Category Archives: Philosophy

Lifes Lessons, Philosophy, Politics

Passenger Rights For Ocean Cruisers Next?

I’ve thought much of the passengers stranded on cruise liners in the Orient over the past couple of weeks. I was definitely suspicious of the quarantine protocol thinking that these cruise vessels would not afford the degree of isolation required in order to prevent the transmission of a virus. Not that I’m an epidemiologist but in every piece that I’ve read since the threat of the coronavirus, it seemed that the health professionals didn’t have strong confidence in how exactly the virus spreads and they didn’t provide much assurance that healthy passengers on a quarantined cruise liner would be protected. It seems now that the rights of health cruisers were superseded by an overzealous quarantine effort and an obvious void in protocol perpetrated by an international lapse in cooperation.

When we elect leaders who lack a moral compass or who are irrationally swayed by ideology over practicality, we should expect the occasional debacle to arise. We should expect intransigence, indifference, and ambivalence. Great leaders have a knack for anticipating problems and establishing control mechanisms. Great leaders do not patronize administrative bodies designed for international cooperation (United Nations, World Health Organization). They seek ways to strengthen the foundation. Great leaders do not find themselves distracted by issues of personal accountability thereby compromising their attention toward matters of international importance. Great leaders do not find themselves isolated due to pettiness in their bargaining or vindictive with opponents. Great leaders do not find themselves enthralled in meetings over the mundane.     

Health workers fighting disease and treating patients on the front line need administrative competence as a pillar of their support. They need courageous leaders cognizant that the proliferation of international travel and trade has made nation to nation cooperation paramount in protecting lives and potentially fostering higher living standards.    

Lifes Lessons, Philosophy, Politics

Corruption In North America

We’ve been lucky in North America compared to most other parts of the world. We’ve historically had less corruption and in some comparative examples – a lot less.  Canada ranks 12th and the U.S. ranks 23rd of 180 nations as of 2019. We still cringe here upon witnessing acts of corruption whereas unfortunately in other countries such as Russia, Venezuela, Somalia, or Yeman, it’s all just yawn worthy.

Corruption correlates with morale of the citizenry. If meritorious conduct is penalized through acts of corruption, the incentive to perform in alignment with just values is compromised. Good natured benevolence can be repressed while witnessing rewards bestowed upon cheats. A cycle is established and new norms arise and transfer inter generationally.

Special interests are oftentimes not congruent with the common good.

Let’s turn to the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. An uncouth pragmatic populist with a never ending zeal to insult and lie has been put forward as President and his party faithful senators have been whipped into saving this man’s presidency amidst a court assembled with jurors biased through party politics unable to distinguish their party loyalty from a cerebral interpretation of facts. These senators voting to acquit the president of “obstruction of justice” and “abuse of power” have done so in lieu of obvious facts deeming Trump to be unfit. One reading of the Gordon Sondland transcript from the impeachment investigation proceedings would ground one in Trump’s self serving motives in withholding approved Ukrainian military aid. Despite obfuscation from the White House, the eloquently presented chronology of events via the impeachment investigation soundly illustrated Trump’s deviousness in provoking a dependent nation to comply with his request for an investigation of “Biden’s son”. The evidence was so clear despite the refusal of the White House to comply with subpoenas and documents that the Republican senior ranking member Devin Nunes serving as joint chair of the intelligence committee during investigation proceedings looked simply ridiculous in his futile efforts in combating the glaring undisputable evidence summarized by Adam Schiff and supported with revealing testimony from experienced diplomats tasked with administering Ukraine policy. Then there were those that directly heard the request made by Trump of Zelensky on the July 27, 2019 call, “The other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.” Zelensky didn’t get his White House visit and military aid was held up. Diplomats couldn’t get answers as to why aid was held up. A well respected and well intentioned Ambassador of Ukraine was fired and smeared right alongside the timeline of events.    

One then asks, in the face of indisputable evidence of Trump’s abuse of power and thwarting of justice through the repression of evidence, how in good conscience could an elected representative of the government and steward of the constitution vote to acquit him of impeachment? It’s simple. I believe these people to be corrupt. That is my opinion of them. They are too intelligent having reached their high office not to be able to distinguish party loyalty from a civic duty in administering justice. Hence; they’ve been influenced in such a way that their conscience, in my opinion, has been compromised.  Yes….that’s right, corruption in North America.

Pundits will be forecasting the fallout but they will pontificate in the political instead of the streets. They’ll be dissecting the electoral college instead of commercial contracts. They’ll be retweeting Trump instead of monitoring labor relations. In other words, the needle could change when it comes to the moral strength of civil discourse as a populous grasps the condoning of corruption at the highest level of a  government in North America.                  

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.          

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?   

Philosophy

Ron MacLean Bestowed U of A Honorary Degree

The University of Alberta is actually a pretty good school but continues to bestow honorary degrees. Despite Ron MacLean being a “good guy”, in my estimation he should not be awarded a “degree” from my Alma Mater if he has not earned it. Nor should have David Suzuki or any other recipient be awarded an “Honorary Degree”.

You see, the process of earning a degree requires work and sacrifice. One undertakes course work as an adult in pursuit of career knowledge. Course work may also entail studies of the humanities as supplemental to ones’ core discipline. In fact, at the end of a bachelor’s program, one is positioned to advance a discipline through post graduate studies and research. Those who make it through a Bachelor’s program have sacrificed finance in achieving a “parchment”, likely have undertaken debt, and have consequently have made a personal investment in their profession.  Awarding “honorary degrees” to individuals for accomplishments outside the realm of academic endeavour having not completed prescribed curriculum simply debases the degree and frankly offends those who sacrificed in actualizing the requirements set forth from day one. I speak for myself and obviously others but not all.

Do specific citizens deserve recognition aside from that obtained from community, family, and career compensation? Yes. I do not object to governments, charities, communities, and sports and arts associations from awarding its contributors. However; university honorary degrees are simply wrong.

The U of A will once again call me this year looking for a “donation”. Unfortunately, the first year student volunteering his / her time to make the call will be confronted with my indignant response. This individual in his / her youth and inexperience to much monetary and absolute in opinion will be perplexed that such a defined position will be taken.