In our topsy-turvy modern America, we often find that things change quickly. Words are one of those oft changing items. We all know that words that once were fine are now denounced as not just wrong but unforgivable insults or slurs. Think, for example, of the term "illegal alien". That means someone who is in this country illegally. It is the legal term used in the US Code. It has been used by the government and most Americans for at least the last century. Now, anyone who uses illegal alien is branded a racist and a xenophobe by the left and gets denounced as anti-immigrant. Immigrants, you see, now must include those here legally as well as those here illegally.
I was reminded of the frequent changes in meaning for words today by the latest word to switch meanings: "fairness". Fairness used to be something judged by an objective standard. Certain procedures were judged to be "fair". They were even enshrined in our Constitution. Certain behavior was also judged to be fair. But that was so yesterday. Today, "fairness" now means whatever the Democrats and the media say it means, and the opposite of whatever the Republicans do. Think about it. When Dr. Ford's name was leaked by the Democrats to the media, she said she wanted to tell her story to the Senate. The Democrat/media chorus started screaming that a denial of a hearing for Ford by the Republicans would be "unfair". Forget that the only reason that Ford had not testified during the prior hearings was that the Democrats sat on her accusations and held them until just before the final vote, the Republicans were being unfair unless new hearings were called and Ford got her day to tell her story. When the Republicans responded by scheduling the hearing Ford had requested, she backed away. It seemed she would not appear. At that point, the Democrat/media chorus announced that holding the hearings requested by Ford would be unfair to Ford and to all women. "Fairness" had changed meanings in just a few days. But that was not the last change. Yesterday, Ford said she would come to the hearings but not on the date scheduled and only on conditions that would make the hearings "fair". And what are those conditions? First, she won't testify if Judge Kavanaugh is in the room. Ford is accusing Kavanaugh of a crime, but she doesn't want him there when she explains those charges. The Constitution guarantees each American (even older white males accused of sexual harassment) the right to "confront" his or her accuser. That means that the accused (Kavanaugh here) gets to hear the testimony of the person making the charges. As a society we have enshrined that rule as part of fundamental fairness in our system. But not so among the Democrat/media chorus. For them, allowing Kavanaugh to be present would be unfair. A second condition is that Kavanaugh must testify first. This too is bizarre. In every proceeding in America, the accuser or the plaintiff goes first; the defendant (Kavanaugh here) goes second. It's logical. The defendant has to respond to what the accuser says, so he or she has to first hear exactly what that is. Not fair, scream the Democrats/media. Once again, fairness has changed. Another condition is that there can be no questions from lawyers for the committee. That sort of questioning is frequently done in situations like this. The whole point is to get someone with the skills to pin down the truth rather than a bunch of blow hard senators. That practice has been considered fair for centuries. Today, the Democrat/media chorus don't just want it to be changed; they label it as unfair.
The truth is that fairness has now been changed to mean something that will give an advantage to Ford and her Democrat allies. Finding the truth is not considered fair. Consideration of the effect of these charges on Judge Kavanaugh is not considered fair. Fairness has been redefined by the Democrat/media chorus as something that is outcome determinative. If it helps Ford and damages Kavanaugh it is, by new definition, "fair". On the other hand, if it helps Kavanaugh or damages Ford, it is by new definintion, "unfair".
The Democrats can scream all they want about unfairness. I don't think the American people are buying it. We know what's fair and what's unfair, and it isn't what the Democrats and media say.
I was reminded of the frequent changes in meaning for words today by the latest word to switch meanings: "fairness". Fairness used to be something judged by an objective standard. Certain procedures were judged to be "fair". They were even enshrined in our Constitution. Certain behavior was also judged to be fair. But that was so yesterday. Today, "fairness" now means whatever the Democrats and the media say it means, and the opposite of whatever the Republicans do. Think about it. When Dr. Ford's name was leaked by the Democrats to the media, she said she wanted to tell her story to the Senate. The Democrat/media chorus started screaming that a denial of a hearing for Ford by the Republicans would be "unfair". Forget that the only reason that Ford had not testified during the prior hearings was that the Democrats sat on her accusations and held them until just before the final vote, the Republicans were being unfair unless new hearings were called and Ford got her day to tell her story. When the Republicans responded by scheduling the hearing Ford had requested, she backed away. It seemed she would not appear. At that point, the Democrat/media chorus announced that holding the hearings requested by Ford would be unfair to Ford and to all women. "Fairness" had changed meanings in just a few days. But that was not the last change. Yesterday, Ford said she would come to the hearings but not on the date scheduled and only on conditions that would make the hearings "fair". And what are those conditions? First, she won't testify if Judge Kavanaugh is in the room. Ford is accusing Kavanaugh of a crime, but she doesn't want him there when she explains those charges. The Constitution guarantees each American (even older white males accused of sexual harassment) the right to "confront" his or her accuser. That means that the accused (Kavanaugh here) gets to hear the testimony of the person making the charges. As a society we have enshrined that rule as part of fundamental fairness in our system. But not so among the Democrat/media chorus. For them, allowing Kavanaugh to be present would be unfair. A second condition is that Kavanaugh must testify first. This too is bizarre. In every proceeding in America, the accuser or the plaintiff goes first; the defendant (Kavanaugh here) goes second. It's logical. The defendant has to respond to what the accuser says, so he or she has to first hear exactly what that is. Not fair, scream the Democrats/media. Once again, fairness has changed. Another condition is that there can be no questions from lawyers for the committee. That sort of questioning is frequently done in situations like this. The whole point is to get someone with the skills to pin down the truth rather than a bunch of blow hard senators. That practice has been considered fair for centuries. Today, the Democrat/media chorus don't just want it to be changed; they label it as unfair.
The truth is that fairness has now been changed to mean something that will give an advantage to Ford and her Democrat allies. Finding the truth is not considered fair. Consideration of the effect of these charges on Judge Kavanaugh is not considered fair. Fairness has been redefined by the Democrat/media chorus as something that is outcome determinative. If it helps Ford and damages Kavanaugh it is, by new definition, "fair". On the other hand, if it helps Kavanaugh or damages Ford, it is by new definintion, "unfair".
The Democrats can scream all they want about unfairness. I don't think the American people are buying it. We know what's fair and what's unfair, and it isn't what the Democrats and media say.
No comments:
Post a Comment