We wrote the stick-up note on the back of his paystub:
According to the Chicago Tribune, 40-year-old Infante last Friday handed the written demand, scribbled on half of the pay stub, to a teller in a Fifth Third Bank in Chicago. It read: "Be Quick Be Quit. Give your cash or I'll shoot."Ignoring the failure of the Chicago public schooling system to teach proper spelling, perhaps Mr. Infante can share a cell with Mr. Blagojevich.
Pretty stupid, yup.
ReplyDeleteBut he still can take some refuge in the fact there are still critters Out There who are even dumber dumbasses. Like the one I once heard tell of: a prize-winner jerk who paid his bail with a rubber check.
Recently, governor Rod Blagojevich was accused of selling the seat of Barack Obama to the “highest bidder.” This seat was given to Ronald Burris, who is of course, implicated in the very wrongdoing that the governor has been accused of. This dramatic media hype has been blown completely out of proportion, as the accusations are based only on hearsay and gossip. It is becoming increasingly clearer that this country operates under the assumption that one is always guilty until proven innocent. If the governor is guilty of any nefarious activities such as the one mentioned above, then there would be solid evidence against him. If there is no solid evidence to present in a court of law, then there is no evidence against him, thus reducing the accusations to false accusations.
ReplyDeleteWhy does our country always operate in this manner? It seems that even the president-elect Barack Obama has fallen into this trap of casting blame on the accused governor, and told him that he should step down from his position of power as governor, based only on gossip or accusations in rumor. This decision was based on little information. This is not how our country should operate, and I refuse it to continue to operate as such. Why is our country so dumb? Aren’t we smarter than this?
Roland Burris stands defiant, because he does not associate himself with the decisions of the governor. As long as the governor is still in power, Roland Burris has every right to be the appointee, until the governor has been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Basically, until that day comes, the appointment of Roland Burris should not be “tainted,” rather, it should be allowed. It may not pass the Senates approval, because the Senate operates under the assumption of the issue stated above… they base all of their opinions on very little evidence. They see these things as an accusation equaling guilt. This is the same thing as guilty until proven innocent. This is the same thing as innocent until indicted, which is anything other than innocent until proven guilty. This is not how our country should continue to operate. The Senate is defiant in stating that “it will block” any appointments made by the accused governor. This is not right. He has been accused, with no evidence. This is guilt before evidence. I do not get it. Why do you simpletons buy into the politics so easily? This is why "politics" is "politics," because politicians know that the majority of American citizens are stupid.
“Truth” is negotiated. Everyone who participates in, or has a stake or claim in, the process of truth seeking, practices the art of negotiating. Truth is not truth, it is tentative truth. Truth is difficult to ever find, and this is why people become skeptics. In Rod Blagojevich’s case, truth will have to come from the higher courts ruling. Otherwise, it seems as though everyone else in the process of truth seeking has something to say about this social phenomenon that is unfolding before our very eyes. Everyone has an opinion, and interpretation from their own unique and biased perspectives. However, everyone’s perspective, or prejudicial bias, is a situated perspective. It is loaded, with predispositions, based on their own differential ability to cast judgments or aspersions on someone else who is in the media spotlight. An amalgam of situated perspectives is what becomes the majority to legitimate whether or not a negotiated truth can be attained. Unfortunately for us, this negotiated truth can take place prior to any court ruling, effectively allowing public discourse to persuade the courts to make a ruling to pacify the mob.
What causes us humans to think the way we do? Why are we so susceptible to cast aspersions and judgments on others based on very little information? I believe it is a human tendency to fall into an epistemic trap to crucify people in the spotlight, simply because we do not want to let these stories take up our collective time for sake of convenience. In one day, and out the other… we like things to be simple. Hang ‘em high, regardless of the consequences. We are effectively, nothing more than the Roman mob, fickle simpletons, and easily persuaded. In the process of truth seeking, we are our own worst enemies in finding truth. We deny the process of judicial law to be effective. We undermine judicial rulings, because of our inherent skepticism of the process. We read stories like John Grisham’s “The Appeal,” or watch the dramatic events of an O.J. Simpson trial unfold, and become disbelievers of the judicial process. Thus, we resort to negotiating truth prior to the judicial process legitimating prejudicial interpretations, and cast judgments or aspersions on people whom we believe from our own situated perspectives to be guilty or innocent.
Negotiated truth is done through public discourse, a discourse that is facilitated by the Media, and open discussion forums. Blogs are popular for this nowadays. We see people with very thoughtful perspectives argue point by point why one or the other is correct. This process, is effectively, the negotiation of truth. We only legitimate truth if the majority of the people, often represented in a sample of a jury of our peers, agree that some social phenomenon is the way it is, because of the negotiation of truth. Will we ever know if Blagojevich said that he would “sell Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder?” Ironically, even this “truth” will be negotiated.