Category Archives: ethics

Free Speech, Again

Posted on by
Reply

A New Jersey high school has come under fire after holding a ceremony honoring law enforcement, military and first responders before a football game Friday night.

And

It featured State Police Pipes and Drums of the Blue and Gold, state and local mounted units, personnel from all of the branches of the military and officers from several local offices. It also honored a Linden police officer who was wounded in a shootout with Ahmad Khan Rahimi, who is accused of planting IEDs in Seaside Park, Elizabeth and New York City[.]

So far, so good, you might think.

“It’s OK to stand up for social justice, inequality, and reform,” [Middletown Deputy Police Chief Stephen] Dollinger told the [Asbury Park Press]. “It’s another thing to not stand up for the national anthem.”

Uh oh.  That’s not allowed.  It’s OK to protest.  It’s not OK to protest the protesters or the protest methods.  No, the Left insists we just shut up about that.  The ACLU, the Central Jersey Chapter of National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the Greater Long Branch NAACP all objected to such impertinence in a letter to the high school.

According to press reports, however, the event is being used to intimidate and ostracize people who express their views about systemic racism and social just.

Law enforcement officers are sworn to protect the constitution, and it is a disservice to the students and players that an event that should focus on them, their families, and their communities is being used to send a message that people who express concerns about disparities in the criminal justice system are unwelcome, disloyal or unpatriotic.

And

One ACLU organizer, Jasmine Crenshaw, believes the event sent a “frightening message….”

Sure.  It’s frightening—to the Left, anyway—that people not under the Left’s control would speak freely.

More “Missing” Emails

Posted on by
Reply

And more destruction of evidence.

From an FBI Form 302:

CENTCOM records shows approximately 1,000 work-related emails between Clinton’s personal email and General David PETRAEUS, former Commander of CENTCOM and former Director of the CIA.  Most of those 1,000 emails were not believed to be included in the 30,000 emails that IPS was reviewing. Out of the 30,000 emails, IPS [Office of Information and Programs and Services, which is responsible for State’s responses to FOIA requests] only had a few emails from or related to PETRAEUS as well as a few related to Leon PANETTA, former Secretary of Defense.

It’s nice that CENTCOM, the other end of the correspondence, had records of the emails, but the emails themselves seem to be “missing.”

Hmm….

Be Quiet

Posted on by
Reply

Your Betters are working.

Elon Musk, who as CEO of Tesla Motors, which is building self-driving cars, has a personal, vested interest in the matter, says we must stop criticizing self-driving cars—they’re going to save lives.  One day.

In the meantime, we’re to keep our critiques—which would actually make the cars better, safer, and more consumer friendly—to ourselves.  He knows what he’s talking about; we don’t.  And we’ll kill people if we don’t shut up with our comments.

If, in writing some article that’s negative, you effectively dissuade people from using autonomous vehicles, you’re killing people[.]

Just be quiet.  Trust me.

Holding out for Perfection

Posted on by
Reply

William McGurn, of The Wall Street Journal, had some thoughts on this as it concerns NeverTrumpers [emphasis added].

Give the Never Trumpers their due: most do not shy away from the implication that anyone who would vote for Mr Trump is as low and base as he is. Their problem is that the argument doesn’t seem to be having much traction with Republican voters. …

One reason may be that the argument about morally corrupt GOP voters is not really an argument. More precisely, it’s an argument Republicans typically hear from the left. Instead of weighing the prosaic facts—i.e., the practical ramifications of having Mrs Clinton sitting in the Oval Office versus Mr Trump—how much easier it is to try to end all discussion by pronouncing the GOP nominee repellent.

Because forming a rational argument on the matter is as repugnant to NeverTrumpers as it is to Progressives like Clinton and Obama (and Reid and Schumer and Pelosi) and to Democrats generally.

This will only get NeverTrumpers Clinton as president.

It’s hard to believe these folks—grown, adult, rational human beings all—don’t know that.  Maybe NeverTrumpers just don’t care one way or the other.  Maybe they’re just abdicating their responsibility by hiding behind their demand for purity rather than doing what’s least damaging.  Or what’s possible.

State Department and Quid Pro Quo

Posted on by
Reply

Another thought on State’s quid pro quo offer to the FBI occurs to me based on an exchange between Fox News‘ Catherine Herridge and State Department spokesman Mark Toner concerning the FBI’s 302 (interview summary form) containing the apparent offer.  The relevant part of the exchange began with Herridge calling out Toner on his denial of certain facts.

“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ “[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”

“I mean, this conflicts directly with what you’re saying today,” Herridge said after reading it aloud.

“I’m sorry,” Toner said, smiling. “I could speak to the fact that 302s are simply interviews conducted by the FBI.”

“So you’re saying the FBI agent either got it wrong or is lying in this 302?” Herridge asked.

“I can’t speak to what his or her intentions were, saying these kinds of things, but clearly expressing a personal opinion about what happened,” Toner said. “Any, really, assertion that this was somehow tit for tat or quid pro quo, exchange in that manner, really, frankly is insulting.”

No, Toner, what’s insulting is your cynical, Alinsky-esque refusal to answer the question and your attempt at deflecting by insulting the questioner.