Tag Archives: ethics

Pleas?

Posted on by
Reply

There seems to be a movement toward plea bargaining in the university bought-admissions scandal.

A father who allegedly bought water polo gear on Amazon.com to falsely portray his son as a competitive player and ease the boy’s admission into the University of Southern California is in plea discussions for his role in the nationwide college-admissions scandal.

And

“Mr Sloane and the Government are currently in discussions that are calculated to resolve this matter without a trial and reasonably expect that will occur,” his lawyers said in a court filing late Tuesday, asking that Mr Sloane not be required to appear in federal court here Wednesday.

Sloane’s not the only one, though.  What’s up with this?

There should be no pleas anywhere on this.  These were cold-blooded, premeditated crimes.  The damage done by them is far-ranging, from the abuse of the kids whose admission was bought, thereby denying them their own opportunities for the sake of their so-called parents’ egos to the kids who were denied admission because the seats for which they were competing were bought out from under them.

Hale the accused into court, hold the trials, and if convicted, lock the felons up for a very long time.

Protection

Posted on by
Reply

Facebook’s MFWIC Mark Zuckerberg wants the Federal government to regulate the industry in which Facebook plays such a significant role. As cited by The Wall Street Journal, Zuckerberg claims that

such intervention is vital to protect both the welfare of users and the fundamental values of an open internet.

He closed his op-ed, originally published in WaPo and the Irish news outlet Independent with this gem:

People shouldn’t have to rely on individual companies addressing these issues by themselves….

People shouldn’t have to rely on Government to dictate to private enterprise, and those enterprises’ leaders and managers need not be told what to do by the men of Government.  It’s entirely appropriate for people to expect “individual companies” to behave honestly and honorably—to address these issues to customers’ satisfaction without Government involvement.  After all, the managers of those companies are grown, adult human beings who clearly understand the difference between right and wrong.  And we customers clearly can withhold our custom from misbehaving businesses; we need no Government instruction for that, or Government protection from those misbehaviors.

Zuckerberg knows full well what regulations are necessary for the purpose.  Which means he knows full well the internal controls he needs to implement—wholly voluntarily and without Government intervention, or even prodding—to achieve those regulatory goals.

Instructively, Zuckerberg is not alone.  Apple’s Tim Cook and Alphabet’s Google honcho Sundar Pichai agree with him: they also want Government to impose “stricter privacy rules.”

In the end, though Zuckerberg, Cook, and Pichai aren’t interested in protecting consumers, much less their own—as Zuckerberg and Pichai have demonstrated repeatedly with Facebook’s and Google’s cavalier attitude toward customer’s privacy and control over personal data, and Cook’s willingness to work with the People’s Republic of China’s government to invade that nation’s citizen privacy in the name of government censorship.

No, all Zuckerberg (along with his fellow protectee wannbes) want is protection of their companies from competitors—even though their very size and market share afford all of that that they need.

Blue about Blue Slips?

Posted on by
Reply

For a long time—nearly a century, according to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA)—the Senate had a tradition (not a rule) that Senators from the home State of a judicial nominee had to approve that nominee—send forward a “blue slip” before that nominee could be considered, or even sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The administration of President Donald Trump has tended to disregard that tradition.  In fact, he’s sent seven—according to Feinstein, again—appellate court nominees to the Senate over “the objection of home-state Democrats” and—the horror—gotten them confirmed, including a number to the California-based 9th Circuit.

Feinstein’s latest peeve concerns Ken Lee and Dan Collins, whom Trump has nominated—to the 9th Circuit.  Both Feinstein and her California colleague, Senator Kamala Harris (D) withheld their blue slips for both of these two judges.

Feinstein is pretending to object on the basis of tradition, which itself cynically holds tradition to be inviolate, no matter the circumstances.

Democratic senators have made and continue to make good faith efforts to find consensus picks for the circuit courts.
As Senator Harris and I have made clear, we’ve been willing to work from the start with this president to choose consensus, mainstream nominees to the 9th Circuit….

Except that they have not. These two nominees, along with the other Trump nominees—and confirmations, including to the 9th—are textualists: they hold that the Constitution (and laws) mean what they say; they are not open to reinterpretation according to a judge’s view of the “needs” of society.  It doesn’t get any more mainstream than that. Indeed, any lack of consensus just shows how out of touch with our supreme Law, how out of the mainstream, modern Liberal judges are.

But the fact is, Feinstein and her fellows are not objecting on the basis of tradition.  They’re objecting on the basis of the loss of their ability to dictate who they will permit to be nominated, their ability to avoid open debate on the fitness of a nominee.

We’ve seen, too, the quality of the “faith” with which Feinstein and her fellows have been willing to work from the start with this president on judicial nominees.  These Progressive-Democrats made that clear with their smear campaign on then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The blue slip policy is a tradition the Progressive-Democrats have badly abused to the point of its partisan destruction.

A Desperate Establishment?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not often I agree with Congresswomen Ayanna Pressley (D, MA) or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY), but on this I do.  It seems that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee intends to blacklist political firms that support primary challenges to current (senior) Progressive-Democratic Party Representatives and Senators in Congress.

Here’s Pressley on the Party’s attempts to limit voter choice:

If the DCCC enacts this policy to blacklist vendors who work with challengers, we risk undermining an entire universe of potential candidates and vendors—especially women and people of color—whose ideas, energy, and innovation need a place in our party[.]

Here’s Ocasio-Cortez’ tweet on the Party’s attempts to limit voter choice:

The @DCCC’s new rule to blacklist+boycott anyone who does business w/ primary challengers is extremely divisive & harmful to the party.
….

Yewbetcha.

This is a shameless attempt to deny American citizens their own choices regarding whom they’ll have represent them in Government.  It’s a demand that putative challengers and us citizens—both—should just sit down, shut up, do what we’re told, and enjoy the portions we’re given.

It’s a mark of the desperation of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s leadership.

It’s instructive of the nature of the Party’s reign were it to succeed in taking over our Federal government.

Take It or Leave Us

Posted on by
Reply

Here is one of the final steps in Brussels’ studied refusal to deal in good faith with Great Britain’s leaving the EU in all the long “negotiations.”  With the Brits’ departure now set for 12 April, the EU’s Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union, Michel Barnier, has issued the EU’s ultimatum:

  • The possibility of a successful “meaningful vote” on the withdrawal agreement in the next few days. “The only way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is and will be through a positive majority. We should continue to make this point in the public debate,” Barnier said.
  • Leaving without an agreement should the meaningful vote fail: “No deal was never my desired or intended scenario, but the EU 27 is more prepared. It becomes day after day more likely.”
  • Requesting an extension to Article 50, should the deal fail. “Such an extension would carry significant risk for the EU,” said Barnier. “A strong justification would be needed.”

In other words, there can be no extension (which would be a foolish, if not humiliating, surrender by Great Britain, in any event) to the departure.

Barnier added, to obfuscate the nature of these “choices,”

If the UK so wish we’re ready to rework the political declaration so long as the principles of the EU are respected.

In other words, the rework will continue to require Great Britain to accede to Continental requirements rather than exercise its own national sovereignty—the purpose of the Brits’ Leave vote.

This is no choice. It’s designed solely to thoroughly denigrate Great Britain both as punishment for Leaving and as a message for other EU nations contemplating going out from the Union.