Smarter Than Thou!

MANDATORY HONESTY.

    AS of this writing there is an “investigation” regarding some claims made by the current president, regarding the past president. The details, and perhaps even the facts, are not relevant to my comments. My subject is more general, even abstract. It deals with how one gets facts in such matters.

    My personal experience may be illustrative. I have been the attempted victim of conspiracies. I know because of a legal proceeding in which one was made public. In others various members had qualms of conscience and became “traitors” to the plot and informed me of what was going on.

    One related aspect was a “problem” with the New York State Internal Revenue Department. The agency suddenly decided that I owed them a lot of money. Their sole justification was that IF I did not owe them THEN they would not be asking me for the payment. In other words, it was true solely because “we said so.” No documentation or proof was offered. A “person of interest” in the matter managed to produce an original agency confidential and internal document that supported my case… and shocked the heck out of the agents when I showed it to them.

    I claimed that the agency was working with other government agencies to harm me. I claimed that it was a secret (but actually minor---I was not that important) conspiracy. At that time, unable to obtain “serious” employment, I was a substitute teacher at local school districts. This required me to leave my home at about 7:00AM. One day, shortly before 7 o’clock, I received a call from (someone claiming to be) THE IRS Commissioner himself. He solemnly assured me that (1) he personally had checked my file and (2) there was no interoffice memo detailing a secret conspiracy against time.

    I hope that you can see the defect. In law and Latin it is called ipse dixit. The phrase means, “He himself says it.” It means ONLY he ONLY says it, and there is no other proof or evidence to support the statement. Of course if a person were involved in a conspiracy he would admit it, right? All members of secret conspiracies admit it when asked, right?

    I bring up this because recently the head of the FBI (officially) testified before Congress regarding possible wire tapping of an illegal nature. IF he were involved THEN he would not admit it, would he? And IF he were not involved THEN he would deny it. In other words, no matter what the truth is, he would say exactly the same thing. From such “investigations” how can reality be determined? The question is rhetorical.

    Everyone knows that officials involved in illegal activity would never lie to Congress, or is it the FBI, or is it vice versa. It does not matter, as lying in such a circumstance simply does not happen, as humans do not lie. So the way to investigate these matters is simply to ask the suspects questions, and give full credence to the answers.

    As I understand it for a long time the American Criminal Justice System did not allow accused murderers to testify in their trials. The reasoning was that anyone who had already pled not guilty would say the same thing: “I did not do it.” So why waste the time and attention of the jury? Maybe we should return to that system. It would avoid having silly stuff on the news.

FORMALIZED INJUSTICE

            RECENTLY I observed an on line debate re immigration from Mexico. One (more North)American (from Texas) argued as follows. “We” fought and bled for the land that became Texas, in several revolutions, and one official war… and won. And the winner gains (land like the American West). A (probably) Mexican replied that “we” also fought and bled for the same land.

            The key battle in these matters was that of San Jacinto. Had Mexican general Santa Ana not become contemptuous of the Texican rebels Sam Houston probably would not have won. We remember the Alamo and history changed because the Mexicans choose to take a siesta right before being attacked. In other words Texas became free, and then a republic, and then a state (and then part of the Confederacy), only because a Mexican general got out generaled, once.

            As both sides in the on line debate, unrealistically, were claiming a paid purchase cost they must have felt that this could, make a difference. Should it? First, none of the people now alive shed any blood, or fought any enemies, in order to make the USA and/or Mexico what they now are.

            Admittedly men from both groups did fight, bleed and die for their respective causes and/or nations. Does this fact give some right to those current generations who have succeeded them? I hold that it does not. I wrote a long essay on the subject. My conclusion was that current (even temporary) possession is the only rational way to determine rights in international matters. Might might not make right, morally, but it is the only logical way to approach these issues. Successful conquests, revolutions, invasions and wars are exactly that, namely successful. Successes change the colors of countries on maps, their leaders and their flags, and often their currencies, and the propaganda that will now pass for official history. However, can real history give injured parties a right to redress? And how could any decision be made?

        Justice is nice, even a moral thing. However---except possibly for a short time after the change---it is not possible to right international wrongs. Reopening history is an almost endless process, going back to the sons of Noah. No matter where a person choses to stop, the choice can be attacked in that a previous wrong may have been a worse injustice. Maybe the Gringo North did unfairly seize much of Mexico. So what? Did not the Mexicans revolt against the properly ruling Spanish king? And the imperial Spanish destroyed the Aztecs, who had overthrew their rightful rulers of another tribe? And they, probably, had done the same, and so on, and so on…

        I recall what the head of the FBI said when declining to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton. He did NOT say that she was innocent. He DID say that “no rational prosecutor” would pursue the case. Any jury surely would contain at least one Hillary fanatic who would hold out, if necessary, until the Second Coming, preventing any conviction. Thus any trial, rightly judged, would have been an utter waste of time and effort.

    The same is true with these on line arguments. Of course, they may be fun.

PUT THAT ON PAPER

    Samuel Goldwyn was a movie producer who was a later day Ben Franklin, in that he said common sense things in a memorable way. One of his expressions was: “A verbal contract is not worth the paper it is printed on.” Keep this in mind, please, as I bring up another point. At times products are offered for sale (mostly by infomercials on cable TV) with an “odd” addition. This is a “certificate of authenticity.” This consists entirely of a piece of paper that asserts that the purchased item, for example a coin, really contains real silver, or meets some other claim.

    We all know, of course, that such a piece of paper can not be false. How could it be a forgery? Even if produced by photocopy machines in the hundreds, each one simply testifies to truth. After all, we all also know that false claims can not be put on paper, because…

    I end (perhaps only temporarily) my attempt at scorn and satire. I have found that criminals, as a class, attribute an absolute degree of credibility to anything published in books and/or in official reports. It seems that America as a whole is becoming more criminal in personality. As evidence I refer (in writing) to the most recent Trump “scandal” involving the claim that his campaign phones were tapped. So far his opponents have attempted to refute his claims, apparently and entirely, by pointing out that they are “unsubstantiated.” That is, they rely on his verbal claim. He has no official report to support himself.

     The opponents are (apparently?) arguing that IF the charges were put in writing, on official some letter head, THEN they would be substantiated, supported, validated, realized, etc, that is true. I believe that a Boy Scout inter office memo would be sufficient. This is because we all know that people are incapable of lying when they put words on paper. Right? I know that this sounds silly when expressed this way. However, this is precisely what is going on. Reporters are believed if and only if their stories are “properly sourced.” This means (maybe) having two or three people say X rather than only one. We all know that when two or three agree, no lie can be expressed and no mistake be made. Right?

     The same reasoning seeps into Congressional investigations. We all know that if government agents do something criminal, and have already lied dozens of times, and are facing jail, they will confess every truth to Congressmen, because… ? Once again, when broken down into its parts the commonly accepted principle dissolves. A report from the FBI is automatically accepted, but the same words, if only said, are not.

     Somehow it has become common to believe that paper words can validly verbal claims. Somehow it is often believed that liars will tell the truth when it will cost them their freedom.

     As I wrote above (and thus it must be true) America is becoming more criminal and more gullible.

PROTESTING TOO MUCH

    IN probably the second most famous quote from Hamlet the queen comments that “the lady protests too much.” In other words, an innocent person will not go to extremes to establish her innocence. But the guilty person will. Shakespeare probably had a valid insight. I shall borrow it.

    In a recent installment I offered some brief comments on why conservative ideas, despite being supported by majorities, lose in contests with Liberal views. They would not win without some effort by, and advantages for, those who advance opposing liberal values.

    Basically the liberal strategy is as follows. When presented with a problem the liberal advocates an immediate solution. For example, a flood induces an immediate demand that emergency funds to be given, and agencies to be sent (or created). This creates interest groups from the victims, as well as others. The employees of the agency will want to remain employed. The conservative politician, fearful of being called heartless, will not attempt to eliminate the agency or refuse the funds. Thus an inclined to vote liberally group is created. The liberal sees problems as always existing, and thus always requiring some kind of continuous reaction. For them there will always be “unwanted” infants in the womb, polar bears on melting ice caps, people discriminating against homosexuals, etc. All of these “problems” require government action, and create special interest groups.

    The liberal defense sounds similar to a charitable religious inclination. Every suggestion or demand is intended to make the world a better place, by eliminating one current problem at a time. In fact it is intended to sound this way. Liberalism is a quasi religion. When phrased in this way the conservative forces find it very difficult to oppose. Who wants people to suffer? Who would refuse to help his fellow man who is suffering?

    The above brief analysis may explain how many minor victories are won. It does not explain the persistent motivation of the Left. Why are they always so dedicated to their causes? And the Left is monolithic in its values. All support all. Those who demand single gender marriages are always pro abortion and fear global warming. Those who want the rich made poor are always in favor of an increased minimum wage. Planned Parenthood is their church; they may not go there, but they want it to prosper and to serve others, and to kill most of its clients. There is no obvious connection among the various causes. Yet the same people will protest every conservative position, in a reflexive reaction. They do not reason and evaluate. They simply respond, uniformly.

    I offer an explanation. The Leftist has no religion because he rejects any moral code not based upon materialism. Thus his political/social value system is what he uses to fill the gap that religion is intended to fill. The more he can make it be like a religious faith the more satisfying it is. Thus he feels less uncomfortable if the system is rigid and, literally, dogmatic. It a very real sense the nation is being slowly transformed by the Religious Left.