Tag Archives: ethics

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston had this on the importance of “diversity and inclusion” relative to combat capability:

Diversity is a number—do you have people that don’t look or think like you in the room? Inclusion is listening and valuing those people[.]

Our army’s Training and Doctrine Command, via its official twitter account had this:

Inclusion & Diversity is what makes our [U.S. Army] better.

No. What makes our army—our military establishment in general—is whether we have soldiers and formations of soldiers who are capable, in defense of our nation and when called of our friends and allies, of successfully engaging, pursuing, and killing our enemies’ soldiers, our enemies’ formations, our enemies’ capability of mounting further attacks.

That’s also who we should see “in the room.” And no one else. Diversity will fall out of that, if we do a proper job of training for combat, rather than for political correctness. Every combat or combat support training graduate will be included—and that’s the inclusiveness that we need.

Our current military management’s (we seem to have a serious lack of leadership) emphasis on “diversity and inclusion” for their own sake, as epitomized by Grinston, is divisive, it’s stinking racism and sexism.

Grinston had the…political correctness…to make his claim against the backdrop of the travesty exploding in Afghanistan. About that contrast, Marine veteran Jessie Jane Duff is on the right track [emphasis hers].

This is what matters: 11 Marines and one Navy Corpsman killed. Americans.
I’m positive they didn’t look or think like you, Sergeant Major. Every flag drapped coffin looks the same.
We have an #AfghanistanCrisis and this is your tweet. Shameful.

Maybe it’s time to clear out the foolish and the idiotic who choose not to understand what it takes to have an effective military. Maybe it’s time to discharge or retire our military managers, from the Secretary of Defense and JCS Chief on down through most of the flag and GS equivalents in the Pentagon.

Alternatively

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has told the recalcitrant (because this is a more-or-less family blog) Maricopa County management folks to

comply with a state Senate subpoena and turn over its election routers to auditors or risk losing millions of dollars in state aid.

Specifically,

If MCBOS fails to resolve the violation within 30 days, the AGO, in accordance with state law, will notify the Arizona Treasurer to withhold state revenue from Maricopa County until MCBOS complies[.]

The withheld amount would run to $700 million, which amounts to roughly 23% of Maricopa’s 2020 budget.

It’s a nice step, but 30 more days? Maricopa’s managers have been ignoring the State Senate’s subpoena for some months already.

Alternatively, the AG or Governor could send the State Troopers in to execute the subpoena by seizing the routers and arresting any Maricopa County person who gets in the way of the execution.

A Letter Writer Points Out a Fact

Posted on by
Reply

Wayne Detring makes what should be a statement of the obvious in his Letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters page.

Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from bringing or defending a proceeding unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so.

Granted, that’s not strictly binding on lawyers, but it is a strong statement of what’s not acceptable for lawyers to do.

Detring cited further:

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing or submitting a pleading, an attorney certifies that it is not presented for any improper purpose, such as to “cause unnecessary delay.” Rule 11 also provides a process for sanctioning violators.

That Rule is binding on lawyers.  With that background, he continued:

President Biden (Mr Garland’s client) publicly stated he and his staff were “unable to find the legal authority” for the executive order despite checking multiple times. He also admitted he couldn’t in good faith defend the order. But, the president said, “by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give additional time” for him to enforce his illegal order.

And the case:

Ordinary practicing attorneys would be in grave danger of sanctions for filing a pleading knowingly unsupported by law or fact, and by admittedly filing the pleading for the purpose of delay. The US attorney general should be no exception. In fact, those in power should be held to a stricter standard.

However, the only facility for bringing AG Garland to justice under Rule 11 (or the ABA’s Rule 3.1) is the Progressive-Democrat-controlled Congress. Those worthies are unlikely to worry about the misbehaviors of one of their own (and neither have been Republicans in their turn).

Sadly, rather than stricter standards, our Government personages are held to lesser standards than the rest of us. Which puts it on the rest of us to rectify the matter ourselves in 2022 and 2024.

We’re So Special

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the attitude of Progressive-Democrats, as illustrated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA).

She held an expensive fundraiser last weekend while her constituents [were] still bound to COVID-19 regulations, which require, among other things, masks to be worn when people are in close proximity with each other.

The principals, from Pelosi to her bank book-opening attendees were maskless. Every single one of them.

On the other hand, the wait staff—every single one of them—had to wear the masks. Because they’re just hir’d he’p; they don’t matter so much.

Congressman Byron Donalds’ (R, FL) description is spot on and broadly inclusive:

They make all their rules for the American people but they don’t follow them. They tell the poor of America what needs to be done but they don’t actually do it themselves. So, they love having crystal on a table and getting jumbo lump crab and all that good stuff without masks, but when it comes to the American people, like let’s say in the city of New York, they are not allowed to go in a restaurant if they don’t present their vaccine card[.]

Because our Betters are Special.

A California Judge Has Spoken

Posted on by
Reply

Recall California Proposition 22, which exempted Uber Technologies Inc, Lyft Inc, and DoorDash Inc from a California state gig law that, in essence, requires businesses to reclassify their gig associates from independent contractors to employees. That proposition was passed overwhelmingly by the citizens of California.

A California state judge ruled last Friday that the proposition was unconstitutional and so unenforceable. His rationale:

Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said in Friday’s ruling that Proposition 22 limits the state legislature’s authority and its ability to pass future legislation, which is unconstitutional.

The judge has ruled that the people are not allowed to limit the authority of their employee, of their government. Keep in mind that, although Roesch couched his ruling in terms of the State’s legislative branch, his own judiciary branch is a part of that government whose authority he’s protecting.

The California government (including Roesch, et al., mind you) is not subordinate to the citizens of California?

Here’s the preamble to the California State constitution, which according to Roesch has no meaning.

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

It used to be the People of California’s constitution, not the State judiciary’s.

Here’s Art II, Sect 1:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

Here’s Art II, Sect 10(a):

An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

Unless a member of the State’s government, here a judge, demurs. Then the people’s decision is set aside. Because the People are no longer sovereign in California.

Hmm….