Category Archives: ethics

Fiat Chrysler, the EPA, and Diesel Engines

Posted on by
Reply

The EPA has decided to accuse Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV of using software to cheat on diesel emission limits during tests, sort of reminiscent of Volkswagen’s peccadillo.

The problem for the EPA, though, is that

the EPA is not yet accusing Fiat Chrysler of installing illegal software patches on its diesel engines, but of failing to disclose potentially legal ones.

Never mind that if the software is legal, there’s nothing to disclose.  Not to fear, though, the problem with Fiat Chrysler is that

[i]t’s the company’s finances that make it vulnerable.

The company in the hole with a debt pile of some €6.5 billion ($6.9 billion) as of last September.  And the EPA knows that.

With any other agency, this might be a legitimate beef.  With this EPA, though, it smacks of legal blackmail.  “Nice business you got there; be too bad if something were to happen to it.  I know you’re short of cash; maybe there’s something we can do for each other to help you out.”

Polemics vs Reasoned Argument

Posted on by
Reply

As the Congress considers import taxes as part of its general tax reform agenda, toy sellers are expressing their concern: they import most of what they sell; their products are manufactured overseas.  Import taxes are surely a thing worth discussing and debating thoroughly, whether they’re essentially cost of goods sold neutral, as Doug Holtz-Eakin argues (the dollar will rise from the tax change and economic growth, and so the dollar cost of imports will fall; the cost of goods sold will simply emphasize taxes more and import costs less), or they’re dangerously like protectionist tariffs, as others argue.

Arguments that are carefully emotion-laden while devoid of facts, though, are inappropriate.  Here’s an example from Steve Pasierb, President of the Toy Industry Association:

We are fully prepared to work productively or be a royal, boisterous, media-friendly pain in the backsides of people who would take away children’s happy birthdays, steal Christmas, and destroy quality US-based jobs.  And no one wants to have to explain to their children why Santa was put out of work.

Such Leftist “feel my pain” three-hankie argument has little credibility and less validity in the sort of reasoned discourse necessary in an economic debate.

It Takes One to Know One?

Posted on by
Reply

Several municipalities in New Jersey have taken to painting a blue line down the middle of their Main Streets as a show of support for their police and police departments.  The image below is an example of that.

President-On-The-Way-Out Barack Obama’s (D) Department of Transportation has decided to take a dim view of this move.

There are many appropriate and fitting ways to recognize service to the public that do not involve the modification of a traffic control device, which can put the road user at risk due to misinterpretation of its meaning[.]

The Democrats are projecting again.  Only they would think Americans are so dumb that we’d misunderstand a blue line, when road markings for traffic control are yellow or white.

One can hope that DoT Secretary nominee Elaine Chao will be able to correct this departmental culture.

Snowflake as Murderer

Posted on by
Reply

Dylann Roof has been convicted of the murders of nine good men and women, people he butchered in his rampage through a Baptist church.

Now he’s crying over the…unfairness…of the penalty phase of his trial.  At the risk of repeating things known to those of you following along at home, Roof is defending himself during this phase, and he’s chosen to offer neither witnesses nor mitigating evidence during this phase.

In the punishment phase of a felony trial, the prosecution has to go first, which gives the defense the better position of having its presentation fresher in the minds of the jury.  In Roof’s trial penalty phase, the prosecution has presented a number of witnesses, who’ve offered “heart-ripping testimony,” to use The New York Times‘ phrase, concerning the devastation Roof’s rampage caused.  As the prosecution finished its examination of each of the 20 witnesses (so far, as of the date of the NYT‘s piece), Roof was offered opportunity to cross-examine; he declined—”no questions”—each time.

Roof ultimately argued the unfairness of this phase:

It is not fair to allow that much testimony to be heard by the jury when I am not presenting any evidence—from my family or anyone else—in mitigation.  If I don’t present any mitigation evidence, the victim-impact evidence will take over the whole sentencing trial and guarantee that I get the death penalty.

That’s just a bit of too bad.  The prosecution isn’t bound by the decisions, tactical or otherwise, of the defense.

Full stop.

Slow-Motion Surrender

Posted on by
Reply

Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian industrialist and philanthropist, seems to want one.  Here’s his suggestion in a Wall Street Journal op-ed with the subheadline Crimea should not get in the way of a deal that ends the war. The lives that will be saved are worth it.  In particular, Pinchuk recommends the following for Ukraine to agree:

  • Ukraine should consider temporarily eliminating European Union membership from our stated goals for the near future. We can build a European country, be a privileged partner, and later discuss joining.
  • While we maintain our position that Crimea is part of Ukraine and must be returned, Crimea must not get in the way of a deal that ends the war in the east on an equitable basis. It will take Ukraine 15 to 20 years to generate enough economic growth and stabilize our infrastructure, social safety net and financial system. Everyone from Crimea will then want to live in this future Ukraine—just as East Germans wanted to become part of West Germany.
  • Conflict in the east was initiated from abroad and is not a genuine autonomy movement or civil war. There will not be conditions for fair elections until Ukraine has full control over its territory. But we may have to overlook this truth and accept local elections. Such compromises may mean letting down Ukrainians from the east who have suffered enormously. But if this is what it takes to demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to peaceful reunification, then we may have to make this compromise to save thousands of lives.
    We must focus on helping those who had to leave their hometowns, and cannot return to live under repressive and unsafe conditions, by offering them all possible support to rebuild their lives in a new reality.
  • Finally, let’s accept that Ukraine will not join NATO in the near- or midterm. The offer is not on the table, and if it were, it could lead to an international crisis of unprecedented scope. For now, we should pursue an alternative security arrangement and accept neutrality as our near-term vision for the future.

No.  This is nothing but slow-motion surrender.

And give up Crimea, even for “only” those 15-20 years—a generation—as the price of peace?  Neville Chamberlain tried that, and got Anschluss.  That’s what Russia is doing today with its partition of Crimea and its occupation of two oblasts and parts of a third in eastern Ukraine.

Crimea should not get in the way of a deal that ends the war. The lives that will be saved are worth it.

No, surrendering seized territory, whether Crimea or those other oblasts, just rewards the invasion and occupation, and it encourages further such invasions and occupations—at the cost not just of sovereignty of the victim nations but of far more lives, as well.