Americans (was: Re: Message formats)

From: Jerome Fine <jhfine_at_idirect.com>
Date: Fri Jan 8 19:52:40 1999

>Charles E. Fox <foxvideo_at_wincom.net>

> > The country is fine, but we always manage to elect nincompoops to govern it.
>
> You don't have a monopoly on that. We seem to have the same problem.
> It's probably due to the fact that mostly nincompoops run for office.
> Geoff Roberts
> Computer Room Internet Cafe
> Port Pirie
> South Australia.
> netcafe_at_pirie.mtx.net.au

Jerome Fine replies:

I think this thread is not appropriate - it is too old - and likely will not
change. Human nature seems mostly to be to believe what we want
to hear rather than to listen to what is being said and then try and figure
out what will actually happen or what the truth actually is.

More to the point, it is not so much that mostly nincompoops run
for office, but, in my opinion, that they actually are voted into office.
There are too many examples, so I won't even bother.

I might give ONLY one example. In the house, at the very end of the
105th, the Democrats wanted witnesses and the Republicans did not.

In the senate in the 106th, the Democrats want no witnesses and the
Republicans want then.

Of course, being politicians, they spout very high sounding reasons
which are somewhat true - it is likely there is at least 1% of the truth in
every reason - but the real reasons or at least the predominant ones
are rarely mentioned and almost never admitted. And the public
who are the voters and the news media in particular almost never
demand the truth to be spoken and even more rarely ask the right
questions.

The primary reason the Democrats were anxious for witnesses in the
house, in my opinion, was that it was more likely that the 106th congress
with 5 fewer Republicans might just have enough Republicans to cross
over to defeat the impeachment vote. If the 105th had delayed by even
2 weeks, the 106th would have had to vote to impeach and there might
have been a different result. The fact that the 105th rushed the impeachment
vote through at the very last second (well last day or 2) seems to me
to be obvious.

Now in the senate, the Republicans who want witnesses are likely
calling for them so as to be able to introduce new material. On the
other hand, if the house voted on mainly party lines (98% was the
figure I think), then without new material to consider, most Democrats
probably are confident that at worst the same thing would happened in
the senate. Of course with 67 votes being required to remove Clinton
and there being 55 to 45, a vote along mostly party lines would
fail to remove Clinton.

But, do the Democrats or Republicans actually say that? And do
the media even ask the question?

So, when I hear that politicians are mostly nincompoops, in turn
I also must believe that the voters must also be the same. ONLY
when there is a lot more truth and openness in both government
and corporations and all of the things that we humans do with
each other will things actually get better. In general, I would
start by making every government conversation and document
open to the public, except where privacy concerns chosen by
the voters are of concern. In particular, this would include
EVERY single aspect of the criminal justice system where
all conversations and documents which led up to a trial would
have to be completely open to the defence once a trial began,
including copies of taped conversations by investigators which
would be required to be turned over to the defence as well
(every person working in or for the justice system would be
required to record every conversation at work so as to
ensure that the reason for every decision was known).
There have been a large number of cases recently in both
Canada and other so-called democratic countries in which
justice went so far as to convict totally innocent people based
on wilful blindness by the justice system at best or biased
intent with wilful knowledge of hidden evidence favourable
to the defence at worst. And that is when the justice system
seems to be acting in an honest manner. What about the
number of times a justice system official commits perjury
and there is not even a charge laid, let alone a conviction?

Sincerely yours,

Jerome Fine

P.S. Sorry, I got carried away with how I see this trial being
held (Clinton) and many other trials, one of which in particular
showed perjury being committed by a police officer while the
trail was being televised and no consequences, not even being
charged with perjury. And no one even mentions that aspect.
And the perjury was not allowed to be properly demonstrated
before the jury since when the defence asked to question the
police officer who had committed perjury, the judge would not
allow the questions by the defence to be done in front of the
jury. HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN?

Please don't think I am saying the Canadian justice system is
any better. I think they are all very poor. BUT, let us also be
thankful that we live in a so-called democracy (well it is better
than what was in place 1000 years ago - it is improving).

I just think that the key aspect is the truth and unless we all
insist on the truth all the time, we can't complain when the
truth rarely appears.

P.P.S. Considering that this is in the message formats thread
which discussed the human topic, maybe it is not so far off?
Received on Fri Jan 08 1999 - 19:52:40 GMT