Tag Archives: morality

Time to Expand

Posted on by
Reply

Against the backdrop of Russian drones and fighter aircraft invading the skies over NATO nations—Poland, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, et al.—Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned NATO that he will respond if NATO allies deepen support for Ukraine.

Rather than meekly backing down as ex-President Joe Biden and the Biden-fronted NATO did at critical moments, it’s time now to explosively expand support for Ukraine, and supply them with the weapons, ammunition, and logistics support the UA needs at the pace the UA says it needs it, and to remove all fetters from weapons use, so the UA has the wherewithal to strike the barbarians wherever he gathers his own munitions, fuels and foodstuffs, soldiers, and to strike the barbarians’ oil and natural gas production facilities, oil refineries, pipeline nodes, and rail computer and rail line nodes so as to cut off the barbarians at the front from any resupply.

The barbarian invasion should have been beaten back 18 or more months ago, but for Western timidity in the face of Putin’s bluster. It’s far from too late, if NATO and the US will act.

But screw [NATO] courage to the sticking place,
And [Ukraine]’ll not fail.

This Isn’t Just Political Mischief

Posted on by
Reply

Nor is it merely divisiveness.

Jay Jones, Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Virginia Attorney General, has threatened a political opponent, Todd Gilbert, at the time the Republican Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, with murder, with implied threats against his wife and children, as well. This was as recently as August 2022. What he texted another delegate, a Republican:

Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.

Here’s Jones’ full sequence:

From inflicting metaphorical violence on us average Americans with their government shutdown to threatening physical violence in the form of murder threats by a candidate for State Attorney General(!)—this is, mind you, against years of assaults like Bernie Sanders smearing Republicans as Nazis, followed shortly by a mass murder attempt against Republican Congressmen at a baseball practice; Chuck Schumer threatening by name two Supreme Court Justices, followed shortly by a murder attempt against one of them; Party politicians in drumbeat cadence calling Donald Trump Nazi, Hitlerian, a threat to democracy, followed shortly by two murder attempts—this is the Progressive-Democratic Party’s view of how to deal with their political opponents. If they don’t get their way, they will attack American citizens as a whole and seek to murder their political opponents.

And just to drive home Party’s point, Jones is refusing to withdraw his candidacy for State AG, and no one in Party is pushing him to withdraw. To a man and woman, Party politicians are downplaying Jones’ threats, pretending he was joking.

This is the Party that wants to seize control of our Congress in 2026 and seize the White House in 2028.

US Naval Academy Midshipman Honor Concept and Mikie Shirrell

Posted on by
Reply

New Jersey’s Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Governor, it turns out, was barred from walking with her Naval Academy class during its graduation ceremony, although she was allowed to graduate and be commissioned into our Navy. Her explanation for this is this:

I didn’t turn in some of my classmates, so I didn’t walk….

What she didn’t turn some of her classmates in over was a cheating scandal that impacted 130 midshipmen in her class.

And she’s proud of that refusal.

This is the Naval Academy’s Honor Concept [boldface in the original, italic emphasis added]:

Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right.
They tell the truth and ensure that the truth is known.
They do not lie.

They embrace fairness in all actions. They ensure that work submitted as their own is their own, and that assistance received from any source is authorized and properly documented.
They do not cheat.

They respect the property of others and ensure that others are able to benefit from the use of their own property.
They do not steal.

By refusing to turn in those classmates about whom she knew, by refusing to testify over the course of the cheating investigation, Sherrill openly lied by omission. She further lied by tacitly obstructing that investigation. She affirmatively prevented the truth from being known.

This is the concept of honor and integrity that Mikie Sherrill is putting on offer for the good citizens of New Jersey. It seems a poor fit for any Governor’s office.

Political CYA

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors waxed opinionated on the matter of government efforts at stifling free speech, centering their wax-on piece on Sundar Pichai’s letter (formally written by an Alphabet lawyer) excusing (the editors generously called it a mea not-so-maxima culpa) Alphabet’s Google’s (read: Pichai’s) mistaken role in censoring Conservative podcasts—purging them from YouTube—during the Wuhan Virus (my term; the editors continue to euphemize with “Covid-19”) situation. The editors also nattered on about the hypocrisy of the Left’s getting on the Trump administration over the Kimmel business compared with the Left’s downplaying of the Biden administration’s role in that Alphabet (et al.) censorship.

What interests me about this editorial, though, is this bit from the penultimate paragraph:

Progressives intimidated companies into believing that if they failed to toe the line on certain issues, enforcement could follow.

This is those companies’ managers—including Mark Zuckerberg, of Meta, whom the editors also cited—conscious choice to be “intimidated.” I’ve written elsewhere in this blog about the flaccid-kneed nature of senior managers, at the pinnacle of their professions, who allow themselves to be so easily managed by others. Men and women of good character would have refused to kowtow and challenged in court any enforcement that might have followed, and won easily (if initially expensively, but long-term much more cheaply) on free speech grounds.

And the editors’ close:

Alphabet’s letter to Judiciary is notable for its commitment that the company “has not and will not empower fact checkers to take action on or label content across the Company’s services.” That’s good to hear, but Google would have done better if its accounting had come before the electoral winds shifted. The company’s letter is an admirable statement of principles. Let’s hope it sticks.

This is a sham shift, not at all a statement of principles. This is merely a political CYA claim, done at the convenience of political winds. There’s no reason to believe it will stick. Pichai already has amply demonstrated the strength of his character, and tomorrow may bring an administration of a different feather.

Business Executive Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

There is a great deal of loud bodice-ripping angst over the Trump administration having “bullied” Disney and ABC into putting Jimmy Kimmel’s late night TV show on hiatus for the time being.

It’s much ado about misplaced nothing, though. Bullies have only the power their putative victims choose to surrender to them; business executives only feel pressure because they choose to wallow in the perception.

FCC chief Brendan Carr threatened ABC affiliates’ broadcast licenses if they/ABC didn’t kowtow and deal appropriately with Kimmel and his TV show? This is a canonical example of choosing to wallow. Threats aren’t deeds, even when they from a high level government functionary. They need to be watched carefully lest they become deeds, but watching is the only action required. Certainly not kowtowing.

I claim that executives who fold under “pressure,” even when the “pressure” is yapping from government personages, are cowards and unfit for their posts. The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are more genteel about it.

The furor is wildly overstated when it claims an iron curtain of Trump censorship is descending on American media. If CBS and ABC, two networks that have lately bowed to the president, gave half a hoot, they would easily have prevailed on First Amendment grounds if they put up a fight.
That is, if they prized their network TV businesses sufficiently as businesses, as opportunities to display stewardship, or even as instruments of influence. But they don’t.

Indeed. Short term expensive, to be sure, to Just Say No, and hale the government into court. But long-term much lower cost, especially when compared to the great and growing cost of always surrendering.

The editors closed with this:

Mr Trump hasn’t got powers of intimidation other presidents didn’t have. He just meets less resistance.

I write it again: such executives are unfit for their positions.