Monday, July 16, 2018 20:03

Posts Tagged ‘ethics’

Where’s Woodward & Bernstein when you need them?

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

– Wiccapundit

How high must the stench of corruption go before some enterprising journalist (what used to be called a “reporter,” whose job it was to look for “facts”) decides he can make his career by just doing his damn job? Remember the Blagojevich scandal regarding the Senate seat formerly held by Obama?  Remember the allegations (pooh-poohed by the Left) that Obama involved himself improperly by suggesting to Governor Blago that he appoint an Obama toady to the vacated seat?  Remember how we were told by the MSM that there was no evidence that Obama had anything to do with it?  Er, not quite.

Fed informant passed delicate message to Blagojevich from Obama

John Wyma, a lobbyist and Blago’s former chief of staff, passed to John Harris (Blago’s last chief of staff) the following message: “the President-elect would be thankful and appreciative if the governor would appoint Valerie Jarrett to the Senate seat.”

Problem was, Wyma was a Federal informant.  Oops.  Blago was later caught on a wire-tapped call saying: “We know he wants her, they’re not willing to give me anything, just appreciation, f— them.”

Does this meet the legal standard required to establish criminal conduct?  I don’t know.  I’m not a criminal lawyer.  (I have a real job as a productive member of society, being an oil-speculating, pollution-belching, obscene-profit-acquiring capitalist.)  But there’s at least a story here.  If anyone in the media was paying attention.   Which they’re not.

Of course, it’s not really news, because it comes from the fevered writings of some right-wing-nutjob conservative blogger.  Oh wait, it doesn’t.  It comes from the Chicago Sun-Times.  Noted conservative newspaper and all.

Share

Obamacare and Eugenics

Monday, March 15th, 2010

– Elphaba

Fetus at 5 months of gestation

I have been following the abortion subsidy debate with regards to Obamacare with great interest.  I think that many Democrats are showing their true colors in the sense that “pro-choice” for them really means pro-abortion, and this raises some major ethical concerns.  James Taranto in his WSJ’s Best of the Web column, discusses this subject so well that I am excerpting it here, as I don’t think I can articulate it any better than he does:

National Review’s Bob Costa catches up with Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who, although not opposed to ObamaCare, has said he and a dozen or so like-minded colleagues will vote “no” if it includes subsidies for abortion:

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.

“What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue–come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Stupak frames his argument too narrowly. Forget about “life” for a while–the Democratic leaders’ position ought to be equally shocking to those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

What Stupak is hearing from his colleagues is not the pro-choice argument that the government should permit abortion as a matter of individual liberty. Rather, they claim that the government should encourage abortion as a social expedient–a cost-cutting measure. (more…)

Share