In Aldus Shrugged, I tackle many of the GOP's foibles and ridiculousness, often with my own strong opinions as to their motives. It dawned on me that most of the time we have to either take someone at his/her/corporation word for why they are doing something, or we can look at the evidence that is all around.
For example, why give Mitch McConnell the benefit of the doubt concerning his motives when he is on record stating his number one goal is to make Obama a one-term president? Why give Sen. Sessions the benefit of the doubt as to his motives when he has a track record of clear racism?
(This diary was inspired by a diary I saw on here this morning, which attributed the anti-Obama fervor among white pundits to racism against our president. Of course, those pundits have never been adjudged officially guilty of racism in a court of law, have they?)
From Aldus Shrugged : (NOTE: In the world of my novel, FOX NEWS is called GOOS NEWS)
"...I grabbed the remote off the nightstand, and hitting the ON button took me directly to the Goos. That’s what the last guest must’ve been watching. Goos viewers are actually less-informed than those who watch no news at all. A major study found that the misinformation actually makes you more ignorant, while you think you are less. That is a dangerous combination. When the president innocently and happily fist-bumps his wife onstage, and the anchor calls it a terrorist fist jab, you must be watching the Goos. When the morning show has a real mafia capo as a guest, and he compares Obama’s government with gangsters, and all the hosts firmly agree, you are watching the Goos. If a Republican Congressman is caught in an embarrassing scandal, and you see his face on the news the next day with a big D next to his name, wrongly denoting him a Democrat, you are definitely watching the Goos. Goos News, that is, but I pronounce it Noose. Exposed internal memos have proven them to be the mouthpiece of the Republican Party, and promoters of the Tea Party: anything but an impartial or fair news organization. These things are all proven, but some folks just don’t want to see the proof. Instead, they demand proof of birth and school grades of their president; after a full term in office.
Some people need proof of everything; proof they know they can’t possibly ever obtain; so they never have to change their minds, or even allow a new fact in. But what constitutes proof?
One thing I get sick of is people applying the court of criminal law standard to everything. People won’t believe their congressman did some horrible act, or even that their favorite pro athlete did steroids - when the evidence is overwhelming - because it wasn’t proven by their standards: nobody was found guilty, nobody was officially judged in some formal criminal courtroom. Innocent until proven guilty, they cry every time. Meanwhile, most things in life - day-to-day shit - are not subject to such official verdicts, and actually require us to make sound judgment calls. Who cares about a jury of our peers, and laws of evidence in a criminal case? How about the lower civil court burden of proof? That’s not good enough for you? Well, then, you must think O.J. is innocent! Do you really want to hinge your personal belief system on whether a whacko Cali jury thinks gloves appear to fit? I stared blankly at the badly-outdated TV. It was one of those dinosaurs with the huge backside for bouncing electrons. I remembered back in the mid-‘90s: Those constant images from the courtroom; Judge Ito, on the right, and OJ on the left, facing him.
I mean, we’re all ill-informed jurors, observing life, observing others, forming our opinions and beliefs. I like to go by the Equal Employment Opportunity Law standard: disparate impact; intent be damned. Impact is measurable, and intent is not. If a lawmaker proposes legislation designed to weed out some supposed problem, and that law will disparately affect one group of people, I will believe that lawmaker is targeting that group that is affected. For example, when the GOP proposes strict new ID standards for voting, and those standards will disproportionately target poor folks and Democrats, I will think they are targeting the poor and the Democrats. It’s that simple and that logical. Plus, I’m not stupid. So, two black guys flashed the word Panther, and hassled a few folks walking into a polling place in Philly. Mickey Mouse tried to register in Spokane, but he was debunked and turned in by ACORN. That’s a .000001% voter fraud rate, so of course let’s spend billions to suppress the Democrats’ votes. Ahh yes, the voter fraud Muslim under your bed: another of those things that hasn’t been a problem for decades, or a century, or more; or wasn’t a problem from 2000-2007, but oh good god, all of a sudden it’s a major problem that must be rectified (before we lose the next election).
Why wait for a jury of your peers to make your sound, informed decision for you? It’s not going to happen. The jury is you! The jury is all of us. You just can’t be stupid about it. You owe that to the rest of us...."
Thanks for reading!