Tag Archives: morality

Another Reason…

Posted on by
Reply

…we can’t trust those of the Left, and why even the Left can’t have nice things. This one is the smear campaign against the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Senator from Pennsylvania.

It began with a once-trustworthy senior aid to John Fetterman, Adam Jentleson, who sent a letter to Fetterman’s doctor after Fetterman’s recovery from his stroke was readily apparent. Jentleson wrote that

the senator was suffering from “conspiratorial thinking” and “megalomania” while experiencing “high highs and low lows.” In “long, rambling, repetitive and self-centered monologues,” Mr Fetterman was “lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious to everyone in the room.” Mr Jentleson also said the senator was “preoccupied” with Twitter and driving “recklessly.”

Jentleson’s attack is only the most overt and blunt instance. There is a constant susurration behind closed doors and behind certain backs of concerns—carefully couched as being for Fetterman’s declining welfare, of course—for his mental state.

Fetterman’s mental disability? his deviation from the Left’s orthodoxy: he’s more moderate than the Left thought he would be and want him to be. He’s no radical, extreme Leftist firebrand thrower.

I was bothered, in the beginning, by Fetterman’s medical fitness for office following his stroke. But once he became able to communicate with the aid of a laptop translator so he could read what people were saying rather than having to process audio, the center of his stroke’s damage, it became clear that his mind was sound, and regardless of what anyone might think (anyone other than those of the Left) of his politics, he was, and is, quite rational. He no longer needs his laptop for this purpose, and his speaking difficulties, also typical of strokes, have long since nearly fully abated, too, outcomes increasingly typical of stroke rehab.

The smear and its rationale are reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s persecution, and consignment to its gulag, of those who disagreed with the Communist Party: such disagreement was ipso facto proof of their insanity and of the necessity of sequestering them away from “normal” society.

Vatican City Finances

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has a lengthy article on the financial state of Vatican City, a condition that is rife with incompetent financial management taken advantage of by criminal financial management perpetrators and ongoing, determined obfuscation, refusal to cooperate with auditors, and cynical downplaying of the importance of the City’s finances by the incumbent financial managers and their supporters.

The article ended with this:

Some cardinals this week have been critical of the emphasis some have placed on the Vatican’s financial struggles.
“Jesus sent the Apostles and later the bishops into the world to preach the Gospel of salvation, redemption, hope to everybody. This remains the main issue for the Church,” [Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig] Muller said. “The other questions—the financial state of the Vatican—it’s not so important for the essence.”

The financial state of the Vatican lies at the core of the Pope’s and the Church’s ability to preach the Gospel of salvation, redemption, hope to everybody. It’s a global effort, and it cannot be done for free.

It seems like the Cardinals have themselves become a collection of moneychangers rather than ministers to the flock.

Why Must They Be Mutually Exclusive?

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday Letters section objected to an op-ed whose writer touted Federally mandated IVF insurance provided by private economy insurers as a means to elevate our nation’s too low birth rate.

The letter-writer proposed, instead, a tiered cash baby bonus: bigger for married women, smaller for unmarried women.

My question: why must it be one or the other? Why not both?

Follow-on question: why not consider the system of which these are just two components? If the Federal government, or at least the Republicans in the government, are going to work for increasing our birth rate and against the related universal and easily obtained abortion rate—and they should, on both—and on the underlying economic situation of the middle and lower class individuals and families, why not provide women—married or not—in parallel with a range of incentives to have more babies, with financial, educational, and medical support during their pregnancies and in the period surrounding birth, and in the first years (until kindergarten?) of the baby’s life, expanding that to include the baby/toddler/child in the support mechanisms?

If our government and us are going to be serious about birthrates and about right to life, government and we need to get serious about achieving those goals.

This is Naïve

Posted on by
Reply

Perhaps it’s even disingenuous. Roland Fryer, of Harvard University, wants to bring algorithms into college/university admissions offices under the claim that it would help reduce endless, unproductive battles over race- and class-based affirmative action.

Of course, they would do no such thing. Algorithms are nothing more than software packages written by humans as tools to speed decision-making in narrowly defined areas in accordance with equally narrowly defined criteria. Inescapably, though, those decision-making software packages and their defined criteria have embedded within them the personal biases and world views of those human programmers, software testers, and their supervisors. The databases on which those algorithms are trained also are written by humans and so themselves contain human biases and world views. On a (slightly) higher level, there’s another layer of human bias and world view: it’s humans who select the databases to be used for algorithm training.

The presence of these biases and world views is inescapable and wholly independent of the intentions of the humans involved. Even those with the purest of intentions and the strongest efforts to control the impact of their biases and world views will have those leak into their algorithms and training databases. Even efforts to balance to net zero those biases and world views by using a political and social cross-section of humans in those production efforts are subject to the same shortcomings via the selection of those humans and the definitions of what constitutes a suitable cross-section.

That all of this still could lead to strong bias in the algorithms, despite the best of intentions, is amply demonstrated by Alphabet’s overtly racist Google Gemini AI package (which Alphabet claims has been corrected, but only after the fact, not before the AI was released and in use), Robby Starbuck’s suit against Meta over that company’s AI smearing him as involved with the J6 riot and an extremist organization, and Mark Walter’s suit against OpenAI over its ChatGPT smear accusing him of embezzlement.

Colleges and universities, despite Supreme Court rulings banning consideration of race in their admissions decisions, still do that under other names and rationalizations. Using these human-written and so too-likely biased algorithms in their admissions decisions would merely give those institutions another way to disguise their admissions misbehaviors.

More than that

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) fired Progressive-Democrat EEOC commissioner Jocelyn Samuels over her refusal to follow Trump’s instructions and EOs, among other things, rescinding the Biden administration’s EEOC rules requiring employers to pay for, or to pay insurance coverage for, employee hormone and surgical treatments to resemble the opposite sex, in violation of their [employers’] religious beliefs.

Naturally, Samuels is suing over the effrontery of firing her. Her lawyers are making this argument in court:

Because the Commissioners perform predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, these restrictions on the president’s removal authority are constitutional[.]

On the contrary. Because Commissioners perform predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions from inside the Executive Branch, they’re violating bedrock Constitutional separation of powers requirements. Those requirements are articulated in so many words in our Constitution’s Article I, Section 1, which mandates legislative functions can occur only within the Legislative Branch, and again in so many words by our Constitution’s Article III, Section 1, which mandates that judicial functions can occur only within the Judicial Branch.

It really is that straightforward. Those broad authorities claimed by the EEOC are themselves wholly unconstitutional.