Tag Archives: ethics

Two Political Contestants

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Ilhan Omar is up for reelection to our House of Representatives in Minnesota’s 5th District.  Dalia al-Aqidi is a Republican candidate for that seat and that office.  Some remarks by each are dispositive of their attitudes toward America and us fellow Americans.

Omar:

I am, Hijabi, Muslim, Black, Foreign born, Refugee, Somali[.]
Easily triggering conservatives, Right wing bloggers, anti Muslim bigots, tinfoil conspiracy theorists, birthers, pay me a [dollar] to bash Muslims fraudsters, pro-occupation groups and every single xenophobe since 2016.

Al-Aqidi:

I am an American[.]
I came to the US more than 25 years ago. So, basically, I’m not a refugee anymore. I’m not an Iraqi anymore. I’m an American. Period[.]

The distinction couldn’t be starker, or the choice clearer.

Progressive-Democrats’ Tuesday Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Some are calling it rowdy; others say raucous.  There’s this more concrete description, too, from Tony Katz:

Everyone else is talking to each other, yelling at each other, yelling at the moderators, yelling at the guy in the rafters….

And talking over each other, interrupting each other, trying to drown out each other. Recall the 2015-2016 Republican primary debates—they were rowdy, often rude, as participants occasionally interrupted or tried to talk over each other.  Tuesday’s Progressive-Democrat debate was nothing but a constant rolling drumbeat of that.

I have a different take on that debate from “some,” “others,” and Katz.

This debate was a clear and present demonstration of Progressive-Democrats’ view of free speech.  Their interruptions and talkings-over were not occasional, nor were they done in the heat of the moment, for all the zeal of their arguments.

No, their interruptions and talkings-over were demonstrative of their attitude toward the speech of anyone who disagrees with them.  What any particular Progressive-Democrat decides he has to say is the only thing worth hearing.  What others have to say—are already saying—is just too trivial, too unimportant to waste time on; the new speaker will just start talking, and those others should just shut up.

It’s of a piece with one of them insisting that the others should drop out of the primaries altogether and get out of his way.

Tuesday’s verbal melee also was demonstrative of their views of us in the audience and in TV viewer-land.  Progressive-Democrats will tell us what we should hear; they will tell us what we will be permitted to hear. We’re wholly unfit to decide that for ourselves.

And that’s what they’ll inflict on our free speech rights if they gain the White House and the Senate and hold the House. Freedom’s just another word for “Shut up; I’m talking.”

Journalistic Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the People’s Republic of China expelling three Wall Street Journal journalists over their article headlined China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia that an outside contributor to the WSJ had written.

Here’s the cynicism of the PRC detractors of that headline;

The phrase “sick man of Asia” was used by outsiders and Chinese intellectuals to refer to a weakened China exploited by European powers and Japan in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

What the phrase also harkens back to, and which was the referent used by the WSJ headline writer, was the disaster that was Turkey 100+ years ago: the sick man of Europe.  The phrase also goes to a more recent usage: Germany as the sick man of Europe as its economy was in long-term stagnation during the late middle 20th century.

The complainers’ decision to focus on the one, much older, interpretation while carefully ignoring the newer referents illustrates their own determination to find things by which to be offended so they can deprecate others.

The timidity comes from the WSJ‘s own journalists.

Some Journal staffers have signed an internal letter calling on the newspaper to apologize for the headline to anyone who was offended, while condemning the expulsions and pledging not to allow the Chinese government to influence the Journal‘s coverage.

Nonsense. No one serious was offended, so no apology should even be under consideration.

On the other hand, opinion often offends, especially when it’s logically formed and supported with fact, so no apology should even be under consideration. The truth often offends, especially when it’s the whole truth, and not just a carefully edited subset of it, so no apology should even be under consideration.

Even were an apology warranted, a legitimately done one couldn’t possibly include weasel-words, or excuses, or “you were wrong, too” claims.

In Which a Supreme Court Justice is Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor didn’t just get it wrong in her dissent, she is wrong.

In Wolf v Cook County, the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s expansion of its public charge rule regarding immigrant visas to include a bar on

non-cash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), forms of Medicaid, and certain housing assistance….

Sotomayor opened her dissent from the Court’s decision with this:

Today’s decision follows a now-familiar pattern. The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not. The Government insists—even though review in a court of appeals is imminent—that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay. And the Court yields.

Lower courts said it two times—it must be true. Lower courts have already said it. The superior court is obliged, somehow, to accede to its subordinates.

Besides: a court of appeals (the 7th Circuit) is going to hear oral argument this week as I write. Oral argument. Not review the written submissions, much less rule; that usually comes some indeterminate amount of time, usually measured in weeks, later. Especially if lower courts, like Sotomayor here, don’t see the matter as the emergency that the government avers.

She went on:

But this application is perhaps even more concerning than past ones. Just weeks ago, this Court granted a stay of a different decision involving the same administrative rule at issue here, after the Government professed urgency because of the form of relief granted in the prior case—a nationwide injunction.

This is fractured logic, and Sotomayor knows better. The Court objected to the nationwide aspect of that district court ruling because that lower court badly overstepped its bounds. And having lifted the nationwide injunction, the Court had no reason to reach the emergency aspect of the situation.

And this:

The Government’s professed harm, therefore, boils down to an inability to enforce its immigration goals, possibly in only the immediate term, in one of 50 States. It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it.

Because the government should not—of course!—be allowed to enforce its immigration goals. And because unless the harm isn’t nationwide, can the harm only be limited to a single State in our Union, the harm doesn’t matter. Never mind that much of the cost on not enforcing in the one State, Illinois, will be borne by that one State—and Illinois is, by many definitions, bankrupt already.

And now Sotomayor’s arrogant self-importance begins to be revealed:

…even putting aside the dissent of four Justices in the New York cases and the plaintiffs’ weighty arguments on the merits….

The Liberal minority disagreed. And her prejudgment of the matter: the plaintiffs’ weighty arguments on the merits.

And Sotomayor closed with this [citations omitted]:

…most troublingly, the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others. This Court often permits executions—where the risk of irreparable harm is the loss of life—to proceed, justifying many of those decisions on purported failures “to raise any potentially meritorious claims in a timely manner.” … Yet the Court’s concerns over quick decisions wither when prodded by the Government in far less compelling circumstances—where the Government itself chose to wait to seek relief, and where its claimed harm is continuation of a 20-year status quo in one State. I fear that this disparity in treatment erodes the fair and balanced decision-making process that this Court must strive to protect.

Never mind the non sequitur nature of her analogy. The execution cases that the Court has declined to (further) stay are cases that have been appealed repeatedly and on successively flimsier grounds (for the most part). They’ve already been extensively adjudicated, and further delay would at best be unnecessary—that ground having already been plowed lots of times—and would border on violation of the 8th Amendment.

On the other hand, the harm done by 20 years of too narrow (as now realized) enforcement of the public charge rule would be extended by not lifting injunctions against its enforcement pending final adjudication.

But her position is of a piece with her claim to personal superiority.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

It’s hard for her bias to get any more blatant.

Finally,

I respectfully dissent.

There’s nothing respectful about her dissent; she attacked her fellow jurists’ integrity and morality, and she insulted the intelligence of all of us.

The Supreme Court’s stay of the Cook County case and Sotomayor’s dissent can be seen here.

Deliberately Ignorant

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article about the espionage and intellectual property theft threat posed by the People’s Republic of China, Boston University William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor artificial intelligence researcher H Eugene Stanley said this when his PRC research collaborator—whom he enthusiastically took on—said this when she was arrested for lying on her visa and for potential espionage:

I’m not interested at all in politics. I’m a scientist.

And

If a person anywhere in the world wants to come to my group, and they have the money to come, I say why not?

Wow. He might want to review the musings of Plato and Aristotle on politics and individuals’ relationship with politics.

And this, as paraphrased by the WSJ:

Mr Stanley said that he receives droves of research requests and that he vets candidates’ scientific credentials. A Boston University spokesman said the school doesn’t engage in classified research and relies on the State Department to screen foreign applicants for national-security risks.

Of course. It’s someone else’s responsibility. Only Government should do, not each of us.

That “research” collaborator?

[F]ederal prosecutors accused Yanqing Ye of acting as an agent of a foreign government. On her application for a J-1 visa used for scholarly exchanges, she said she was a student at [the People’s Republic of] China’s National University of Defense Technology, but omitted that she was a lieutenant in the PLA….

On being asked whether it was useful to work with scholars of the PRC’s National University of Defense Technology, which was the school claimed by Ye and by her handler Kewei Yang on a paper co-written by the two along with Stanley, he responded

Is it a bad place? I don’t know[.]

Here is an example of the failure of the ideology that insists that Government is the solution, of the passivity that lets Government handle personal responsibilities exclusively rather than acting as support for each of us handling our own duties.

The proximate solution? In the particular case, bar Stanley from any government research funding, which the school claims he has none of presently, and bar Boston University from government funding until it cleans up the understanding of ethics and of personal responsibility on the part of its staff and students.