the same rotten alliance is hard at work undermining democracy at the state and local levels as well. What is desperately needed is a non-partisan watch-dog organization that fingers and exposes news media corruption, awarding the opposite of the Pulitzers (which, being politically biased themselves, has not retracted its awards to the Washington Post ad New York Times for their false and partisan coverage of “Russiagate.”) Such negative awards would have to be monthly rather than yearly, so frequently do journalists today engage in propaganda and disinformation.

Maybe Elon Musk, if he has any money to spare after his sputtering efforts to restore free speech to Twitter, can install such a system. Exposure and shame seem to be the only weapons we have against “the enemies of the people.”