integrity

Unwritten Rules Ethics: R.I.P. “No Running Up The Score”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Last night the Milwaukee Brewers tied the MLB record for the most lopsided shutout in modern history with a 22-0 rout of the Seattle Mariners. Once upon a time and not so long ago, the Brewers would have been shamed for “running up the score” because a very old unwritten rule of the game held that doing so was unethical: unprofessional, cruel, pointless, sadistic, and a Golden Rule breach. When the Texas Rangers defeated the Baltimore Orioles 30–3 on August 22, 2007, the most one-sided wipe-out in professional baseball since the 19th century, the Rangers were widely condemned for inflicting such a humiliation on another team and its fans. I think, with the Brewers win yesterday, we can officially pronounce the silly unwritten rule repealed. It never was ethical. Good riddance.

The unwritten rule probably dates back before professional baseball. Running up the score in Little League and pick-up games is cruel, pointless and, yes, a Golden Rule breach, but carrying it into games where spectators pay money and the players are compensated for their performance never made sense. It is a violation of integrity for professional athletes not to exert maximum effort. The score won’t stop, or shouldn’t stop, a player from making a spectacular fielding play, or hitting the ball into orbit. Real baseball fans love the game, not just a team. For a winning team to stop trying to score runs is unethical. Fans are being cheated.

A game with so many runs scored is long? Hey, nobody’s forcing a spectator to stay. If I pay to see a game, I pay to see the whole game. Moreover, one of baseball’s inimitable charms is that weird and wonderful things happen that have never happened before all the time, even though there have been roughly 243,700 baseball games played over the entire history of the sport since 1876. Just this week, a rookie hit three home runs in his first three trips to the plate in his first game ever, something that is unprecedented.

Pages: 1 2

Amish Integrity? Nope. Amish Hypocrisy!

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

I always thought of the Amish as a devout religious sect with thee courage of their faith’s convictions, notably that technology is a tool of Satan, and the way to be closer to God is to eschew the modern developments that slowly but surely corrupt us all. That describes an ethical culture to me, if one that I personally find extreme and illogical. Google tells me that “The Amish are a traditionalist Christian group of Swiss-German Anabaptist heritage known for their pacifism, simple living, plain dress, and reluctance to adopt modern conveniences. Numbering roughly 411,000 across North America, they primarily reside in rural settlements in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.” That’s nice. I’ve seen “Witness” several times, and assumed that Harrison Ford film more or less accurately portrayed Amish society.

I was also vaguely aware that there were variations withing the sect, based on, to some extent, relative isolation because of the general rejection of modern communication methods. Every local congregation operates under an unwritten set of rules called the Ordnung. These dictate daily life, acceptable technology, and community standards.

Today I realized that the Amish are not, in fact, a conservative religious sect that believes it can best maintain traditional values by rejecting technology. It is, in fact, a cult without integrity regarding technology. The Unabomber had more integrity.

According to New York Magazine (Stipulated: I am relying here on a source that I have found to be unreliable before, but unless the piece by Eric German is a flat-out lie as well as an attempt to defame the Amish, I believe it is trustworthy.), “The Amish Are Falling in Love With AI: Cars and TVs might be banned, but some sects are all-in on ChatGPT.”

What the hell? From the article:

“Holmes County, Ohio, has the highest concentration of Amish people of any county in the U.S. Visitors expecting to see traditional horses and buggies, bonnets and Abe Lincoln beards, won’t be disappointed. Still, they’ll find Amish entrepreneurs plugging into the digital economy and one clan of early adopters weaving generative AI into their knowledge work without much hesitation. Of course, none of this sounds like the tech-shy Amish life in the popular imagination. However, there’s no such thing as a single Amish approach to technology. There are some 2,600 Amish churches across the country, and each makes its own, separate decisions about what sorts of new hardware and software church members can use. The Wengerd’s church is Old Order Amish. Its married members dress plainly, don’t drive cars or own TVs, and don’t connect their homes to the electrical grid….Daniel is a minister in his church and has played a role in the congregation’s collective decisions to interdict smartphones and social media but to allow e-bikes, flip phones, solar-generated electricity, and religiously curated internet access. “I don’t want to paint a picture that we’re pushing for new technology and we don’t have respect for our traditions and our values,” he tells me. “We’re not just opening the door to anything.”

Sure they are. In fact, I can see no legitimate argument that a sect that embraces artificial intelligence can be taken seriously when it simultaneously rejects standard electricity, television and automobiles. Ethics is based on integrity, and requires holding to consistent standards subject to continuous testing and re-evaluation based on observed experience. Morality, in contrast, requires obeying clear rules of conduct that will be enforced by an authority, in the case of religion, God. The Amish appear to have neither a moral code nor ethical principles regarding technology. “We believe modern technology is a corrupting force in modern society and that it is not sanctioned by God, unless the technology is really cool and can save us time, like chatbots” is not a coherent code of conduct.

This is religion as Calvinball, the satirical “Calvin and Hobbes” game where the rules are made up as you go along. In Mark Harris’s novel “Bang the Drum Slowly,” a team’s baseball players fleece gullible fans by luring them into a gambling card game called “Tagwar.” It’s an acronym for “the amazing game without any rules.” It’s cheating.

Pages: 1 2

Anyone Who Genuinely Couldn’t Figure Out That Trump’s Threats and Deadline For Iran’s Annihilation Weren’t Bargaining Ploys Should Shut Up… Forever

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

…or at least stop weighing in during this President’s term.

What does it take for the Trump Deranged and hopelessly biased (or hopelessly stupid, or hopelessly dishonest) to be embarrassed? Surely there has to be a tipping point where the public starts pointing and laughing. Surely. Surely.

No? Wasn’t it obvious that Trump’s “war crime” ultimatums were designed to get Iran to make concessions? I don’t mean just obvious to me (“I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everyone says!”) but obvious to doctors, lawyers, beggarmen, thieves and Indian chiefs along with anyone else who has watched this guy operate since his real estate days? Seriously? Really? No? Wow.

I’d like to make Rep. Ro Khanna the poster fool for this malady. Shortly after this EA post, Trump announced the two week cease-fire and Khanna did a double back-flip with a twist, stood on his metaphorical head and called the President a TACO, as in “Trump Always Chickens Out”! This is another clear Trump Derangement symptom. Attack the President on the presumption that he is doing or will do one thing, then attack him when he does the opposite.

Why isn’t this embarrassing to those exposed again and again as reflexively criticizing whatever the President does? Let’s see: the ethical values here are fairness, honesty, integrity, accountability, consistency (being consistently inconsistent doesn’t qualify), prudence, proportionality, humility…there are more, but I don’t feel like looking up the list. Ethics, analysis, logic and reality has nothing to do with how these critics react. It’s all emotion and the Cognitive Dissonance Scale:

Imagine, however, that sub-zero section reaching down forever to infinity, with Trump there rather than only at -10. Prof. Festinger’s theory holds that a negative bias that strong is enough to pull anything…literally anything, people, ideas, books, policies, bunnies, rainbows, babies, The Beatles, Taylor Swift, Nancy Guthrie, opposing cannibalism…into negative territory. What’s going on here? THAT’S what’s going on.

Podcaster Dave Rubin wrote on X: “Trump has been running the same negotiation playbook forever. Pressure, escalation, chaos… then leverage a deal. We’ve watched it happen again and again. This wasn’t complicated. It was basic pattern recognition.” Yup! What does this tell you about people who refuse to see that pattern? Go ahead: come up with a kind description. I can’t think of any.

While Fox News and even CNN were properly reporting on the developments in Iran (Not a word about Nancy Guthrie!) do you know what MSNOW decide was the big news? The danger that Trump was going to come up with some way to steal the mid-terms! Yes, that well-used “future news” subcategory of fake news.

Anyone who watches MSNOW for anything but amusement or intelligence on what the Axis of Unethical Conduct is plotting next should also be embarrassed. How I long to post an entry like this on Facebook…but that would be mean. But fun. But mean…

Over at the New York Post, conservative pundit and law prof Glenn Reynolds wrote, before yesterday’s late developments,

Pages: 1 2

Welcome To Unethical Rationalization 31A, “The Hypocrite’s Balm,” or “Any Port in a Storm!”

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

This is the first new rationalization added to the rationalizations list in a long time, though I have at least two others I have been pondering for a while. Rationalization #31 A, however hit me like Pete Buttigieg’s imaginary maul when a respected legal ethicist wrote on the listserv for the Association of Professional Liability Lawyers today that “Lefties” like him were suddenly embracing state’s rights in response to the need to “resist” President Trump, and attempted to justify this reversal by shrugging, “Any port in a storm!”

And there it was. I could hardly believe that wasn’t on the list already, but it wasn’t. I assigned “The Hypocrite’s Balm” as a sub-rationalization to the infamous #31, The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now.” I also could have placed it under #25. The Coercion Myth: “I have no choice!,” but it is distinct from both.

#31 stands for brutal Utilitarianism, “the ends justify the means.” #25 is the whine of someone who is too cowardly to make the kind of tough ethical choice that has unpleasant non-ethical consequences. But “Any port in a storm” is the motto of activists who decide that their minds are made up, facts and logic no longer appeal to them, and they are willing to ally themselves with beliefs, organizations, individuals and missions that they have previously reviled in order to avoid admitting they may have been wrong, or that they should reassess their position based on new information, experience, or the metaphorical ice water of reality being thrown in their faces.

Rationalization #31 A describes the warped, desperate and destructive mindset of the Axis of Unethical Conduct today along with the Trump Deranged. So obsessed are they with their hatred of Donald Trump and the fact that he has at least temporarily derailed the Mad Left’s march to single party, nanny state, multicultural, anti-American DEI dominance that they are willing to anchor themselves in “ports” sane liberals would have avoided like ebola in the recent past.

Pages: 1 2

Will the Supreme Court Get An Apology From The Axis And The Trump Deranged? Nah. Of Course Not.

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Remember former Perkins Coie lawyer Bradley Datt, the ex-Perkins Coie litigator whose post-Charlie Kirk assassination Facebook Facebook entry began, “Charlie Kirk got famous as one of America’s leading spreaders of hatred, misinformation and intolerance.The current political moment—where an extremist Supreme Court and feckless Republican Congress are enabling a Republican president to become a tyrant…”? The firm correctly fired the jerk, but such worthies as Unethical Website “Above the Law” and a lot of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends endorsed his “extremist Supreme Court” and “tyrant” analysis.

The U.S. Supreme Court just confirmed a major constitutional limitation on presidential power by striking down the sweeping tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed in a series of executive orders. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the President by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.

The opinion is here; analysis is everywhere, but what I care about right now is that when the centerpiece of the President’s economic program and foreign trade policy was before the Supreme Court, the alleged “radical” Justices did not rubber stamp it and did not “bend a knee,” but rather, as they are sworn to do, followed the law and the Constitution and ruled that President Trump had exceeded his powers. Three of the supposedly “radical” justices (if you’re not willing to distort the law in the direction the Axis favors, you’re radical), Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett, joined with the three lock-step progressive DEI Justices (a black woman, a lesbian, and the “Wise Latina”). They are the ones who apparently make up their hive mind on cases before they even read the briefs based on what Democrats want, to foil the Republican POTUS. Fortunately, the other six Justices have some integrity

Because, you see, Trump isn’t a “king,” and the system works, just as the balance of power among the branches of government is supposed to.

A Shocking Ice Dancing Judging Scandal at the Winter Olympics

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

You can read the details of this completely predictable and in general ridiculous ice-dancing judging scandal here, here, and here. I’m not going recount the details because the details are misleading.

The ethics story is that the American ice dancing team of Madison Chock and Evan Bates lost the gold to the French team of Laurence Fournier Beaudry and Guillaume Cizeron because a French judge, Jezabel Dabouis, favored Beaudry and Cizeron by nearly eight points (make that “points”) over the three-time world champions in the free dance, a margin inexplicable when compared to the scores of the other judges, and so large that if her score were removed entirely, Chock and Bates would have won the top prize easily.

Pages: 1 2

Supreme Court Partisan Hacks Unmasked!

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The Supreme Court today refused to strike down California’s new gerrymandered congressional map designed to give Democrats five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and turned down a request from a group of California Republicans that would have required the state to continue to use the map in place while their judicial challenge to the map proceeded. If anyone dissented on the Court, he, she or they kept it to themselves.

This is called “following precedent.”

Two months ago the conservative bloc on the Court, over dissents from the Three Little Maids of Kneejerk Progressivism, granted a request from Texas to allow it to use its new map intended to allow Republicans to pick up five additional House seats in that state. In Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, a lower court had sided with Democratic challengers that the “legislature’s motive was predominantly racial,” making the redistricting unconstitutional. (Once again, crying racism was the Left’s default claim.)The majority reversed that ruling in its December 4 order. Justice Alito issued an opinion (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorusch) explaining that “it is indisputable … that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map…was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

The Republicans who challenged the California map were counting on a lack of integrity from the conservative majority although the issue was exactly the same as in the Texas case. But the six conservative, Republican-appointed Justices declined the bait. They ruled for the Democrats just as they had ruled for the Texas Republicans, which was the legal, ethical, fair and objective result. Even those conservative devils Thomas and Alito!

Another false partisan narrative bites the dust.

If the three Democratic women possessed similar integrity, they would have dissented in this case too, as they had in Abbott. But they didn’t, did they?With their votes, they showed that their principles only hold when their favorite party benefits from them.

They are the hacks.

Unmasked at last.

If It Exists, Heaven Isn’t a Game Show. I Hope.

/ Jack Marshall / 46 Comments

When ” Dilbert” cartoonist Scott Adams, in his last days before dying, announced that he had converted to Christianity, my immediate thought was that it was either a final joke by the “cancelled” wit and iconoclast or a classic deathbed conversion that lowered my opinion of him. It may have been both based on his final tweet, which said in part,

“Many of my Christian friends have asked me to find Jesus before I go. I’m not a believer, but I have to admit the risk-reward calculation… for doing so looks so attractive to me. So here I go. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and look forward to spending an eternity with Him. The part about me not being a believer should be quite quickly resolved; if I wake up in heaven, I won’t need any more convincing than that. I hope I’m still qualified for entry.”

Ann Althouse, for some strange reason (but she was always a big Scott Adams fan) finds this announcement astute and charming, rating it “an impressive mix of intelligence, respect, humor, and honesty. I have read many Christians cheering for Adams as well.

This is demeaning to God and Christianity, and I say this as a life-time agnostic. What kind of silly religion holds that you will reach paradise for eternity as long as you say the magic words, whether they are true or not, just before shuffling off these mortal coils?

Continue reading →

A Brief and Obvious Ethics Observation

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

If the Democrats, anti-Trump news media and Trump Deranged social media progressives had the sense and integrity to be able to grant that one of President Trump’s actions is beneficial, wise and effective when it should be clear to all that it is, they would have far more legitimacy and perceived objectivity when there is valid justifications for their criticism regarding other Presidential actions.

The removal of Maduro in a perfectly executed military operation is the best example of this yet. It removed an illegitimate dictator who lost his election overwhelmingly. He is a criminal drug lord who had been sending fentanyl into the U.S., a deadly and addictive drug. Under his rule, the nation of Venezuela, which has great natural resources and should be a wealthy and thriving state, had a disastrous economy. Maduro’s political opponent just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Venezuelans in and out of that country are rejoicing in the dictator’s removal. The capture of Maduro also weakens Cuba, a Maduro ally and another dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.

The United States benefits from the capture of Maduro in many ways, and suffers no deficits from it at all. It projects American power. It demonstrates that U.S. leadership is not dominated by weenies (as in Joe Biden’s “Don’t!” and Barack Obama’s erased “red lines”) It puts America’s foes on notice. The action also re-establishes the Monroe Doctrine, which had been weakened for half a century.

In short, the Venezuelan operation should be an easy one for any rational, patriotic, astute American to cheer for, but the Axis of Unethical Conduct and the Trump Deranged just can’t do it, even in response to an unequivocal American triumph.

Going forward, they should have no credibility at all. They already didn’t, in my estimation, but this should settle the issue.

Amazingly, This Tennis “Battle of the Sexes” Had Even Less Integrity Than The Last One

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Ugh. I missed writing about the latest “Battle of the Sexes” tennis fiasco last month. I meant to. I think my brain must have registered a veto after threatening to leave if I did.

You remember the first one, don’t you? That was when senior pro tennis huckster Bobby Riggs, who was never a top ranked pro player even in his prime, had challenged #1 ranked female tennis champ Margaret Court to a match using sexist wisecracks and shamed her into playing him in 1973. On national TV, the 55-year old lobbed and cheap-shotted poor Margaret, who was having a bad case of jitters as she was supposedly defending her sex, to distraction and won handily. Billy Jean King then picked up the metaphorical flag, challenged Bobby, and won in a match that looked exactly like what it was: a female tennis pro at the top of her game beating an old man who was a last a decent pro player 25 years earlier. This proved exactly nothing, but it was enough to make King a feminist icon. The match was effectively used to argue for women getting equal pay in pro tennis, and helped get the women’s professional tour started.

The whole thing was an over-hyped joke, lousy tennis combined with lousy politics, that presaged the worst of reality TV decades later. Still, no real was harm was done except extending obnoxious Bobby Riggs’ 15 minutes of past-his-pulldate fame. But for some reason it was felt necessary to revive the stupid stunt in 2025.

Continue reading →