I have a nephew who lives in a remote area in Washington. He is highly intelligent; he’s rational and measured in his approach to problem solving and in how he reacts to others when controversial topics arise. He is also, to my estimation, ninety-plus percent certain that creatures widely referred to as “Bigfoot” exist in the wild. One could say he “believes” that Bigfoot(s) exist as a heretofore unproven species. As evidence to support his belief, he sent links to videos of compelling scientific lectures making the case that these creatures may have evolved from Neanderthals; that they walk the earth today, but like most wild creatures, do their best to avoid contact with humans.
Many people believe that Bigfoots exist. There is considerable “evidence,” including eyewitness sightings, footprints, photographs, and even videos that claim to prove Bigfoots’ existence. So, the question is: Does Bigfoot, in fact, exist? Many people believe so, and much of what has been presented seems to suggest so—but do these factors make it so?
One does not have to search far to find many people who believe things that may or may not be true. Some individuals are so passionate in their beliefs, they invest untold hours and countless resources in efforts to prove their beliefs are more than just beliefs—that they are truth.
So, alongside Bigfoot, many people believe, among other things, that extra-terrestrial beings have visited or are visiting Earth; that there was once a “lost city” called Atlantis; that there exists a pre-historic creature in a Loch called Ness, and that ghosts inhabit Earth alongside us. Likewise, many believe that the moon landings were faked and that the Clintons had scores of people murdered.
Now, let’s image that some United States Senators—Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Tim Kaine, for example—decide that the government must enact legislation and spend millions of dollars to protect what is surely an endangered species, based upon the fact that they believe that Bigfoots exist. Would this be reasonable? Perhaps you would support such legislation, but I would not. I would argue that in the absence of greater certainty—without more credible evidence—it wouldn’t be prudent nor logical to impose such legislation.
Certainly the Kavanaugh vs Christine Blasey Ford matter is different in kind from things like the existence of ghosts and UFOs, but the reasoning process that rational people employ to make decisions about what is to be accepted as being real or true, is the same. And in matters where one’s life or liberty hangs in the balance, the concept of “innocent unless proven guilty” is a well-tested and established principle of justice that our elected representatives must adhere to, regardless of whether we talking about a court of law or not. Academic debate concerning the existence of Big Foot is appropriate because such debate is harmless to society, whereas believing in someone’s guilt or innocence is an entirely different matter.
Anyone with common sense realizes that anyone, at any time, can be accused of anything, and that relying merely upon belief in such cases instead of a preponderance of evidence is a grave error in judgement. Making important policy decisions based solely upon what one believes is an indulgence; one that ought never be afforded to judges or elected representatives.
The senators who indicated early on that they would not support Judge Kavanaugh based upon the fact that they “believed her”—Blumenthal, Gillibrand, and Harris, among others—demonstrated that they were willing to reject basic principles of justice for political advantage, or that they lack sound judgement, basic reasoning skills, and an ability to think rationally about important matters.
Whatever the case, their actions show that their fitness to serve as representatives of the American people is questionable at best.
Leave a Reply