fairness

Ethics Quiz: The US Soccer Team Collective

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The U.S. soccer women’s national team had nothing to do with the U.S. men’s national team’s success in the World Cup it was eliminated by Belgium. Never mind though: because the men and U.S. Soccer allowed themselves to be bullied by woke-think and self-righteous women like Megan Rapinoe into an equal pay deal, the money–$16 million—the men earned will be split 50-50 with the women. Or as one wag put it: the men earned the money while the women stayed home. The news media has called the arrangement “ground-breaking.” It’s ground-breaking, all right. So would an agreement that required the men to clean Megan’s house with a toothbrush.

I should state up front that I could not care less what the men do with their prize money, and if they made a deal to give half of it to homeless puppies or the Obama library, that would be fine with me. However, this does represent a distortion of “equal pay” and one more high profile (well, for those who pay attention to soccer anyway) slide down socialism/communism’s slippery slope.

U.S. Soccer keeps 20% of the prize money, with the remaining 80 % is to be split evenly between the men’s and women’s player pools. That comes out to roughly $246,153 per player. Now, if we want to rationalize this crummy deal for the men, it could be described as a team unity, one for all and all for one device. That’s not what’s really going on, however. When the woman play in 2027, they will earn much less prize money than the men did no matter how well they do. The USMNT earned $13 million for reaching the round of 16 at the 2022 World Cup. The USWNT earned just $1.87 million for reaching the same stage at the 2023 Women’s World Cup.

Unfair? That contrast in rewards reflects a difference in talent and ability. In a meritocracy, which is what the United States is fighting to remain after 250 years of success with that motivation to excel, it is absolutely fair that the men earn more. A good men’s college soccer team would beat that U.S. woman, and the men play a faster, better, more entertaining version of the game. The Left’s version of fairness, however, is based on sharing benefits with the collective regardless of who did the most to earn them.

The men, weenies all, let themselves be pressured into the prize-sharing surrender in 2022, when blind DEI was ascendant and the Biden Administration along with the rest of the Axis of Unethical Conduct were twisting logic, ethics and fairness into metaphorical pretzels. We are now at the cross-roads of what “fairness” is. Does it mean to each according to his or her needs, and from each according to his or her ability?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is...

Is the U.S. Soccer “Equal Pay” deal fair, responsible and ethical?

Logic, Common Sense and Legal Ethics: The Pro Se Divorcing Lawyer Problem

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I know these technical legal ethics issues don’t interest a lot of readers, but it is my field, and this one is an all-time oldie-but-goodies.

A lawyer is in the midst of a divorce. He represents himself (a “pro se” representation); his wife has a lawyer. In all jurisdictions, Rule 4.2 or its equivalent declares that a lawyer may not meet with an adverse party in a matter without that party’s attorney present unless that counsel has been alerted and consents. The self-representing lawyer meets with his wife, whose attorney hasn’t learned about the meeting.

Is the lawyer-husband violating the rule?

The Supreme Court of Texas held last week that Rule 4.2 (Texas 4.02) does not prohibit a pro se lawyer from communicating directly with opposing party in a divorce . Ruth v Commission on Lawyer Discipline, 2026 WL 1699920. But in Missouri, the recent opinion regarding the exact same issue was the opposite. Here is that whole opinion, Informal Opinion Number: 2026-02, April 21, 2026:

Question:  Lawyer is divorcing Spouse.  Lawyer is pro se in the dissolution.   Spouse is represented by counsel.  Lawyer and Spouse had reached an informal agreement about the division of property before filing the dissolution action.  Lawyer and Spouse continue to reside together while the dissolution is ongoing.   Spouse discussed with Lawyer repairs needed at the marital home and payment for the repairs.  Spouse initiated the conversation.  After Lawyer spoke with Spouse regarding the repairs, Spouse’s lawyer advised Lawyer that all communications concerning the dissolution should be made through Spouse’s lawyer.  As a party, Lawyer believes Lawyer has a right to communicate directly with spouse.  Lawyer bases this belief upon a reading of Rule 4 dash–4.2 and Comment [4] to the Rule.  Rule 4 dash–4.2 prohibits a lawyer who “is representing a client” from directly communicating about the subject of the representation with any other represented party.  Comment [4] to the Rule provides that parties may communicate directly with each other.

  1. Is Lawyer correct in the interpretation of the rule and its comment?  
  2. Is the interpretation the same, regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or Lawyer has engaged counsel to represent Lawyer?

Answer 1:  No, Lawyer’s interpretation is incorrect.  Interpretation of the Rule and Comment [4] require consideration of both the Rule’s plain language and the policy purposes behind the Rule.  The Rule protects a represented person against overreaching by other lawyers, interference with the client-lawyer relationship, and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation.  See Comment [1] to Rule 4 dash–4.2.  Direct communications between a represented party and a pro se lawyer create the same risks that Rule 4 dash–4.2 was designed to prevent.  So, the pro se Lawyer is considered “self-representing” or, i.e., “representing a client,” and direct communication with the spouse regarding the dissolution is prohibited.  See Informal Opinion 2011 dash–03.  This is true even if Spouse initiated or consented to the communication.  See Comment [3] to Rule 4 dash–4.2.

Answer 2: The same risks exist with direct communications for the represented party regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or has counsel. Consequently, Rule 4 dash–4.2 prohibits direct communication between the parties unless counsel for the parties consent to direct communications or the communication is authorized by law or court order.

The consensus among legal ethicists is that the Texas approach makes sense and the Missouri version does not. A spouse in the midst of a divorce should not be prohibited from talking things out with his partner if she consents just because he happens to have a law degree. The non-lawyer party can always say refuse the meeting. I would add, however, that best practice is for the pro se lawyer to advise his spouse to check with her attorney before agreeing to the meeting.

Are you with Texas or Missouri, or me?

Fairness Test: “What’s Going On Here?”

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

The short video clip above shows Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar referring to World War II as “World War Eleven.” The clip has been reposted by numerous social media accounts and has collectively drawn millions of views. Some versions leave out the Congresswoman quickly correcting herself and smiling at her own gaffe.

Omar’s “speako” has also spawned many memes, like…

All in good fun…except that if Donald Trump made a gaffe like that my Trump Deranged Facebook friends would be screaming that it was time to invoke the 25th Amendment. I am willing to accept the protests of Democrats that Omar’s incident was a forgivable momentary botch with no greater significance and not proof that she misunderstands Roman numerals or lacks a basic knowledge of history…if they stop using Trump’s occassional verbal stumbles as evidence that he is demented.

And you know they won’t.

On the other hand…what the hell? How can someone who has read anything about World War II and seen the numbering as often as educated Americans do—what, hundreds of times? Thousands?—make that mistake? Several years ago, a local news hostess was fired after making the same error; the assumption was that she must be an idiot. Maybe because my sister and I were immersed in World War II history, lore and memorabilia from the time we could speak, this particular gaffe seems particularly weird to me. If Omar pronounced “USA” as “ussa,” would it be reasonable for us to shrug it off as a mistake any member of Congress could make? This is an elected official, after all, whose American bona fides are tad shaky.

Now, now, Jack. You have exonerated Obama for saying there were more than 50 states, and yourself for mixing up this guy…

….with this guy…

so let’s not jump to conclusions about Rep. Omar just because she has said her first duty is to Somalians.

From The EA Archives: The Trump Presidency And “The Caine Mutiny”—A Reminder

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

I watched “The Caine Mutiny” last night with a friend who had never seen it. I realized that I had written during Donald Trump’s first term about how the rebuke Navy lawyer Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer) delivers to the acquitted mutineers fit 2019’s “resistance”  like the proverbial glove. It fits today’s  Axis of Unethical Conduct even better. I’ll have some brief comments after the post.

* * *

Turner Movie Classics ran “The Caine Mutiny” again last night. It reminded me of what I wrote two years ago, when I really didn’t think that the “resistance” and the Democrats would continue on the destructive path they have for this long. I even wrote, foolishly, “This is the last time I’m going to try to explain why the fair, patriotic, ethical and rational approach to the impending Presidency of Donald Trump is to be supportive of the office and the individual until his actual performance in the job earns just criticism. Attempting to undermine a Presidency at its outset is a self-destructive act, for nobody benefits if a Presidency fails.” Of course, it was far from the last time I returned to the topic. In my defense, how could I know, at a point where the term “the resistance” hadn’t even surfaced yet, that the unparalleled assault on a President would not only continue, but escalate to the point where a newly minted Congresswoman would announce to a cheering mob, “We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!”?

Watching the movie, however, was striking. I know it well; I can recite many of the lines from memory. Yet the parallel with the Trump Presidency struck me smore powerfully than ever before, and sent me back to that previous post, in which I wrote,

“In The Caine Mutiny, a film version of the stage drama and novel “The Caine Mutiny Court Martial,” Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart), a man whose war-shattered nerves and self-esteem problems have rendered him an erratic and an unpopular officer, falters in his command during a storm. His officers, frightened and already convinced that their captain is unfit for command, mutiny. At their military trial, their defense attorney causes Queeg to have a breakdown on the witness stand, winning the case for the accused mutineers. Later, however, at the post trial victory party, the lawyer, Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer),  shames his clients. He represented them zealously, but he tells them that they were, in fact, at fault for what occurred on the Caine:

Ensign  Keith: Queeg endangered the lives of the men.

Greenwald: He didn’t endanger any lives.You did. A fine bunch of officers.

Lt. Paynter: You said yourself he cracked.

Greenwald: I’m glad you brought that up, Mr. Paynter, because that’s a very pretty point. I left out one detail in court. It wouldn’t have helped our case. Tell me, Steve, after the yellow-stain business, Queeg came to you for help, and you turned him down, didn’t you.

Lt. Maryk: Yes, we did.

Greenwald: You didn’t approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn’t worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged on him, you made up songs about him. If you’d given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you think all this would have come up in the typhoon? You’re an honest man, Steve, I’m asking you. You think it would have been necessary to take over?

 Maryk: It probably wouldn’t have been necessary.

Keith:  If that’s true, we were guilty.

Greenwald: Ahhh, You’re learning, Willie!  You don’t work with the captain because of how he parts his hair…you work with him because  he’s got the job, or you’re no good.

Exactly.

      Or you’re no good.

Donald Trump is in over his head. He knows it, I think. Maybe, just maybe, with a lot of help, a lot of support and more than a lot of luck, he might be able to do a decent job for his country and the public. It’s a long-shot, but what’s the alternative? Making sure that he fails? Making him feel paranoid, and angry, and feeding his worst inclinations so he’s guaranteed to behave irrationally and irresponsibly? How is that in anyone’s best interest? That’s not how to get someone through a challenge, especially someone who you have to depend on.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Freaks in Sports

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Olivier Rioux is a 7-foot-9-inch college basketball player for the Florida Gators. Rioux is a freshman center weighing approximately 305 lbs. Born in Canada and already known as the tallest college basketball player in history, he also holds the Guinness World Record for tallest teenager.

He raises issues related to the transgender sports controversy as well as some that Ethics Alarms has discussed in earlier posts. Several involved intersex runner Caster Semanja, who has always identified as female but who regularly crushed female competitors in sports competitions because of an unusual amount of male hormones. When she was required to artificially lower her natural hormone mix to compete against women, I wrote,

“We can’t have special leagues and categories for however many gender categories science identifies and activists fight to have recognized, and there is no justification for creating artificial standards to eliminate outlier performers. The “solution” imposed on Caster Semenya—force her to take drugs that eliminate her natural advantage—is horrifying. How is this different from banging brilliant kids on the head until they have brain damage and no longer dominate their less gifted fellow students in school? What right do the sports czars have to declare an unprecedented, unique competitor unfit to compete because her, or his, unique qualities are advantageous? Why are so many woman condemning Caster as a cheat, when they should be defending her as a human being with as much right to compete as she is as anyone? Because she’ll win? Because it’s unfair that God, or random chance, or her own dedication rendered her better at her sport than anyone else?”

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Movie Star’s Daughter

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I have no idea what’s right or wrong in this scenario, so it makes an appropriate topic for an ethics quiz. The realm is high fashion and modeling. There are few things I know less about than those subjects. I’m kinda weak on metallurgy and thoracic surgery too.

That’s Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban’s daughter, Sunday Rose, above. The teen recently became the object of vicious social media scorn following her appearance at New York Fashion Week on February 13, 2026.

The 17-year-old’s big time modeling debut at a Calvin Klein show put her under a harsh spotlight. Many mocked her runway demeanor and declared that her qualifications for high-profile modeling opportunities consisted of famous parents and a movie-star mother, and nothing else. The central ethics issue is nepotism. One social media critic wrote, “Remember when models were stunning, unique and natural? Not just some celeb’s child.”

To be honest, no, I don’t remember when models were natural. Were they ever? Most of them look like freaks, with odd proportions that resemble newspaper drawings of women wearing dresses, and too many of them have looked like recent concentration camp escapees in make-up. But again, I don’t get the whole fashion thing, why it exists, or why anyone pays attention to it.

To my untrained eye, I see nothing about Sunday Rose (what an awful name!) that explains why she is a model except her Hollywood pedigree. Do you? She’s not particularly pretty, seems sullen, and resembles the original “Young Sherlock” in drag. See?

Some models resemble whomever that is with Young Sherlock…

But the real question is how to treat the children of the rich, famous and powerful fairly. Surely the fact that she is Nicole Kidman’s daughter shouldn’t prevent a young, talented, aspiring model from pursuing her dream, but how can unfair advantages be avoided? Nepotism is even more advantageous in Hollywood. Acting success is normally based more on luck and opportunity than stand-out talent, but the children of already established stars are born lucky.

Should they be blamed for accepting what their lineage hands them? Horror writer Joe Hill deliberately used a fake name on his first attempts to follow in his father’s footsteps (Dad is Stephen King) so he could be sure that his work was judged on its own merits. He’s an ethics hero for that, but the list of the offsprings of movie stars who used their names to get on screen and went on to respectable careers, sometimes even surpassing their parents, is too long to publish.

Still, if the the daughter of a movie star puts herself out in range of public judgment, is it unfair for critics to take aim? Does it change the question if she is only 17, like Sunday Rose?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

What is ethical treatment for the beneficiaries of nepotism in modeling or any other competitive field?

 

Comment of the Day: On the I.C.E. Shooting Ethics Train Wreck ( “Friday Open Forum, Depicated To Major Tipton”)

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Ace EA commenter Ryan Harkins, as he often does, flags the ethics conflict in the current escalating controversy over President Trump’s mass deportations, a.k.a, “Enforcing the immigration laws after a rogue Presidency refused to do so for four years.” The point he raises is not only a valid one but an important one, not just regarding this issue but others. I’m going to append a fairly long addition to Ryan’s excellent work, but first of all, here is his Comment of the Day from “Friday Open Forum, Dedicated To Major Tipton…”:

***

Here’s my concern about the situation we’re in. I would liken it to inconsistently disciplining your children. If you only irregularly discipline your child for a particular infraction, the child learns that most of the time, he can get away with that infraction. When that infraction is then punished, the child reactions disproportionately because he’s used to getting away with the infraction, and he believes that if he makes noncompliance painful enough, it will discourage further disciplinary action.

That seems to be the case we’re in with illegal immigrants. We’ve been very poor at enforcing our immigration laws, and so many said illegals and the communities around them grew complacent about the laws not being enforced. When the laws are enforced, it comes as a great shock, and the immediate reaction is to scream about how unfair it is. And to a certain extent, I do agree that it is unfair. It is unfair to cultivate the expectation that a law won’t be enforced, only to turn around and enforce it. But it is unfair because of cultivating that expectation, not because of the subsequent enforcement.

The significant problem is the whiplash effect of enforcement/non-enforcement depending upon who is in charge. We’ve run the gamut of no enforcement (even inviting in illegals), to soft enforcement, to promises of citizenship, to harsh enforcement. To anyone watching from outside the country, it is like dealing with a schizophrenic or someone suffering from multiple personality disorder. Worse, because we keep seesawing back and forth, the expectation right now is that by keeping up a defiant stance against the current administration, illegals and their allies can simply wait for the winds to change and go back to their lives as they’ve been.

I know this aspect of the situation glosses over the deliberate effort of radicals to the destabilize the nation, the outrage over the money spigots that are being closed, the efforts to import in reliable Democratic voters, and the genuine concerns over destabilizing families that had, admittedly against the law, put down roots and became productive members of their communities. But it is a serious problem that we seem to be lurching one direction, and then back the opposite way, with every swing of political power. This has been exacerbated by most policy changes coming from executive orders, which are easily undone, rather than congressional legislation, which is much harder to walk back.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Fairness to AOC

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

Ethics Alarms only covers a fraction of the statements by prominent people that prompt the response, “What, if anything, were they thinking?” For example, I was torn today whether to mention Kamala Harris saying in a recent interview (with Axis journalist Kara Swisher, whom I have been calling out for her hackery for 30 years) on her book tour (What were they thinking to send Kamala out on a book tour?), that “some have said” that she was “the most qualified candidate ever to run for President.” Because Swisher is such a hack, she didn’t have the integrity to burst out laughing and tell Harris, “Oh, Kamala, you are so funny!” Yeah, and some have said, “I am the Lizard King!” and “Of course dogs can talk, they just don’t have anything to say!” Maybe, MAYBE, and I am giving her the benefit of the doubt here, Harris was only the second least qualified Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history. But I digress.

In last night’s predictably horrifying town hall meeting on CNN featuring American communist Bernie Sanders and Dunning-Kruger victim Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), AOC went for the Gold and may have said the stupidest thing that not only she has ever said in public but perhaps the stupidest thing any elected official has said in public, though Rep. Hank Johnson expressing a fear that so much U.S. military personnel and equipment on the island of Guam might cause it to “tip over” creates a daunting challenge.

Ranting in her usual pop-eyed hysterical style about how evil corporations were polluting the nation and that “rivers were on fire” because they were “pouring chemicals” into waterways and killing people, AOC was quick to name the first corporate villain to pop into what she audaciously calls her “mind.” Was it Monsanto, mayhap? Dow Chemical? Dupont? LyondellBasell Industries, the largest U.S. chemical company? Oh no. The Congresswoman, regarded by many pundits as the rising leader of the Democratic Party, has bigger game in her sights, and she immediately, without hesitation, named the vile polluter.

“Deloitte.”

Yes, the accounting firm. I’ve been trying to think of a company that she could have named that would be less guilty of pollution. The Boston Red Sox? I dunno, the team flies a lot. Hey, but anyone can make a mistake. Right? It was just a “speako.” It isn’t really evidence that Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about half the time, is it?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is it unfair to hold such an obvious brain fart against AOC?

Continue reading →

Baseball, Ted Williams and Ethics Zugzwang

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Baseball has an potential ethics problem involving baseball legend (and Red Sox icon)Ted Williams that I don’t think can be resolved.

Williams, or “Teddy Ballgame” as he liked to call himself (He also called himself “Ted Fucking Williams the Greatest Fucking Hitter Who Ever Lived”) is renowned as the Last of the Four-Hundred Hitters, Batting .406 in 1941. (He also lost the MVP vote that year to Joe DiMaggio because Joltin’ Joe hit in 56 straight games, a statistical anomaly.) That .406 average looks especially impressive in 2025, when only one player in the National League, Trea Turner, even managed to hit .300.

But just for fun, let’s imagine that Turner hit exactly .400. Ted Williams would no longer be the last of the .400 hitters, right? But there is a problem. When Ted hit .406, baseball counted sacrifice flies—when a batter makes an out with a fly ball that is deep enough that a runner on third base can tag up after the catch and score—like any other out. They counted against a player’s average. In 1953, though, baseball changed the rule so a “sac fly” didn’t count as an out. If Williams’ sac flies had been hit under the new (and current) rules, his average (he had 8 that year), would have been .413. If Turner were playing under the 1941 rules—-he hit 2 sac flies this season—those two outs would drop him below the .400 mark.

Continue reading →

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 →