Category Archives: ethics

Foolish

Posted on by
Reply

But a matter of little choice and less practical change.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has—reportedly—dropped his insistence on a path to NATO membership as a condition to an end of the war that Russia has inflicted in his nation. Instead, Zelenskyy has said that he would be open to a security arrangement that has

Washington and European states offering security guarantees in the event of another invasion, according to the Financial Times. “We are talking about bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States—namely, [NATO] Article 5-like guarantees…as well as security guarantees for us from our European partners and from other countries such as Canada, Japan, and others,” he said.

Zelenskyy had little choice in making this offer, since Ukraine had little chance of joining NATO for all the pre-war favorable talk about such a thing. The acceptance of a new member requires the unanimous agreement of the existing members, and too many members, out of timidity, ego, or being too close to Russia would say no to the accession.

The offer represents even less as a practical matter. Many of the same nations that would guarantee Ukraine’s national security in the event of another invasion are the same signatories to the Budapest Memorandum that guaranteed Ukraine’s national territory and sovereignty and who promptly betrayed Ukraine over 10 years ago when Russia invaded and occupied Crimea and first invaded Ukraine’s Donbas region.

Still, Zelenskyy has little choice but to make such an offer, regardless of its practical foolishness. That’s the outcome of the West’s collective decision to withhold from Ukraine the wherewithal to defeat the barbarian and drive him back out of Ukraine, a victory that Ukraine almost certainly could achieve were it not being held back.

Contradiction in Terms

Posted on by
Reply

This time, regarding President Donald Trump’s (R) move to remodel and expand the White House East Wing so that, among other things, important diplomatic events involving large groups of dignitaries, their significant others, et al., can be held indoors inside a facility fitting for the occasion rather than outdoors, in the White House’s back yard, in tents.

Leftist critics, of course, object. One of their more risible objections is this:

Critics say Trump barreling through bureaucracy to reshape an iconic piece of American history reflects a wider disdain for democratic norms.

Never mind that giving an unelected bureaucratic authority functional veto power is what violates democratic norms.

Another Progressive-Democrat Foolish Lawsuit

Posted on by
Reply

Blue State AGs don’t like President Donald Trump’s (R) Executive Order imposing a $100,000 fee on H1B visa applicants.

A group of Democratic state attorneys general on Friday filed a challenge to President Donald Trump’s imposition of a $100,000 fee to apply for an H-1B visa.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, lead AG on the case, based it on this:

Oregon’s colleges, universities and research institutions rely on skilled international workers to keep labs running, courses on track and innovation moving forward. This enormous fee would make it nearly impossible for these institutions to hire the experts they need, and it goes far beyond what Congress ever intended. This threatens Oregon’s ability to compete, educate, and grow.

It may make colleges, universities, and research institutions efforts to hire certain skilled workers more difficult. That, though, is a business model question, not a legal one. No enterprise has an inherent right to pursue the business model of its choice, and government has no obligation whatsoever, to comport laws or regulations to the requirements of any business model. Those entities must alter their business models to accommodate changing legal environments, just as they must with changing market environments.

The only thing threatening [Oregon’s] ability to compete, educate, and grow is those institutions’ insistence on their entrenched models as they are, rather than adapting them. The question of whether the EO goes beyond Congressional intent is a separate matter, and the AGs’ claim of that is wholly conclusory.

This frivolous and foolish lawsuit is just another instantiation of Party’s dislike of all things Trump, independent of merit or lack regarding a Trump move.

Some Arithmetic Regarding Social Welfare

Posted on by
Reply

This arithmetic centers on the Western canonical welfare State of France, but the lessons apply to us also.

Today there are 39 seniors for every 100 working-age people in France. But by 2070 working-age French will account for only 50% of the population, down from more than 55% in 2023.

That works out to ratios of 1.8 working age persons for every retiree and 1 working age person per retiree, respectively. Each working age person in 2070 will have a retiree on his payroll whether he wants that or not.

That’s the outer bound.

[M]any of France’s working-age ranks aren’t actually working. The French unemployment rate was 7.7% in October 2025….

That reduces today’s ratio to 1.6 actually working person for each retiree. That’s an outer bound on the burden actually laded onto the worker. Those working age unemployed, those 5+ of the 100 who are unemployed, are being supported him, too.

Our demographics are only a couple of generations behind France.

Academic Hysteria

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Tech University’s Chancellor has published a decision tree/flow chart regarding the inclusion or exclusion of advocacy/promotion of race or sex-based prejudice in the courses the university teaches, and the ideologs in the professorial population are in an uproar. The decision tree (see the link) clearly reins in the heretofore unfettered professors’ ability to “teach” whatever ideology they felt like and requires them, instead, to show the relevance of their material, first to the course and second to the purpose of the course.

The reaction of the ideologs in that population is hysterical. Andrew Martin, Texas Tech Professor of Drawing and Painting, for instance (although, to be sure, at least he has the integrity to go on the record with his concerns):

This is disastrous. History is full of examples of what happens when authoritarian governments gain control of the educational institutions of a country or a society. That is the death of freedom.

No, today’s examples, rather, center on the results of one-sided, extremist control of education. The Chancellor’s move is a restoration of balance and of a focus on actual education.

Martin’s hysteria continued with this bit:

[I]f I welcome a student, whose identity is controversial, to my classroom, and they make work about that identity, is that advocacy? Does that mean I’m subject to disciplinary action?

The decision tree plainly deals only with what the professor professes; there is no mention of what the students do in his classroom. In Martin’s own example, his concern should be with technique and symbolism in the student’s art effort, not with the professor’s approval or disapproval of the art’s content. That’s clear to anyone not overcome with hysteria over being reined in and returned to a focus on the material he’s hired to teach.