Smarter Than Thou!

SAY IT ISN’T SO, JOE

SAY IT ISN’T SO, JOE

Back in the 20th Century there was a very successful racehorse called Seabiscuit. Racing was very popular in those days. It was arranged that Seabiscuit would race War Admiral. War Admiral was the son of Man of War, who had been probably the best American racehorse ever. Therefore the race was a natural competition between potential champions.

Seabiscuit ran ahead in most of a close race. However he came in second, in a photo finish, by a very, very small amount. And he lost because, at the finish, noticing that War Admiral was behind him, the jockey pulled up and slowed Seabiscuit slightly… enough to lose the race. I repeat: while the race was still in doubt the jockey decided that the horse needed some “rest.” He concluded that this would make no difference. This was not a joke. And I wrote it for a very specific reason.

Sometimes we humans can be idiots. That is utterly stupid.

I mention this because some incidents might otherwise be incredible.   MSNBC, the cable news (sic) network has a bias against President Trump. The network has a morning show, “Moring Joe.” It is named after Joe Scarborough, who once was, at least formally, a Conservative. He and his co-hostess attacked Trump for not attacking (strongly enough) Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Joe speculated that Trump was weak because the Russians “have something on him.” That is they are blackmailing him. I have two comments. First, is it possible to blackmail Trump? His personal life has been serially disgraceful. Lots of bad things have already been made public. This makes him effectively immune from being shamed.    

My second comment is to repeat Joe’s conclusion. He said that the Russians, when they do release the “secret stuff,” will really demand something---something really, really significant.

This was Joe’s Seabiscuit moment. Apparently he does not realize that blackmailing works if and ONLY if the secret material is kept secret. Once it is “released” it no longer carries any power to compel compliance and it become valueless. Joe, apparently, has recently arrived from Mars.

Maybe his ratings are higher there than on Earth.

FATAL FLAW OR SIMPLY SILLY

    Someone, maybe lots of people, say the following regarding the political division in the nation.. Conservatives consider liberals to be wrong; Liberals consider Conservatives to be evil. My analysis this time presents a fact that is so obvious that everyone manages to look past, or through, it. It should be used by the Liberals as a dagger. The Conservatives can only pray that they do not need to defend it.

    Here is the context. Conservatives argue that the Constitution is to be understood literally. In other words, its words do not mean other words, but mean their primary common meanings. That is, it is clear because it uses standard English vocabulary. Let me now quote a phrase regarding punishment. Legal permitted penalties must NOT be “cruel or unusual.” And this seems reasonable, and clear… for about 45 seconds. Take the words literally, please. Do you see the problem?

     Recently the “nation” rose up in its opposition to separating children from criminal parents, namely illegal immigrants. This was considered cruel and un-American. So to do this is forbidden by the Constitution. OK… except that punishing ANY criminal separates him from his young children unless we legally imprison children (instead of merely killing them by abortion). Thus every and any imprisonment becomes potentially cruel. Personally I always though that punishments are supposed to be cruel. Otherwise they are not punishments, no?  

    How about “unusual” punishments? By definition, and by literal common usage, this means “not usually done.” So not ever having been done MUST mean (even more!) unusual. So the state has no legal right to punish anyone…. the first time. This is because the first time would be most unusual, and thus legally prohibited. So, if we are to obey legal principles, we can punish someone if and only if it is the second (or greater) time. That is, in a variation of the Biblical principle, the second must be first, and the first second. Huh? Imagine pleading this before the Supreme Court.

    Of course, the response is: “You are kidding! This is idiotic. Everyone knows what the words REALLY were meant to say.” And we do. However, we do only because we go beyond the clear meanings and consider the Constitution to be (here it is!) a living document. We force words into a contemporary context. We ignore some as outright silly. No one can use some of them as they were written. Regardless of denials, Conservatives and Liberals share a common position.

         Yet Conservatives still profess their literal approach as if it were a rigid dogma that was actually possible. And Liberals do not attack them for this. Am I really the only one who notices these things.?