Presuming Innocence

WHAT WITH THE KAVANAUGH DEBACLE leaving a fresh but bitter after taste in the average American mouth, it seems relevant to give some consideration to the concept of "presumption of innocence", a concept which lately has been given so very much attention, much of it unwonted, much of is misdirected, much of it flat out misleading. Supporters of Kavanaugh have suddenly shown a great deal of fealty to those who are innocent because they have not yet been proven guilty, a distinct departure from their approach to the accusations made against Bill Clinton, who, from all indications, was and indeed is still not innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of conservative republicans, but rather, guilty, a priori. One might surmise that in the republican world of jurisprudence, presumption of innocence applies only to conservatives seeking political office or positions on the U.S. Supreme Court. Presumption of innocence is utterly irrelevant to the Knomination and confirmation process, precisely because the sacred principle applies to criminal litigation, not job interviews. Kavanagh, we must all agree, was not on trial for any crime; he was being considered for a job. I challenge anyone to arrange to be interviewed for any job in the land of freedom, then, in the middle of the interview process, stand accused of sexual misbehavior by more than one alleged victim, and to see how rapidly the job interview turns into a job rejection. Nobody in america, other than, apparently, Brett Kavanaugh, would stand a chance of getting hired after being so accused, innocent or not. The mere possibility of guilt would be more than sufficient reason for any reasonable employer to move right along to the next applicant. So it should have been with Judge Kavanaugh. Republicans, Kavanaugh supporters to a person, and doubtless thinking themselves quite clever, fire right back that presumption of innocence is more than merely a legal principle; it is a sacrosanct, bedrock, fundamental American value, etched into the hearts of all true blue and red blooded Americans, applicable at all times, everywhere. To this, the proper response is: bullshit. There is no such animal as "presumption of innocence outside the courtroom. Certainly not in mainstream American society or culture, certainly not in our daily personal lives, certainly not in american patterns of behavior or tradition or popular public mores' and values. Instead, what we have in America is quite the opposite, a value of I'm right and you're wrong, a system in which every last one of us, when we believe someone has wronged us, in absolutely and irrevocably convinced of the wrong doer's guilt, guilty without the slightest hope of a chance of being proven innocent. No matter who you are, when is the last time you were wronged by someone, and you told yourself that you have not yet been wronged, because the person who did you wrong has not yet been proven guilty, and is therefore innocent? The answer: never. When someone lies to you or steals from you, or is rude to you, you do not wait for the misdeed to be confirmed and proven by any impartial party, other than yourself. Oh no. The person who cheated, lied, stole, or snubbed you is guilty, right then and there, because you say so, you know it happened, and that's good enough for you. That's how we all behave, That's who we are. Innocent until proven guilty in America outside the formal legal system in our daily lives, as a fundamental value near and dear to our hearts?? Not hardly.