Category Archives: ethics

Willful Ignorance

Posted on by
Reply

Or preferring her Newspeak Dictionary definitions over those in actual American English dictionaries.

That’s Arizona Progressive-Democrat Representative Yassamin Ansari’s view. In response to the hue and cry over her terming illegal aliens members of her constituency, she had this:

So, I didn’t realize this was such a controversy until the right-wing media started attacking me for using the word, so I Googled the word constituent. The definition of constituent is somebody who is part of a community, doesn’t matter what their legal status is,

She Googled for the definition of “constituent.” She could have consulted an actual dictionary of the American English language, but she chose not to. ‘Course, if she had, she would have seen her narrative collapse around her. This is what Merriam-Webster, for instance, has to say about the American English meaning of the term:

constituent
1 : a member of a constituency
pledged to help her elderly constituents

Following that first and thus primary definition over to constituency, we get this first and primary definition:

constituency
1 a : a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative (as to a legislative or executive position)
the governor’s liberal constituency

Citizens. Not illegal aliens. Even the second part of that first definition lends no support for Ansari’s Newspeak definition:

b : the residents in an electoral district
The senator’s constituency includes a large minority population.

Since illegal aliens are not legally resident, they are outside even the residents of an electoral district.

Inconvenient facts are, to a Party member, inconvenient.

Tipped Wages or Not?

Posted on by
Reply

McDonald’s is insisting that every restaurant—especially fast food restaurants—should be required to do away with tip-based wages and pay servers at least the Federal-level minimum wage. There are a couple of major disingenuosities in the surrounding argument.

McDonald’s Chief Executive Chris Kempczinski:

Right now, there’s an uneven playing field,

because casual-dining restaurants, bars, and other establishments to pay below the typical minimum wage to tip-earning workers. If he thinks so, he should push for getting his restaurant able to similarly pay his workers rather than demanding that others kowtow to his business model.

Kempczinski went on:

If you are a restaurant that allows tips or has tips as part of your equation, you’re essentially getting the customer to pay for your labor[.]

This is an especially blatant bit of disingenuousness. The customer already is paying for the restaurant’s labor. The customer also is paying for the restaurant’s cooking, food and food preparation inputs, rent, management salaries, every cost the restaurant incurs. Those costs are included in the prices the restaurant puts on its menu. Tipping is just a customer-facing line item on the bill.

This is nothing but a regulated business manager venally and self-servingly trying to capture the regulators and impose added costs on his smaller and weaker competitors.

“They Don’t Have Our Backs”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the whine of some judges who are criticizing—carefully anonymously, mind you—the Supreme Court for the Court’s emergency rulings overturning lower court rulings as the Justices agree with the Trump administration arguments.

A group of anonymous federal judges is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning lower court rulings and siding with President Donald Trump’s administration with little to no explanation, NBC News reported Thursday.

And

…judges argued the Supreme Court should offer more explanation when overturning such decisions, saying emergency rulings in such cases imply poor work on the part of lower court judges.

It implies no such thing, of course. This is just an example of the pseudo-logic of these judges, judges who misapply the statutes before them, choosing to rule based on what they wished the statutes said rather than what they actually say. Overturning decisions without explanation in an emergency ruling plainly means nothing more or less than that the Court chose not to explain within the time constraints of an emergency ruling. It certainly applies, or even implies, nothing regarding any motive for the ruling,nor does it even come close to siding with President Donald Trump’s administration, just that the Court agreed with the administration’s arguments. These judges also are carefully ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings are merely temporary, overruling lower court temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions as the underlying cases make their way through the courts.

“It is inexcusable,” one judge said of the Supreme Court. “They don’t have our backs.”

This is a judge who doesn’t even understand his oath of office. It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to backstop lower court judges. It’s the Supreme Court’s job—it’s the job of all of those lower court judges, also—to apply the law as it is written. It’s the job of appellate court judges, especially of Supreme Court Justices, to correct lower court mistakes in the application of the law—statute and Constitution—at least as much as it is to uphold a lower court’s ruling when that ruling applies the law as written.

Separately, “carefully anonymous:” these judges don’t even have the courage of their convictions. They just want to yap from the safety of their respective private porches.

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

This one, a Wall Street Journal editorial centered on a coerced unionization of ride share companies Uber and Lyft. The editors got their misunderstanding in early, via their lede:

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday announced a “deal” with ride-share companies Uber and Lyft that they couldn’t refuse. Democrats in Sacramento will reduce auto insurance coverage mandates that are driving runaway litigation in return for the companies letting drivers collectively bargain.

Yes, they could have refused the deal. The California government foisted onto them a supremely ugly choice, but it was no less a freely taken choice for all its ugliness. The companies’ managers were just too timid to resist, too timid to leave the State altogether, as their own powerful alternative to Sacramento’s demand.

There’s no reason for any business, not just Uber and Lyft, to suffer the politically imposed costs of operating in California. Nothing is stopping businesses from leaving other than the timidity of their managers.

I alluded to it just above: the cost of doing business in California isn’t just fiscal. It’s political, too, reducing as that cost does, a company’s ability to manage its own business affairs in accordance with its own free market imperatives.

Regulation vs Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

In an article centered on a so-called balancing act by Big Oil in an environment in which the Trump Administration is rolling back a broad swath of climate regulations, the news writers had this:

The industry’s biggest trade groups have said they support effective and reasonable regulations. Nixing the programs, the lobbyists said, would create an impossible choice for the industry—ask the administration to reinstate some rules, or walk back its previous support for some regulations.

This is timidity writ large. If the trade groups and the managers of the groups’ constituent companies really think this, that, or those rules are good ideas, then they should self-regulate along those lines. There’s nothing to stop them; there’s nothing forcing them to render themselves dependent on government diktats.

Lobbyists have signaled to the EPA that creating a regulatory vacuum could invite new lawsuits.

The proper response to those lawsuits is to stop being so desperate to settle and to stop hiding behind Government apron strings. With the climate regulation roll back, there are fewer grounds on which to base a lawsuit, and the proper response to those remaining that are brought is to refuse to settle, push the pace on the trials, and burn the suers to the ground in open court. That’ll be expensive in the early stages, especially as they’re forced by activist district judges to go through the appeals process, but it will reduce long-term legal costs far more by obviating a large number of lawsuits in the aftermath of those early ones.

It’s past time for business managers, especially including those running energy producing businesses, to recall the nature of their management roles.

The central imperative of a management position in the United States is to manage a company in a way that satisfies the company’s owners. There is nothing in that imperative that requires a manager to manage his company in a way that satisfies the demands of Government beyond simply following law. Those managers who are that timid that they need to be told what to do by Government need to be replaced; they’re unfit for their management positions.

This is America. Business managers are free to act on their own initiative; they are not required to wait on Government.