Category Archives: ethics

Contempt

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an empirical example of the contempt in which Progressive-Democrats hold us ordinary Americans, this one from California.

California leaders are now saying key data on the virus is not being made public because it would “mislead” the public.

And

With no end in sight, 98% of the state’s population was recently under stay-at-home orders, when the governor decided to lift restrictions on some areas, yet unable to explain why.

Department of Public Health spokeswoman Ali Bay:

At the moment the projections are not being shared publicly.
These fluid, on-the-ground conditions cannot be boiled down to a single data point—and to do so would mislead and create greater uncertainty for Californians[.]

So why not pass along all the data and let California’s citizens evaluate and decide for themselves? Because they, the rest of us in the eyes of our Betters, are just too grindingly stupid to be trusted with thinking for themselves, ourselves.

We must have our Betters do for us.

DPH has now, post hoc, released some of those data. But they still refuse to explain how those data influenced, much less informed, their decisions. Apparently California citizens remain too unutterably stupid to be able to do their own evaluations.

Rules for Thee-In-Chief

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Joe Biden “one day one,” or thereabouts, issued an Executive Order requiring all personnel—no exceptions or caveats contained in his EO—to wear masks at all times on Federal property (among other locations).

Recall, further, that just hours after he signed that EO, Biden was maskless at the Lincoln Memorial along with daughter Ashley and “older grandchildren,” who also were maskless.

Asked about that, White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki said that Biden has “bigger issues” to worry about than following his own rule about wearing a face mask on federal property, including, apparently, “celebrating” a “historic day in our country.”

Psaki concluded her answer with the mask mandate had “sent a message” to the public.

Indeed, it has.

Rules are for the little people. Progressive-Democrats and their doings are too important for such petty things.

Diversity vs Diversity

Posted on by
Reply

Nasdaq—the tech-oriented stock exchange (no irony there)—is demanding companies listed with it

appoint within the next four years no fewer than two “diverse” directors: at least one woman, and one person from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group or someone who identifies as LGBTQ. Any company failing this requirement would be obligated to explain why.

The SEC must approve the demand before it has legal effect, but look for the Biden SEC to grant that.

Nasdaq, and the rest of the social justice warrior-ettes and virtue-signalers, miss the point of diversity, though. Or they don’t miss the point; they just don’t care.

Diversity of thought, diversity of approaches to problem solutions, most assuredly is something desperately needed in the boardroom. And in the C-suites, in middle management, on the production floor. And in schools, legislatures, and other political entities. (Voucher and charter schools already have this kind of diversity, in the main.) And in the mainstay of our private economy, mom-and-pop and other small businesses. Diversity of irrelevant characteristics like race, gender, or anything other will fall out of hiring for diversity of thought.

That’s even the logical outcome of those who push for diversity based on those irrelevant characteristics: all men are fundamentally equal in capability, these worthies say, regardless of color, gender, or….

Diversity done for the sake of diversity of race, gender, any other form, however, is just bigotry for the sake of bigotry, regardless of claimed purpose for the bigotry.

The Unimpressed Congresswoman

Posted on by
Reply

…is unimpressed. Recall that Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R, GA) was censored by Jack Dorsey and his Twitter company by his shutting down her account for 12 hours for tweets of which Dorsey disapproved and which Dorsey considered us ordinary Americans too stupid and too weak of character to be able to process properly.

Now that she’s back on the air (until Dorsey melts again), she expressed her disdain for Dorsey’s censorship and especially for his and his cronies’ arrogance (summarized by Newsmax below).

Contrary to how highly you think of yourself and your moral platitude, you are not the judge of humanity. God is. And you and the rest of your pals from the Silicon Valley Cartel are not God. Difficult for you to grasp I know, however it’s the truth. The tweets that you deem ‘appropriate’ and ‘safe’ and ‘true,’ compared to tweets you deem ‘inciting violence’ and ‘spreading false information’ and ‘claims of election fraud is disputed’ are so many times, in the opinion of many, quit hypocritical and false.

What she said.

More More Censorship of Conservatives

Posted on by
Reply

And now it’s not even particularly conservative voices, it’s the center-right voices of Newsmax TV and OANN that the Left is desperate to shut up.

Oliver Darcy, CNN Senior Media Reporter:

[I]t was the very lies that Fox, Newsmax, and OAN spread that helped prime President Trump’s supporters into not believing the truth: That he lost an honest and fair election[.]

Certainly lies according to that which may not be questioned, CNN. There were, actually, quite a breathtaking number of election irregularities in that election. Maybe Biden would have won anyway, absent those irregularities, but that’s beside the point. Discussions, debates, regarding those irregularities and the election itself are entirely proper.

And Alex Stamos, ex- of Facebook and now an occasional CNN contributor, on a CNN television show:

We are going to have to figure out the OANN and Newsmax problem. These companies have freedom of speech, but I’m not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and such bringing them into tens of millions of homes.

Listen to what passes for logic in that. Freedom of speech appears to be confined to the OANN and Newsmax bathrooms, since they’re not to be allowed to speak in public. Neither are pipelines like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, “and such” allowed actually to be pipelines—they are to be required to censor what us ordinary Americans are to be allowed to hear.

Here’s Darcy again:

Just a reminder that neither @Verizon, @ATT, nor @comcast have answered any questions about why they beam channels like OAN [sic] & Newsmax into millions of homes. Do they have any second thoughts about distributing these channels given their election denialism content? They won’t say.

Neither are any of these carriers required to say. Aside from the lack of obligation to answer the inquisition, there’s no need: the foolishness of Darcy’s characterization is its own answer.

If the timid ones of CNN were able to form coherent arguments with which to counter the concerns, surely those so-smart ones would do so. Instead, they cower behind the shield of censorship. So long as its their own words that aren’t censored.

RTWT. The stuff CNN and its cronies are pushing isn’t merely disgusting, it’s a deliberate assault on American liberties, a careful attempt to destroy one of our core values, the stuff that makes America America.