Category Archives: ethics

The Judge Erred Badly

Posted on by
Reply

A Minnesota jury convicted a man and his wife of stealing $7.2 million from the state’s Medicaid program. After the jury rendered its verdict, Minnesota State District Judge (4th District) Sarah West overturned it in its entirety.

In her decision, West wrote that prosecutors “relied heavily on circumstantial evidence,” adding that the state didn’t rule out other potential “reasonable inferences.”

If West really thought that, why did she let the case go to the jury and then let the jury reach its verdict and then read out that verdict?

If West really thought that, why didn’t she, when both sides had rested their cases—or even just when the prosecutor had rested—simply issue a directed verdict of not guilty instead of wasting so much time? Those jurors were private citizens with day jobs, after all. Her claim of other “reasonable inferences” that could have been drawn seem to me would approach reasonable doubt.

Sarah West seems to be a State district judge who does not understand her role as judge or her oath of office.

Of Which the Press Demonstrates the Need

Posted on by
Reply

The need, that is, for a Web site that identifies misleading, distorting, outright lies that the press has such a penchant for. Examples were provided by the “news” pages of The Wall Street Journal, and a second example was provided by the WSJ‘s editors in the very same edition.

From the “news” page, this article ostensibly describing the Web site, which the Trump administration made live earlier this week:

For years, Trump has used social media—particularly his platform, Truth Social—to reprimand the press for negative coverage. The new government site reflects a more coordinated, formalized approach to criticizing members of the press.

No, for years, Trump and others in his administration have called out the naked bias of the press and social media as both moved to suppress coverage of Conservatives; the naked bias of outlets that insist there are not two sides to every story and that announce that their “news” pages will take sides in reporting, no longer even trying to do balanced reporting; and outright spiking of stories unfavorable to the Left or to Progressive-Democratic Party politicians.

And this “news” page:

President Trump has made no secret of his disdain for renewable energy.

It’s hardly disdain for renewable energy when the Trump administration is actively pushing an all-of-the-above energy production industry, which includes pushes for renewables—just in parallel with traditional sources and nuclear power sources rather than exclusive of them. Cutting subsidies for wind and solar and for battery-powered vehicles is hardly disdain; it’s simply putting all sources of energy on a more level competition field.

Then there’s this from those editors:

Lawmakers are doing a public service by trying to get to the truth on whether the Trump Administration killed defenseless survivors of a drug-boat strike.

There’s a world of difference between killing survivors in a second strike and targeting them with that second strike. It’s telling that the editors not only chose not to acknowledge both interpretations, they chose to not explain why they ignored the one and accepted only the other. Of course, the Washington Post story they cite, while noting the story had only anonymous sources, also only mentioned killing, without its own distinction between the two interpretations.

A second strike, as the editors know full well, would have been entirely justified if the goal was to destroy the boat and its cargo—cocaine floats, as the editors also know full well—and the first strike didn’t succeed in the destruction. The deaths of any first-hit survivors from the second blow would have been tragic, but would have been collateral damage, and so entirely within US and international law.

Campus Extremism

Posted on by
Reply

Robert George, multiply-titled Professor at Princeton University, had some thoughts on how to deal with this.

So what should we do? The answer isn’t complicated, but acting on it will take determination and courage. Colleges and universities must return to offering a rigorous liberal arts education that refuses to engage in indoctrination and challenges groupthink. College courses must actively cultivate the virtues of curiosity, open-mindedness, intellectual humility, analytical rigor, and above all, dedication to the pursuit of truth.

He added this:

This might seem like an unattainable ideal, but it isn’t. I’ve seen firsthand that it’s possible. Twenty-five years ago, Princeton University authorized me to establish and direct a program in civic education dedicated to helping young men and women become determined truth seekers, courageous truth speakers, lifelong learners, and responsible citizens.

He succeeded in his small world, and he cited a number of examples at other schools. But these are anecdotes, not a general trend of success. At many of the other schools he touted, antisemitic and terrorist-supporting riots mostly peaceful protests seized buildings and common grounds, vandalized the buildings and generally prevented the sort of free-exchange of ideas George touted. Those destructive disruptions occurred while school managers meekly watched and many of the schools’ professors participated in the disruptions.

No. The only way to achieve George’s ideal, extremely worthy that it is, is to remove from schools those school administrators and professors, whether ideologues or simply too timid to oppose ideology over education. Both kinds are worthless wastes of payroll.

The detritus must be removed before cleanup can begin.

A Union MFWIC Brags about Disrupting Americans’ Holiday

Posted on by
Reply

The lede laid it out.

Holiday travelers heading to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) faced severe disruptions as hundreds of protesters blocked the road outside during one of the busiest travel periods of the year, according to reports.

These were perpetrated by the United Services Workers West, a union that represents security officers and that is disputing with Flying Food Group, one of LAX’s largest airline catering contractors and by the Unite Here Local 11 which has 32,000 hotel workers across Southern California and Arizona.

The disruptions included blocking access to LAX’ main airport building, blocking a major street into the airport, blocking access to the airport’s main pickup and drop-off zones, and interfering with passenger flow in one of the airport’s other terminals.

There’s this from Susan Minato, Co-President of Unite Here Local 11:

[She] defended the timing, arguing that demonstrations during peak travel periods are necessary to draw attention.
“It is a busy time of the year, no question,” she said. “But that’s also how you get some attention.”

You have gained my attention, Madam. I’m calling for the decertification of your union and of the USWW and the termination from employment of those members who participated in these disruptions. Neither your union nor the USWW were picketing this employer or attempting to block its receipt of supplies. You were deliberately interfering with wholly unrelated Americans who were trying to go about their own business instead of yours.

That’s unacceptable.

Arrogance of a Progressive-Democratic Party Politician

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Adam Smith (D, WA) is the only Party politician, so far, to claim to know of and to identify illegal orders issued by President Donald Trump (R).

Yeah, I think the order to blow up those boats in the Caribbean without any, you know, actual probable cause, national security justification, or any declaration of war or armed conflict by the US Congress, I think it is illegal. That’s a legitimate opinion to hold, and it’s a legitimate opinion to express.

With that, he gives the game away.

It is a legitimate opinion to hold, and it is an opinion legitimately expressed by most American citizens. Military members must get over a much higher bar in order to express their opinions of an order’s legality with a view to disobeying it or encouraging their fellows to disobey it.

The order must be adjudicated illegal, and the military member must be prepared to suffer the consequences of disobedience or of fomenting disobedience should a court determine the order legal. On the other hand, all of us citizens, all of our politicians, can yap away at will without consequence.

Smith’s opinion that an order is illegal does not make it so. That he does not recognize that in the context of the Six’ video those politicians are potentially seeking to foment disorder explicitly in the military ranks—which would be seditious—not in the political ranks, is demonstrative of Smith’s self-important arrogance.