An early morning meeting I had to drive a long way for got cancelled at the last minute, and now I’m walking around like a zombie Maybe trying to type up a few percolating ethics matters will help me wake up…
- All-time unauthorized commenter champ “A Friend” emailed to say he wouldn’t be coming back to be “censored” any more. Promises, promises. I’m sure the New York Times is disappointed, because that relentless Axis propagandist is becoming more shrill and biased by the day, and will need all the defenders here it can get.
- For example [Althouse gets the pointer for this], here’s the Times revealing all the news that’s fit to print regarding the Colorado fire-bombing:
Witnesses said a man threw an incendiary device into a group of people who were taking part in a peaceful weekly demonstration to draw attention to hostages taken in the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. The man yelled “Free Palestine” during the attack, which left patches of grass burning in front of the county courthouse as people tried to put out flames with pieces of clothing….
Trump used the moment to once again criticize his predecessor’s immigration agenda. He has a long history of using crimes like this to build support for his restrictionist immigration policies….
The news story has nothing to do with Trump, but never mind, the editors let the reporter sneak in an irrelevant Trump Deranged snark anyway. Irrelevant and stupid. “Restrictionist” is an accurate description of an immigration policy that doesn’t allow anyone to cross our borders who feels like it, but the Times makes it sound sinister. Oh…it turns out that this terrorist is in fact here illegally, but the Biden sort-of Presidency let him stay here along with the other criminals it inflicted on the nation…
- Meanwhile, I see from my Georgetown Law Center alumni magazine (which I started, incidentally) that GULC hosted historic! Biden Homelend Security Secretary Majorkas in some event and this woke DEI hack conveyed the wisdom that our immigration policy needed to be “pragmatic.” Funny, I don’t see how making it easy for foreign terrorists to come here and set Americans on fire is pragmatic…
- Why the U.S. climate change obsession is idiotic in a single graph:
U.S. industry and quality of life sacrifices will change nothing regarding the alleged causes of world climate change when such measures are being swamped by the policies of China, India and the Third World. But it’s effective virtue-signalling to fanatics, so there’s that….
- Speaking of GULC, supposedly the school has received not only more applications for admission than ever before, but 25% more than last year and the most that any American law school has received ever. What’s going on here? Nobody knows, but it is more proof of how few people under the age of 30 read Ethics Alarms…
- And speaking of historic, traffic on my post about pay-to-play in the Oval Office appears to have slowed down at the 3.3K mark. I can’t explain that, either.
- Life competence watch: Don’t Democrats and progressives know that evert time Tim Walz opens his mouth it makes the demise of the Democratic Party just that much harder to forestall? Presidents who use their power to do things that need to be done aren’t “wannabe dictators” and “bullies.” They are called “leaders.” Harvard, the unprofessional big partisan law firms, the Axis press and the rest aren’t being “bullied,” they are finally being confronted and opposed as they should have been decades ago.
And nobody says “The governor is being mean.” They say, “Wow! That silly jerk is deluded. I still can’t believe Harris nominated him to be Veep.”
- Finally, Bill Clinton is lying again. He insisted in an interview that Biden was just fine despite the cover-up described in Ethics Villain Jake Tapper’s book. “I thought he was a good president,” Bill said. “The only concern I thought he had to deal with was, ‘Could anybody do that job until they were 86?’ And we’ve had several long talks. I had never seen him and walked away thinking he can’t do this anymore. He was always on top of his briefs.” Since Bill is the master of deceit, it is a useful exercise to decipher what he really meant by this typical smoke and mirrors. Let’s see:
1 “I thought he was a good president.” [ But I was obviously wrong.]
2. “The only concern I thought he had to deal with was, ‘Could anybody do that job until they were 86?” [...since it was clear that he could barely hold a thought in his head.]
3. And we’ve had several long talks. [I had no idea what he was babbling about.]
4. “I had never seen him…” [...because I couldn’t watch when he was so obviously falling apart.]
5. “…and walked away thinking he can’t do this anymore.” [I walked away thinking, “I warned them not to run this boob. Even Hillary would have been better.”]
6. “He was always on top of his briefs.”[He was literally standing on his underwear…]
That’s all for now. I’m still not awake…
Ethics Alarms 
“The news story has nothing to do with Trump, but never mind, the editors let the reporter sneak in an irrelevant Trump Deranged snark anyway.”
Exactly, the marching orders are to tie everything negative to Trump or to spin everything to negatively reflect upon Trump. Anti-Trump propaganda dominates the Talking Points. Academics, Entertainers, Journalists and, yes, Historians all got the memo and taking their orders from Leftist Central.
In regard to the “several long talks” statement, “long” is very subjective. Having to interpret demented ramblings for less than a minute could be considered “long.” Also, with two geriatric men, they both may have fallen asleep for an hour or so, and most of their “conversation” was a dream. In the end, Clinton is trying to be relevant.
Well done. Hilarious.
Best I can figure out is that the Mayorkas talk at Georgetown was last fall. Original sources are omitted regularly from news accounts and blogs, but, never mind that, the concept is exactly right. Our immigration policy needs to take into account what works best for the United States. When the chainsaw crew (I really think the M-16 spray and pray crew would be more apt) goes about ‘trimming government’ and getting rid of ‘criminal aliens’, I think a bit of attention to the effects would be prudent.
Does the policy to throw out everyone who is not in the country legally (and a fair number who are) have an adverse impact on productivity? Does the policy of continued federal support of indolence have an impact on the labor market, and therefore productivity? In both cases, I think so.
So, what to do about that? How about a bit of pragmatism? Instead of slash and burn, how about some gradualism in removing those who are in the country illegally along with some gradualism in increasing the employment rate by trimming government handouts, especially among those of the traditional ‘working age’ who are not working at all? That would be pragmatic, eh?
The counter argument, of course, is that gradualism has not worked in the past and won’t work now. But, it is not unreasonable to seek a way of making it work. Pragmatically.
Majorkas is ethically estopped from opining on what responsible immigration policy is.
“Our immigration policy needs to take into account what works best for the United States.”
What’s best for the US is hardly a mystery. Admitting legal immigrants with skills, a determination to be Americans, from cultures not antithetical to ours, who are committed to following our laws.
” When the chainsaw crew (I really think the M-16 spray and pray crew would be more apt) goes about ‘trimming government’ and getting rid of ‘criminal aliens’, I think a bit of attention to the effects would be prudent.” Keeping on topic, making it as clear as possible that illegal residents are neither welcome nor wanted is the priority. May there be some adverse effects of this? Sure. So what? Allowing law-breaking on a grand scale is destructive to civilization.
“Does the policy to throw out everyone who is not in the country legally (and a fair number who are) have an adverse impact on productivity?” I don’t care. That argument’s equivalent was also used to avoid the end of slavery and is currently used to justify legalizing recreational drugs. ”
“Does the policy of continued federal support of indolence have an impact on the labor market, and therefore productivity? In both cases, I think so.” Not the issue at hand.
So, what to do about that? How about a bit of pragmatism? Instead of slash and burn, how about some gradualism in removing those who are in the country illegally along with some gradualism in increasing the employment rate by trimming government handouts, especially among those of the traditional ‘working age’ who are not working at all? That would be pragmatic, eh? But as we know, or should, gradualism is code for “nothing really changes.”
The counter argument, of course, is that gradualism has not worked in the past and won’t work now. But, it is not unreasonable to seek a way of making it work. Pragmatically. No, because “Gradualism” is impossible in a democracy where the power shifts constantly and after short periods. Sounds nice, in practice it’s impossible. Wasting time on incremental reform and futile policies that can’t possibly work is unethical—irresponsible, incompetent, and usually dishonest.
…and always very expensive.
No, because “Gradualism” is impossible in a democracy where the power shifts constantly and after short periods. Sounds nice, in practice it’s impossible. Wasting time on incremental reform and futile policies that can’t possibly work is unethical—irresponsible, incompetent, and usually dishonest.
No, Jack, it’s not the constant power shifts that make gradualism, or any other progress, impossible. It’s the denying, sabotaging, derailing, and torpedoing of any semblance of bipartisanship that make progress on any issue possible — such as we saw during the last administration.
Sorry, meant to type “impossible.” Grr
The LAST administration?
It isn’t just Congress. It is the so-called “administrative state” as well as the increasingly partisan and over-reaching judiciary that makes even small change a nightmare of court battles, challenges and law suits. It is cowardly elected officials more worried about polls and re-election than results. It is the life-time bureaucrats ho have no job if they don’t keep busy obstructing things. Al Gore and the earlier Grace Report tried to reduce waste, fraud and abuse, and accomplished next to nothing because they were careful and incremental.
Clarence Darrow spoke about how the only way to beat a Gordian Know was to cut it or burn it, and accept that there will be innocent fibers hurt. That is exactly right.
Okay. I got it now. Once things have been a certain way for some time, they will stay that way. The people in power won’t change, so it’s a waste of time to encourage change. Things in the past that were impossible and could never happen yet somehow did either are fairy tales or they don’t apply to this situation.
This stuff is a lot simpler than I thought it was.
Honestly, I have no idea what that sarcasm outburst has to do with anything.
…But please, try again to make whatever point you thought you were making.
My ‘sarcastic’ comment was intended to directly under your reply to me in which you said, “‘Gradualism” is impossible in a democracy where the power shifts constantly and after short periods.”
Gradualism in removal of those in the country illegally is within the control of the Administration and would prove to be less damaging to the parts of the economy in which so many work, construction and agricultural especially. It would be pragmatic. Getting people off the government dole and back to work is not going to be quick, no matter what, but small steps eventually will help make this happen. Tightening up Medicaid is one step in the right direction for this, a pragmatic step.
And, I’ll add one more thought, in response to this comment: “Keeping on topic, making it as clear as possible that illegal residents are neither welcome nor wanted is the priority.
In fact, many are welcome and wanted. Estimates vary, but there is little doubt that millions of those in the country illegally, some say 8 million, are working, paying taxes, and conducting themselves as if they were good citizens. Unwanted? Sure, by many, and not just because they are here illegally.
“Gradualism in removal of those in the country illegally is within the control of the Administration and would prove to be less damaging to the parts of the economy in which so many work, construction and agricultural especially.”
I tune out after that rationalization. Sectors of the economy that exploit illegal immigrants and depend on law-breaking to artificially keep costs down don’t deserve “gradualism.” They deserve just what they are getting, hard and fast. “We should try to reduce the impact of the consequences of their own unethical conduct by only gradually enforcing laws that should have been enforced all along” rewards wrongdoers. No empathy here.
Yeah, I see your point. I was thinking about those who ultimately benefit from those workers, not the companies or farms that employ them. So, if it takes an additional 6 or 12 months for someone’s house to be rebuilt after a hurricane, or if there are food shortages while crops rot in the field, no big deal. For some.
If there were a sudden drop in income and social security tax payments, no problem. For some.
If the employment rate among those living off the government dole could be rapidly and drastically increased, then the rapid removal of those in the country illegally would be a more practical.
Gradualism did not get us into this situation, so it probably won’t get us out.
People swarmed the border when they thought it would be easy to get in. The way to swarm them in the other direction is to project widespread, decisive and imminent actions to remove them.
-Jut
Re: Boulder, this morning a person in my circle of friends texted a meme with this message:
If you think gun laws don’t matter, the heinous guy in Colorado who burned 12 Jewish Americans in an act of pure hate was trying to buy a gun but was unable to. As bad as it was, imagine the conversation we’d be having today.
Another friend immediately chimed in with this:
Unfortunately, the anti-immigrant geeks will use this maliciously.
I didn’t bother to fisk the language of the original meme, or to deconstruct the lies and illogic of the subsequent comment. Here’s what I said:
I wish this country were having any sort of conversation about the attack in Boulder, however it was carried out, and all the related attacks on Jews recently in the US and Europe. Instead, we get memes and victory laps about people’s pet issues. Also, this attack was planned for more than a year, so I find it frankly impossible to believe that fire was not a choice for this creep, especially since fire has so often figured in pogroms.
Yeah, I know. Not nice.
But not wrong. And, of course, having planned the attack for over a year, he would not have been able to carry it out had he been removed from the country when he overstayed his welcome the first time.
The truth is that the goal posts will get moved regardless of what weapon these attackers use. I also find it despicable that they are playing the numbers game here. Sure, more may have been injured if he’d used a gun, but being set on fire is not pleasant either. Further, one of the victims was an 88-year old Jewish woman who had fled Europe and avoided the Holocaust. This should not happen in the United States.
If he really wanted a gun, he could have obtained a gun. People who set out to kill Jews and who sympathize with Hamas just aren’t very bright, in addiction to other flaws.
“He was always on top of his briefs”
Sitting or lying down, always on top of his briefs… Technically true like other statements made in the past depending one’s definitions.