Category Archives: ethics

Checks, Balances, and Pardons

Posted on by
Reply

Alan Dershowitz made short work of this and of the objections to President Donald Trump’s recent small number of pardons.

The media is just wrong: President Trump understands better than previous presidents that the pardon power is part of the system of checks and balances. He understands when the executive and judicial branches get out of whack, it’s the job of the president to restore justice.

And

Not only is it not corrupt, it’s absolutely proper. The president feels very strongly that the Mueller commission acted improperly—and if that’s his belief and he believes that strongly, and he has a basis for it, he should be pardoning and commuting people who were the victims of an injustice.

What he said.

Apologies

Posted on by
Reply

Daniel Henninger had a thought in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal on the relationship between the Wuhan Virus situation (my term, not his) and apologies.

I have my own thought on the broader matter of apologies themselves.

…difficult this year to tell which is greater—the number of people infected with Covid-19 or the number of politicians issuing apologies….

Other than Operation Warp Speed’s chief, General Gustave Perna, I’ve heard almost no politician apologize for anything. In truth, though, the apology was killed long ago.

What is issued in lieu of apology, and not only by politicians, has long been an expression of “regret” for “any offense that might have occurred.” Never mind that offense plainly was taken, or there’d have been no objection. Doubting that is dishonest.

On top of that, the utterer piously announces his regret—for an offense that he’s not convinced even occurred—but he has not a syllable of actual apology for his misbehavior that led to the offense. Masquerading his utterance as an apology is a very large lie.

Aside from that, “accepting responsibility,” “owning the matter,” and similar self-serving claims are cynically meaningless phrases, uttered only to distract from the fact that the speaker does nothing to change his behavior or otherwise to correct his error.

A Thought on Section 230

Posted on by
Reply

Rick White, Republican Representative from Washington at the end of the last century, had a thought on Section 230—he wants to repair it rather than eliminate it—and so (of course) do I. He began with this:

…some saying it allows big tech companies to censor political views, and others saying it enables the spread of disinformation.

What far too many who should know better miss, though, is that both of these are true; it’s not a matter being mutually exclusive, or even a matter of one or the other.

What those worthies also miss is that only one of them is of any concern at all. Regardless of the bleatings of the Know Betters in the press and in our political elites, ordinary Americans are fully capable of discriminating (uncensored) disinformation from (uncensored) misinformation from (uncensored) information.

One idea that White suggested in lieu of eliminating Section 230 was this, and he was serious about it:

We could also establish a plan for self-regulation by the online industry.

It’s hard to see how White could be so naive or so…misinformed. The online industry isn’t the problem. The small cartel of social media is the problem. And we’re already seeing what Jack Dorsey’s, Mark Zuckerberg’s, and Sundar Pichai’s self-regulation looks like.

Section 230 is beyond repair; the conditions extant when it was written no longer obtain. Pipelines don’t manage the information flowing through them. Publishers do.

The Section needs repeal.

Is It Possible?

Posted on by
Reply

Joe Biden so frequently ducks serious question-and-answer periods, even with what passes for today’s press, that even those pressmen are growing mildly discontented. Nearing the end of the latest charade, they started asking other questions:

“Hey guys, there tons of folks looking to ask questions and since this is being done once a week, could we PLEASE go longer or at least hold more frequent briefings,” Sam Stein from The Daily Beast wrote in the chat.
“Any chance you can take a few more questions? There are a lot of folks here with questions,” Zeke Miller from The Associated Press added.
“Is there a point in saying we want to ask questions if you only call on the same small group every week?” said White House reporter Andrew Feinberg.

It would be useful for a couple of things to happen. One would be to have Biden call on reporters without first checking with his handlers and for him to spend a half-hour or an hour just taking and answering questions—far more than the five questions his handlers currently limit the press to.

The other thing would be to have Biden do the question and answer periods without his handlers present—especially without “I’m a Dr” Jill “Edith Wilson” Biden present.

Bill de Blasio is Disappointed

Posted on by
Reply

The Wuhan Virus bill under discussion in DC (as I write Thursday) doesn’t have any bailout money for States and municipalities. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio isn’t happy about that.

What do we see right now in Washington? Endless discussion that now is leaving out all state and local aid, that means that city government, state government will not be able to get back on our feet and serve our people—it just doesn’t make any sense[.]

What do I see right now in New York City Hall? Endless tin cup rattling that continues to demand other people’s money.

To paraphrase (not very loosely) a man far more intelligent than any of us ordinary Americans,

…there’s plenty of money in [City Hall], it’s just in the wrong hands. Democrats have to fix that[.]

Indeed. De Blasio and his Progressive-Democrat-dominated city council (46 Progressive-Democrat councilmen out of 51 seats) have only to reallocate their spending priorities and their actual spending.

That they won’t—it just doesn’t make any sense.