Category Archives: ethics

Misapprehensions

Posted on by
Reply

Here is one. In an editorial in Friday’s Wall Street Journal concerning the ripened crop of charges brought by Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard Jr against a cop in the Rayshard Brooks shooting, the Editorial Board hazarded this bit:

Yet amid protests and riots over police brutality—arsonists burned down the Wendy’s where the Brooks shooting took place—prosecutors are under pressure to pursue maximum charges against officers.

No. Prosecutors aren’t under any pressure at all beyond what they inflict on themselves in their fetid timidity. The howling mob cannot threaten their jobs. Only their bosses can and then only through specified procedure—which in the Georgia county prosecutor’s case is the next election—and his bosses haven’t spoken yet.

Even at that, though, if this prosecutor feels pressure now from his bosses, it’s only because he favors his job over his honor.

Howard’s surrender to any (self-inflicted) “pressure” simply amplifies the…foolishness…of his stampede to virtue signal; it simply increases the risk to confidence in the legal system should Rolfe be acquitted on the overcharged, hastily done batch.

In the event, Rolfe’s legal team should push hard for his Constitutional right to a speedy and public trial, since of course Howard is ready to go to trial, else he would not have filed the charges.

Manipulated Media

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that Carpe Donktum, a President Donald Trump supporter, put together a satirical video.

The video…begins with dramatic music showing a black toddler running away from a white toddler with a “breaking news” graphic that reads “Terrified toddler runs away from racist baby” with the CNN logo next to it. That headline then changed to “Racist baby probably a Trump supporter.”
Then, a graphic that shows “what actually happened” shows the two toddlers running towards each other and hugging with excitement to the tune the “Close to You” cover by Harry Connick Jr.
“America is not the problem… fake news is,” the video tells viewers. “If you see something, say something. Only you can prevent fake news dumpster fires.”

Never mind that

The footage came from a viral Facebook video shared in 2019 featuring real-life New York pals Maxwell and Finnegan, who were 26 and 27 months old respectively at the time.

Never mind that Jack Dorsey and his censoring Twitter twitterers know this full well.

Never mind that anyone with two neurons to bump together into a ganglion could recognize the video as satire. However, @Jack and his Twitter censors insist on insulting tens of millions of Americans by slapping their “Manipulated Media” flag on it after Trump pinned it in his Twitter feed.

Satire isn’t manipulated media. @jack, with his decision to censor a satirical posting, is manipulating media.

Tough on Crime?

Posted on by
Reply

Not Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

A Critical Item in dealing with crime is that the criminals need to be punished. And that punishment must be meted out swiftly, consistently, and commensurate with the crime.  Joe Biden?

However.

A Critical Item in dealing with criminal behavior is rehabilitation of the criminal and opportunities for his redemption. Absent those, the criminals will repeat their criminal behavior, others will see less, if not in absolute terms, little incentive not to do the crime.  Joe Biden?

Here’s Joe Biden’s position on those two Critical Items (patience; it takes a bit for Alphabet’s YouTube to grunt through their errors and load the video).  This is Senator Joe Biden:

It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re the victims of society. The end result is that they’re about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe, shoot my sister, beat up my wife, take on my sons. So I don’t want to ask, “What made them do this?” They must. be taken. off. the streets.

Indeed, he favored—has long favored—increased and broad incarceration.

You must take back the streets. And you take back the streets by more cops, more prisons, more physical protection for the people.

Here is Joe Biden explicitly on rehabilitation;

So you cannot make rehabilitation a condition for release. I don’t care why someone is a malefactor in society, I don’t care why someone is antisocial, I don’t care why they’ve become a sociopath. We have an obligation to cordon them off from the rest of society.

With Joe Biden explicitly rejecting one Critical Item in dealing with crime and with criminal behavior, he cannot truly be supportive of the other Critical Item: the two stand or fall together.

Joe Biden’s claim that rehab can’t be a criterion for release is a cynically offered non sequitur. Whether prisons or separate facilities are the optimal place for rehab and for opportunities for redemption is a separate question entirely, and one that he will not even consider. Joe Biden does not believe in the ability of a man to rehabilitate or to be rehabilitated, and he rejects the possibility of redemption.

Joe Biden cannot be tough on crime because he cannot accept rehabilitation or redemption. He cannot support programs that reduce recidivism, that enable a criminal, once punished, to find a legitimate place in society.

Joe Biden’s current “evolution” in his thinking and his pious calls for criminal system reform are nothing more than insulting pandering to blacks and Hispanics and insults to the intelligence of all of us Americans of any skin color or gender.

 

H/t OANN.

Are They Serious?

Posted on by
Reply

The (individual) bad cop events in Minneapolis and Atlanta, and the ensuing hoo-raw has prompted badly needed discussion of how we handle bad cops and their events, even overshadowed as the discussion is by the overarching hysteria of demands for cop-free zones and the Left’s larger demand to do away with all police forces everywhere forever.

This has prompted the editors of The Wall Street Journal to wonder:

…suddenly Democrats say public-union labor agreements are frustrating police reform. We’re delighted to hear it—if they’re serious.

Of course, they are not remotely serious. This is an election year, and I’m shocked, shocked to find that vote pandering in this season.

Police unions have many shortcomings, no small per centage of them very serious, but this is just another example of Progressive-Democrats vote pandering, throwing a temporarily inconvenient constituent under the bus, and blaming everyone but themselves for the problem.

Private employers often use arbitration to resolve complaints by and against employees, but cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and Minneapolis allow police unions essentially to select the arbitrator.

It’s those city governments’ carefully deliberated decision to surrender their responsibilities to the counterparty of any negotiation or disciplinary action.

Progressive-Democrat-run city governments. But it’s not their fault; it’s those nefarious cop unions. Watch for the Progressive-Democrat anti-police union opprobrium disappear from 4 November on.

Progressive-Democrats Sue

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats, in particular the Democratic National Committee the Arizona Democratic Party, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, are suing the

Arizona secretary of state and a gaggle of county officials over a rule in the state that automatically rejects mail-in ballots without signatures, whereas voters whose mail-in ballot signatures do not match their voter registration are given five days to remedy the situation.

This might seem, superficially, a valid beef.

However.

Mismatched signatures and missing signatures aren’t close to the same thing. Voting monitors are not handwriting experts; it’s easy for them to mistake signatures and think there’s a mismatch.

It doesn’t take a handwriting expert to see the difference between a signature and no signature at all.

Nor would it be difficult functionally to stuff ballot boxes with deliberately pre-marked and unsigned ballots followed by operatives of any party using the “remedy” facility to sign those ballots—with no proof available that the Johnny-come-lately signers actually are the ones who filled in the ballots. Or even that each ballot was individually marked by separate individual voters.

The parties to the suit claim, with wide-eyed innocence, that automatically rejecting those unsigned ballots would disenfranchise voters. This is nonsense. Allowing these pre-marked, unsigned ballots to be signed later, with no way of knowing that the signer is the person who voted a particular ballot—and only that ballot—would disenfranchise the legitimate voters by having their votes diluted, if not canceled altogether, by all those illegitimately cast false votes.

The DNC, ADP, DSCC suit can be read here.