Category Archives: ethics

Pettiness

Posted on by
Reply

And sulking reminiscent of a tantrum-throwing two-year-old. That’s Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY) position regarding the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats will not “supply quorum” for votes on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, effectively declaring that they’ll boycott the process in an attempt to stall her confirmation.

Never mind that he and his fellow Progressive-Democrat Senators could be working with the Republican Senators on getting Wuhan Virus situation-related aid to Americans, including his constituents, instead of refusing even to allow floor debate on the targeted aid bill he personally blocked just last month.

Never mind that he and his fellow Progressive-Democrat Senators could be working with the Republican Senators on Senator Tim Scott’s (R, SC) police reform bill instead of refusing, just a bare few months ago, even to allow floor debate on the bill—and condoning Senator Dick Durbin’s (D, IL) despicable characterization of the black Senator’s bill as a token.

Never mind that Schumer’s ducking away from consideration of this confirmation process will add only a few hours’ delay and considerable irritation for irritation’s sake to the confirmation process: there are too many ways to work around his refusal to appear for the votes, especially since there aren’t even enough Progressive-Democrats in the Senate actually to deny a quorum.

It’s like Schumer has only tantrums and sulking to offer.

Follow the Narrative–I Mean Science

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s some science—the Great Barrington Declaration.

James Freeman, in his Tuesday Wall Street Journal column, opened with this:

This week dozens of esteemed medical experts with blue-chip academic credentials published a warning about the destructive policies adopted to address Covid-19. Since the Sunday publication of this Great Barrington Declaration more than a thousand biological scientists and more than 1,500 medical practitioners have added their names to the petition. Yet it’s been almost entirely ignored by the media outlets that spend much of their days presenting themselves as obedient to science.

The declaration says this, in part:

Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

The declaration closes with its recommendation for how we should deal with the virus [emphasis added].

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home.  …
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish….

Of course the Great Barrington Declaration and its Focused Protection proposal have been ignored by the media outlets. They’re also being ignored by Progressive-Democrats everywhere from Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer on down.

The Great Barrington Declaration is the wrong science to follow; it’s too politically inconvenient to settled narrative.

Appropriateness of Thuggery

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the core BLM position according to Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York:

If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.

He went on:

I don’t condone nor do I condemn rioting[.]

BLM is indifferent to rioting, at best. Supposedly. Never mind that BLM actively participates in the rioting going on in so many Progressive-Democrat-run cities.

Now we have Progressive-Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris saying

We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. Make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.

Yet she actively supports violent gangs like BLM.

I actually believe that “Black Lives Matter” has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system[.]

This is what we can expect, even more widely spread, under a Progressive-Democrat, a Biden-Harris, administration that so bluntly supports “peaceful protesters.”

Science Agency and “Diversity”

Posted on by
Reply

Heather Mac Donald wrote about “woke science” in a number of Federal agencies in her Thursday op-ed.

Her thesis centered on the…foolishness…of allegedly science-supporting agencies like NIH, NSF, and CDC diverting taxpayer monies toward efforts at agency diversity for diversity’s sake. For instance,

Earlier this year the NIH announced a new round of “Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research.” Academic science labs could get additional federal money if they hire “diverse” researchers; no mention was made of relevant scientific qualifications.

Mac Donald closed her piece with this:

Mr Trump should order that federal science initiatives return to a color- and sex-blind basis.

Indeed. If NIH, NSF, CDC (et al.) were serious about improving “diversity” (whatever that is), they would devote their diversity efforts and funding to improving the pre-K and K-12 education opportunities for our children, with particular emphasis on those stuck in “underserved communities.”

Absent that, those agencies, diverting themselves from their missions like they are, are wastes of taxpayer money, and they should be disbanded (not merely defunded) and replaced with other, newly constituted agencies whose personnel will be serious about their actual missions.

Irrationality

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Progressive-Democrats are growing increasingly hysterical over the thought of President Donald Trump nominating someone—anyone—to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court and the majority Republican Senate confirming the nominee (never minding that confirmation is far from a done deal). It’s especially overt with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY):

All the rights enshrined in our Constitution that are supposed to be protected by the Supreme Court of the United States. All the rights that could be undone or unwound by a conservative majority on the court.

Never mind that preserving and strengthening these rights are the explicit goals of those 18th Century Liberals who wrote and ratified our Constitution and of today’s Conservatives and conservative Republicans. Never mind that it’s the liberal, living Constitution bloc on the Court and Progressive-Democrats generally who demand to be able to alter that conservative document or to disregard it altogether.

Schumer went on.

By every modicum of decency and honor, Leader McConnell and the Republican majority have no right to fill [the empty seat].

Of course. Because there is no modicum of decency and honor in satisfying a Constitution-originated obligation to fill a Supreme Court seat—or any other vacancy—promptly so the Court—or any other agency—can function at maximum efficiency.

All Schumer—all the Progressive-Democratic Party—have to offer is this sort of wholly illogical, irrational “argument.”

Be very wary of the Supreme Court Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden would construct were he elected and Progressive-Democrats seize the Senate.