What Happens When Reason is Replaced?

What happens when reason is replaced with rage?

At the end of the eighteenth century, both America and France had revolutions to change the status quo.  Both revolutions replaced a monarchy.  In the United States, we severed our union with King George III, of Great Britain. The French chose to redefine the monarchy of King Louis XVI.  Our revolt was spurred, in part, because of dissatisfaction with British taxation, without having a voice in Parliament.  The French were in the middle of failed economic policies by the monarchy, but more importantly, there were famines, droughts, inflation, and taxation of the poor, but not the privileged class.

The paths our countries took after the revolution reflect two radically different approaches.  Our revolutions took place at the last stages of the “Age of Enlightenment” or the “Age of Reason” where science became a central idea among the intellectual community and theorists in Philosophy and Political Science began to write on how governments should serve the people, and how all ideas should be questioned and resolved towards a common good.  Our political leaders, schooled in these ideals applied themselves to creating a government to serve the people, provide for general prosperity, and provide for a common defense.  But they knew a government unchecked would eventually grow to be a self-serving institution. To help prevent, or at least slow this process,  they ensured there were a series of rational checks and balances to the power of a single branch.

France, on the other hand, seemed to reject the very concepts of "Reason" we found so inviting.  As the revolution evolved, it moved from reason to madness.  Initially, the revolution sought to limit the authority of the monarchy (roughly similar to what the British had done with the Magna Carta), increase the power of the third estate (the middle class) limit the power of the clergy and the nobility.  But as time went on and discontent with the progress grew there came an insurgent movement by the Jacobins and the peasants against the landowners.  In the end, the revolution and its counter-revolution resulted in the execution of the King, Queen, a lot of nobility, and anyone the revolutionists in power thought deserved to die.  It was the Age of the Guillotine. From the ruin of the revolution, Napoleonian Bonaparte rose to create his first empire.

Why the difference.  Both started with the progressive philosophies of the day, why did one end with an outcome that led to successful self-governance, while the other replaced a King with an Emperor?

Perhaps it is what we see in our urban areas today.  We have the rich, the powerful, and those who depend on the rich and powerful for their survival.  We can speculate as to the cause of this, but are we developing a class of citizens incapable of reason and who seek only their own interests?  While those in power seek to remain in power by responding to the emotional demands of those who cannot see self-interest is, in the end, destructive?

Those who control the power of the state, and their allies who benefit from the largess of those in power, seek to keep the third estate powerless and in chaos so it cannot rise to challenge the power of the first and second.  What better way than to ensure there is sufficient rage amongst those who refuse to see a different path?  But what happens, when there are shortages as there were in France.  When shelves are bare, energy expensive, and working no longer offers hope of a better life.  Will the elite suggest when there is no bread, we should eat cake?

I Believe in Free Speech, BUT!

        I respect free speech, but I don’t like (fill in your adjective of choice).  This really isn't a First Amendment argument or defense, for most of the outrage comes from private institutions or students in our colleges.  Over the past couple of years, this line has entered increasingly into our vocabulary as the term “Cancel Culture” has fallen from favor and the progressive movement has had to deal with the criticism of trying to control speech with demands that certain types of speech much be outlawed.  

        Social media is a prime example of this approach where they somehow have given themselves the power of what speech is permitted and what speech must be condemned and the writer silenced.

During the pandemic, anyone who questioned the statements of the official party line of the CDC and Dr. Fauci was condemned as spreaders of disinformation.  It was only the official party line that was approved.  Rachael Maddow went on the air to explain to her viewers that if you didn’t get the vaccine, you were condemning the human race, but if you did get it you could never catch the virus and it would magically disappear and we could return to normal.  Was that information or propaganda?  By the way, at last count, she has had to take off on several occasions due to either having COVID or her partner having it.

The difference between speech and speech censorship was highlighted by a couple of events recently.  In December, as a part of a defamation lawsuit by John Stossel against FaceBook[1], the lawyers for FaceBook admitted in court that FaceBook “fact checkers” were merely offering opinion and while FaceBook (a private company) could ban you based on their opinion, the company could not be sued.

Then we have a conservative satire site “The Babylon Bee” banned from Twitter for mocking the Biden Administration’s Admiral (Dr.) Rachael Lavine as their “Man of the Year.”  Twitter’s CEO said Babylon Bee was suspended for their “hateful” content.[2]  To get back in Twitter’s good graces Babylon Bee has now celebrated the fact Admiral Lavine is 100% woman, although she has both x and y chromosomes which back in in the pre-woke era was considered the genetic makeup of a man[3].

Now we have the “I support free speech, but I reject disinformation.”  Several people have said this to me, but none of them can actually tell me how they can separate information from disinformation. 

Was the whole “Trump is in conclusion with Putin to cheat on the election” information or disinformation? Evidence continues to grow this whole affair began as a dirty trick in the Clinton Campaign.  Did the mainstream news even attempt to find the truth, or did they simply push the DNC approved line?  

How about the Hunter Biden story?  In the days before the election everyone with any credibility rolled out the idea this was just disinformation by the New York Post, now 18 months later the New York Times, the Washington Post, and ABCNNBCBS are begrudgingly admitting maybe there is some corruption between Hunter, the PRC, and “the big guy.”  Of course, the election is now in the rearview mirror, so job #1 accomplished.

---

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/babylon-bee-seth-dillon-twitter-ban-censorship-rachel-levine-trans-debate-1689870

[3] https://www.genome.gov/27557513/the-y-chromosome-beyond-gender-determination

The United Nations.

If any organization reflects the difference between an idea and the reality of humanity it is the United Nations.

Created after the second world war, by a group of victors who imagined a new world order that would lead us to a utopian future where men would talk with each other as equals and we would avoid the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Conquest, War, Famine and Death, foretold to us in the Bible.[1]  The United Nations was a vision of the Progressives of the day, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt (and their foggy bottom boys), Winston Churchill, the Allied Nations, Nationalist China, and Joseph Stalin.

As we look at the history of the United Nations and its move towards that utopian world one has to ask, has it earned its keep?  Has it stopped conquest, war, famine, and death?  As best as I can tell not too effectively.  It has a lot of subgroups all working on the big issues, but as we see in today’s vote of condemnation over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it can’t even settle a simple question like are the Russians indiscriminately killing civilians, and should Russia be kicked off the Human Rights Council?

Speaking of the Human Rights Council, who does the UN believe are the countries best equipped to speak to the issues of human rights?  Funny you should ask.

The council is made up of one President and four Vice Presidents. The current President is Ambassador Villegas, from Argentina.  According to Human Rights Watch^[2] Argentina’s problems include police abuse, poor prison conditions, and endemic violence against women.

Other members include Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Marshall Island, Mauritania, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Qatar, Rep of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela.

I know we can all find abuses in any of these countries and clearly, those without sin should cast the first stone[3], but there are truly some rogue states in this council who have no standing when it comes to defining how to protect human rights.  Coming immediately to mind are India, Pakistan, Gambia, Somalia, the UAE, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Today, the UN voted to sanction Russia and remove it from the council.  The vote was 98 for, 24 against, and 58 I don’t want to get involved.  So, who voted against sanctioning Russia?

Votes against included Russia (no surprise) and all the countries who like Russia like China, Syria, Cuba, Vietnam, Belarus, Yemen, most of the ‘stans, etc.

Those who abstained were mostly 3^rd world countries that had little to gain and much to lose if Russia comes back from its pariah status.

In an interesting display of “I’ll show you”  Russia claimed they couldn’t be suspended because they quit!  Not the whole UN mind you, just the Human Rights Council.

---

[1] https://www.learnreligions.com/four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse-4843887

[2] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/argentina#

[3] Bible John 8:7 

It's Subtle

 Without realizing it the Academy Awards this year showed us what America is like.  We have a problem with black-on-black violence.  Everyone has an opinion as to why, but no one has a solution on how to fix the problem.  We stand amazed that this kind of thing can even happen.

We can resign from an institution, we can promise ourselves we'll do better, but at the end of the day, the problem will actually continue to exist.

There are those who will fly into outrage this is all caused by white racism, the former President, or even climate change, but let's be honest, those are all bizarre rationalizations for why one man attacks another.

Then there are those who will cite the problem with declining male masculinity or the value of a husband protecting his wife (which seems to run counter to the societal view that women should stand up for themselves.

The news is not interested in really reporting on this unless it supports their agenda, and then it's usually only to point out how someone is a victim.

Reflecting on the Inquisitions

As we should all know by now the role of the Senate to offer their “Advice and Consent” to a President’s nomination to the position of Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is no longer just a simple act required of the Senate by our Constitution.  It has turned into our version of the Spanish Inquisition.  In the end, thanks to recent changes in Senate rules it has evolved into a political circus.  If it mattered, we could trace this back to a particular Senator from New England and a candidate for Justice who once worked for Richard Nixon, but at this point, it really doesn’t.

Today, whichever party controls the Senate will get their way.  It is only a matter of how spectacular or subdued the opposition will be.  If we know nothing else, we should understand the Democratic party has the support of the entertainment industry and can, on-demand, roll out all the theatrical outrage it requires.  The Republican party seems to be a bit more subdued in its star power but can, when necessary, rise to the occasion by mocking the obvious hypocrisy of people who will stage their own racist attacks simply to spark interest in their career or people who’ve slept with powerful men and women to get to the top and once there accuse those women and men of being rapists (but only when it serves some higher purpose).

I wish for a time when these inquisitions could be handled in the cellars of the Capital with the candidate hung from the rack, but kept away from the prying eyes of the opinion media.  A time when the candidates were not allowed to answer with mundane answers like “I can’t comment on any issue that may come before the court. Or. I will follow precedent in all matters.”  A printed copy of the inquisition and the answers could be made available to the interested media who could then offer their opinions on what the questions and answers really meant which is after all, what we need.  Someone to explain what a question and answer really means.  If you doubt me watch the news, that is almost exclusively what they do.

Questions I would like to see asked:

·       In your opinion what is the role of the SCOTUS?

·       Do you believe SCOTUS can establish new rules for society?

·       How many cases have you argued before Federal Courts?

·       How many times have your judgments been reviewed and overturned for conflict with existing law?

·       When confirmed what are the most significant cases you hope to arrive at the court for justice?

·       What is the role of Executive departments like the Department of Justice?

·       What is the role of the Legislature?

·       How would you handle ambiguous wording in a law?

·       How could the legislature restructure the Judicial Branch?

·       What is the role of the states in a federal system?

·       What are fundamental rights, and who provides for them?

Thankfully, I’m just an interested bystander and my concerns will never rise to the level of the political elite, so I can sit here in the quiet of my study opining away.