TORCHING THE TRUTH

It would be great if the uproar over the death of George Floyd could result in real changes to make the lives of minorities safer and more worth living.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if that is the case.

But if the past is any indication of what might happen in the future, I wouldn't expect sweeping changes. Maybe something incremental that can be built upon, though. That would also be welcome.

My beef—and you know I always have one—is that whatever progress is made may come at the expense of the truth.

Here's the thing: Human beings find thinking difficult and annoying, which is why we tend to avoid it whenever possible. In its place, we pursue a procedure called rationalization, a kind of second cousin to actual thinking.

Rationalization prods the brain to come up with (semi) plausible reasons why it's okay to do whatever it is we've already decided to do. We also use rationalization to justify our opinions on various subjects.

Now, don't get me wrong. Rationalization may lead to real improvements in human life, though I doubt it would ever make things so good we could abandon the very process that got us there.

Rationalization is here to stay. We like it, it works, and it's easy.

It's also pretty much all we're capable of.

Example: Demonstrations over the death of Mr. Floyd have led to a number of buildings burned to the ground. One protester recently stated on TV that it took a bunch of burned buildings to get the other three officers charged.

That sounds like a logical fallacy referred to as a "post hoc" argument.

(Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: "After this, therefore because of this." If Event B takes place after Event A, some folks conclude that Event A is the cause of Event B. That may or may not be the case.)

It is very likely that charging the other three officers—including the guy who just stood around with his hands in his pockets—might take a bit of legal wrangling behind the scenes. And that just naturally takes time to arrange. Meanwhile—and unrelated—buildings burn.

(Frankly, I'm amazed all four were fired so quickly after the incident.)

But there is a much bigger problem left to deal with, a problem which may lead to an even more damaging eruption of anger than we have seen so far.

Believe it or not, there is simply no evidence, visual or auditory, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer with his knee on Floyd's neck had any intention of harming the man, let alone killing him—for racial or any other reason.

(Saying you can't breathe may be taken as proof you can breathe. Besides, why would cops listen to perps? They're natural enemies.)

That said, virtually all the enraged people in the streets of our nation—and in selected foreign streets—take it as a fact that the officer deliberately murdered George Floyd because the man was black.

They know that's what happened. Period.

(Human beings always know what they know and they can't be wrong, far as they can see. Reality needs not raise its bumpy head to comment on this unfortunate process.)

The problem is, when this entirely unjustified notion of murder is tested in a court of law, the result may prove disastrous to whatever flammable structures remain in this country.

And the reaction of the white majority to that violent explosion might utterly erase whatever willingness to make progress in race relations that group of worthies may have tentatively agreed to.

And things could get worse. A lot worse.

I think the best we can hope for now is that the trial of the officers not take place before the election. Reactions to the outcome might just sweep Donald Trump into a second term.

And beyond...