Category Archives: ethics

Whose Divide?

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald Seib, in his Wall Street Journal‘s Capital Journal, has an odd take on the political (personal?) divide moving through our nation.

From the moment he rode down the escalator at his eponymous Fifth Avenue skyscraper to announce his candidacy three years ago, President Donald Trump has divided Americans[]

goes his lede, and he proceeds from there.

Never mind that it was then-Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) who dismissed Tea Partiers as mere Astroturfers.

Never mind that it was the NLMSM that insulted Tea Partiers with the careful slur of being mere tea bagger.

Never mind that is was then-Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D, MO) called Republicans terrorists for disagreeing with Congressional Progressive-Democrats on a bill.

Never mind that it was ex-President Barack Obama (D) who dismissed millions of Americans as mere bitter Bible-toting gun-clingers in flyover country and who insisted, while agreeing that he didn’t have all the facts, that police act stupidly.

Never mind that it was Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D) who dismissed millions of Americans as irredeemably deplorable racists, misogynists, homophobic, and Islamophobic.

Never mind that it’s the Left’s Antifa and BLM who routinely shout down and deny the right to speak to Americans with whom they disagree.

Never mind that it was the Left who, on Inauguration Day, didn’t just protest Donald Trump’s election and inauguration, they rioted and burned private businesses.

Trump’s comments often are personally demeaning, but they’re exactly that: personal.  Trump disparages, in uncommonly rude terms for a public office holder, other people, but he does it to individual persons.  He also only does so in response to a personal attack on him.  He doesn’t denigrate whole groups of Americans, and he doesn’t do it as the opening shot in a manufactured series of insults.

No, the divisions in our nation are long-standing and growing—and it’s the Progressive-Democrats and their Left base who are doing the dividing, and doing it with increasing zeal.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Zuckerberg and his Facebook are moving to delete from Facebook postings items, which Zuckerberg is pleased to term “misinformation” or “false information” (and for which he’s been unable to provide a definition, coherent criteria, or a balanced set of “fact” checkers), that in addition to being somehow false incite violence.

Facebook will rely on local organizations of its choosing to decide whether specific posts contain false information and could lead to physical violence[.]

Because local sources in Sri Lanka or Malaysia, or Indonesia, are going to provide objective analyses—especially when the “incitement” is against the groups particularly hated in nations like those.

Sure.  I might know of some beachfront property north of Santa Fe that might be of interest, too.

No, this is just another excuse for Facebook to inflict censorship. Aside from the naked lack of objectivity inherent in the foregoing, the larger item is this.  Online posts, whether on Facebook, Twitter, random blogs, or news outlet Web sites, are not responsible for violence. The persons inflicting the violence are the ones responsible for the violence. Attempts to shift responsibility don’t alter that in the least. Zuckerberg knows this.

Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Some people have more of them, others have fewer.  That’s the position of the People’s Republic of China.

The Hong Kong National Party is being threatened by the PRC government, through its Hong Kong Secretary for Security, John Lee Ka-chiu, with being banned.  The heinous crime of which the party (and its leader, Andy Chan) is speaking too freely in favor of freedom for Hong Kong.

Or, as another man put it a while back, some people are just more equal than others.

Media Bias

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve seen how Facebook openly favors liberal news outlets; now we can see the unconscious bias against conservative outlets that media moguls have.

Facebook at least has started paying lip service to (and may actually be serious about) correcting its own bias.  The company held an allegedly off-the-record meeting with a dozen or so publishing executives (allegedly because of the leaks of the meeting’s contents by participants).  BuzzFeed‘s Editor in Chief Ben Smith, though, objected to the presence of “six conservative-leaning publications among the dozen or so outlets” present.  Apparently, actual balance between conservatives and liberals is biased representation.

Mr Smith said that the number of conservative publications in attendance indicated that Facebook had bought into the idea, promoted primarily by conservatives, that mainstream outlets such as the New York Times are liberal and should be counterbalanced by right-leaning opinion outlets, said people familiar with his remarks.

As if the NYT is a bastion of conservatism and needs no counterbalance.  Or, as if liberalism itself needs no counterbalance.

Then he attacked the journalistic standards of The Daily Caller, a conservative outlet that was represented at the meeting.  Lacking coherent argument, the liberal Smith stooped to character assassination, this time of a competitor.  He’s not alone in the character assassination; Lydia Polgreen, HuffPost Editor in Chief, in a canonical example of a pot complaining about a kettle, echoed Smith’s plaint.

It’s bad enough that the NLMSM is biased.  It’s bordering on dangerous when the NLMSM can no longer discriminate bias from balance.

Union Politics

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s what the American Federation of Teachers union “agency fees” would have been spent on absent the favorable ruling in Janus vs AFSCME, which said that public unions can no longer make non-union employees pay into union coffers as a condition of employment.  These are actual resolutions to be offered at the AFT’s convention this weekend.

Keep in mind, too, that those agency fees typically ran to 60% to 80% of member union dues—which gives an idea of how much a public union’s intake was spent on politics rather than on member matters.

  • single-payer health care
  • opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline
  • President Donald Trump’s “immediate resignation or removal”
  • denounce[ing] Mondelez for moving Nabisco cookie production to Mexico [and non-union plants]
  • urg[ing] local affiliates to pressure “employers to sell or carry only Nabisco products made in free union workplaces in their schools and on their campuses.”
  • support for “anti-war groups”
  • removal of the US’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system in South Korea, which “enhances the effectiveness of a US first strike with nuclear weapons by drastically weakening any nuclear retaliation by a potential target nation such as China or North Korea”

Regarding that last, I certainly wish it were true that THAAD would drastically weaken an enemy’s second strike, especially after its first strike.  That’s secondary, though.  Primary is the lack of relationship with actual education or with enhancing a teacher’s ability to teach that these AFT resolutions have.

The union does have a couple of education-related resolutions.

  • free college
  • [urging] “school districts, colleges, and universities to offer their students diverse views about military service and the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, balancing arguments for military service and ROTC training with the arguments of critics of military service, including its health risks.”

Yeah, those are serious education proposals.