The discussion on whether truth is objective or subjective has been discussed for thousands of years by people way smarter than I. However, I don't think you have to be "smart" to understand the truth. To me, truth is something that should be self evident.
Today, the "truth" is whatever it needs to be with some people. I read an interesting article the other day that put into words things I have thought for a long time. For some people, truth is the load stone, or Polaris by which we take stock of our own character. From the time we are little, we are taught to tell the truth, to be honest, that we will lose the respect and trust of those around us if we can not be trusted. For the most part, I believe that the majority of people in this country take this to heart. However, there are those who, I think at an early age, figured out that people don't have to like you, or even need to trust you in order to get ahead of others in life. If you have something, or do something that others need then they will want what you have, even if they don't like or trust you. A politician is a great example of this. I can't think of many politicians who I would allow to babysit a child, yet they have their hands on the levers of power in whatever they are elected or appointed to do. Need a streetlight fixed (calling Al Bundy), a pothole filled in, or even a train to no-where then you have to deal with someone who's character can be...well...fluid.
If someone calls me out on something shady, and there is some truth to it, then I would feel embarrassed, and perhaps downplay my role in it. Others, like Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Rodham Clinton, barely bat an eye and simply shift gears to change the discussion or the point of topic and simply roll on. For instance, someone says, "Mr. Stoa, is it true that you use real butter instead of margarine in your biscuits?" After some "Umms" and "Wells..." I'd then likely try to justify my use of butter in the recipe (this plays into the narrative that the media knows all to well, set the verbal arena and then force me to work within it). "Ms. Warren, isn't it true that you have as much Native American blood in you as my Siamese Cat?" Without any blushing of her cheeks or sense of guilt, she will simply say that it is YOU that are causing strife and conflict in our democratic elections. It is YOU that is sowing seeds of doubt and hatred among the electorate. "Um, ok, but is it also true that by taking those jobs you denied the opportunity for real Native Americans to advance?" She will flick her hand to the side, dismissing your question and return with just how ignorant YOU are and by extension anyone who agrees with you. She will only tangentially address the thrust of what you asked by reinforcing how tirelessly she will work to improve the lives of Native Americans in this country, something YOU clearly don't seem interested in. Likewise, "Ms. Clinton, or Rodham, or whatever your name is today, if you earned $100,000 on cattle futures over night, why are you in politics and not out teaching the Titans of Wall Street how to make trades?" In her case, she will simply remind you about how you are clearly living in the past and trying to stir up old, SETTLED, issues. Personal attack, personal attack, and then shift the dialogue. Then a month later there is a short note on page 58c about a blogger found shot and stabbed 29 times in what is clearly a suicide/failed robbery.
Conservatives will lose nearly all the time. As a bloc, they do not control the media. They do not control the Universities, nor public/private education. They don't really control the radio or the Internet. To a progressive, truth is packaging. Malleable. It is a necessary ingredient that can be "titrated" to fit whatever narrative they are pushing that day. Republicans almost always attempt to actually talk about what they are asked about, they will try to refute or justify. A good example of this is "Mitt Romney", if that is his real name. In the 2012 election against Obama, he was the most vile, putrid and repulsive kind of person. Oh, so WHITE, a MAN, and, for the love of Alinsky, a MORMON! Today, Mr. Dilecto has been canonized and anointed the new "Maverick" of the Senate, the new McCain. Oh how they love him now. He is their new hero to combat the evil orange menace. Was the truth, "True" in 2012 or is the truth, "True" now in 2019? If Mitt shared my sense of honor and dignity, he would explain how his "thinking" has moved and changed since 2012. He would explain to us just what the President has done to deserve his ire. I certainly would not create an alternate identity to say what I really believed, I would just say it.
What really scares me about RINOs is this: were they always this way and just really good at hiding it, like Mr. Romney appears to have done, or do they really "wake up" when it looks like they are waking up, like Senator McConnell? Obviously, I can't tell with meaningful accuracy. One look at Clinton (either one) or Warren or Sanders, I know right away that if they say, "it's good day, Mr. Stoa", I will immediately look out the window to make sure that, a) the Sun is out, and b) the weather nice.
Did a young pupil of Obi-Wan's betray and murder Luke's father? Did a need for operational security give Obi-Wan the right to...well...take a few steps to the right or left and change his point of view of the truth? You can see what keeps me up at night.
As usual, live well. Live with virtue even if the world itself forgets the meaning.
Zavost
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment