Amy Coney Barrett was born January 28, 1972 and, popularly known as ACB, is an American lawyer, jurist, and former academic who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. On October 26 2020, Barrett was sworn in as the 115th Supreme Court justice in a ceremony at the White House. She gave a quick speech, promising to carry out her duties independent from the presidency, congress and her own private beliefs.
Her confirmation and speech let loose a flood of opinions which left me flabbergasted as an independent mind. The American Democrats, who seem to hold the torch for liberal and leftist opinions, vowed that there will be regrets for the Republican majority senate confirmation of ACB. Popular democrats used their Twitter handles to express their displeasure with the confirmation and started tweeting, "Expand the court". I honestly do not understand what that means. That's beside the point though. The democrats have a valid reason for their outrage.
Back in 2016, just hours after Antonin Gregory Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, said he would consider any appointment to the Supreme Court by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year. Senate Democrats criticized the move as being unprecedented, and responded saying that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election. Fast forward to 2020 and we have seen ACB receive the quickest appointment and confirmation of a Supreme court Judge ever. It took just 4 weeks to confirm her.
The question now is this. Why did the Republican Senate do quickly in 2020 what they said should wait for an election in 2016 and why are the Democrats condemning in 2020 what they said was good to be done in 2016? It is not just this but also the passion with which these recent positions are being pushed and defended. Our politicians and the supposed platforms they stand on seem to lack all kinds of principles except that of hypocrisy. There is not very much they do to align with the principles they espouse. Clearly, it is their prevailing interest that guides their decisions and not principles. Who knew that? So here we sit at the end of Trump’s initial presidency wondering who will take it from here, and think will democrats hold Biden to the same standards as Trump? And when the answer is that Trump was held to low standards, is that not just a deflection onto Trump and away from the real answer? The constant seems to be hypocrisy from both sides.
Let us move away from politics. The world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who would make up 60 percent of the planet’s population, reveals a report from Oxfam in January 2020. This development has caused outrage all over the world with many calling for the billionaires to surrender their wealth so it can be shared equitably amongst everyone. It doesn't stop there. There have also been calls to put in place measures to ensure no one gets obscenely rich by using taxes. Perhaps we need to read up on socialism and its ills then compare with its good side and see which path to follow. Instead of saying share the wealth we can advocate for investing some portion of profit into creating safe work environments where people don't have to do repetitive tasks or work alongside robots at breakneck speed.
What I find interesting, in the face of calls to cancel billionaires, is the total lack of attention, deliberate or not, that social media companies are getting. Google, Facebook and Twitter have the power to control what people see and consume. The people who are calling for the wealth of billionaires to be surrendered and shared seem quiet as these 3 companies accumulate so much power over the information we consume.
In an editorial by the New York post on 28 October 2020, the Editorial board stated, "Center-stage: Twitter’s strong-arm tactics to censor The Post ever since we began reporting on Hunter Biden’s emails. First, it froze our account and banned our stories; then, amid a public backlash, it agreed to unfreeze us — but only if we deleted our original tweets." Forget about the name mentioned there and think about the fact that a lot of smaller media organizations have been forced to delete their tweets and they didn't have the nerve to speak out, or those who have been shadow banned and have no idea. Any organization that has the power to censor media organizations in this manner is a mind control monster in the making. This monster is growing before our eyes as we continuously use it to vilify billionaires in our demand that their wealth be shared. For some reason, it is the same set of people who insist billionaires share their wealth that support these social media organizations. There is nothing wrong with ideological opinions but when our opinions are based on whether we are in the same camp or not then it's more of a lack of principle than just having an opinion.
In another example of how much power social media platforms wield today, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf sent a scathing letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Friday October 30 2020 over its recent suspension of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Mark Morgan. Morgan's account was suspended after he posted a tweet touting the success of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Twitter said the particular tweet violates its 'hateful conduct' policy. The tweet in question stated that the border wall helps stop “gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs” from entering the United States. Chad Wolf stated in his letter that the content of the tweet was backed by facts. "It is hard to understand how anyone believed Mr. Morgan’s tweet promoted violence, threats or harassment. Especially considering that the facts about the border wall system support the tweet", the letter stated. Twitter has lifted the suspension. I hate to say it but the above examples point to a sad reality that Twitter seems to have a political bias. Is it proper for that platform to censor tweets that state facts? It may suit you today and you like it but what if they start censoring you and bolstering things you don't like tomorrow? Then will the same thing you’re telling people to get over become an important issue? What bothers me is the claim of transparency these platforms make publicly while their actions betray their claims. Hypocrisy.
The CEOs of Facebook and Twitter were asked at a senate hearing to mention one account belonging to a liberal that they have censored for any type of default. They struggled. Accounts with conservative views have been censored by both platforms. Anyone who violates rules should be punished but in the spirit of fairness I struggle to understand the lack of outrage for the inability of those two powerful men to mention accounts with liberal views that have been censored. This is in spite of some infractions. Now this is not a liberal vs conservative argument but one that highlights the threat free speech is under because of difference in political opinion. Censor those who do not agree with your political ideology and ignore those who do. No one should have this kind of power, if billionaires cannot make more money. Right?
The world we live in has changed so much. Feelings matter so much now that tolerance is the topic all day. In spite of all the talk about tolerance I have noticed that we are less tolerant of others today than we were 10 years ago. The difference is that 10 years ago we were not talking about tolerance as much as we talk about it today. In a time when opinion is encouraged it seems we have lost our ability to have differences of opinion in a civil manner. On the various social media platforms you can see how conversations dovetail into curse fights and insults to the point people even forget why they started the conversation. It is very common to find people fighting hate with more hate and hope that they win without realizing that it is actually more hate that won. Hate is still there. The bare faced hypocrisy is baffling. People get profiled based on political affiliation, sexual orientation, economic class, skin color, religious belief etc. The gospel is almost like if you are on my side then you are correct and if you are not you are wrong. It does not matter what you did or said, but as long as we share the same platform you are correct and the feelings and opinions of those on the other side don't count. We find ingenious ways to defend our own and make sure they aren't held accountable then we turn around to say society is bad because those on the other side are bad. In that mode we forget to look at the mirror and see the image of the society we condemn. The billionaires are not the reason you are not one. You are. Life is full of choices and you will end up where your choices take you. It’s no one else’s business where you end up. Be it on the top or the bottom.
The hypocrisy stinks but lets blame Covid-19 for losing our sense of smell.
No comments:
Post a Comment