As a society, we frequently pretend we care about honesty and freedom. We frequently pretend we care about other people. But, when we recognize tangible evidence, we can easily see what actually matters.
During the Senate Intelligence Committee’s hearing with Jeff Sessions, I was captivated by three overwhelming things.
First, the chair and voice chair each had 10 minutes. Members had 5 minutes. Each person’s time limit includes any questions or comments by the member and responses to those by Sessions. Such time limits, while very common, are arguably unconstitutional. 2 and 3 minute time limits are especially common if members of the general public are allowed to voice opinions at public hearings. Such artificial and very limited time constraints clearly violate freedom of speech. Naturally, some kind of time limit is necessary, but 10 or 15 minutes would be much more reasonable.
Second, when people are limited to seconds the logical extension is that the truth and democracy do not actually matter. Nothing meaningful can be established in just a few minutes. 5 minutes is not always enough to even say hello. Such time limits actually make a mockery of everything involved. We are given the appearance that something might change or something might be revealed but time constraints make that impossible. Although cliché, the important decisions happen in secret behind closed doors and the only question that ultimately matters is what will benefit the very privileged?
Third, during today’s hearings Sessions was clearly angry and hostile when pressed. It also seems very likely that he was lying most of the time. Politicians lie often, as do others. They are sworn to tell the truth but they don’t. And it seems like no one actually expects them to tell the truth either. (Interestingly, studies show that people who invoke sacred texts, theology, or higher powers in their promises are the most likely to not uphold those promises.) Again, the process is a mockery. I have been in a small handful of situations where a person was lying and others knew said person was lying but it didn’t matter because of this person’s position. Why have we come to essentially require lying from people in positions of power?
Why have so many accepted such horrible, dishonest situations?
Dr. Andrew Joseph Pegoda
Categories: Thoughts and Perspectives
Hmmmm. Thought provoking. Interesting reading. TY
LikeLiked by 2 people
What do you think about the new website layout?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not impressed but can manage…What about you?
LikeLike
Sorry you don’t like it! From my perspective, it’s a bit “cleaner” and simpler. So far, everyone else has really liked it that I’ve heard from. I had been using the other design for two years and thought it was time for a change. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought you meant the UHCL website! LOL I LIKE yours. p.s. Your noun (website) was not ambiguous, my brain had just been at the UHCL website. Sorry…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perfect example of internet communication not always being ideal. 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems that privilege grants respect, even when lying should not. Or is it wealth that “trumps” lying? Most politicians have a lot of wealth or they could not even think about running for office. It is amazing that we pay for our representation if the candidate already has money, but not for those who have none.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For sure wealth, lots and lots of wealth, tends to grant one permission to lie. And, sadly, being very wealthy seems to be a prerequisite for almost all political offices. I remember in first grade they told us that anyone can become President of the United States and my mental response was “uh, no, only super rich people get to be President.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
So true. I suspect that all people who have grown up in the margins often disagreed with what was said in school by our teachers. I have met so many people who have never questioned what was taught to them. We need to get all college students to question anything they are told, and try to imagine alternative answers to what they have heard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That might make a good activity of some kind…require student to question various ideas/theories. Similar to requiring students to take a position they don’t hold for purposes of thinking and perspective.
But, there is a risk too in that student’s, as I tell them, don’t necessarily know enough to “disagree” with the various theories and methodologies with which scholars study and process information. I always try to avoid giving students tasks that are “dangerous” – dangerous in terms of asking them to do something that requires more information to do correctly.
I want students to respect experts and, of course, criticize when appropriate. They should always ask questions, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So very true about that exercise being dangerous. I guess teaching them that all people are entitled to their opinions but to always question how much they could possibly know to even have an opinion at all is just as important. And to do this without disrepecting them! This is a true challenge in today’s “social” media world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a challenge for sure! I like to tell students it’s a real talent to be able to say “I don’t know enough to have an opinion about that but have heard so-and-so”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just came across this really interesting article that addresses some of these issues! You’ll like it. 🙂 http://www.radicalpedagogy.org/radicalpedagogy.org/Leaning_In__A_Students_Guide_To_Engaging_Constructively_With_Social_Justice_Content.html
LikeLike
Good idea!
LikeLiked by 1 person