Tag Archives: responsibilities

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.

Homicide Rates

Posted on by
Reply

These data are from USAFacts, and they’re at the county level, since that’s the maximum data fineness that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USAFacts‘ source, publishes.

The top 10 homicide rates—homicides per 100,000 population—were in these counties as of 2023 (the latest data available from CDC):

The closest major city is for context; the rates are for the indicated county.

Every single one of these counties is run by Progressive-Democratic Party politicians.

The 10 counties with the largest increase in homicide rates, 2023 over 2018, are these:

Again, the closest major city is for context; the rates are for the indicated county. All of these counties are Party run, also. Given the overlap between high rates and rising rates, it shouldn’t be surprising that at least most of these are Party run.

One item of note here, while acknowledging that these data are a year and a half-ish old, is DC. That county had the third highest homicide rate and the ninth highest rate of increase in its homicide rate. It seems true that DC’s homicide rate is lower today than in 2023, but it’s still among the highest in the nation.

No less a light than PBS cited a Rochester Institute of Technology report that indicated that DC’s homicide rate per 100,000 had fallen in 2024 to 27.3. What those “fact checkers” chose to ignore was that even in the RIT report, DC’s rate was the fourth highest of the 24 cities that RIT looked at, and it’s still higher than that 2018 starting figure by 33%. That last, though, is my calculation from comparing RIT‘s 2024 value with the starting value in the second figure above. The RIT report did not look at rates of increase of homicide rates.

Yet this is the poor performance of DC’s governance that Party is so desperate to defend as they zealously oppose President Donald Trump’s (R) concerted effort to clean the place up.