Cross Examination

The judge in the General Michael Flynn case, Emmett Sullivan, has gone to extraordinary lengths not to let this case die ... as the Justice Department and the DC District Court have decreed ... see the following for the very unusual steps he has taken: FoxNews Story. Judge Sullivan has even, early-on in this case, called General Flynn a “traitor” in open court ... for which he later apologized ... but in which he still must believe ... else why his recent malign behavior?

Somehow, I strongly suspect Judge Sullivan has learned, maybe from Flynn’s original attorneys, Covington, a piece of extraordinarily damaging “information” about the general ... and firmly believes it ... possibly the same fact or facts  behind what President Obama warned Trump about Flynn ... and, the details of which, have been denied to Trump, Flynn’s current attorney, Sidney Powell or the DC Circuit Court.

Whatever this sub rosa indictment of Flynn might be, it needs to be brought out into the open so that we all can gauge Flynn’s innocence or guilt ... and not rely on the prejudice of a single judge who is sworn to be above such rumored pettiness.

My suspicion — this “heinous act” by Flynn has not been revealed because it would not stand cross examination. This is not the way justice is supposed to work. The Constitution says we all have the “right to confront our accuser.”

See also: Conservative Treehouse Post.

Backlash

Aggressive behavior, even if seemingly justified, from one faction almost always spawns backlash from its opponents ... which, of course, ups the ante even further in the first group. This circular antagonism continues until either full hostilities erupt  (like now) ... or PBS does a “balanced” documentary (almost always) slyly shaming the conservative side.

Prejudice

As a tutor, one of my students is writing his college-application essay on prejudice ... which has inspired me to take up this same subject. Here goes:

"Prejudice" really means to pre-judge something or someone. After viewing N events or characteristics of a particular group of people, it is human nature to draw a generalization from the preponderance of a trait exhibiting itself in this experience. This generalization is not prejudice. Prejudice is applying this generalization to the next or N+1 person or event. As an example, if after a life among Irishmen, one concludes that this group has a tendency toward over-imbibing ... the generalization ... then upon meeting a next Irishman, one assumes that he is a sot ... this is prejudice. You have unfairly prejudged him without any evidence other than your prior generalization.

There is an unfortunate mix-up in the use of the term prejudice in today's society ... and that is to call any generalizations about WASPs, Jews, gays, Muslims, Asians, etc. "prejudice." They clearly are not ... unless of course the person making such a generalization cannot resist the temptation to apply it in the N+first case ... at which point it lives up to this societal condemnation. I know this is a subtle and difficult distinction to make, but, to me, it is a very important one. I rankle when I am accused of prejudice if I am making a generalization. This is because the accuser assumes that I cannot abandon this generalization when dealing with my next encounter under this generalization. I pride myself on being able to shuck my generalizations in such situations. (Interestingly, in this case, my accuser turns out to be prejudicial.)

Now let's test this definition of prejudice in the real world. When a Cambridge, Massachusetts policeman stopped Professor Chip Gates from entering his house thinking he was breaking in, President Obama said that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly." This is clearly prejudicial for Obama is applying one instance (questionable at that) to the entire Cambridge police department. He, of all people, should know better since, I assume, he has experienced the pain of prejudice in his past life. And now the flip-side ... the Obama administration's unwillingness to generalize with the term "Islamic extremists" or "jihadists" when dealing with ISIS and their ilk, tells me that they are confounded by the distinction made above. (Although, if I met one such militant dressed in black robes and carrying an assegai, I think I would myself tend toward prejudice.)

The Race Card

Let me see … the United States freed the slaves about 150 years ago and, in the process, sacrificed over 600,000 of our young men. It also stopped school segregation and Jim Crow laws about 60 years ago. And, as an act of atonement, it has long encouraged racial preferences to be used in employment and education. It has had two black Supreme Court justices, two black Secretaries of State, one black Attorney General and multiple black Presidential cabinet secretaries and top-level advisers, many black Senators, Representatives, state Governors and city Mayors, and numerous black corporate CEOs, university Presidents, sports personalities, movie/music stars, TV poobahs, and other millionaire glitterati … and now the U.S. has a black in the highest office in the land … its President … all elected, appointed or appreciated by a population which is, by its majority, not black.

One would think that these many enlightened accomplishments might begin to remove the stain of slavery from the American psyche (our original sin as so aptly described by Condoleezza Rice.)  But no … we are still racists. Not only are whites racists, but we are often compared to the Klu Klux Klan … itching to scare the black man into submission with a burning cross. We are an unrecoverable and vile form of humanity who cannot be reformed or forgiven for the sins of our forebearers … even beyond the seventh generation (the seeming Biblical limit of sin’s legacy.)

Recently, Michelle Obama, in a high-school graduation address, told her starry-eyed audience that they still hold secret prejudice against the likes of her … see: here. And Attorney General, Eric Holder has let go with both barrels. First saying that anyone who opposes President Obama’s policies is guilty of “quiet prejudice” … see: here. And then, paradoxically suggested that colorblindness is not the way to end discrimination … see: here.

I guess playing the race card in politics has become second nature to many on the left … particularly when your pile of accomplishment chips is so diminished. But, I for one am more than ready to call the left's bluff.

Continued winning at political poker requires a lot more than just bluster … and a race card.

I Scratch My Head ...

I’ve often been curious as to why that race-baiter and supposed Reverend, Al Sharpton, has lived such a charmed life.  In the late 1980’s he defamed a police officer and a prosecuting attorney with the Tawana Brawley rape accusation, eventually losing a few hundred thousand lawsuit to the prosecuting attorney (later paid by others). He also instigated a riot in Harlem in 1995 which ended in the Jewish-owned store, Freddie’s Fashion Mart, being torched … causing the death of seven innocent people. The list of Sharpton’s scum-bag actions and utterances goes on and on … see: His Wikipedia Entry ... yet nothing seems to bring him down.  In fact his life keeps getting better. But now we possibly know why. Not only has he been an FBI informant against the mafia but he also appears to be a bosom-buddy to our President, Barack Obama … read all the details of their close relationship here: The Smoking Gun Story

Another of our President's close friends and frequent White House visitor, the rapper Jay Z (Beyonce's main squeeze) is also causing a ripple in the media with his apparent support of an organization called the Five Percent Nation which openly suggests that all white people are devils. Read how the media downplays this affiliation here: Huffington Post Entry or how it doesn't here: Washington Times Story ... interesting contrast.

I guess I am, once again, behind the times … and it’s now all right for our President to be so chummy with so many people who are clearly bigoted against white “folks” (remember Obama’s long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright?)  This, to me, bizarre phenomenon eventually will be analyzed and put into perspective by historians.  But, till then, we clearly are living in interesting times when such obvious circumstantial evidence of presidential prejudice is repeatedly broomed under the rug by our liberal media. I scratch my head …

Pride and Prejudice

To exhibit prejudice one must "pre-judge" situations or people. Prejudice is not the forming of some generalizations after observing "n" people or situations. One can and does naturally form stereotypes in ones mind through our life experiences. This is often characterized by the unthinking as prejudice. But what is true prejudice is when one applies such a stereotype in the n+1st case. This is what is unfair and biased.

Now suppose that you have seen many rowdy English soccer fans on TV and conclude that English soccer fans tend to be hooligans, even dangerous. Then suppose next you meet an English soccer fan on a London bus. Can you assume that this individual should be avoided at all cost? Unless there is other damming evidence, I would clearly say "no" as this is exhibiting prejudice.

Now, last night President Obama made two unfortunate observations about the Cambridge police officer (Sgt. Crowley) who arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates in the contra temps at the Professor's home last week. Obama first said, "without knowing all the facts," that this police officer "acted stupidly". This may or may not have been the case. Certainly, he could have been a tad more diplomatic. But then Obama went on to say that there is a long history of blacks and Latinos being profiled by the police in this country ... implying that Sgt. Crowley was also profiling Professor Gates because he is black. I do believe that profiling probably does exist in this country to whatever degree (probably diminishing).

But President Obama's comment was clearly prejudicial because he applied what may have been his valid generalization to this n+1st case "without knowing all the facts." This is not the kind of nuanced behavior one expects to see in our President.