Category Archives: ethics

Donald Trump Bullies?

Posted on by
Reply

Really? A letter writer in Wednesday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal thinks so. He credulously makes, though, a couple of critical mistakes that no rational, grown adult would make.

Today, Donald Trump’s “bullying” embodies the more contemporary meaning: the cowardly actions of one who seeks to harm or intimidate those he views as weak.

This is risible on its face. Bullies have only the power their putative victims choose to grant them, not a minim more. The cowardice is in those who make the decision to allow themselves to be bullied. Yes, that’s often a hard decision to make, but “hard” means “possible.” There’s no excuse for choosing wrongly here.

The letter writer’s other mistake centers on this—which he, in all seriousness, offers as an example of Trumpian bullying:

[T]he president has issued an executive order stripping security clearances from lawyers at Covington & Burling, who provided pro bono legal assistance to former special counsel Jack Smith. More recently, Ed Martin, interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a letter to Georgetown Law School, demanding that it cease diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and warning that his office wouldn’t hire the school’s graduates unless it did so.
These actions violate the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of expression.

This is laughable beyond anything related to “bullying” or being “bullied.” There is no intrinsic free speech right, or any other right, to a security clearances—which grants the holder access (given a parallel and simultaneous need to know) to data involving national security. Neither Covington & Burling as an institution, nor any of its lawyers, have any such right. It’s not bullying to rescind the clearances of those entities and persons who no longer work for the government.

Neither is there any intrinsic free speech right—or any other 1st Amendment right or any other right sourced to any other clause or clauses of our Constitution—to a government job. The government, like any potential employer, has its own intrinsic right to determine for itself the qualifications required for a job and then to determine for itself who the best candidate(s) might be to be hired into that job.

Nor is there any such right held by Georgetown Law School to place its graduates into any particular job, including a government one.

Back to the bullying foolishness: if Georgetown managers feel bullied by this, that’s their conscious choice. It would be particularly easy, though, for these worthies to stand up to the alleged Trumpian bullying. The Federal government’s authority to enforce any demand, whether to desist from DEI efforts or anything else, extends only so far as Georgetown Law School takes in Federal dollars. The institution is under no obligation to take those dollars. The school’s managers could eliminate the pressures they’ve chosen to perceive simply by ceasing those acceptances rather than ceasing their DEI efforts.

Not an Excuse

Posted on by
Reply

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has his lawyers in court asking the judge to delay an ongoing and longstanding suit against Amazon. The excuse is this:

Our resource constraints are severe[.]

Oh, wah. The convenience of the government is no excuse for this—or any—delay. Our Constitution requires a speedy and public trial, and that extends to civil trials, also, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, as this one surely does. There is nothing in either of those two Amendments, or anywhere else in our Constitution, that caveats any of our rights on what any Government personage decides is convenient to himself.

The FTC’s attempt is just another cynical attempt to drag out an intrinsically lousy suit in the hope that Amazon eventually will roll over and “settle.”

No. Amazon should refuse any sort of settlement other than a court declaratory ruling in Amazon’s favor, with legal and reputational damages awarded Amazon. In an ideal world, the judge either would so rule, or he would dismiss the case with prejudice (with costs awarded) and heavily fiscally sanction the FTC’s lawyers for seeking to extend so blatantly obvious a frivolous suit.

Couple Thoughts re Newsom and Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

California’s Progressive-Democrat governor, Gavin Newsom, is looking to improve his standing among Conservatives. He’s even taken to hosting right-leaning and extreme-right guests (vis., Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, respectively) on his new podcast (which strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to manage his image).

As Newsom prepared to launch his new podcast, the governor told his team one of the themes he wanted to explore was how Republicans have been able to beat Democrats on messaging and win the White House.

What is the Progressive-Democratic Party doing, that it loses elections lately, and what must Party do to win. That seems to be Newsom’s thrust.

Then there’s this:

[Progressive-]Democrats are struggling to unite around a strategy to take on Trump and the GOP, which has complete control of power in Washington.

What is Party doing, that it loses elections to Trump and Trump supporters, and what must Party do to regain power in Washington.

Notice the common theme here. Newsom and Party, separately and together, are not the least bit interested in what’s good for our nation; neither is the least bit interested in looking to us average Americans and finding ways to satisfy our needs and wants.

Party—Newsom serves for the moment as Party’s canonical example of this theme—are interested only in its members holding high office and in holding personal political power.

The Potential Deportation of Khalil

Posted on by
Reply

Mahmoud Khalil is the Columbia University Hamas terrorist- and Palestinian-supporter currently in ICE custody in Louisiana with a view to formally revoking his student visa and green card and deporting him. Matthew Hennesey, in his Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, is mostly correct in his piece regarding Khalil and others of his ilk who come to our nation ostensibly to better their own lot but in actuality to push their hatred of America and try to damage us from within.

However, he had this in his piece’s endgame:

With all that in mind, what’s the big rush [to deport Khalil]? The man’s wife is evidently eight months pregnant.

This is utterly irrelevant. The woman knew what she was doing when she married him, and she married him entirely voluntarily. She also can freely choose to go with her husband, if he winds up being deported. If she (equally freely) chooses to stay, there are a number of American agencies—governmental, non-governmental, charity—that provide support for single perinatal women and single mothers with babies (and older children) to care for.

The Jewish students whom Khalil so broadly and deeply harmed with the pro-terrorist “protests” he helped organize—group actions that prevented them from getting to their classes, overtly threatened them, seized and vandalized buildings with Nazi-oriented graffiti specifically targeted at them—had no choice in the matter. The Jewish students were carefully targeted, and separately as the Columbia management team still is demonstrating, those students have no support facilities.

Circular Pseudo-Logic

Posted on by
Reply

William Galston had this bit of circularity in his Tuesday op-ed in The Wall Street Journal:

Economists studying past tariffs have found that their effects endured even after the tariffs were removed. … Further, the Federal Reserve Board is concerned about Americans’ increased inflation expectations, which could trigger a damaging price spiral.
The American people smell a rat. In a recent poll by the Economist/YouGov, 68% said that higher tariffs mean higher prices and that consumers will bear a large share of the burden.
They’re right. Tariffs are import taxes paid in the importing nation.

It couldn’t possibly be that we Americans poll that way because that’s what we’re told by a steady stream of news writers, including a plethora of them who cite “economists” or who cite named economists without also citing those economists’ data.

Instead, these news writers just make their bald, unsubstantiated claims, providing no data at all.

It may well be true that tariffs, by their nature, are inflationary. That certainly seems plausible. However, plausibility isn’t fact, and it would be good to see the evidence—including evidence indicating how inflationary tariffs are, if they are, and under what circumstances.