|
There is something to be said for that line from MacBeth. There isn't a day that passes without this blog, and many others, objecting to this or that outrage by this or that Democrat. It is a deeply serious matter, causing laughter only because the situation is so idiotic. During such political badinage last evening, somebody remarked that, "It's not nice to make fun of the mentally handicapped," referring, of course, to the just-discussed and derided Democrat. It set me to thinking.
Why do we continually vent our outrage at the actions of Democrats, when we should be trying to understand them, and why they do the things they do? Why aren't we looking for the underlying reason for why the minds and actions of Democrats appear, to such rational people as ourselves, as some sci-fi motion picture's depiction of hyperspace travel, or the core of a black hole? Please select one of the following explanations. Judging by their actions, Democrats are collectively:
- Mentally challenged, unable to reason properly by virtue of inborn or acquired mental defect. More to be pitied than censured.
- Willfully ignorant, that is, they have deliberately avoided learning those things which would cause them to change their decision. "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
- Stupid, akin to ignorant, but in this case they have acquired the knowledge to "know better," but cannot apply that knowledge to practical matters. "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
- Insane, living in an alternate reality of their own design, in which what they do makes perfect sense to themselves, and no one else. Personally, I like this explanation, but it does not explain how these people are able to function reasonably well in daily life, and only exhibit symptoms in their political life.
- Evil, meaning they know what they are doing is wrong, and are determined to do it anyway. Without one of the other reasons, this is the only possible conclusion.
It MUST be one of the above though, on review, it looks like a pretty poor list of adjectives to apply to someone we have entrusted to manage our governmental (and increasingly, our private) affairs. I would be willing to entertain the suggestion that the real answer is some combination of two or more, but they seem to me to be mutually exclusive. Still, I'm not completely comfortable remarking further on the Democrat Outrage of the Day until I know I'm not speaking ill of the handicapped. It's not nice.
|
