This might be one of the hottest summers in recent memory, and I’m not talking about global warming. Last time I saw a summer this hot was ‘67. I happened to be in Michigan when the Detroit riots broke out. Everyone was appalled at the wanton violence and destruction on the nightly news. We took the word of Walter Cronkite & company.
It’s now pretty easy to sit there eating supper and watch the news on some cable channel that is bought to you by one side or the other, but claims to be unbiased. I watch them interview various politicians, and, if nothing else, I’ve learned one thing that candidates do. They NEVER answer the question. The highly skilled, glib leaders of our society answer a different question that highlights whatever balderdash they’re pushing. If the candidate happens to get pinned down, and have to actually answer a question then the tactic is to SPIN. This means; never lie outright, just color the story in the best light. Or, as we might say at home in Texas, “Put a little extra jam on the bread.”
There is an old story that has been used to illustrate this for years. I first saw it in debate class in the ‘60s, and it been coming around the internet for a while now. I don’t know who wrote it, so don’t accuse me of plagiarism, or, even worse, copyin’ someone else’s words, ‘cause I didn’t, I’m just using the story to make a point.
A politician was asked about one of their famous ancestors, a well known figure in history, and the answer went something like this:
“My great-uncle, (grandfather, cousin, who-ever) was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, he passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.”
Sounds pretty good right? Ol’ Uncle so-and-so was a fine, upstanding citizen capable of producing decedents qualified to lead us.
Not so fast; My debate teacher, Mr. O’Brien, taught me to analyze everything some-one says, and figure out what they mean. Here’s my take on this one: Let’s take this one sentence at a time and see if we can figure out what really happened.
“My great-uncle, was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad.”
This translates to: He was a horse thief and train robber.
“Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility.”
He went to prison.
“Finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.”
He escaped from prison and went back to robbing trains.
“In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency.”
The Pinkertons chased him down.
“In 1889, he passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.”
He was hanged.
Sounds a little different when you scrape off the ‘extra jam on the bread’, doesn’t it?
My point is, don’t believe a thing these people tell you unless you, personally know it to be true, or, can check the facts independently.
I know that we’ve all got a few skeletons in our closets, but it seems to me that if these people claim to really be able to figure out what to do next better than we can, they better have their ducks in a row. Think about it; these are the people that claim they can;
Spend your money better than you can,
Plan your retirement better than you can,
Educate your children better than you can,
Protect your home better than you can,
Pick your doctor better than you can,
Decide what kind of house to build better than you can,
Decide what kind of car you are going to drive better than you can.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
I guess I’m dating myself a little here, but the last presidential candidate I really liked was Barry Goldwater. Ever since then I’ve had to make a choice between two candidates that I probably wouldn’t trust to wash my truck. They all talk so fast that’s it’s like trying to read Playboy with your wife turning the pages… The current choices seem to be between hemlock and cyanide. One is quicker than the other, but they both lead to the same end.
Senator Goldwater said when he was running for president against JFK:
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
Do you think, in your wildest imagination, you’ll ever hear one of our current candidates saying such a thing?
Point is: Don’t believe everything you hear at the coffee house, at work, or from some internet ‘expert’. ( Including me.) Check it out for yourself. I’ve gotten to the point that I don’t even need to know the party of the politician glad-handing me and promising to make someone else pay for whatever I think is to my personal benefit. There isn’t much difference. Lately, I just ask one question; “Are you currently in office?”
I remember when I was in basic training in the Army. We tried to do our best, but invariable, one guy would screw up. Guess who got punished? Everybody in the platoon. After about the second time that some ignorant ‘know-it-all’ earned us all a few hours of push-up/marching/close order drill, we devised a solution. It was called a ‘blanket party’ It involved, 1 slow learner, 1 blanket, 1 bar of soap in a sock in the latrine with about 20 of his closest friends… Bruises were earned and lessons were quickly learned and life went on.
It is considered politically incorrect to throw blanket parties for our present crop of so called leaders, but it is perfectly proper to vote them out of office. Everyone agrees that there are congressmen and senators that need to be sent home, but it is always in some other district. Their particular guy is just great because he got somebody a long ways away to pay for a new bridge (with another crooks name on it). Let me tell you something: There isn’t a frog-hairs worth of difference between one party and the other, in most cases. Even if you vote out the current hero of whatever party you belong to and replace him with someone from ‘the dreaded opposition’, at least the new guy will go into office knowing that his job depends on following the constitution. If he doesn’t, the voters can impose a term limit whenever they feel like it.