Tag Archives: ethics

Not at all Baffling

Posted on by
Reply

Last weekend, the San Francisco 49ers and the Los Angeles Rams played an NFL football game. With four seconds to go in the game, and the Rams in possession and down by ten, they went for—and made—a field goal. No time left, and the Rams lose by seven. Had they gone for a touchdown (not a pipe dream, the line of scrimmage was the 49ers’ 20 yard line) and made that, they would have lost by three (or two had they then chosen a two-point conversion). Fail on the touchdown try, and they’d have lost by those ten. Some folks thought the Rams’ decision was “baffling.”

But maybe losing by seven points was all they needed.

By game start, the betting spread on the game had settled at the 49ers winning by 7 points or 7.5 points, depending on the betting parlor. (Lots of parlors don’t like gambling ties, and that half-point in the spread eliminates those.) By losing by 7 instead of by 10, they beat the spread, and the field goal was a surer thing than going for the touchdown. The parlors paid holders of the correct side of the 7.5 point spread, and they refunded all bets on the 7 point spread (one reason parlors don’t like ties).

The Rams coach, Sean McVay, has a different take on his decision. Before the field goal’s prior play, he intended that prior play simply to get them into field goal range, and with time on the clock, hit the field goal, recover an ensuing onside kick, and go for the tie or win. In the realization, though, the down and in (in-cut) ran longer on the field and on the clock than expected so there wasn’t time left–those four seconds–to hit the field goal, get the onside kick, and…. At that point, he simply decided to stick with the field goal. He says he was unaware of the betting line [bowlegs in the original]:

Apparently, (Rams V.P. of communications) Artis (Twyman) told me there’s a lot of people in Vegas pissed off about that decision. I clearly was not aware of that stuff[.]

The first-linked article went on at some length about the spread and the field goal, but it missed the larger point: this is the impact of allowing gambling on professional sports, even if McVay, on the sidelines, wasn’t aware of the betting line. The mere discussion of the betting implications demonstrates the vulnerability.

More Witness Intimidation?

Posted on by
Reply

Now Hunter Biden is suing the IRS and referencing one of its whistleblowers ostensibly for illegally disclosing private tax matters to the public. Never mind that what was revealed was matters relating the DoJ’s naked interference into investigations of Offspring Biden’s tax peccadillos.

But wait.

Biden’s lawyers suit documents appear[] to misquote IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, and those lawyers alter[ed] the facts regarding testimony from an FBI official about the Hunter Biden investigation [brackets in the original].

During an interview that aired Aug. 1, 2023, on Fox News, “Mr Shapley alleged that FBI General Counsel, Jason Jones ‘was given a letter the Sunday before [his July 17 deposition before the House Oversight Committee] from DOJ basically telling him not to talk,'” the lawsuit states.
The entire quote from Shapley on Fox News‘ America’s Newsroom is: “For example, the FBI SSA that testified for the House Ways and Means Committee, he was given a letter the Sunday before from DOJ basically telling him not to talk. And I know that he could have confirmed additional material facts on this investigation.”

And his lawyers are lying about the facts of the case. Lying, not making mistaken claims: these are highly talented and heavily trained lawyers and words are their stock in trade. They knew what they wrote in their complaint, they knew what they were going to write when they formed the thoughts, and they know what they’ve written after the fact.

The former agent [whom The New York Post identified as Joe Gordon] testified to the Oversight Committee on July 17 that the FBI “asked us to, quote, decline to respond to questions seeking nonpublic information likely covered by one or more components of executive privilege or other significantly—or other significant confidentiality interests…we intend to abide by and follow the Department’s guidance and expectations.”

This just seems like another method for intimidating the witnesses involved in the Joe Biden & Son potential criminal activities.

Ransom

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what President Joe Biden (D) paid for five Americans kidnapped by Iran—$6 billion worth of ransom. Here’s Biden’s disingenuous (at best) claim:

Today [18 Sep 2023], five innocent Americans who were imprisoned in Iran are finally coming home…after enduring years of agony, uncertainty, and suffering[.]

Translation: Today, the United States government aided and abetted a criminal entity in the pursuance of its crimes by rewarding Iran for its crime of kidnapping.

Paying this ransom has just put a price tag on all Americans traveling overseas, and especially in the Middle East. Worse, that price has gone sky high: Biden has set the reserve price at $1.2 billion per American.

Biden’s dishonest rationalization, through a carefully anonymous senior administration official, for paying the Iranian ransom:

The alternative is these Americans never come home.

Never mind that lots of prior administrations—not just the immediately prior Trump administration—had brought kidnapped Americans home from a variety of criminal enterprises, not only Iran, without paying any ransom.

That’s not all. In addition to upping the incentive for kidnapping and raising the ransom requirement, Biden has personally funded further Iranian terrorist and terrorist-supporting activities for Iran, to the tune of $6 billion that Iran didn’t have last Sunday.

Talking about the Weather

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Hunter Biden, Devon Archer—both Burisma board of directors members at the time—then-Vice President Joe Biden, and Marc Holtzman discussed in the Vice President’s Naval Observatory residence. Or maybe not.

Holtzman wanted to advocate for former Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Massimov—today imprisoned in his country on treason charges—to become the next United Nations Secretary General.

The quid pro quo:

Hunter Biden and Archer hoped Holtzman—then the top official at Kazakhstan’s largest bank—could help deliver an energy deal for their Burisma client in Ukraine with Kazakhstan. Joe Biden was in a position to influence both.

The quid pro for the quid pro quo:

The other reasons for Massimov were Burisma Eurasia, because he was the Prime Minister, and Burisma was trying to expand its businesses, so I [Archer] leveraged the relationship to introduce him to the company….

This is the level of corruption that the President Joe Biden (D) syndicate is engaged in. That corruption and the legacy press’ collusion in it continue today. Biden’s White House Counsel, through his spokesman,

sent a memo Tuesday, titled, “It’s Time For The Media To Do More To Scrutinize House Republicans’ Demonstrably False Claims That They’re Basing Impeachment Stunt On”….

This is Biden’s diktat to the legacy press regarding the “news coverage” they’re required to do.

House Republican leaders should be held accountable…

And

As you begin to cover the House GOP’s impeachment push more intensely….

The Biden instruction to the legacy media can be read here.

Greedy UAW

Posted on by
Reply

The United Automobile Workers Union, per its president Shawn Fain, is threatening to strike the three automakers GM, Ford, and Stellantis (nee Chrysler) simultaneously after midnight Thursday (as I write Thursday midday). The union is demanding

  • 36% pay raises over the next four years
  • raises to correspond to the cost of living
  • an end to tiered-wages for factory jobs
  • a 32-hour work week with 40 hours of pay
  • pension increases

Some of those would seem legitimate, or at least open to discussion, and typical union wants that most employers could find some sort of agreement on. The pay raise demand is egregious, and the demand to be paid for hours not worked is simply greedy, glorified featherbedding.

Furthermore, the strike is a direct attack on the companies’ ability to function at all: by the design and purpose of the strike, it closes the businesses and prevents it from earning any revenue. From that, it closely approaches extortion. In the present case, the UAW plans to maximize the damage they intend to inflict with what Fain is calling a “Stand Up Strike:”

“…keep the companies guessing as to where and when the next local walkout would be,” Fain said.

The car companies need to stand tall and refuse to negotiate as long as the union holds this metaphorical gun to their heads.

Aside from that, in a world where unions weren’t given special considerations—they’re even exempt from antitrust law, even though they have a monopoly on workforces in union shops and in unionized industries like the auto manufacturing of Michigan—such overt attacks would invalidate any contract to which management is coerced into agreeing.

Update: The UAW has, indeed, struck all three automakers, one major plant each. The union has shut down GM’s Wentzville, MO, plant, a 4.25 million sq-ft facility that was producing mid-size trucks and full-size vans under the GMC and Chevrolet brands; Stellantis’ Toledo, OH, 3.64 million sq-ft facility that was producing Jeep Wranglers and Jeep Gladiators; and Ford’s Wayne, MI, 5 million sq-ft facility that was producing Rangers and Broncos.