Symphony

Encore of Revival: America, January 27, 2020

The concept of an ongoing impeachment process against every sitting president isn't that bad of an idea. In some governments, it's the fourth branch of government called the "Control". Perhaps Obama, Bush, and Clinton—all the way to FDR and Wilson—would have served the people better if they had an ongoing impeachment proceeding. It's tempting, but, for now anyway, it looks like a big waste of time.

The president's defense seems incredibly boring, but that won't matter. The Democratic prosecution omits key evidence, but that won't matter either. Every vote in the Senate has already been decided. These proceedings contain the platform for the other side to be added where there was only one side of what should be fair. Life isn't fair, but drama stops at the Senate floor. As with Clinton, there is neither basis to remove Trump from Office. Impeachment is a big deal, but usually falls to the popular opinion; voting citizens are the jury. Both times, all the energy from the House was spent on the Senate, which just let the House wear itself tired.

While one proceeding moves forward for show toward a pre-agreed verdict, another investigation continues against the faction that wanted this impeachment in the first place. A network of unhappy people from the opposite side of the political spectrum, largely in cahoots with the FBI and beyond, tried to prevent a president from being elected, then tried to remove him from office for something that didn't happen. In their view, justice is an illusion; they only do what suits them with whatever power they have. For them, might is morally right. Fortunately, democracies have systems in place to prevent power-defined morality touted by Leftist activists in America's legal justice system—whether judges or FBI.

The strongest evidence in this impeachment trial is the phone call read-out between Trump and Zelensky. It only seems inditing when heard in small snippets by people who hate Trump anyway. To everyone else, it is acquitting. Calling witnesses would stretch on and on and, for Republicans, would only serve the purpose of exposing the swamp that the FBI was a small part of. Democrats gamble that the Senate won't call witnesses, so House managers taunt the Senate about not calling witnesses. But, just how the president released the contents of the phone conversation by surprise, the Senate could decide to start the boring process of asking pre-written questions through the Chief Justice. The main purpose for Republicans would be to put accomplices on the stand. If that happens, expect at the top of the list the center of the phone call's discussion: Joe Biden.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Encore of Revival: America, January 6, 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5SZQpUoD8

Happy New Year! Free speech is threatened most when it is laid down freely. It is threatened more when public companies are allowed to threaten it. Prior to Hong Kong protests, the term “self-censorship” was tossed around like a fourth-grade sponge ball on a PhysEd parachute. Today, if Facebook doesn’t want someone’s name mentioned—even though the people not allowed to mention the name aren’t involved—then Facebook users won’t mention the name for fear of losing their connection to friends and family.

That is the usual blackmail, right?—friends and family?

Pacific Daily Times will not report the name of an ousted whistleblower unless it either becomes old news and is needed for discussion or there is litigation involving the whistleblower. But, that’s as far as things go. Should enough time pass or the whistleblower file private or civil action over being mentioned—or a disenfranchised social media user were to file private or civil action over being censored or banned—then the name becomes fair game for the Times. For the Times, it’s about being niche and newsworthy rather than alarmist and chasing the most recent fad. We want a name attached to a story that is unusual from what others will report.

But, Facebook, YouTube, and others in mainline media seem to have more in the game than just keeping things relevant and interesting. Banning users and removing content for naming a name already named seems to indicate that they are protecting the whistleblower because they support what the whistleblower did. That stacks up the best, anyway.

At the Times, others being banned for repeating the named name is far more interesting than the name itself. Banning or censoring users for mentioning an ousted whistleblower on publicly listed social media platforms is atrocious. We are headed for public utilitization of social media. The same could be argued for food, drug, and grocery giants, but that’s another editorial for another week.

This raises another question. What is a “whistleblower” anyway? Generally, the term is vernacular, referring to someone who sees foul play and “blows a whistle”. The problem is that whistleblowers wear special clothes to identify themselves, wave flags with bright colors, and make loud noises to draw the attention of an entire stadium. But, ever since Trump threatened an inbred political swamp in one of the most white-collar corrupt graft cities in the world, the term “whistleblower” seems to have been reassigned the definition “accuser in hiding who has a right to accuse without proof, then keep hiding”.

This “whistleblower” isn’t the actual whistleblower but a spectator in the stands. By the standard definition, the real whistleblowers were the Federal agents who acted upon the claims. Misapplying the term “whistleblower” to this anonymous, baseless coward of an accuser has only served to lionize the housecat.

continue reading

Standard