Steve Bannon is testifying before the January 6th committee. Before you get all excited about what my political views are I want to reiterate that I'm relatively neutral (I'm a light right Republican who believes parties are pathways but not central to the health of the nation; something I think our politicians should take some time and think about. I also have lots of liberal friends and have no moral qualms about it because we are one nation and can have differences of opinions without damaging each other. Civil society is a debate and not a "Game of Thrones"🤷. I know, I know I have a Muslim sounding name and its impossible I have any sense of real patriotism. {Throwing some light on why we need to be inclusive in society and not be blinded by simple symbols and heuristic bias. Freedom of speech and freedom religion are still central to our Constitution the last time I read it.} ).
While I may be somewhat neutral in how this turns out I'm not neutral on sacking the capital (which I find sad and a major crime by anyone who coordinated violence and anyone who engaged in it. It could be Democrat or Republican in my mind) and I'm not neutral on the health of my nation (As an extension of democratic society for average people and not a game for the "connected" to play with institutional health.). Being in the middle means that I seek to create as much objectivity in understanding as possible (I try but I also have my own bias. Because I accept those bias and recognize them I likely am more objective than most. Its a little like limitations and delimitations in a study.).
I long ago gave up having a stake in being right or wrong but I do like to see how things such as this turn out. Similar to a puzzle its interesting to see how information at the beginning of the event sort of fits with the possibilities that indicates a particular outcome (Forecasting and Environmental Scanning). So far its has been on track to be bigger than a January 6th tail gait party of a few friends throwing back some cold ones (Sorry a sad attempt of lightening up a very difficult situation). 😏
Steve Bannon's testimony, the Trump campaign strategist, opens up a whole new arena because it is so close to the inner circle (I'm not sure how much closer it gets). See Bannon initiates talks with January 6 panel on testifying over Capitol attack. I'm sure there will be lots of people interested in what he has to say (It may help clear Trump or it can hurt him from a political-legal standpoint.). His testimony may be very robotic or be revealing about mannerisms and characters of the time (I'm not really making a judgement but looking for the observation of psychological mindset and conversational direction. i.e. words do have meaning.).
It is important to note that people are innocent until proven guilty in this country (i.e. that should apply to presidents and paupers equally. The law should apply the same as well.). That means while I may have my suspicions a few hours after it hit the news (based on the barely perceptible odd non organic way it happened) that doesn't mean that each player has been identified or that what they knew when it happened is completely spelled out (beyond a reasonable doubt.).
Of course its always possible that while something coordinated may have happened (I suspect with foreign intelligence help...but there is no smoking gun of evidence as of yet. Lots of smoke in the area but someone needs to find it.) that doesn't mean each of the players was aware of the whole event and/or their part in it (See the how that could be an indication of intentional piecemealing a blind participants in a plan with plausible deniability. Maybe not....but let us see what happens in the end. I can't say one way or another. Its just an option with a percentage based on what information is currently available.). It seems sort of mixed up and intentionally convoluted. That is where investigations sort of turn over the stones to create a plausible and justifiable story (Thinking about my labor relations days.).
Justice is an interesting concept. I believe it should be based in objective fact, good moral judgement and be universal in nature. As we investigate we find additional information that leads to guilt or innocence. One should try and understand by facts and can accept suspicion as an avenue of investigation but should not be overly invested in the outcome. This means let things define themselves because it helps shed light on a bigger situation. Maintain your objectivity and be diligent in the pursuit of truth (Something both parties should think about. Lots of thinking suggestions in the article. 🤓)
No comments:
Post a Comment