Tag Archives: ethics

Boeing and Foolish Questions

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article on the tortuous path to criminal prosecution that prosecutors would have in bringing Boeing to criminal trial over its 737 MAX crashes, Andrew Tangel, Jacob Gershman, and Andy Pasztor asked what seems to me to be a very narrow, short-sighted question.

Should prosecutors weigh Boeing’s importance to the economy and national security when deciding how to proceed with a criminal case over the 737 MAX crashes?

Of course prosecutors should—must—not. What’s truly important is the concept of weighing the risks to liberty and to national security of criminals being too big to be punished. We can never allow such a thing to enter even the run-up to criminal prosecutions.

If criminal actions can be seriously alleged against Boeing—based on the company’s behaviors—the company must come to trial. Only if found guilty, so there’d be a criminal sanction phase, could Boeing’s importance to our economy and our national security legitimately be considered—and then, not on the magnitude of the penalty(s), which absolutely must fit the crime(s), but only on the penalty(s)’s schedules of application, with interest accruing on any fiscal penalties not paid “promptly.”

The question of criminal trials for various individuals of Boeing’s management (and its aircraft testing function?) is an entirely separate matter.  The company’s importance to anything is wholly irrelevant here; the company can easily survive any number of its managers being locked up in a Federal hoosegow.

Separating Blue and Red America

Posted on by
Reply

A growing number of local television stations across the country are reviving an older practice of broadcasting our national anthem once a day, pairing it with all-American imagery that further celebrates our nation.

Gray and Nexstar executives [two of the companies whose stations have revived broadcasting our anthem] said the reason to bring back the anthem was simple: encouraging national unity at a time of deep division in the country[.]

The stations broadcast our anthem in the wee hours of the morning, reminiscent of how our stations used to sign off for the night around midnight, broadcasting our anthem and showing imagery as part of the sign-off.

The New York Times disagrees; it says this is a divisive thing to do; it divides Blue America from Red America.  That’s the message of their Julia Jacobs in her column last week.

The decision to revive the anthem tradition comes at a time when overt allegiance to “The Star-Spangled Banner” has become one of the lines that separate blue and red America[.]

The NYT isn’t alone.  Here’s a University of Michigan music professor, Mark Clague:

It is somewhat provocative to bring the anthem to the fore in a new way at a moment of tension in this country[.]

Divisive, provocative to play our national anthem, to celebrate our great nation.  Wow.

This piece was published a week ago, and still not a single Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential or Congressional candidate has objected to the NYT‘s, or to Jacobs’ (or Clague’s), claim that playing our national anthem is bad.

That’s highly instructive, and it should inform our voting decisions in a year.

Typical

Posted on by
Reply

Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, has struck again.  Now he’s banning “all political advertising on Twitter globally.”  He’s justifying this move with this bit of fantastical rationalization:

We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.

I suppose, then, he believes television, radio, print media—along with his competitors, Facebook, Alphabet, et al.—also should ban political advertising on their platforms.  After all, political message reach should be earned, not bought.

A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people.

This contempt for ordinary Americans is just Liberal Know Better-ism. No one is forced to read the material whose promotion is paid for; we all can make our own decisions to read or to scroll past. It’s even already clearly identified by Dorsey’s minions as promoted material.  Beyond that, it may be the case, especially with the rapidity with which the Twitter feed runs, that the first many folks learn of a political message is when a promoted one appears at the top of their feed.

We don’t need the Big Brothers of the Left to lead us around by the nose, instructing us on what we’re to read or not to read.

Maybe Dorsey should just get out of the censorship business.

A Strike “Template”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the UAW hopes to use its bludgeon of GM as when the union turns to Ford and Fiat Chrysler.

The United Auto Workers will use the agreement at GM as a template that is expected to reach similar terms on wages and benefits in separate contract talks with Ford Motor Co and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles….

However, there’s no reason for Ford or Fiat Chrysler to succumb to this.  These are three separate companies, with separate goals, revenue streams, and cost structures; there should be three separate contracts with the UAW.

There’s also no reason for Ford or Fiat Chrysler to succumb to UAW’s move just because the union wants a common contract. What’s good for GM is not what’s good for Ford or Fiat Chrysler, especially since GM gave away so much of their farm, not just to end a strike, but to agree to higher costs solely to try to inflict those increased costs on their rivals. GM is well aware of the UAW’s auto industry “negotiating” pattern.

There’s also no reason for Ford or Fiat Chrysler to succumb to UAW’s move because the union’s anti-GM strike has drastically drawn down its strike fund and reduced its ability to pay its striking union members. UAW can’t hack, or can’t so easily hack, a prolonged strike against either company, much less both of them. The UAW also needs to consider the effects of its strike(s) on surrounding businesses: suppliers, suppliers of the suppliers, other businesses that serve the workers of those suppliers with recreation, restaurants, theaters, and the like.

Update: Since I wrote this, Ford has acceded to UAW demands, and they did so quickly.

Doctorings

Posted on by
Reply

And we have to learn about this from a German newspaper.  Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council functionary in the Trump administration, appeared in Congressman and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) Star Chamber earlier.  Among other things, he claimed, on the matter of asking Ukraine to investigate corruption, including Burisma’s and the Bidens’ possible roles in the corruption,

was “inappropriate.” It “had nothing to do with national security,” he said he told [US Ambassador to the EU Gordon] Sondland.

Because, to this NSC staffer, everything looks like a national security thing.  There couldn’t possibly be any other purpose to a suggestion, like, say, a law enforcement thing, where ordinary corruption might involve American citizens.

But here’s the bit that we have to read about in other nations first because the American NLMSM didn’t want to mention it until Congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) leaked it from Vindman’s official secret testimony:

He [Vindman] added that he had tried to fill in the word “Burisma” which was omitted from the White House’s rough transcript of the telephone call.

Vindman confessed to trying to doctor the transcript of the call. And we’re supposed to believe his testimony.

Aside: there’s nothing “rough” about the transcript; it is a plain transcript, made from notes taken during the telecon and from notes made immediately after it with the express purpose of producing a transcript. That Vindman had access to it for his attempted doctoring is a demonstration that the transcript was circulated among those present at the telecon to confirm its accuracy. Just like a trial court transcript is agreed by both defense and prosecution/plaintiff council.