Tag Archives: ethics

A String’s Attached

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) and his DoEd Secretary Miguel Cardona are trying to rewrite the Title IX statute to bar States from categorically ban[ning] transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.

Never mind that the actual statute, enacted those decades ago, is explicitly designed to give women a fair and reasonably equal opportunity to play sports: if a State school or a local school district has a men’s program, that school or district must fund and provide for a substantially similar program for women.

Now the Biden/Cardona DoEd is proposing a rule that would ignore the sex-based Title IX statute and require biological men be allowed to compete in women’s sports in those schools that get Federal funding.

The proposed rule would establish that policies violate Title IX when they categorically ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity just because of who they are[.]

Never mind that a transgender woman is a man by his biology, by his genes, by his XY chromosome pair.

Never mind that a transgender man is a woman by her biology, by her genes, by her XX chromosome pair.

This is the Biden administration’s open war on women.

My advice to the States: don’t take the Federal funds. The strings attached are more like chains.

NPR’s New Label

Posted on by
Reply

Twitter has applied a US state-affiliated media label to National Public Radio‘s Twitter account. Twitter’s label defines such media as

outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution[.]

What interests me, though, aside from the fact that there is a measure of affiliation just from the fact that the Federal government provides some funding to NPR, is the reaction to the label by NPR‘s CEO John Lansing in his statement—which he posted on Twitter:

NPR and our Member stations are supported by millions of listeners who depend on us for the independent, fact-based journalism we provide[.]

This is mostly irrelevant to whether NPR is state-affiliated. Voice of America, for instance, also is state-affiliated, and it provides fact-based journalism to the world—along with a strong measure of state-provided propaganda.

Mostly irrelevant: there’s this claim from NPR‘s Web site [emphasis in the original]:

Federal funding is essential to public radio’s service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR.

And yet, just above that claim is this graph delineating NPR‘s funding sources as recently as its2020 fiscal year:

Plainly, NPR‘s support does come primarily from Lansing’s millions of listeners. Only 8%, plus a taste, of his funding comes from the Feds. That level may well be important, but it’s far from essential.

Lansing can’t even keep his stories consistent with each other. Which makes his objection even more irrelevant, both on substance and on the funding question.

Even so, that funding gives the Federal government that measure of influence over NPR‘s editorial decisions. And there’s the Federal government’s empirical use of its power to pressure Facebook’s Meta’s and pre-Trump Twitter’s editorial decisions. State-affiliated is warranted.

Sort of aside: it seems likely to this poor, dumb Texan that those State and local governments listed in the graph above, being much closer to Lansing’s millions of listeners than the Federal government, could well fill any shortfall were the Federal government to reduce or eliminate its funding share. That is, if the listeners resident in any of those more localized jurisdictions agreed that NPR was worth their tax money.

Update: As of 12 April, NPR has decided to no longer actively maintain its flagship @NPR Twitter account or any other official NPR accounts on Twitter over the site’s attaching the state-affiliated media label to its posts.

Buh by, luv ya, mean it. Watch out for that door closing behind you.

False Entries

Posted on by
Reply

DA Alvin Bragg’s indictment accuses the defendant [former President Donald Trump (R)] of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE in thirty-four counts.

Thirty-four counts of made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise…, all of them centered on voucher entries into a Detail General Ledger, and check stubs and invoices kept…somewhere.

Thirty-four counts of intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof…. leading into the sentences claiming those false entries. But nowhere does Bragg say who he thinks was the target of the “defraud,” nor does he say what that “another crime” is. Absent a defraud victim, there is no defrauding. By withholding what that other crime is, Bragg is denying the defendant his opportunity—his right—to answer the charge of that other crime.

False entries. Maybe—maybe—three real counts, but cut apart and expanded in 34 of them.

Withholding what that “another crime,” though, 34 times…. How about: false indictment.

 

Bragg’s charging document, the output of his grand jury, can be read here.

“Ladies” is a Microaggression

Posted on by
Reply

A highly qualified educator was offered a position as Superintendent of Easthampton Schools, in Massachusetts. Then he committed the unpardonable and heinous crime of addressing, in an email, the school board’s Chairwoman Cynthia Kwiecinski and Executive Assistant Suzanne Colby as “Ladies.”

Those ladies promptly rescinded the board’s offer as a result of that courtesy. It seems that simple, courteous salutations of respect are now microaggressions in those…persons’…fetid imaginations.

[The unhired educator Vito] Perrone said Kwiecinski told him that using “ladies” as a greeting was hostile and derogatory and that “the fact that he didn’t know that as an educator was a problem,'” he told the [Daily Hampshire] Gazette, adding that she also reprimanded him for using “ladies” as a microaggression.

Perrone’s reaction:

I was shocked. I grew up in a time when “ladies” and “gentlemen” was a sign of respect. I didn’t intend to insult anyone.

Nor did he insult anyone, or at least anyone worth taking seriously. The only ones insulted here are two folks in authority who spend their energy looking for ways to be offended rather than on ways to better educate the children of Easthampton.

Perrone dodged a bullet when that job offer was rescinded; Kwiecinski and Colby demonstrated very clearly the Precious and wrongly focused environment into which he almost stumbled.

“Orderly Implementation”

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Katherine Menendez, of the Federal District of Minnesota, has ruled a Minnesota State law barring 18-20-yr-olds from obtaining handgun carry permits in Minnesota to be unconstitutional.

Based on a careful review of the record, the court finds that defendants have failed to identify analogous regulations that show a historical tradition in America of depriving 18- to 20-year-olds the right to publicly carry a handgun for self-defense. As a result, the age requirement prohibiting persons between the ages of 18 and 20 from obtaining such a permit to carry violates the Second Amendment.

She based that argument on the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen ruling in which the Court explicitly required a showing of a national history of regulation of the type contemplated in this or that gun control legislation.

What’s of particular interest here, though, is Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s reaction to Menendez’ ruling. He wants the judge to stay her ruling pending a potential State appeal, or in the alternative, a stay for 60 days to allow for its orderly implementation.

The first is common enough and not entirely unreasonable. It’s normal to stay a ruling that has a chance of being overruled on appeal in order to prevent the harm that can be done to the ultimately winning side before it wins the appeal.

The last is utterly disingenuous, though. It doesn’t take 60 days to stop blocking 18-20-yr-olds from exercising their Constitutional rights. It doesn’t take a day to do that, with the possible exception of a Sunday, when legal firearm sellers are closed and might need until Monday to receive the rescission of the State law. After all, nothing has changed in any of the other, still in place, requirements surrounding obtaining a firearm; all that’s happening is the removal of one of those requirements.