The mind readers
Article by E.T. Gwynne in "The American Thinker":
There is an entire industry being built around the wholly imagined ability to divine the thought processes of the other. It exists primarily as a mechanism to absolve the readers of guilt and/or responsibility for actions. Zero tolerance rules and regulationss are prime examples.
A case in point are hate crimes. Laws against such things are dependent upon the interpretation of clues, some of which may be language used in the offense, or the extrapolated meaning of the racial disparities of victim and perpetrator, and so on.
Another byproduct is the “victim statement” so common in criminal trials. What on earth does the victim’s feelings have to do with the proper sentence applied by jury or judge? If feelings are so important in such venues, why are physical reactions in the court room not allowed as well? What on earth do these feelings have to do with the justice sought other than to allow the “victims” or their families to avoid the healing of grief and their own rehabilitation? Answer: Squat!
Consider the clamor surrounding then-governor George W. Bush’s not signing hate crimes legislation in Texas. It was used to “prove” his racism in the dragging death of James Byrd Jr. This in the face of the most serious penalties levied on his murderers.
Yet another byproduct is the ability to determine guilt absent due process. There is certainly sufficient evidence that the time-honored measure of “innocent until proven guilty” is endangered. This affliction seems applicable to the actions of law enforcement (see the “Ferguson effect”) as well as the justice system (see anything on the FBI or the DoJ of Eric Holder). Or the wearing of a red ball cap. It certainly fits the current political shenanigans in Washington D.C.
When the President of these United States reasonably attempted to obtain the required-by-treaty cooperation of the newly elected Ukrainian president in an investigation that happened to involve the former vice president of the U.S., it was omnisciently assumed to be a political ploy to bring down an erstwhile 2020 presidential candidate. The omniscients then began to imagine and flesh out and implement the actual plot regarding the 2020 elections.
In fact, the omniscients were so proficient in their machinations that they had begun the plotting well in advance of the elections 2016 with actions designed to frame the worst-case winner. And so here we are today!
Omnisciency is fraught with danger. Primarily, it leads to infallibility. And when really stupid people begin to believe their infallibility, really stupid things inevitability ensue. And so we arrive at the absolute certainty that the President was interested in vanquishing a potential opponent in 2020, despite no evidence as 2019 approaches history.
There is an entire industry being built around the wholly imagined ability to divine the thought processes of the other. It exists primarily as a mechanism to absolve the readers of guilt and/or responsibility for actions. Zero tolerance rules and regulationss are prime examples.
A case in point are hate crimes. Laws against such things are dependent upon the interpretation of clues, some of which may be language used in the offense, or the extrapolated meaning of the racial disparities of victim and perpetrator, and so on.
Another byproduct is the “victim statement” so common in criminal trials. What on earth does the victim’s feelings have to do with the proper sentence applied by jury or judge? If feelings are so important in such venues, why are physical reactions in the court room not allowed as well? What on earth do these feelings have to do with the justice sought other than to allow the “victims” or their families to avoid the healing of grief and their own rehabilitation? Answer: Squat!
Consider the clamor surrounding then-governor George W. Bush’s not signing hate crimes legislation in Texas. It was used to “prove” his racism in the dragging death of James Byrd Jr. This in the face of the most serious penalties levied on his murderers.
Yet another byproduct is the ability to determine guilt absent due process. There is certainly sufficient evidence that the time-honored measure of “innocent until proven guilty” is endangered. This affliction seems applicable to the actions of law enforcement (see the “Ferguson effect”) as well as the justice system (see anything on the FBI or the DoJ of Eric Holder). Or the wearing of a red ball cap. It certainly fits the current political shenanigans in Washington D.C.
When the President of these United States reasonably attempted to obtain the required-by-treaty cooperation of the newly elected Ukrainian president in an investigation that happened to involve the former vice president of the U.S., it was omnisciently assumed to be a political ploy to bring down an erstwhile 2020 presidential candidate. The omniscients then began to imagine and flesh out and implement the actual plot regarding the 2020 elections.
In fact, the omniscients were so proficient in their machinations that they had begun the plotting well in advance of the elections 2016 with actions designed to frame the worst-case winner. And so here we are today!
Omnisciency is fraught with danger. Primarily, it leads to infallibility. And when really stupid people begin to believe their infallibility, really stupid things inevitability ensue. And so we arrive at the absolute certainty that the President was interested in vanquishing a potential opponent in 2020, despite no evidence as 2019 approaches history.
Post a Comment