Category Archives: morality

What’s He Doing with this Responsibility He’s Taking?

Posted on by
Reply

In a video to staff, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Martin Gruenberg piously asserted that he “took responsibility” for the toxic workplace he has fostered and for his own toxic behavior.

As chairman, I am ultimately responsible for the actions of our agency, both good and bad. I bear responsibility for setting the tone for our culture. … I want to assure you that I’m committed to addressing these issues, including my own shortcomings[.]

Be still, my heart.

But what is Gruenberg actually doing with this responsibility he’s claimed to take? What measurable, concrete actions is he taking to correct those organizational and personal issues?

Gruenberg told lawmakers this week that the investigation and disciplinary process for complaints is typically handled by the legal division, and that the board is “generally kept out of that.”

He’s continuing to not do anything concrete about his toxicity; he’s only yapping. He’s deflecting concrete actions to the FDIC’s “legal division,” washing his hands of the matter. And he’s continuing to refuse to resign over his failures, which seem to me to be irretrievable.

Martin Gruenberg is doing exactly nothing with the responsibility he claims to be taking.

“The conflict erupted in the wake…”

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News subheadline continued:

…of an October 7 Hamas raid on Israeli territory that saw its forces seize roughly 200 hostages and kill about 1,200 civilians.

The subheadline is no accident, either. JtN repeated the distortion in the second paragraph:

The conflict erupted in the wake of an October 7 Hamas raid on Israeli territory that saw its forces seize roughly 200 hostages and kill about 1,200 civilians.

Distortion: the conflict erupted when that terrorist gang broke into Israel and butchered those 1,200 men, women—many of whom were raped first—and children—many of whom were babies whose heads were hacked off—with many from each of those categories tortured on the way to their deaths, and kidnapped those additional 200 victims. Butchered victims that JtN so saccharinely euphemizes as “civilians,” with no clarification regarding who those terrorism victims were. “Hostages” that JtN so cynically lists separately rather than including them in the count, as though they aren’t, as a group, “civilians,” though some few of them were soldiers.

This is disgusting, and JtN should know better. The article itself centered on Vermont Progressive-Democratic Party Congresswoman Becca Balint’s coming out in favor of an Israeli-Hamas ceasefire. Her foolishness, though, is beside the point of this post.

Religious Persecution

Posted on by
Reply

Finland Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola stood (still stand?) accused by Finnish prosecutor Anu Mantila of the heinous hate speech crime of quoting from the Bible.

Finnish district courts said, no, and acquitted the two. The prosecutor objected and took the cases to a Finnish appellate court—where the two were once again acquitted. Räsänen:

It isn’t a crime to tweet a Bible verse, or to engage in public discourse with a Christian perspective. The attempts made to prosecute me for expressing my beliefs have resulted in an immensely trying four years, but my hope is that the result will stand as a key precedent to protect the human right to free speech.

Mantila’s weasel-worded rationalization of her decisions:

You can cite the Bible, but it is Räsänen’s interpretation and opinion about the Bible verses that are criminal[.]

Well, no, they’re not, not within any universally recognized concept of free speech and opinion-uttering.

Mantila may well appeal again, to the Supreme Court of Finland. If she does, the case will cease to be a matter of prosecution (if it ever was); it will be naked religious persecution and a parallel direct attack on the principles underlying free speech.

An Anonymous Letter

Posted on by
2

A bunch of staffers in a broad reach of offices in the Biden administration Executive Branch have signed a letter. Carefully anonymously.

Four hundred government officials from 40 departments and agencies within President Biden’s administration signed a letter opposing the president’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war and demanded a cease-fire.
The Tuesday letter, first reported by the New York Times, includes officials from the State Department, White House, National Security Council, and the Justice Department. The signatories of the letter remained anonymous to protect against professional retaliation.

They…wish to see…President Biden to

urgently demand a cease-fire; and to call for de-escalation of the current conflict by securing the immediate release of the Israeli hostages and arbitrarily detained Palestinians; the restoration of water, fuel, electricity, and other basic services; and the passage of adequate humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip[.]

It doesn’t matter whether a ceasefire is in any way legitimate, or whether the items demanded are in any way practical to impose.

What matters is the illegitimacy of the letter, via the signatures affixed.

These cowards have hidden their faces, worn masks, ducked behind a wall—whatever metaphor you wish—with their refusal to put their names to their demands. These cowards have put their careers ahead of their morality, which demonstrates that they have no sense of morality.  That alone removes any legitimacy of their position re cease fire or any other matter.

The White House has yet to respond to the letter.

Which Biden and the rest of the Executive Branch should continue to do. The Coward’s Missive is beneath contempt, and it should be beneath notice.

Not Possible

Posted on by
Reply

Qatar and Egypt are, supposedly, working with Hamas to get 15 of Hamas’ 240 and more kidnap victims released in return for a 48-hour “cease” fire.

This shouldn’t be possible. Hamas refuses even to tell these two nations—or anyone else—how many kidnappees they’re holding, much less who they are or what their condition is.

Beyond that, any cease fire won’t involve the terrorist Hamas ending its attacks. Such a foolishness would only enable the terrorists to rest, regroup, and refit to continue fighting from replenished fortifications and from renewed positions behind Gazan human shields.

Such a foolishness also would enable the terrorists to relocate the kidnappees they’re holding, making it more difficult to locate and free them.

There can be no cease fire until there are no more of Hamas at which to fire.

Full stop.