Tag Archives: ethics

Spot On

Posted on by
Reply

Ada Lluch is a Spanish lady who frequently posts on Instagram and Twitter. She has this to lead off a recent Instagram profile leads off with this:

It is extremely necessary to bring back traditional values to our society, especially to Gen Z.

She’s talking about Spanish society, but her statement is universal.

She posted this on Twitter [emphasis added]:

Why are people in America called by their race like African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic-American instead of just American?
In my home of Spain we have many different colors of people but everyone is considered Spanish if they were born here.
I could be wrong but I do not think any other countries break their people down by what race they are like America does.
This is why your country has a race problem, because your government perpetuates it with labels.

But this labeling is part and parcel with the Left’s, and their Progressive-Democratic Party’s, deliberately divisive, and openly racist and sexist, identity politics.

“Be more like Europe” goes the mantra of the Left.

Certainly, we would do well to be more like Spain in this milieu.

A Parallel Solution

Posted on by
Reply

DoEd Secretary Miguel Cardona (D) wants to enact a rule that would expand Title IX (illegally, but that’s a separate problem) to require State education systems to include transgender athletes in all heretofore women’s sports programs and all on heretofore women’s sports teams. Half of the governors of our States object.

If it comes down to it, Cardona’s move is very likely to fail in the courts. That will be an expensive and time consuming enterprise.

I propose another solution to be pushed in parallel with the lawsuit effort. It also would be expensive and time consuming to put into effect, but I think it would have a more permanent, and more beneficial, outcome.

States should stop taking Federal dollars altogether into their education systems. That would put the States beyond the reach of Title IX, which applies only to those State systems that take Federal dollars.

Not taking the government’s lucre would be expensive, certainly, but only until the States’ budgets adjusted. However, the move would do more than place those States’ education systems beyond the reach of Title IX’s strings, it would free the States from a potful of Federal education strings—and demonstrate that States can get along just fine without those dollars and those strings and so encourage them to decline ever more Federal dollars and reap the increasing value of being free of those strings.

Failure Proofing

Posted on by
Reply

The FDIC, in the wake of its own failure regarding the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapses (primarily caused by those banks’ managers’ failures, but the FDIC had its role, too, along with the Federal Reserve’s regulators), now wants to excuse failure by making those who failed whole again—and do it at the expense of the rest of us.

Those who failed, in this context, are those with uninsured deposits—deposits larger than the presently insured $250,000—at banks. The FDIC actually is proposing an assessment on larger, successful banks which would be used to…repay…those uninsured depositors who would otherwise be left holding the bag in a bank failure. Even an FDIC bureaucrat knows that such an assessment wouldn’t be paid by any of those larger, successful banks, but by those banks’ customers in the form of higher fees, higher loan interest rates, and lower deposit interest rates.

Ostensibly, the assessment is backward-looking and is only a one time good deal for those bag holders of SVB and SB.

The proposed special assessment would recoup the $15.8 billion paid out from the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund to protect depositors in SVB and Signature who had deposits in excess of the $250,000 insurance threshold. It would do so by imposing a fee of 0.125%—or 125 basis points—on insured deposits at banks with $5 billion in assets or more, which would remain in effect for eight quarterly assessment periods starting in the first quarter of 2024.

If this goes through, though, you can bet your own deposits, large or small, that the assessment will be made permanent and available to all future depositors. The FDIC never should have bailed out those two banks’ uninsured depositors in the first place; now it wants to cover up its mistake by spreading it around.

This is the path to destruction. If there is no failure, there can be no improvement, no progress, only poverty—and not only economic.

A Thought on Trust

Posted on by
Reply

Fay Vincent, erstwhile Major League Baseball Commissioner, had an op-ed in last Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal centered on the moral and legal aspects of why we swear to be truthful on those occasions when we are called on explicitly to tell the truth.

The oath warns that the testimony is a serious matter and that failing to be truthful has consequences.
The invocation of God reflects the traditional view that lying has consequences beyond legal bounds. The old-fashioned belief is that lying is wrong morally.

So far, so good. He added,

My generation believed and accepted a person’s word was a bond.

Indeed. And it still should be; although far too often today it is not.

Then he told this story:

I once accepted an oral offer to buy my Connecticut home and minutes later received a higher bid. I turned down the higher offer, though I was legally free to accept it since nothing had been agreed to in writing. Years later my buyer told someone we both knew he was surprised I hadn’t taken the higher bid. But I never considered walking away from the deal.

Vincent is more generous than me, apparently. I would have been insulted by the surprise. Why would the buyer have expected something different from me?

My word is, indeed, my bond. Expressing surprise at having done a right thing only provides a pathway for continuing to be surprised by leaving doing a right thing not the normal state, leaving being trustworthy not the normal state.

Now We Know

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R, KY) subpoenaed the FBI for an FD-1023 form that is supposed to contain information concerning a potential criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden (D) and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions. The subpoena also required the FBI to advise the committee concerning what it did to investigate these allegations.

Both Comer and Senator Chuck Grassley (R, IA), who also wants the document and information so he can run his own investigation (however limited by being in the minority party in the Senate) into the doings of Joe Biden and his family, were confident of the document’s existence, but since their position was based on a so far unidentified whistleblower’s claim, there were doubts about the form’s actual existence.

When the subpoena’s deadline went by without the FBI’s producing either the document or the information, FBI Director Chris Wray wrote a letter to Comey explaining his refusal to produce them. That refusal, despite Wray’s standard “neither confirm nor deny” mantra, now confirms the document’s existence and emphasizes the importance of its production, along with what the FBI did—or didn’t—do about it to the Oversight Committee. Wray wrote a number of things in his letter, but one stands out.

[Y]our request for a single FD-1023 report that you say includes a “precise description” of an “alleged criminal scheme” risks the harms that our confidentiality rules protect against[.]

There are a couple of things about that standout. One is Wray’s naked insubordination in this. FBI “rules” do not supersede the House’s constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch and of Executive Branch agencies. Last I looked, the FBI was an Executive Branch agency. Wray knows full well that his agency’s “rules” are subordinate to that constitutional mandate.

The other thing is this: to the extent that producing the FD-1023 and its activities pursuant to it puts at risk the FBI’s needs for confidentiality regarding its sources and methods and any investigations the FBI may or may not have in progress—and the concerns themselves are valid—the form can be produced to Committee members in a SCIF in the House. The House already has a SCIF; that’s where classified intelligence documents get viewed by specified House members. Wray is fully aware of this, too; his refusal to produce the document and related information altogether rather than in the House’s SCIF is disingenuous at best.

That raises a question in my pea brain: who sent Wray? Who does he work for?