Smarter Than Thou!

CAN HILLARY BE READING THE BIBLE?

    MY subject is Hillary Clinton.  I begin with an old joke.  A couple was married for a long time, so a reporter decided to interview them.  The husband told of their wedding day, when they left the church in a horse drawn wagon.  The horse stumbled, and the man said, “That’s one.”  The trip continued and when the horse tripped again the man said, “That’s two.”  As they arrived at their new home, the horse tripped again.  The man said, “That’s three,” and produced a gun, and shot the horse.  The bride was shocked.  She jumped off the wagon and shouted her disapproval, telling him what a monster he was.  When she finished the man said, “That’s one.”  He never needed to count to two. 

     The joke, sort of, argues that bad actions (in this case violence) may produce good results, in time.  When Bill Clinton ran for office he did not deny or explain his scandals.  He also adamantly took unpopular (for Democrats) positions, e.g. capital punishment.  He quasi insulted Black leaders.  Considering all the disadvantages that he had, his victories were astounding. 

    Perhaps he was being Biblical, like Gideon.  Gideon was an Old Testament hero.  He planned a military attack.  He also, apparently, was not quite certain of the loyalty of his men.  So he set up tests to eliminate the questionable ones.  He won a great victory with the reduced, but reliable, forces.

    What Bill did was to give potential voters reasons to reject him.  He wanted to reduce his support to its absolute minimum, namely of those who would support him, no matter what (or whom) he did.  Then he knew how many more voters he needed to win.  And this is what he worked for.  He did not try to get every vote, but only the minimum needed. 

   It is possible that Hillary learned from this master.  Consider her problems.  She used personal means of handling information, while Secretary of State and while foreign governments gave huge amounts of money to her husband and to her foundation.”  Her explanation has been a combination of outright lies and “gee, I’m only a girl” type remarks.  In other words, she has done what is not only indefensible but also astoundingly stupid… or so it seems.   

    Perhaps it is too stupid to be anything but intentional.  She may be testing her core support, Gideon-like, to see what her absolute minimum level of approval is.  It is still a long time before the election.  So there is a lot of time for her to recover and rebuild.  

    I admit that this is a highly unconventional approach.  However, it would explain her behavior, at least somewhat. 

 

THOSE FUNNY FOUNDING FATHERS

   I usually object when people, in order to abort a serious discussion, or to avoid an undesired conclusion, hide behind the phrase, “It is all a matter of semantics.”  The clear implication is that words, and their meanings, are not of importance, and that a disagreement that can be reduced to such a state is trivial.  As words are how we advanced humans learn, teach, explain, defend, refute, etc, what words mean, and/or how they are used, is essential for a rational existence.  Thus, dismissing by semantics, namely ignoring what words mean, can not be the last conclusion in a chain of reasoning.  Usually it is a sign of early intellectual cowardice.    

    This does not mean that humans do not often waste their time and effort on silly discussions which involve mere words that do not reflect any relevant meaning.  The way to avoid one, and to focus on the other is a matter of prudence.  This means that using words correctly often involves going beyond the surface meaning, and understanding context, variations of meanings, syntax, etc. 

    And yet sometimes going beyond the surface meaning leads to lunacy, even when the words are quite serious and meant to be such. And when it does not lead to lunacy it can lead to humor.  I offer the following as an example.  The US Constitutions forbids “cruel and unusual” punishment.  Reason on that phrase for a moment, please.  I am reminded of an old joke.  A man’s house burns down (or up). He calls his insurance agent and the company declines to pay him.  The agent points out that he had a “fire AND theft” policy, and not a “fire OR theft” policy.  Unless his house was burglarized while it was on fire he has no claim.  The difference here is semantical, no?

    Thus, semantically, the Constitution actually authorizes cruel punishment, if it is usual.  In fact, it seems that it authorizes no other kind.  And unusual punishment is allowed only if it is lenient.  Of course we all “know” what they really meant, do we not?  Yet I believe that serious and significant Supreme Court decisions have been made based upon weaker words.  For example, how did the “right to privacy” (which is not in the Constitution) become a legal right for women to conduct private, but legal, executions of their children, based upon mere whim? 

 

            I wonder why no smart lawyer has argued against some serious (that is cruel) punishment imposed by a new law.  All he would have to “prove” is that it is not usual.   By definition (i.e. semantically) anything imposed for the first time must be unusual.  Thus the first criminal arrested under new law X can not be punished.  Nor, for the same reason, can the second, or third, or fourth, etc, as each, in turn, becomes that unusual first.  If we were to take the Constitution seriously then only the old English Common Law (the one under King George) could be used.  And what was that revolution about after all?

    Maybe those Founding Fathers were actually subtle comics, or drunk.   

REAL WORLD POLITICS

            RICK Santorum is a hero of mine, that is as much as a politician can be.  He is, despite---or perhaps because of---the fact that he has admitted betraying principles for purely political reasons.  To refresh your memory: after losing reelection as US Senator from Pennsylvania, he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.  He is doing so again. I felt that he was being groomed for president so the Democrats had made it a priority to defeat him, and they did. 

            I shall get to the open admission of betrayal.  First, I shall explain one reason for my praising him.  He is a practicing Catholic and lets his Faith influence his behavior.  One time, while receiving an award from a Catholic organization, he attacked his hosts, namely the bishops.  They, in order to obtain federal funds for their charitable institutions, assured him that they keep their religion separate from their activities.  He damned them, wondering aloud why they did not care more for the souls of those they served than they did for their bodies.  The bishops were hurt and angry.  Rick was right, of course.  Neither politicians nor public Catholics often tell the truth.  So his admission carried credibility.

            Back in 2012 Rick was asked about a vote which seemed to conflict with his values.  He “told the truth” to the world (revealing a semi-secret).  At times the party puts pressure on its members to “go along” or face retribution.  Had Rick resisted then he would have lost future benefits for his state and the people he represented.  So he decided to be prudent and to sell out.  As someone who seldom compromises, but has completely sold out to stronger power, I identify with him.  He told the truth, and his career was damaged, perhaps destroyed.  Being candid is rare and dangerous. 

             Rick's admission had a long history.  A long time ago I knew several local politicians in the Bronx.  One of them, for some reason, decided to “educate me.”  Perhaps my unfounded idealism annoyed him.  He explained that, on controversial issues, the votes are assigned in advance.  The end result may seem to be close (e.g. 95 to 5) but the vote would have never taken place until the party bosses dictated to their members how they would vote. 

            My mentor pointed out that, at least in New York, Capital Punishment would never be effectively voted for, or abortion effectively restricted.  Perhaps the legislature would pass bills accomplishing these goals, on paper.  But the governor, no matter who he was, would veto it, and the override would fail, usually by only one or two votes.  The legislators could explain to the voters that they had tried, and would try again, and again.  However, regardless of what the electorate wanted their efforts would fail, because certain issues were always fixed in advance. 

          I was told this fact in the 1960’s.  If there has been an exception to it since then I have yet to notice it.        

A SOLUTION TO THE NON-CRIME PROBLEM

   IT is my impression that most of the larger police organizations have their own “house publications.”  These are magazines which serve as a force wide gossip column.  It is a way for friends to keep in touch, learn who is retiring, and read about unusual incidents.  It is also my impression that the following is always reported, because it always happens, eventually.  I offer a generalized version. 

    Complainant X calls the police and reports a larceny.  He gave Y amount of money to dealer Z to receive a predetermined amount of illegal drugs.  Yet this dishonest dealer, Z, failed to produce the prearranged amount.  So X wants Z arrested, and will swear out a complaint.  I am not joking; this does happen.  After all, as X sees it, he was cheated, unjustly.  And the purpose of the law is to prevent, or to revenge, injustice.  Is it not?

    Of course we all smile at such silly behavior.   A lot of humor is based upon stupidity.  But we do not apply this to our governments… do we?  I refer to the policy adopted by the “Sanctuary Cities.”  Government agencies in these cities will not cooperate with federal agencies with regard to illegal immigrants.  They will not be reported.  Period. 

    The reasoning is as follows.  The immigrants, being officially illegal, would thus be inhibited from seeking assistance, of any kind, from government agencies, particularly the police.  They would fear being prosecuted for their illegal status.  This means that other criminals are given a type of “permission” to prey upon them, without police interference.  Thus the federal government policy makes these potential victims into targets, and increases injustice---all by seeking to enforce a technical law.  Thus the federal policy makes things worse, and should be ignored, if not repealed. 

    Hold a moment!  I apologize.  I confused two issues.  Allow me to rephrase myself.  I did not mean “illegal immigrants.”  I meant members of the Mafia.  It is the Mafia which is “officially” illegal.  The members of this category, when they are cheated by their Dons, and murdered by their peers, are disinclined to seek redress by requesting justice from the courts.  They fear (and we should pity them!) that, should they mention that Gino “Big Gun” Maffuci did not give them their promised cut on a loan shark operation, the police would only arrest them for being part of the illegal operation.  This is an intolerable denial of justice to an oppressed category.

     Clearly this injustice must be remedied.  Mafia operations should be allowed in sanctuary cities.  This unjust prejudice needs to be (excuse the expression) rubbed out.  There is another extra benefit to such a policy.  The disinclination of local governments to consider certain acts as illegal will, automatically, reduce the local crime rates.  More compassion for the oppressed, and lower crime rates: who could oppose that?  There is no need to thank me… well, maybe a little bit.