Category Archives: ethics

Patriotism is Intimidation

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline tells the tale that’s been unfolding for far too long in the United Kingdom, the cradle, but no longer a home, of individual liberty and consensual government,.

For some it [the national flag of the United Kingdom] is a symbol restoring patriotic traditions. Others see it as vehicle for intimidation.

The British flag, and its sibling, the red cross on a white field that is the Cross of St George flag, are symbols of British culture and history, and especially of British national identity.

Yet there is a growing movement (only lately starting to be answered) that openly disparages those national symbols, risibly calling them bigoted, exclusionary, and divisive.

They’re sort of right on one, but the other two—the bigotry and divisiveness—are centered on and emanate from only those folks, mostly “immigrants” and their apologists, who do not want to assimilate into British culture, to become British citizens, or merely to accept British culture in their status as non-citizen legal residents.

The flags are exclusionary, though, in the sense that they’re symbols of nationhood for patriotic British citizens and subjects, folks who are proud of their national history and culture, warts and all, while working to improve a grand but humanly imperfect nation.

Different flags in the UK have different connotations. The Union Jack, or, more formally, the Union Flag, is meant to represent England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It can be controversial among Scottish, Welsh, or Irish nationalists, but is often seen as a mild expression of patriotism in much of England. But the English flag—the Cross of St George—is sometimes associated with soccer hooligans and far-right protests, and has xenophobic connotations for some.

This is just foolish. There’s nothing controversial about the Union Flag—it symbolizes the union of the nation. Those who don’t want to be part of the union need to recognize that their view has lost repeated independence referenda and get over themselves. The only ones seeing the flag as in any way xenophobic are those immigrants who refuse to assimilate and the timid virtue-signalers who side with them to curry favor.

That some hooligans have chosen to wrap themselves in the English flag is in no way a reflection of what that flag represents—it only reflects the misbehaviors of the hooligans. Those who associate it with hooliganism need to leave off their Newspeak Dictionary-twisted definitions and return to British English dictionaries.

[A] local lawmaker called to remove the flags, whether British or English, saying they were being used by some “to rally those who suppress the rights of others and perpetrate acts of hate.” The local city council estimated it would cost £250,000 to take them down and has removed only a few.

This is disingenuous at best. Here, too, the lawmaker’s beef is with those who misuse—abuse—the flags, not with the flags themselves. It’s only the ones who rally those to hate who should be getting the lawmaker’s opprobrium. The position he’s taken, though, is akin to him actively supporting the unpatriotic over British patriots.

Don’t get too smug over the falling—and fallen—Brits, though. We have too many neighborhoods and news writers waxing hysterical about how divisive our own national flag is.

The same contempt for bigots and cowards in the UK applies to these so-called Americans, too. We have a chance, still, to decisively defeat those naysaying unpatriotic ones, and hopefully one good thing about our own Left’s murder of Charlie Kirk will wake us up and get us going.

There’s Always an Excuse

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Bureau of Labor Statistics honcho Erika McEntarfer was fired over labor reports that reflected wildly inaccurate data and that necessitated radically large corrections in subsequent months. Those data may have been fudged, as President Donald Trump (R) suggests, or they may have resulted from badly inaccurate and incomplete data collection by the BLS’ periodic polling processes.

Now she’s speaking out.

While speaking to students at her alma mater, Bard College, McEntarfer said she took the helm of BLS last year with high hopes of improving the stats on employment and inflation that the agency produces. Instead, she wound up spending much of 2025 guarding it against interference from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, team.

And making self-serving excuses. She took office in January 2024. DOGE didn’t start in until early 2025.

Two questions, then: the first is what progress had she made on her improvements in the intervening year? What bureaucratic impediments had been interfering with those efforts, and what had she been doing about those impeding bureaucrats?

McEntarfer, who spent most of her career working to improve statistics quality at the Census Bureau, said she had been aiming to tackle those problems as BLS commissioner before she was fired.
“I was prepared to help BLS modernize data collection,” she said.

She spent that whole year “preparing to” help? When was she going actually to get started? When was she going to start leading the effort rather than “helping” it?

The second question is in what way had DOGE been interfering with her efforts, and what resources had she diverted from stats improvement to dealing with—mostly interfering with—DOGE’s efforts?

Judicial Insubordination

Posted on by
Reply

Elizabeth Price Foley and Mark Pinkert are on the right track. They’ve laid out the problem concisely in their Thursday Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Now some lower-court judges have become brazenly defiant, not only of the administration’s agenda but also of high court opinions. In response, the justices have had to remind lower courts of their constitutional role and chastise them for resisting court precedent. But the resistance continues, threatening to erode the judiciary’s ability to function.

And

An anonymous group of 12 lower-court judges took their grievances to NBC News, telling a reporter that the high court’s rulings are “validating the Trump administration’s criticisms” of lower courts. One said “it’s inexcusable” that the justices don’t “have our backs.” Four judges opined that the justices, especially Chief Justice John Roberts, “should do more to defend the courts,” in the reporter’s words. Another judge complained that he and his colleagues have been “thrown under the bus.” But even an Obama appointee admitted that “the whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue” and that lower-court judges “are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”

They then propose a solution:

They should avoid writing opinions that contain obvious ambiguities like the one in Fair Admissions. They should also clear away the underbrush of nonoriginalist constitutional law, overruling such precedents rather than narrowing, distinguishing or calling them into doubt. … And all the hullabaloo over the president’s authority to fire executive-branch officers would be quieted if the court flatly overruled Humphrey’s Executor v US rather than merely chip away at it.
The court has a duty to provide doctrinal clarity, especially on constitutional law.

Those certainly are good ideas, at least from this textualist’s perspective. Clarity in bold, declarative sentences written in exclusively plain terms, would good, whether textualist or activist. More is needed though.

The Supreme Court needs lay aside its hesitancy and swat down, firmly, recalcitrant judges, especially (but not only) those of the district courts. The Supreme Court, over the course of its admonishment-containing overrulings, need to remove the recalcitrant judge from the case altogether, an action the Court has done, but up to now all too rarely. The Court also needs, rarely but at a non-zero rate, to rule that a particularly insubordinate judge will have all of his rulings automatically stayed until reviewed by appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, if necessary.

These are drastic steps, to be sure, but they’re necessary to emphasize that Supreme Court rulings are binding on the lower courts, especially at the district level; to increase the efficiency and speed of the courts and especially of the appellate process; and to begin to restore the public’s confidence in our court system.

Conflagration of Norms

Posted on by
Reply

As President Donald Trump’s (R) Executive Branch nominations languish in the Senate (300 of them), Republicans there are considering changing the rules to speed the nomination confirmation/rejection process. As The Wall Street Journal puts it in its lede,

…Democrats will call it President Trump’s latest conflagration of norms.

This would be, of course, typical of the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ hypocrisy. Senate norms have already been burned to ashes in the conflagration of Party’s unprecedented obstruction of nearly all things President (read Trump) and nearly all things Republican. But especially all things (not just nearly all) regarding the President’s nominations and Party’s knee-jerk, universal attempts to block and its successes in slowest-walking the confirmation process. Progressive-Democrats are actively stalling even minor nominees who won bipartisan support in committee, just in petty protest of Trump policy (Party politicians claim it’s over his firing of Party-favored Executive Branch appointees, but their obstruction is much broader than that).

Changing the rules in the way Republicans are proposing—limited time to debate each nomination, allowing nominations to be considered in batches, with each batch subject to that same limited debate time—are sorely needed, and the change would benefit all Presidents, not just Trump.

The folks a President nominates and wants confirmed are intended to be members of the President’s team. Party politicians, though, are with their actions demanding confirmees be members of Party’s team, regardless of which party is in power from administration to administration.

Corporate Cybersecurity Training

Posted on by
Reply

It isn’t very effective, apparently.

To measure the effectiveness of different methods of cybersecurity training, the authors [of a study] divided employees into four groups. After each attack, each group received a different training method: one received generic tips about avoiding phishing attacks, a second received an interactive Q&A on cybersecurity, a third was informed about the specific methods used in the most recent attack, and the fourth received an interactive Q&A that also included details about the most recent attack. A fifth group was also created, and the employees in that group received no training.
The authors found that on average, employees who received training of any sort had only a 1.7% lower failure rate than employees who had no training.

The authors’ solution?

The study’s takeaway for organizations, says [lead author Grant] Ho, is to rely on measures other than training, like phishing-detection software that automatically eliminates the need for employees to detect phishing attacks.

Software aids are important in this milieu, but the weak link remains the human. Software aids by themselves are insufficient.

There needs to be more to the training than just a slide presentation and some lectures, or in the present case, “interactive” Q&As. The training sessions need to be plussed up, a lot, but that can’t be the end of it. Schools and responsible companies run fire drills that run to completion with evacuation of the building and head counts and roll calls while the evacuees are gathered up at their assigned evacuation points. So it must be with cybersecurity training. Simulated cyber attacks (phishing, social engineering, etc) attacks should be run against a rotating collection of employees to test their training and their responses to the attacks. Those simulations should be run some weeks after the training and more frequently than those fire drills, and they should not use IT-ginned up attacks, either; they should use serious real-world attacks, altered only to get them targeted to the collection of employees being tested.

Beyond that, there needs to be teeth attached to the training and to employees’ failure to take the training seriously.

There are three outcomes from this. One is an empirical assessment of the quality of training, its durability, and identification of weaknesses in the training program, which then can be corrected (not given up on). A second results from those teeth: once management is satisfied with the training quality, employees still falling for the attacks should be terminated. They’re too great a risk to the company.

The third outcome is a very great increase in the cyber safety of the company and of its employees (with a follow-on: those employees will be better able to maintain security in their homes’ cyber environment). The added training and testing will incur costs to the company, but the risk of the far greater cost of a cyber breach—both direct and indirect through liability—is too great to ignore.