Tag Archives: responsibilities

Should We Forgive Barry Bonds?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the lead-off question The Free Press asked in its Wednesday piece. The article then just beat around the bush on the matter while spilling endless pixels on the marketability of Bonds memorabilia and those of other disgraced baseball players, and on other baseball players alleged (with greater or lesser amounts of supporting data) to have cheated. But Bonds did cheat—he used performance enhancing drugs.

So: should we forgive Barry Bonds? Of course; we should have done so a long time ago. But that doesn’t mean we should forget his cheating. That cheating was of a magnitude—increasing, for instance the number of hits and the number of homeruns he would have gotten absence his PED use—that he has been, and rightly should continue to be, barred from baseball’s Hall of Fame. The stats he accrued from his PED use overshadowed other, honest, players and deprived them of their leading stats.

That some other players similarly cheated, or seriously violated other baseball rules (viz., betting on baseball games) in no way absolves Bonds. The existence of those other cheats and baseball’s spotty record regarding them only point up baseball’s atrociously inconsistent enforcement of its own rules.

And: just to drive home the point, forgiving is not the same as forgetting, and it’s long past time to stop conflating the two.

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.

Stupid, or Dishonest?

Posted on by
Reply

Senator John Fetterman (D, PA) had an exchange with CNN‘s Manu Raju last Wednesday in the aftermath of a Leftist’s murder of Charlie Kirk. It began with Fetterman decrying the Left’s and his own party’s divisive rhetoric:

…just one day prior, people were protesting Trump by calling him the “Hitler of our time.” He condemned comparing anyone, including Trump, to Adolf Hitler and insisted his party must “turn the temperature down.”

Then, this:

“I think you just don’t ever, ever compare anyone to Hitler and those kinds of extreme things,” Fetterman said. “Now, look what happened to Charlie Kirk. I mean, you know, the man was shot. Now, we have to turn the temperature down. We can’t compare people to these kinds of figures in history. And this is not an autocrat. This is a product of a democratic election.”
“So you don’t think that Trump is at all shattering any of the norms of democracy in any way?” Raju asked.

Here is a CNN opinionator suggesting that “shattering…norms of democracy” is justification for murdering Conservatives who are associated with President Donald Trump (R).

I have to ask, given the irrelevancy between doing things not normally done but entirely legal, and murder: is Raju really that stupid, or is he really that nakedly dishonest?

Correct Move

Posted on by
Reply

A DoJ paralegal flipped off a National Guard soldier while the paralegal was enroute to her office work. Then she bragged about it to a DoJ security guard on her way into the building. When word got to Attorney General Pam Bondi, her response was prompt and direct. Bondi’s memo to the paralegal said, in part:

Based on your inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal service effective immediately[.]

This has two correct moves in the same sentence. The first is the prompt termination of the misbehaving paralegal. The second is especially important: the paralegal is not going to be reassigned somewhere else in the Federal government; she’s barred from Federal employment altogether.

The woman might have gotten away with her reprehensible behavior, even though she would have deserved to be fired, had she not bragged about it. The lack of judgment she showed by bragging about her misbehavior, though, conclusively demonstrates she’s unfit for Federal employment regardless of any specific act of misbehavior.

Bondi’s memo can be read here.

A Justice…Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Ketanji Br own Jackson dissented strenuously with a Supreme Court ruling that, in part, upheld the Trump Administration’s request for an emergency stay of a lower court’s blocking of NIH from canceling $783 million worth of grants.

The money part of the woman’s (dare I use that term on a person who doesn’t know what a woman is?) dissent:

the high court’s way of preserving the “mirage of judicial review while eliminating its purpose: to remedy harms.”

No. Not at all. The purpose of judicial review is critically—and solely—to ensure that the action before it, along with the statute(s) involved, follow the text of our Constitution and the text of those statutes. Nothing more and nothing less.

But the woman wasn’t done with shredding (to use the in-vogue term) “judicial review” [emphasis added]:

It would have been much simpler for the Court to just announce that, regardless of the plain text of the APA or what Congress intended to authorize, we no longer accept that the Government’s grant-termination decisions are subject to arbitrary-and-capricious review or that vacatur of an arbitrary grant-termination decision is an available remedy.

The greatest harm that is in play here is ruling on the basis of a particular judge’s or Justice’s personal definition of “harm.” Yet, this is exactly what Jackson presumes to attempt with her setting aside the petty text of a statute from which her august self demurs.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, including Jackson’s dissent can be read here.