Category Archives: ethics

Google’s Boss Testified

Posted on by
Reply

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week.  In the course of his testimony, he made some interesting claims.

“Even as we expand into new markets we never forget our American roots,” Mr Pichai said in his opening statement.

Not just roots, though. It’s important that Pichai and his team remember our American culture and values, too.  It’s not at all clear that he/they do.

As an American company, we cherish the values and freedoms that have allowed us to grow and serve so many users.  I am proud to say we do work, and we will continue to work, with the government to keep our country safe and secure.

Just how, exactly, does Pichai and his team propose to do that when they refuse to work with our defense establishment while enthusiastically working with our enemies—in particular, the People’s Republic of China and so with the PRC’s defense establishment?

Speedy Trial

Posted on by
Reply

As I write this on Tuesday, the question of bail for Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou remains unsettled.  The problem centers on a couple of things.  One is her husband’s offer to be responsible for Meng, guaranteeing her appearance at all court proceedings.  The presiding judge, Justice William Ehrcke, is having trouble believing that offer, even were it sincere.  Meng’s husband, Liu Xiaozong, is not a Canadian citizen, Meng’s lawyer had no information on any other immigration status for Liu, and Ehrcke expressed doubt over his ability to control Liu’s whereabouts—and so of Meng’s whereabouts.

Another concern is Meng’s health, of which she claims several problems and the impact being incarcerated in a jail cell would have on them.

A third is the People’s Republic of China’s naked threat of “severe consequences” for Canada if it doesn’t release Meng forthwith.

In reverse order: the People’s Republic of China’s threats a should make it impossible for Canada to do anything other than deny bail and promptly extradite Meng to the US.

While the extradition question is being decided, in satisfaction of Meng’s health concerns, hold her in a prison hospital where she can get the care and medications she says she needs rather than a cell.

Finally, speedily extradite Meng, and get her out of Canada’s hair and into US custody—it’s our laws she’s alleged to have violated.  Then let’s have a speedy trial and a prompt acquittal if her behavior turns out to have been legal, or a speedy conviction and sentence execution if not.

Unfortunately, Ehrcke has decided to grant bail to Meng.  It’ll be instructive to see how long Meng remains in Canada.

Brexit Botch

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister Theresa May yesterday pulled today’s planned Parliament vote on her Brexit deal with Brussels when it became clear that not even her fellow Tories supported the deal in sufficient numbers to pass.  What’s more, she’s not suggested a new date for the vote, even though something is required to be presented to Parliament by 21 Jan 2019.

The deal as it stands is a terrible one, worse IMNSHO than a plain, unadorned breakout from the European Union.  It represented May’s meek submission to Brussels on nearly every one of their demands—including functional retention of EU immigration “rights” and EU court rulings within what used to be sovereign Great Britain for several years after the British nominal departure.

Nevertheless, May’s failure before Parliament represents further damage to Great Britain.

And this:

[May] will tour European capitals and then go back to Brussels to try to secure sweeteners that might buy off huge opposition to the package.
She insisted her blueprint was still the “best deal negotiable”, and said she still planned to put it to a vote once “reassurances” had been secured on the Irish border backstop.

Never mind that the Brussels “negotiators” have already said the present deal is a done deal and there will be no further negotiations on the matter.  There can be no sweeteners, as a result, nor can there be any reassurances: in particular, Brussels has already given all the assurances on the Irish border matter that they intend to putter around with.

Stand by for further May surrender to Brussels.

Gullible

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what NBC‘s Chuck Todd and his cronies of the NLMSM, Andrea Mitchell and Hallie Jackson, says 63 million of us Americans are because we voted for now-President Donald Trump.

I knew the gaslighting was out there. I knew it was every day.  But I think there was part of me in my head assumed people were discerning it out, knew the BS from the non-BS. So, I think what my sort of shock to the system was just sort of how gullible a big chunk of the country was to this and gullible because maybe they want to be gullible.

Oh, we recognized the gaslighting, and we did a fine job of discriminating the BS from the non-BS.

But because us irredeemably deplorable racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynist religion-clinging gun-toters of flyover country were so foolish that we saw through the dishonesty of Hillary Clinton and the slanted nature of the plainly pro-Progressive-Democrat “press,” we continue to be disparaged by our Betters.  Many of us chose for Trump, many others of us chose against Clinton, and all of us chose the way we did because we saw through the press’ studied spin.  We chose not to take the NLMSM as seriously as those members of the press thought we should.

And here we are, two years on, and those persons still are attacking the man while ignoring his policies, still disparaging us for attending to his policies while not giving journalists’ weight to the superficialities of the man.

These worthies are so deeply immersed in their obsessive-compulsive neurosis that they cannot even recognize their own bias.

“Impose Boundaries on Immigration Law”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the title of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s op-ed in last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.  In it, he decried the lack of uniformity of our immigration laws and associated judicial rulings on those laws.

…US immigration law is far from uniform. Inconsistent rulings by the 12 federal appellate courts have created a hodgepodge of jurisprudence, in which the applicable legal precedents depend on the location of the immigration court that heard a case.

He proposed a solution.

Congress can and should restore uniformity and promote efficiency by consolidating all immigration appeals in a specialized court of immigration appeals.

Whatever the merits of Rosenstein’s proposal, though, before any immigration law—any law—can have legitimate, and predictable, effect, boundaries have to be imposed on activist judges.  Before any specialist court—any court—can have legitimate, and predictable, effect, boundaries have to be imposed on activist judges.  This is particularly critical given the judge-centric nature of his proposal.

Judges cannot be allowed to place their personal views of societal need or “fairness” above what the law they’re applying actually says.  Judges cannot be allowed to violate their oaths of office with their imposition of personal views in place of imposing the text of the law(s) before them in cases, including immigration cases.

Failure requires consequences, else judicial failure will continue, to the increasing detriment of our republic.  Those consequences must include, in the most egregious instances or when particular judges demonstrate an especial predilection for activism, removal from the bench.