Tag Archives: ethics

Energy Security

Posted on by
Reply

There’s energy security and there’s energy.

The US could suffer a coast-to-coast blackout if saboteurs knocked out just nine of the country’s 55,000 electric-transmission substations on a scorching summer day[.]

This FERC study also pointed out that it’s not a fixed nine substations; there are various combinations of the nine that can achieve this.  Furthermore, if a transformer manufacturing plant is added to the mix of targets, a memo written by FERC staff for then-FERC Director Jon Wellinghoff warned

Destroy nine interconnection substations and a transformer manufacturer and the entire United States grid would be down for at least 18 months, probably longer[.]

This vulnerability has been known to FERC and others in the Federal government for quite some time, but FERC’s response has been limited to two actions: one has been to order the various utilities to “Handle it, handle it.”

The other has been to cover its own behind by calling out the press that exposed FERC’s failure:

Today’s publication by The Wall Street Journal of sensitive information about the grid undermines the careful work done by professionals who dedicate their careers to providing the American people with a reliable and secure grid.  …  Nonetheless, the publication of other sensitive information is highly irresponsible.  While there may be value in a general discussion of the steps we take to keep the grid safe, the publication of sensitive material about the grid crosses the line from transparency to irresponsibility, and gives those who would do us harm a roadmap to achieve malicious designs.  The American people deserve better.

You read that right.  FERC is busily denigrating those who’ve publicized this vulnerability failure.  What they should be doing is correcting this…weakness.  And explaining how they allowed this weakness to exist 13 years after terrorists attacked so devastatingly.  Or resigning their positions in the disgrace they’ve earned.

The American people do, indeed, deserve better.

Union Greed, Extended

Posted on by
Reply

Included in President Barack Obama’s latest budget proposal was a 1% raise for Federal employees.  Of course, in this time of profligate spending and exploding debt, that’s not enough for public service unions.

David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the nation’s largest federal employee union, said Monday that the 1% increase is “pitiful” and fails to compensate for sacrifice by government workers.

“Federal employees have endured years of pay freezes and cuts in retirement benefits,” Cox said in a statement.  “Federal employees deserve a meaningful pay raise, not a token increase that will be more than eaten up by rising living costs, including higher retirement and healthcare costs.”

And

Union leaders argue the planned increase is not enough to compensate for recent hardships endured by federal workers, who will see an estimated $120 billion in lower wages and benefits during the next decade due to the pay freezes, according to the American Federation of Government Employees.

“I strongly believe that federal employees deserve more, and this amount is inadequate,” [National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen] Kelley [said].  “There is no question in my mind that inadequate raises will have consequences on recruitment and retention.”

All Americans have been sacrificing in this failed recovery, especially in the private sector, where too many have no job at all in which to get a 1% pay raise, and some Americans have been sacrificing far more in defense of this country—and these government unions—against threats and attacks by our enemies.  Government union employees are hardly special, except perhaps in their own minds.  If government employees don’t like their “rewards” for doing their jobs, they don’t have to stay in those jobs.  Not even government employment is a jobs welfare program.

These guys “deserve” a pay raise based on what useful criteria?  The actual “meritorious” job performance of the IRS?  Of State?  DoJ?

What rising living costs are being claimed in an environment of artificially depressed interest rates and low inflation?

Rising healthcare costs?  You mean Obamacare, which you guys (and your private sector counterparts) enthusiastically supported?

Beuller? Beuller?  Anyone?

The bit about lower future wages and benefits is especially…amusing.  This is of a piece with the fantasy of future-year “cuts” that exist only in the minds of those trapped in the Beltway Imaginary Friends World.

As to those cried over consequences to recruitment and retention, that works for me; we have too many Federal employees, anyway.  During the recent Democratic Party shutdown of the government, the EPA rated 94% of its employees non-essential, for instance.  And see my earlier remark about nobody being held in a government job against his will.

Random Pseudo-Thoughts on Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Erin Ching ’16, of Swarthmore College, without a trace of irony:

What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.  I don’t think we should be tolerating [Christian thinker Robert George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.

Sandra Korn, ’14, of Harvard:

[T]the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me.  After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication.  Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities.

And

…why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

This is what we’re teaching at our colleges and universities?  Maybe there’s too much “academic” freedom for the students, and not enough teaching of rigorous thinking.  Which flows from too much “academic” freedom of a different sort for the professors and their failure to teach the techniques of rigorous thinking.

h/t Robby Soave of The Daily Caller

Due Process, Progressive Style

Posted on by
Reply

During a confab at the University of Virginia concerning college students and sexual misconduct, the following remarks were made in all seriousness:

Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College, a position newly created just for her:

Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation? If we know that a person is reasonably a threat to our community, why are we not removing them and protecting the safety of our students?  It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students.  And higher education is not a right.  Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege.

Childress went on to claim that 90%-95% of sexual…misconducts…are unreported, committed by repeat offenders, and intentional.  She seems not to have disclosed how she knows the per cents of unreporteds, despite their not having been, you know, reported.  She also seems not to care that due process is a fundamental right, acknowledged in the 5th Amendment—which Amendment, as well as the Constitution as a whole, most assuredly are not waived at the campus gate.

But wait—there’s more!  Linda Fairstein, Senior Advisor for the Sexual Misconduct Consulting Group at K2 Intelligence, told the panel that criminal acts

should only be handled in the criminal justice system.

But only if the criminal justice system gets it right.  If not, the college administrators must step in and administer justice.  After all, a prosecutor might decide there isn’t enough of a case from which to get a conviction.  Properly administered justice, then, must depend not on an actual crime’s beyond reasonable doubt, but on the much more conveniently squishy “preponderance of the evidence;” just 50.1% of certainty.  Because

If there’s no other forum, now it’s a matter of getting it right.

Never mind that it was done right in the first place, by the criminal justice system.  If there’s no case, there’s no case.  Americans, even students on a college campus, remain innocent until proven guilty—not until a college administrator gets the outcome he wants.

There’s nothing more naked, more despotic, more anti-American than guilt by accusation.

Progressive Gun Rights

Posted on by
Reply

…are what government says they are.  Last week, though, the 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, struck down a San Diego County, California law that asserted exactly that.  This law

requir[ed] residents to show a “pressing need” in order to get a permit to carry weapons in public.

However,

The judges found that in order to receive a permit, a person need only show a desire to defend himself outside the home.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, writing for the court, clearly does understand the situation.  Addressing three other Appellate Court rulings upholding public carry restrictions (a fourth Appellate Court struck such restrictions), he wrote

they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense reasons.

Jon Lowy, Director, Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, demurred, however:

Neither history nor precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined…have no good cause or qualifications to do so.

Rights are what a Progressive government says they are, according to this Progressive.

No, Mr Lowry.  You clearly do not understand inalienable rights, nor our Constitution.  The right to life is inalienable, and it carries with it the inalienable right to self-defense.  Neither are “concocted rights.”  These rights, moreover, carry within them the right to possess the means with which to carry out that defense.  Everywhere.  These inalienable rights are not at all limited to places convenient to government.  Full Stop.

Moreover, the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The binding document, within which our governments—at all levels—must operate, has said all there is to say on our right to keep and bear arms.  Especially in public.  Governments have very little at all to add regarding “good cause or qualifications.”  Full Stop.