Tag Archives: morality

Personal Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

This is a core tenet of our federal republican democracy—the concept that us American citizens are the ones primarily—and most often solely—responsible for the outcomes of our decisions and our actions. This is a tenet that applies just as firmly in our fundamentally capitalist economy to our businesses. In particular, for this post, it applies to our banks, large, small, and in between.

Or, it should apply. Dangerously, our banks, particularly our small and mid-sized banks, would be relieved of that responsibility under legislation that Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty, who should know better, and Maryland’s Progressive-Democrat Senator Angela Alsobrooks, who is merely acting on her party’s big and bigger government bent, are proposing. That legislation would raise the FDIC’s deposit guarantee from $250,000 per depositor’s account to $10 million.

The editors of The Wall Street Journal have the right of it on this one.

The truth is that a higher insurance limit will increase moral hazard and make the banking system less sound, which will hurt all Americans.

Because

It would also encourage more risk-taking since banks will have to worry less about runs.

Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren as recently as 2023:

We have to do this because these banks are under-regulated, and if we lift the cap, we are requiring—or relying even more heavily on the regulators to do their jobs.

Here is the monarchist Party’s purpose revealed and now pushed by Alsobrooks: an ever more intrusive and controlling central government.

The proposed legislation is an idea whose time never will be, and the proposed legislation needs to be scotched in committee, if not before.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

A study of Purdue’s entering freshmen class of 2018 indicated that women freshmen who didn’t get their preferred class on registration were significantly less likely to graduate in four years than were their women counterparts who got their preferred class on registration. (There was no significant effect for that year’s male freshmen, but that’s neither here no there for this post.) Leave aside the various limitations of this study; focus on the particular outcome.

This is a conclusion of one of the study’s authors, Kevin Mumford:

Our estimates suggest that reducing course shutouts, particularly for STEM courses, can be an effective way to improve female-student outcomes[.]

No. Lowering standards—which is what “reducing course shutouts” amounts to, if only through increasing the class sizes of those courses that are in such demand—is not the way to improve women’s graduation rates.

The answer is insultingly wrong, too, suggesting as it does that women students need to be coddled in order to function in college.

What is necessary is to take steps to help these women overcome a disappointment that doesn’t bother men by helping them identify classes that are effective substitutes of their preferred class, classes that cover the same subject with a different professor, or is in a different section under the same professor, or take the preferred class in a subsequent semester, or….

“Is Britain safe for Jews?”

Posted on by
Reply

That was the opening sentence of the lede—the lede of the lede, if you will (or even if you won’t)—of the opinion piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal. The next sentence laid out the case:

On Thursday authorities in Birmingham, the country’s second-largest city, prohibited the fans of an Israeli soccer team from attending a match next month, even though the threats to cause trouble are coming from locals.

The game in question is scheduled for early next month as part of an international soccer tournament, and the Israeli fans have been barred because they might be victims of violence rather than perpetrators of it. A test, as instructive as it would be interesting to see, is whether British soccer teams and especially the teams’ owners will boycott those tournament’s games that are played in the UK, refusing even to take the pitch until Birmingham undoes its support for thuggery or until the British government overrules Birmingham’s instance of antisemitic bigotry.

Those locals, as the opinion expands, are primarily Islamists. Birmingham, and by extension the British government, through its studied inaction on the ban, so far indicate that they favor Islamist thugs and their thuggery over Israeli soccer fans and British non-Muslim subjects.

If neither government acts, then no, Britain is not safe for Jews, and that would be by British government, both local and national, design.

That would be beyond sad, it would be disgusting and despicable. The cradle of government by consent of the governed and of individual liberty would no longer be fit for civilized or even merely polite company.

Apologize?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones’ overt threat of murder against a political opponent and his family. Now Virginia Progressive-Democratic Party Senator Tim Kaine is making clear his enthusiastically continuing support for Jones.

Jay has apologized[.]
I’ve known Jay Jones for 25 years. I think those statements were not in character, and he has apologized—I wish other people in public life would sincerely apologize for stuff.

Jones has apologized, and that makes everything all better. That’s Party’s view of taking full responsibility. Just say some words and call it a day.

No.

Words of apology, no matter how sincerely they’re offered, are nothing but that—words—absent any accompanying corrected behavior, behavior that lasts for a substantial period of time.

Jones has demonstrated no corrected behavior. He’s staying in the race for State’s AG, and he’s doing nothing to atone for his call for murder, nor is he showing any altered behavior regarding his fellow State citizens, political opponents or otherwise.

It Isn’t Only False Charges of Violence…

Posted on by
Reply

…that encourage further violence.

The SPLC labeled my organization [Kristen Waggoner’s Alliance Defending Freedoma hate group in 2016, around the time we asked the Supreme Court to hear our case on behalf of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop. These designations encourage violence: My car window was shot out shortly after I argued Masterpiece Cakeshop before the justices, and we see a spike in death threats whenever we receive fresh mention in the media.
The threats reached a fever pitch after Kirk’s assassination…. On Tuesday, we deliver oral arguments in Chiles v Salazar.… For the first time in our history, there won’t be an accompanying rally outside the court. Security professionals warned us that the threats of violence at an outdoor event were too great.

It’s a grave mistake to not hold the rally because of these threats and the overt murderous actions of others on the Left. Surrendering to threats of violence and actual violence only encourages more violence, not just threats of it, by those of the Left who are bent on destroying—physically, if possible—those of whom they disapprove.

Better to meet the threats head on, have the conspirators, attempted murderers, and the few who succeed tried, convicted, and jailed or executed as the case may be in the first instance. That would mitigate greatly, if not obviate the second and subsequent instances. That’s the only way to obviate the second and subsequent instances.

This is a better answer:

But we won’t be cowed. When our cases in defense of women’s sports are argued at the Supreme Court in January, we expect to be back with the biggest rally yet—this time with the security apparatus needed to defend our speakers.

Hopefully the DC police will be up to the task and—finally—allowed to do their job and arrest the violence inflictors, followed by—hopefully—a vigorous prosecution and conviction, concluded by—hopefully—serious jail sentences.