Philosophy

Denial of Witnesses Trump Trial

Today at the very top of the United States’ justice system, there was a vote taken to admit or deny relevant witnesses to Trump’s impeachment trial. Those witnesses would have been central to the case presented by the prosecution and in what can only be viewed as a partisan decision, the witnesses were denied. Procedural law is supposed to be constructed in such a way that it deploys facilitative protocol in an effort to prevent bias by either side. This high court at the pinnacle of the U.S. justice system today failed in its duty. Its jurors (senators) acted with bias and with motive to prevent evidence fearing that such evidence would work in opposition to their desired partisan position.

Lawyers and politicians are supposed to be smart, right? Then wouldn’t the admission of evidence assist a cerebral mind come to more calculated decision with respect to guilt or innocence? If evidence is denied in lieu of the prospect that better decision making is congruent with additional evidence, then might one perceive that undue pressure may have been elicited upon jurors to behave in such a way the is contrary to an oath of unbiased deliberation?  If jurors at the highest level of a justice system cannot be relied upon to behave impartially, then what confidence can one bestow at the lower levels?

This issue at stake is whether the President of the United States abused his power in withholding military aid from Ukraine in the context of a request for a Ukrainian sponsored investigation of a political rival. If a direct link is made between the withholding of aid and the denial of an investigation request, then an absolute abuse of power would have occurred. The abuse of power would be impeachable because the behavior would be contrary to the oath of office. 

Logic follows that the act of repressing evidence restricts a body’s ability to formulate strong decisions in lieu of facts. Furthermore, such an act has the supplemental effect of marginalizing the ideal of a robust civil democracy unencumbered by prejudice and / or an autocratic influence.          

Uncategorized

Modest Keith Corrigan

There was this accounting office where I spent a tax season in approximately 2004 here in Calgary. I showed up as a contractor and weaved my way into the inner fabric of a well established firm for this finite period. There was this guy on staff named Keith Corrigan. He struck me as kind of quirky but pleasant. I enjoyed his laid back approach to accounting and tax. He had an admirable confidence and he possessed supreme interpersonal skills. I didn’t have much to do with him since he was deployed on corporate work and I was tasked with personal returns. However; we had an unspoken agreement between us as we worked away in the office sharing the occasional witticisms. On April 30, while slaving away on the last couple of returns, in walks Keith looking for my invoice to get me settled up in anticipation of the wind up tax party. We took care of business, headed to the party, and subsequently lost contact with each other.

Fast forward to 2015, and I’m driving into the parking lot of the Smart Executive Centre and I see this slender fellow having a smoke and I’m thinking – “I know him”. We get reacquainted and I discover that he’s also taken up office residence here where I work. Our rapport is quickly reestablished and I begin to marvel at his experience and knack for story telling . We’ve had much in common with respect to tax and investing and together we would on occasion satirize unsavory positions taken by the CRA. Keith was a man fully blessed with common sense and deployed the trait eloquently with his subtle humor. 

He recently died suddenly at the age of 59. I attended his Celebration of Life today and the event was informal and modest akin to the way he carried himself every day.

His obituary:

https://calgaryherald.remembering.ca/obituary/keith-corrigan-1078330214

Lifes Lessons, Philosophy, Politics

Tawdry Trump At Work

Now, it’s Sarah Huckabee Sanders needing to apologize for gesticulating at Joe Biden as a stutterer. Her company with Donald Trump has apparently rubbed off. You know that Trump would be chastising that Christian outlet which opined he should be removed from office. The only question was going to the quickness of his tweet. Would he be able to contain his response until morning or would his ego driven esteem stricken compulsion have him reach for his twitter account with immediacy?

The biggest question in my mind with respect to Trump is not the result of an impeachment trial but actually the forecasted sociological effect of his broadcasted depraved behavior in the context of his a position which one would think should attract virtuous citizens. In other words, if this kind of behavior is to be rewarded with the presidency, then what message does this send in the context of how the general populous may behave in their own personal and professional lives going forward? This is what stirs me.

Furthermore, what does it say about a democracy when elected representatives are so bound by the navel gazing machinations of a political system producing blind loyalty that they compromise their conscience in casting votes on behalf of constituents? 

Then there are the ramifications of a legal system tested at the very pinnacle. If faith in a legal system becomes imperiled due to a process obfuscated by partisan bias, how would any litigant in a civil action trust an investment in justice that has been compromised at the very top?   

Uncategorized

Technology’s Incursion on Your Power

It’s happening whether you like it or not. The digital age is impacting your personal power and your ability to return fire. Here’s an example. Typically after a Uber ride, I will look to my phone so that I can acknowledge the tip request and send one. This morning I had a glaring message pop up with an “I understand” button having me acknowledge Uber’s reference to matters relevant to “behavior” as if my communication on my most recent ride did not meet their standard. It makes me think that my conversation with the driver was actually recorded without notifying me of such. I came to realize during the latter part of the ride that my driver may have been having difficulty understanding me given that English was his second language (he was wearing a turban). In humor, I had referenced the authoritative tone of the satellite guide woman giving directions and then gave her credit when she acknowledged me by name.  Could this have been the offending reference? It’s all I can imagine given the completeness of my conversation with the driver. 

You see, I used a little sarcasm during our ride to add color to the trip which may have been perceived as something different. I suspect this phenomenon will become less and less of a problem for people over time because people will just stop engaging in small talk flavored with witticism since it will be deemed too much trouble with a risk of negative consequences should banter be misunderstood. In other words, an experience of interpersonal connectedness will be extinguished due to an over sensitive culture awarded favor from daft elites lacking in common sense. After all, it was the Uber app that gave the final word in absence of a North American phone number on their website.          

Uncategorized

Trump Goin’ Down

With all the testimony this week on Capitol Hill, believe it or not there are still pockets of republican law makers squealing with disbelief still that Trump is guilty as charged.  Jim Jordan may be the last man standing and late night stand up acts will certainly be targeting him for his formulation of logic. Devin Nunes was another Republican so stained in partisanship over facts that he thought that somehow by referencing “poor TV ratings” in an intelligence hearing he’d sway the argument. With all the history of Trump’s lies, deceit, attacks on the vulnerable, twitter tirades, spinning of a conspiracy theory (Obama’s birth), associations with criminals (Manafort for one), apparent deeds of sexual harassment according to some 16 women, countless civil court cases prior to Presidency, obfuscation of publicizing financial history (tax returns), personal attacks on citizens competing for presidential nomination, business intent to operate in corrupt Russia, Mr. Nunes somehow thought by referencing old newspaper headlines that conflating matters would help his defence of this sham of a man, Trump.    

It’s been a harrowing display of partisanship and very disappointing to witness this presidency along with Trump’s character to those who hold justice dear. It was a great experiment in populism projected onto the American people by voters contemptuous of being marginalized with powerlessness. Ironically, the man sent to Washington to address matters of the powerless has abused the power bestowed upon him and a lot of folks saw it coming including yours truly. 

 If one fails to exercise objective thought in the face of political philosophy in a democracy, there are implications. If one turns a blind eye, one will be caught. It may not be today or tomorrow, but the facts will emerge. A steadfast adherence to ideology is healthy but if the implementation of such ideology requires the suppression and disregard to basic values and human rights, then such implementation in democratic form will require a reset in order to extinguish such aberrant conduct. While the trait of loyalty has absolute merit in the context of executing team cause, blind loyalty tarnished with misdeed has inevitable negative consequences including collateral damage. As a result of this Trump debacle, it becomes apparent that the whistle blower provision worked and thankfully there was an American sharp enough to step forward for the good of country and his / her fellow patriot to out this reprehensible conduct of bargaining political gain with earmarked military aid.

Incredulously, there is still the remote possibility that Republicans will grasp at some kind of rationale for defending a no vote to impeachment if proceedings actually make it to trial in absence of Trump’s resignation. I am one conservative ideologue not blinded by partisan ideology but strident in articulating repercussions from being stubborn and outright indignant toward thoughtful discourse.