Tag Archives: responsibilities

“We stand for what is right across the world”

Posted on by
Reply

In a virtual Congressional hearing last Tuesday—Corporate Sponsorship of the 2022 Beijing Olympics—there was this exchange between Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) and Paul Lalli, Coca-Cola’s Global Vice President for Human Rights and corporate representative at the hearing:

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): So your company said at the time that we will continue to stand up for what is right in Georgia and across the United States. So are we to take from your statement at the time that Coca Cola will not stand up for what is right outside the United States? Because that’s what it sounds like this morning in this testimony.
PAUL LALLI, COCA-COLA’S GLOBAL VICE PRESIDENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: No, Senator, we stand up for what is right across the world. We apply the same human rights principles in the United States that we do across the world.
COTTON: Do you believe that the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against the Uyghur people?
LALLI: We’re aware of the reports of the State Department on this issue as well. There are other departments of the US government. We respect those reports. They continue to inform our program, as do reports from other from civil society.

Think about that deliberately vapid non-response. Coca Cola stands for what’s right across the world, and Coca Cola doesn’t object to the People’s Republic of China’s abuse, much less genocide, of the Uyghurs in the PRC’s Xinjiang province.

Nor was it just Cotton that the Coca-Cola rep refused to answer. Progressive-Democrat Tom Malinowski (D, NJ) pressed Lalli specifically on whether Coca-Cola would condemn any Chinese government abuses against Uyghurs. Lalli’s carefully empty response:

We respect all human rights.

It seems pretty clear: Coca Cola considers that abuse, that genocide, to be part of what’s right across the world. Because Uighurs, in Coca-Cola’s august consideration, don’t count as human or otherwise worthy of human rights.

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

Posted on by
Reply

The dishonesty of the journalism guild, that is.

Journalism professors at UNC Chapel Hill are protesting a “core values” statement that upholds objectivity as a key tenet of news reporting.

That statement says, in part,

The core values statement, installed two years ago, touts objectivity, impartiality, integrity and truth-seeking….

That business about objectivity and impartiality was scrapped after the journalist “professors” at the school objected. Because, journalists are naturally biased and opinionated (as are we all), and these worthies claim, it would be dishonest for journalists to disguise their biases as well as futile to try. Never mind that opinions could be written on the opinion pages, and even journalists are capable of being objective when they’re writing news articles, which are supposed to be factual.

They just don’t want to be objective or impartial in their…reporting. They want to take sides, they want to push their personal narratives, they want to represent those views as facts. What they insist on reporting are their biases, not the facts of events.

Sadly, though, this is simply an example of how far from Caesar’s wife are journalists and their guild.

“Hold the Floor”

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) is pretending he doesn’t want to get rid of the filibuster.

There’s no reason to protect it, other than you’re going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done. Nothing at all will get done. There’s a lot at stake. The most important one is the right to vote, that’s the single most important one.

So far, so good.

But. Because there’s always a but.

Biden referenced former Senator Strom Thurmond (D at the time) of South Carolina, who once conducted a 24-hour filibuster in a failed bid to halt passage of civil rights legislation in 1957.

And then he gave his game away with this:

The president reiterated his stance that lawmakers should be required to “hold the floor,” or deliver continued remarks in the Senate chamber, in order to maintain a filibuster.

What happened after Thurmond’s “hold the floor” filibuster? A straight party-line, strictly partisan vote on that bill. Just as would have been done were the filibuster abolished outright, only with a few hours’ delay.

The point of a cloture vote of 60 or more Senators agreeing to bring a bill to the floor for debate—even strictly partisan debate—is to force a measure of bipartisanship to legislation, even if it’s only a matter of some Senators from the minority party agreeing enough with the bill to debate it.

Requiring “holding the floor,” requiring Senators to speak to exhaustion, as the means of filibustering is no filibuster at all. It only delays the strictly partisan, party line, vote for some hours.

An honest Senate, a truly deliberative body, will keep the cloture vote filibuster.

“King’s X”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Progressive-Democrat-run cities are crying against the backdrop of the explosions in crime, including violent crime, that followed their loud and proud defunding of their police forces.

The article centers on Dallas, TX, but that center applies to the myriad other Progressive-Democrat-run cities that have moved to defenestrate their police.

I obviously don’t speak for others, but for my paycheck, I wouldn’t apply for, nor would I accept, a position as a police officer in any of those cities until there occurred a complete turnover of the men and women in those governments. The incumbents have shown themselves entirely untrustworthy, especially by cops.

Innocent people would continue to be hurt—the minority of voters who wanted different candidates elected but lost those elections? Perhaps. However, karma applies to those who sit on the sidelines, too, and the majority of those allegedly innocent minority of voters chose to continue as eligible voters and sit on the sidelines rather than bestir themselves to be voting voters.

Pericles, some years ago, said words to the effect of Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you. Those disinterested ones are experiencing the inevitable outcome right alongside those whose interest includes that defunding.

A Thought on Judges Retiring

Posted on by
Reply

Article III Judges are appointed to their office for life. This is by entirely correct design and mandated in our Constitution: it’s to maximize the political independence of the judges in our court system.

Engraved above the west entrance to the Supreme Court Building is the promise Equal Justice Under Law. Not equal justice on the law, not equal justice under any particular law. Equal justice under law: equal justice under our system of laws. That’s not a binding promise, it’s an aspiration. Binding, though, is our Constitution, which aside from Order[ing] to form a more perfect Union, provides for that equal justice throughout the first 10 Amendments and makes that requirement for equality under law explicit in the 14th Amendment:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All of that requires judges to be independent of politics.  We the People go further: all Article III judges must take an oath of office:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Support and defend our Constitution. Judges must bear true faith and allegiance to our Constitution, not to any political consideration or entity.

Supreme Court Justices take this additional oath:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

There’s that equal justice under law bit, again, this time made binding. Again: it isn’t possible for a Justice to faithfully and impartially discharge or perform his duties if politics enter into his considerations.

Against that backdrop was a shocking degree of Leftist pressure on the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire while a Progressive-Democrat President was in office along with a Progressive-Democrat-controlled Senate so that a politically suitable replacement could be appointed to the Supreme Court. Now there is equally shocking Leftist pressure on Justice Stephen Breyer to retire right damn now so a sitting Progressive-Democrat President and a Progressive-Democrat-controlled Senate can appoint a politically acceptable replacement.

Politically acceptable. Not legally adept. Not judicially talented and skilled. Not qualified by extensive experience in law. Politically acceptable.

If our court systems are to maintain even a pretense of independence, if our legal system is to maintain even a pretense of determining justice in an even-handed way, rather than making politically acceptable decisions, judges at all levels must serve as long as they’re of sound mind and sound enough body, and they must retire only when they see fit rather than when it’s politically convenient to one party or another.

Sadly, Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters insist on elevating their politics above justice.