Tag Archives: ethics

Incompetence

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written before on Federal racism.  In the present case, though the racism may seem apparent, it looks a lot like plain and simple incompetence, instead.  Eric Falkenstein offers this hors d’oeuvre, quoting from a Wall Street Journal article:

Justice says that out of 4.4 million loans approved between 2004 and 2008, 525,000 went to African-American or Hispanic borrowers, of which some 210,000 paid higher fees or rates than the average paid by similarly situated “non-Hispanic White Borrowers.”

It goes without saying large numbers of white borrowers also paid higher than the average of all whites. It also goes without saying large numbers of minorities didn’t pay higher rates, though Justice isn’t interested in the average of what minorities paid, only that some minorities paid higher than the average of whites.

If this sounds like statistical malpractice, it’s apparently habitual. In a rare instance where defendants fought back, two Los Angeles car dealers recently won dismissal of a complaint accusing them of favoring Asian over Hispanic car buyers because 600 of 1,300 “non-Asian” buyers were charged higher loan terms than the average of Asian buyers. Notice that 600 is about half of 1,300. As the dealers noted, Justice’s claim amounts to an assertion “half of one group is above average, which means that the other half is below average.”

The WSJ article itself (also linked to in Falkenstein’s post) goes on:

…experiments…suggest salespeople make generalizations about which groups are likely to bargain hardest.  Even black salespeople have been found to lead off with a higher quote when meeting a black shopper.  Women are said to be less aggressive bargainers than men.  Other generalizations suggest themselves….

Who knows why these differences turn up in the data, but no law of nature says every cultural subgroup must be equal in its determination to cadge every nickel of advantage in every transaction.

What’s the outcome of these sorts of things?  Taking a just concluded DoJ beef against Bank of America’s Countrywide bank as an example,

Bank of America (without admitting fault) will hand over $335 million so Justice can distribute money to African-Americans and Hispanics (though not whites) who were charged more than the white average, with any surplus funds explicitly reserved for donations to…groups that typically align with the Democratic Party.

However, it’s not just DoJ idiocy.  This is the stuff on which affirmative action programs are built.  And it’s quite apart from the soft bigotry that says the victimsbeneficiaries of affirmative action programs are simply, of their nature, so incapable themselves that they must be given preferential treatment in order to keep up.

Is this actually evidence of deliberate nefariousness?  The cynic in me is conflicted.  On the one hand, it’s plainly racism by DoJ.  But on the other hand, DoJ seems entirely too incompetent to be this racist.

The Desperation of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Now we have Larry Tribe, the esteemed Harvard professor of constitutional law, contorting himself in an attempt to justify President Obama’s unconstitutional pseudo-recess appointments.

It seems, though, that Tribe already had commented on the legitimacy of appointments of the Obama style some years back in the context of the Bush the Younger administration.  Adam White, a DC lawyer, writes about Tribe’s bias (some might suggest horrific hypocrisy) in The Weekly Standard.  White’s commentary is so clear, that I’ll just quote extensively below.

In support of Obama, Tribe asserts that the president’s power to deem the Senate to be “in recess” and then make recess appointments “is clearly stated in the Constitution….”  But against Bush, Tribe argued that “[t]he text, structure, purpose, function, and pre-1921 history of the Recess Appointments Clause all confirm…that the President may not make recess appointments during intra-session Senate breaks.”

In support of Obama, Tribe argues that intra-session recess appointments are especially justified when the Senate is deliberately “frustrat[ing] presidential appointments.”  But against Bush, he argued the opposite: recess appointments are all the more illegitimate when the nominee in question already had been the subject of Senate debate yet “failed to obtain enough votes to go forward under Senate rules.”

In support of Obama, Tribe argues that the Senate made itself “unavailable” by largely leaving Washington. But against Bush, he scoffed at the notion that the Senate was ever truly unavailable, thanks to modern technology…Senate business “can easily resume, if necessary, owing to modern communications and transportation.”

In support of Obama, Tribe invokes Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 67 for the proposition that recess appointments, even intra-session appointments such as Cordray’s, are justified when “necessary for the public service to fill without delay.”  Against Bush, by contrast, he invoked Federalist 67 for the proposition that “recess appointments would be ‘necessary,’ and thus permissible, only outside the ‘session of the Senate”—i.e., never during type of intra-session break that President Obama exploited last week.

In defense of Obama’s recess appointments, Tribe said that the president was setting a precedent that would apply “only in instances of transparent and intolerable burdens on his authority.”  But when Bush made recess appointments, Tribe warned of a slippery slope toward tyranny[.]

Hmm….  Still, I suppose Tribe was at least partially right.  We are presently sliding down that slippery slope.

What the Democrats Stand for in the Coming Campaign

Posted on by
Reply

Straight from the horse’s mouth.  As President Obama says,

Part of what 2012 is about is…framing this larger debate about what kind of country are we going to leave for our children and our grandchildren….

He’s right about that.

Then he says that Republican policies amount to

…a different theory that says, we’re going to cut taxes for the wealthiest among us, and roll back regulations on things like clean air and health care reform and Wall Street reform, and that somehow, automatically, that assures that everybody is able to succeed.

This is his demonization of his opposition’s desire, and the American people’s need, to get government out of the way of our economy so that it can begin to recover, and to get government out of our lives so that we can go about our business free of government interference.

Further, the Progressives of the Obama party insist that government Knows Better.  Government should be populated with university-trained Patrons who will run our economic and social lives, because we can’t be trusted to manage our own: more government management of competition, for instance (the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Obamacare, under which Big Government presumes to be to dictate to us what we will buy or not buy.

And the Democrats stand for government by fiat, and the Constitution be damned.  On Wednesday, Obama simply ignored Constitutional requirements and appointed Richard Cordray as CFPB director, despite the fact that the Senate has not advised and consented to Cordray’s appointment.  Obama claims this is a recess appointment; however, the Senate is not in recess.  Doesn’t matter.  “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” says he.  He followed this with another unconstitutional set of appointments, this time of three new members that must be Senate-approved–but without that approval, and while the Senate is in session–to flesh out the blatantly pro-union NLRB.

We can look forward to bigger government, more governmental interference in our affairs, and the removal of the Constitution from its status as the supreme Law of the Land if the Progressives are reelected this year.

Another thing for which the Progressives stand in the coming campaign: ad hominem attacks on their opponents, since the Dems can’t run on their record of accomplishment—or on their ideology.

It Isn’t Always the Government

Posted on by
Reply

The US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform has settled on its view of the most ridiculous lawsuits of the just concluded year, borrowing from FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org.  As the Institute points out, the US has been the lawsuit capital of the world for some time, and foolishness like these cases contributes to the title.

We can’t blame this idiocy on government, however.  I do have to wonder, though, at the lawyers who actually agree to take these things to court.  They must know the frivolous nature, so I speculate about their motives….

The most idiotic case is one that also demonstrates an amazing degree of chutzpah.  The criminal sues his victims because they didn’t keep their end of an extorted bargain.

Convict sues couple he kidnapped for not helping him evade police. A man who kidnapped a couple at knifepoint while he was running from the police is now suing the victims, claiming that they promised to hide him in exchange for an unspecified amount of money.  The plaintiff, currently in jail, is seeking $235,000 for the alleged “breach of contract.”

Here are more examples of our idiocy, beginning with one for the psychiatrist’s couch.  “It all began when I was little, and my mummy violated my Oedipus Complex….”

Young adults sue mother for sending cards without gifts and playing favorites. The plaintiffs, now 20 and 23, claimed the mother “sometimes didn’t include gifts in cards sent to her children; played favorites with her children…did not send care packages until his sixth semester away at college…changed her surname, thus ‘causing attention’ at her daughter’s school events; and refused to buy her a homecoming dress.”

Poor babies….  Let’s see, now.  I didn’t get a care package, ever.  And my mother never bought me a homecoming dress, either.  Or a tux, which would have fit me better.  Or even rent me one.  Hmm….

Everyone’s a critic, too.  Opinions, though, are as ubiquitous as certain body parts; no one is obligated to hear or view either.

Woman sues over movie trailer; says not enough driving in ‘Drive’. A Michigan woman who claims she was misled by the trailers for the movie ‘Drive’ is suing the distributors of the film.  She says she was disappointed by the lack of driving in the film and was expecting something more similar to the ‘Fast and Furious’ films.

Back to misbehaving mothers:

Mom files suit against exclusive preschool over child’s college prospects. A New Yorker is suing a private preschool, saying the school’s curriculum has seriously hurt her 4-year-old’s chances of getting into an Ivy League college.

This assumes an Ivy League education is a worthy goal.  If the private preschool is living up to Mom’s allegations, they’re actually doing little Buffy a favor.  Oh, great—now the Ivy Leaguers are going to sue….

All I can say about the next one is that it’s a good thing he didn’t pull either one of these stunts in Texas.

Man sues bar for not disarming him before he started drinking (and fighting). A Pennsylvania man illegally brought a gun into a bar, then got injured in a drunken shootout with another patron, and now has sued the bar for not searching him for a weapon on his way in.

Finally, there’s this.

Mother sues Chuck E. Cheese – says games encourage gambling in children. A California woman has filed a lawsuit against Chuck E. Cheese on the grounds that their games are actually an illegal form of gambling and could get kids hooked. She is seeking at least $5 million; the restaurant says the games are legal and has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

I played bingo in grade school, matched pennies in junior high, and played poker all through high school.  Nine to two Mom (what is it about mothers?) loses this one.

Governments and Laws

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written before about government’s regulations.  Just as pernicious, though, are government’s laws—and this is even more our own fault, because unlike regulations, which are created by nameless Executive Branch bureaucrats through delegation from Congress, laws are passed by that Congress—the very folks we elect to represent us, and then re-elect, even when they overstep or ignore our instructions to them.

Last year, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports, the states passed 40,000 laws that take effect this year, or took effect after passage last year.  The Daily Caller reports that at the Federal level, it would have taken 12 days(!), at 200 pages per day, to read all the Federal laws and regulations extant in 1925 (before the New Deal, that is).  Today, it’ll take three years.  Obamacare and Dodd–Frank, for all their excessiveness, actually added only 25 days.

Some examples at the State level include the following gems.  You’re already aware of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank; I won’t go into further Federal pearls.

California last year banned the use of UV indoor tanning beds for all minors.  Apparently, the State has decided parents are too negligent and can’t be trusted to do their own jobs.  Nor is their judgment to be trusted.

California has banned “the production, distribution or sale of beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a separate ingredient.”  Apparently the State’s distrust extends to all of its adult citizens.  The Patrons in government Know Better, and good idea or bad, mere adults won’t have that choice to make.

Kentucky has decided that selected prison inmates who have not been granted parole must serve “the final six months of their sentence in the community under supervision.”  In other words, these inmates get parole, anyway, even though they didn’t get parole.  Hmm….

In Oregon, the state’s universities and community colleges must “waive tuition and fees for current and former foster children under age 25,” and this new law also gives foster children (25 is a child?  Still, that’s consistent with the adult “child” that Obamacare allows onto a parents’ health insurance policy—at the parents’ cost) first claim on the state’s Opportunity Grants when funding can’t support 100% of otherwise eligible students.  We get yet more special treatment for favored groups—this time under the guise of glorified “affirmative action.”  The law is silent on orphans or children raised in orphanages; apparently they aren’t as deserving.

More examples can be found at the NCSL link above.

Tacitus warned us long ago:

Corruptisima republica plurimae leges.