IS IT FAIR?

15 06 2015

Authored by William Robert Barber These days, the meaning of “fair” is more ambiguous than certain. Today, the word is often used as an impromptu query answered more as a rhetorical reciprocation wherein the questioner as well as the queried dance to the beat of an open-ended loquacious repartee.

In other words, fair’s relevance is as meaningful as an attorney’s contrivance, a regulator’s discretion, or a judge’s predication. However, the word “fair” aligns with wholesome synonyms such as reasonable, just, and evenhanded. “Fair” is a ragingly favorite descriptive used by socialists and progressives.

The essence of the word frequently emotes amid the populous a righteous, even moral acceptance. Of course, “fair” is not necessarily righteous or moral but arbitrary and subject to the facilities of circumstance and interpretation. For example, surely it is not “fair” that some of us are not as intelligent, beautiful, or strong. Some of us are born poor, others rich; some are born with devastating handicaps, some live to a hundred while some die young.

Living things are subject to natural selection, a quintessential self-serving process; wherein “fair” is not a factor of consideration. Therefore, “fair” in the world of beings is more myth than real.

The judicial system works fairer when one has unlimited cash. The world is much fairer for those with money than those without. One-man-one-vote simply means it costs more money to win an election. Persuasion has a far-better chance at consensus with cash than without. It is not definitive that money is everything; indeed it is not — but it is mostly everything. The forthcoming election will pit one billion dollars against the counter parties’ one billion dollars. The media will make lots of money. The political parties will hire huddles of college graduates, many with law degrees, to concoct lies, scurrilous falsities, and machinations of almost the truth. Exuberant pundits will levitate while progressives and conservatives knife-fight their way to the bloody finish. So clearly one can surmise that “fair” is not a party to any of the forthcoming. What will matter is the power of one’s ‘currency’ of persuasion. In the finality, the destiny of the nation is a contest between hope and fear; and frankly, no matter the winner, I do not believe in this dangerous world that hope stands a chance. My fear is that because there is no “fair” the Democrats will triumph and this nation will maneuver itself into the political abyss of socialism wherein “fair” is legislated into the quantitative of equal. Naturally, of the equal some will be equal-plus.

Advertisements




REALITY 101

4 06 2015

Authored by William Robert Barber

Prompted by the attainment of power, material enrichment by overtly stealing someone else’s stash, xenophobic fears, ideological determination, theocratic postulation, or natural inclination, for thousands of years humans have been behaving violently against other humans. This all too human behavior is and has been, throughout, a historical constant.

Terrorists are non-conventional menaces; China, Russia, and most recently ISIL are conventional martial threats with abundant non-conventional capabilities. These counterparties consist of humans. Though menacing and threatening, Americans, the object of their aggressiveness, share in-common traits. We all need shelter, water, and food and require interpersonal relationships. However, no matter the intertwining of our commonalities, violent conflict is a prima causa primal rejoinder, a Causa Sui to a threatening situation. Conflict is entrenched within our behavioral interface. Violent conflict is so effectually a tool of human behavior that never in recorded history has there ever been a period of “peace & good will among all men.” So why, in the name of good sense, tout peace as our foreign policy goal? Conflict is not a behavioral dysfunction — it is the natural course of human behavior.

Here are the reasons: Because there is ‘more’, there will always be ‘less;’ therefore, those with less will always contest those with more. Without moral tenets evil is indefinable, noting that such tenets clearly defined or left opaque is functionally immaterial. Neither good nor bad is the objective of behavioral concern because the majority of human actions are factually amoral. The object of concern is not the means but the result. Admittedly, these are polarized extremes however; these extremes do frame and amplify the intangible “in-between” quantities of greed, deceit, and egocentrism that depicts the essence of being human. Essentially, human beings are not trustworthy. Peace as a policy is a farce. America and the free world cannot afford an equal or second place standing among nations and survive.

I am guessing that violent aggression started from the moment a humanoid could fashion a rock amongst his fingers. This inclination of lethal fierceness for reasons of survival, premeditated malice, or for no reason at all is an intrinsic instinct of us cerebrals. Nevertheless, we Americans — specifically Americans of liberal persuasion — rather than confront the “real-world” irrationally create a Disneyland farce of the world as we wish it.

Withstanding historical reference to the contrary, American foreign policy, as if cognitively restrained within an indomitable fantasy, continues to tout peace. Seemingly, the Obama administration more than any other, is quite satisfied with the priority of aligning the necessary political and electoral aspirations before the straightforward confronting of reality which is that America is the world’s police officer. A role that is a mandate with the purpose to impose — by force of arms — less violence upon the world.

In the present: The country is at war; however, President Obama is too busy with implementing “social-justice.” He naively abandoned Iraq and thousands upon thousands have paid a horrific penalty. Thanks to President Obama and his policies, the Middle East is in turmoil and Iraq a bloody mess.

President Obama is an ideologically driven fool. Nonetheless, the Pentagon does not challenge him. The president is not a leader, he is not a follower; he just gets in the way. However, no serving general or admiral, no director of the CIA or FBI, no one of merit presently serving will stand up and speak their professional mind.

So now comes the political gamester Hilary and the next election… wherein the forces of juicy promises and the practice of statutorily compliant corruption besieges the constitution and its meaningfulness.

The Democrats’ reliance on their usual suspects are pitted against the independent mindful and those of conservative proclivities. The ideology of progressivism will either prevail or be substantially diminished as a means of governess.