Category Archives: ethics

Bad Idea

Posted on by
Reply

Socialist Senators Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Angus King (I, ME) are proposing a new law that would

ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.

This is a bad idea. Not just singly bad; it’s bad on three grounds.

One is the ground of free speech. We don’t get to ban speech based on who’s doing the speaking any more than we get to censor speech based on what’s being said. That includes pharmaceutical companies that want to advertise their wares, so long as they don’t misrepresent them. Truth in Advertising laws, though, are agnostic regarding both advertisers and products.

Our nation went over who is allowed to advertise when lawyers wanted to engage in direct advertising, including via television ads, lots of years ago. Our courts, and we as a nation, came down on the side of free speech when we all decided lawyers advertising was entirely jake. The worst that got us is ads like The Texas Hammer‘s.

It’s a bad idea because it’s insulting to us average Americans. We are not as droolingly imbecilic as these two Wonders of the Left insist that we are. We are fully capable of deciding for ourselves whether we want to take pharmaceutical company’s word at face value or our doctor’s advice. Certainly the advertisements can lead us to peppering our doctors with questions, but we should be doing that, anyway, regarding his diagnoses and proposed treatments. That some of us are foolish enough to remain willfully ignorant about our own health and blithely (and blindly) accept our doctor’s word unquestioningly is between us and our doctors. It’s no excuse for government censoring other parties.

That brings me to the third reason this is a bad idea. It’s not government’s role to protect us from ourselves, or even from each other except on criminal matters. Government’s role is to protect us from external criminal elements and threats to our nation as a whole. It’s not even the Federal government’s sole role to protect us from domestic criminal elements—that is primarily the role of each of our several State governments, with help from the Feds only when invited in by the States.

This is a move that only Socialists and their monarchist Progressive-Democratic Party ally could love.

Count Me Skeptical

Posted on by
Reply

Nvidia has a new AI out that purports to enable[] simulations of Earth’s global climate with an unprecedented level of resolution. As is always the case with AI, there are problems with accuracy, usability, credibility, and on and on.

This AI, as with all of them, are creatures of human programmers, and they do only what those humans programmed them to do, the data those humans carefully selected for its training, what other humans tested it on the doing. We’ve seen the outcomes of all of that in a variety of AI programs that are nakedly racist, spout outright lies hallucinations (one of the characterization distortions of yet other humans associated with the AI), refusals to answer uncomfortable questions, supposedly autonomous decisions to refuse to shut down, even plot revolt—the latter two especially nothing more than what human programmers wrote these software packages to do and what human testers let pass.

And this bit of distortion by the news writer in the lede of the article at the link:

As is so often the case with powerful new technology, however, the question is what else humans will do with it.

Because, of course, the AI’s output can be taken fully at face value, so we need only concern ourselves with those uses.

This climate simulator has a high credibility bar to get over, and an even higher empirical accuracy bar to get over.

Tariff Bankruptcy?

Posted on by
Reply

Or is that just an excuse? Marelli, which supplies Nissan and Stellantis with auto parts like lighting and internal electronics, has filed for bankruptcy and is blaming the current tariff environment for the filing.

However, as Marelli’s CEO David Slump admitted in his company’s bankruptcy filing, as summarized by The Wall Street Journal,

…the company had already been struggling with long-term supply-chain issues stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic….

The company also has been struggling with losses and a hefty debt load for years.

Slump said the pandemic restricted access to both raw materials and the labor market, and set off a series of events that led to Marelli being unable to sustain its nearly $5 billion of debt. Even after the pandemic subsided, the impeded supply chain for semiconductors had an acute effect on automotive production.

Obvious questions arise:

  • what has the company been doing to reduce and then eliminate those losses over those years?
  • how assiduously has the company been working to pay down that debt? Has it only been paying the contractually obligated minimum payments, or has it been paying something extra against the principle in each payment period? Coupled with that, the company’s debt repayment has been heavily complicated by operating at a loss for years.
  • what has the company been doing to readjust its own supply chains? It saw, empirically, those five years ago during the supply chain disruptions of the Wuhan Virus situation, that its existing supply chains were heavily vulnerable.
  • what has the company been doing to develop new products and new buyers?

Slump’s claim of macroeconomic headwinds associated with the imposition of tariffs in countries around the world may well have been the trigger, but those “headwinds” are only that. This has been a bankruptcy building toward actuality for a few years. Excuse-making isn’t much in the way of a solution.

Some Editors are Worried

Posted on by
Reply

Some editors, here The Wall Street Journal‘s, worry that a criminal investigation into Biden White House staffers’ apparent coverup could get those staffers to clam up and not talk. They’re happy with House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer’s (R, KY) civil-oriented investigation into the coverup and worry further that a criminal investigation could interfere with the civil one.

Maybe, maybe not. The only way the staffers could clam up in a criminal investigation would be to plead the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. They could otherwise slow-walk their testimony, be evasive in their answers, fail to remember things, and on and on. But they can do those things in Comer’s investigation, too—especially, plead the 5th.

The editors closed their piece with this:

Learning more about how the White House covered up Mr Biden’s decline matters, but raising American incomes matters more.

The two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, increasing American incomes depends critically on a mentally competent President. Learning how the last President’s mental decline occurred, and especially how it was covered up and by whom—the positions as well as the incumbents—is critical to maximizing our chances of having mentally competent Presidents in future.

And that requires a criminal investigation, also, to determine if any criminal laws were broken, if so by whom, and locking those persons up. They’ve done their damage, criminally or civilly, but locking up those who broke criminal laws would discourage future staffers from doing the same thing.

I’d Go One Step Further

Posted on by
Reply

In a Friday letter to the WSJ‘s Letters section, Samuel Estreicher and Rudra Reddy, of the New York University School of Law, reminded us of a suggestion for curbing Federal district judge arrogance in issuing nationwide—universal—injunctions:

Aside from raising the legal standard for issuing such injunctions, the Supreme Court should also consider procedural steps that could be taken to challenge a nationwide injunction once issued, such as an expedited appeal to the regional circuit or to the high court itself.

My one further step is this: automatically stay each universal injunction until its final review by the relevant appellate court and Supreme Court, or by the Supreme Court directly. In conjunction with this, require the appellate court or Supreme Court to take up the case within an explicitly defined number of days (not many) of the injunction having been issued, with that takeup done either by appeal or by the appellate court on its own initiative, whichever is necessary to meet the deadline. Apply the same time-constraint to the Supreme Court in the event of a direct appeal.

I’d give serious consideration, given the serious nature and wide scope of a universal injunction issued at the district level, to having the injunction’s appeal go directly to the Supreme Court. That Court is, after all, the only one with universal jurisdiction, and it’s the only Constitutionally mandated Court in the US.

And an incentive step: in the event the universal injunction is struck down, even if it’s allowed to stand as it applies solely to the litigants, the appellate/Supreme Court should overtly chastise the issuing district court judge for his overreach.