Smarter Than Thou!

DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE (REALLY!)

DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE (REALLY!)

MY Uncle Phil was in the Army during World War II.  He was a very relaxed fellow, and a natural athlete.  This may be why he had the exceptional ability that he did.  He could recognize air planes almost instantly.  Obviously being able quickly and correctly to identify enemy aircraft was a valuable talent during war.

Phil never saw combat.  By an administrative error he stayed within the states, even though he was designated to serve in the South Pacific.  The nature of his ability, and where he ended up, induced me to consider an interesting question.  What should have been done with him? One option was to treat him like everyone else, and let him take his chance with regard to being killed.  It is the essence of Americanism to consider everyone equal.  We have no official aristocracy… or do we?

The other option was that Phil should have been treated in a special way.  He should have taught others as much of his talent that they could absorb. Entire battalions of better trained soldiers would be of greater value than one exceptional soldier on a South Pacific island. Entire regiments taught the keys to plane spotting would be of great(er) value.  Prudently it would only be stupid to risk him.  Extra precautions should have been enforced to keep him alive and teaching.   Rather than being exposed to the enemy Phil should have been kept in a highly protected rear training area.  He was special, and, obviously, special people need to be handled in special ways, regardless of silly clichés about equality to the opposite.  In other words, if one takes war seriously then there are some very definite un-equal participants who should be treated un-equally. 

I move from the obvious to the unpopular---even previously incapable of defense!  Suppose that the “climate change” advocates are correct.  As currently described it is an unproveable hoax.  But let us assume that people like Al Gore are correct. They then are taking danger seriously and trying to save the lives of land-based mammals of all types.  And they do this by teaching, lecturing, traveling, etc, all over the nation.  And their message, intentions, methods of identification (Phil like), etc, all make them un-equally more important than the rest of us ordinary types.  So if they prudently conserve their time, and labor, and stress, by taking private planes, and building bigger houses, and spending donated funds on their own desires, then they are worth it. They earn it because of their “talent” to see danger.  Yes, this is a defense of apparent hyper pure hypocrisy.  But the rules that apply to the serfs do NOT apply to nobility.   Their cause makes them noble.

That is it would if climate change were actually happening… and that, children, is another issue.  (Watch this space for additional judgments). 

A FALSE FREEDOM

I recently saw “1776,” a pretty good movie about the founding of America.  The Founding Fathers were uniform neither in fact nor in theory.  One dividing issue was slavery.  How could these men reconcile it with the official value of the equality of all men?  They, sort of, ignored it, leaving the problem to be solved by future generations… by brute force.  Slavery remained a real problem, and the most serious one.  Maybe this is one reason why few people notice another one.  It is serious in principle but trivial in application.

I admit that I had not noticed the topic of this effort until recently, when some intellectual mentioned it in a speech.  I also admit that I am making a reasonable assumption: namely, that Federal and state laws are essentially the same in most procedural matters.  This is especially so with regard to the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment forbids laws restricting freedom of speech.  This is to say that it APPEARS to validate freedom of speech as part of the American system.  It is right there, in fancy black and white… right?

Yet the various levels of governments have severe speech restrictions.  For example, during a trial the judge may be called upon to sustain an objection. An objection is an official request to invalidate freedom of speech.  If it is accepted then the lawyer is, officially and legally, prohibited from speaking. And the only reason why the lawyer spoke the forbidden words is that they might help him in his case. In other words, justice and freedom of speech are totally dependent upon the perhaps arbitrary whim of a single judge.  He has the power of a king! Just read the Bill of Rights!  Simply do not take it seriously.

There are, literally, hundreds of other cases of similar anti-freedom rules. In some legal matters spouse is not free to testify against spouse.

Most Americans are strongly inclined to declare their nation to be the best ever.  Maybe this is why so many do not notice the many restrictions which make “free speech” into something so conditional.  Most prohibitions are reasonable or even necessary.  Maybe, like the Founding Fathers in the movie, we all simply ignore what we can not resolve, or what we refuse to accept as it is.  It did not bother them much, and we really do not care.