Nobody is perfect but there are those who pretend to be, and
those who strive to be.
So, how can you tell which is which? You ask them; it's as
simple as that. But knowing that no one will incriminate themselves, you
conduct an intelligent cross-examination and get to the truth in a roundabout
way if you must. Yes, whereas this method can easily be used to get to the
bottom of your inquiry when dealing with individuals, it is much more difficult
to implement when gauging the truthfulness of a system, such as governance, for
example.
The good news, however, is that there is a way to get to the
bottom of your inquiry even in such difficult matters. It is that a system is
made of institutions, and institutions are run by human beings. These are
individuals that act as founders of the institutions; as their operators or
governors, as executives or counselors to them, or what have you. They generate
what's known as paper-trails that come in handy. That is, they formulate
opinions, create descriptions, give advice, and generally leave behind a wealth
of information that can be used as “testimony” to answer any question you may
have while conducting your inquiry. You do not have to call up anybody or
cross-examine them if you don't want to.
Okay. So how do we use this background knowledge to evaluate
the legitimacy and usefulness of the current systems of governance around the
world? Whatever they call themselves, these systems are grouped in two or three
camps that remain at odds with each other, threatening to hurt humanity as
severely as ever, and promising to set us back like never before.
The way to evaluate them is to invite them to the proverbial
witness stand, and cross-examine them. The trouble is that one side is ignoring
our invitation, saying basically that: 'We have nothing to hide. What you see
is what you get. We do not pretend to be perfect, but we take pride in
continually doing the best that we can for our people, and continually trying
to do better still. Watch us and judge us by what you see.' These are what you
might call autocrats, dictators, potentates, strongmen, etc…, etc…, etc...
As to their opponents, they are always prepared to respond
to every invitation, boasting about their own superiority; their generosity,
purity, tolerance and every superlative you can think of. They are also prone
to spewing all kinds of calumny at their opponents whether or not they are
asked to express an opinion on them. So the question we must ask is this: Where
do we find the 'testimony' of these people?
We find it in three recently published articles. One came
under the title: “The stakes in Syria
now include US-Russia war,” written by Ralph Peters and published on June 19,
2017 in the New York Post. Another article came under the title: “Congress
Needs to Take War Powers Back into Its Own Hands,” written by Daniel DePetris
and published on June 19, 2017 in the National Interest. The third article came
under the title: “Can Trump Bring Peace to Israel
and Palestine ?”
and the subtitle: “The odds for any administration are low but his quest for
personal glory might motivate him.” It was written by Lee Smith and published
on June 20, 2017 in the Weekly Standard.
The Ralph Peters article clearly demonstrates that despite
the author heaping an avalanche of insults on the Russians, he could not hide
the fact that to him – as it is to all democracies – winning is the important
thing. As long as the cost is paid by someone else, they'll take any measure to
win the game, pretending to be angels and accusing the opponents of being
devils.
As to the Daniel DePetris article, it shows that the concept
of “rule of law,” which the democracies claim is the foundation upon which
their system stands, has become just a show; and a fake one at that. Here is
how DePetris put it: “The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) has
served as a legal crutch to fight the war on terrorism without the hassle of
going back to Congress for additional authority. What's good for the executive,
however, hasn't been good for the legislative branch or the country as a
whole.” And no one is trying to change this murderous situation.
Finally, the Lee Smith article shows how the so-called
democracies paralyze themselves. Smith interviewed the Israeli Nathan Thrall
who explained that despite the desire of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples to
see a conclusion brought to the occupation of Palestine , this is not happening because the
entire American government has been ossified into a dinosaur-like state.
This happened because a handful of lobbyists have more say
in the matter of America 's
support for Israel
than the millions of American voters who put their so-called representatives in
office.