Replies

You said — “Look. Waxman has no interest in the truth. And, I have come to believe that you are not interested either, despite your protestations to the contrary. You seem to be deliberately repeating and amplifying negative interpretations.”

Well, let Waxman be Waxman, then. As I said, I don’t pay attention to him personally. If someone is testifying in a committee that he’s in (i.e., Jessica Lynch) that may or may not be helpful to whatever his agenda is. I really don’t know about that particular angle.

I’m only looking at it from the standpoint of a particular story (the one that seems to have come from the two different people mentioned in the story). It’s as I said before (in some other post, around here on this thread), it’s that a particular truth or statement can be used by one group or another. But, whatever group it’s used by, it has to be the truth of the matter and not a filtered or massaged statement to meet an end-goal or an objective, and if it doesn’t — then try to shade it or alter it until it does. That’s the part that I’m looking at. It seems that Jessica Lynch was saying something to that effect — by saying that she is setting the record straight. I would like to find out what it is that she needs to set straight exactly. And I’m still up in the air about it all and haven’t really determined “what is what” yet...

And — “As I begin to sense this, I start getting frustrated with your behavior. So I was gently trying to equate your behavior with an example of boorishness that you had mentioned.

Folks recoil at Waxman because they know he doesn’t care about a thing that he is going on about. They know he only cares about demoralizing the American people. Because, you seem to be buying this hook, line and sinker. And spreading and amplifying this line, you start looking like their traveling companion.”

The problem here, with the idea that is being presented (as you state it), is basically all information and facts end up being polarized, without regards to truth.

The “thinking” goes this way. First, who is spouting off a particular “line” or “fact”. Well, if it’s the political opposition, then this fact or information must also be opposed, or it must be “spun” a different way. So, everytime a piece of information or news comes out — what’s the *absolute first thing* one must do?

Well, that’s obvious. The absolute first thing one must do is see who is “lining up” on what side of this fact. If I see my political friends lining up, I take this fact as “my own” because it’s a “good fact”. However, if I see an opponent taking it up — well..., that’s *clearly* a “ploy” that must be opposed. And so, I must take the opposite side of this particular fact or news or opinion.

That, I would say, seems to be the *first mode of operation* for a lot of people.

And I say that the truth of the matter and the facts of the situation must and will speak for themselves. Now, whether they are helpful to one group or another — that’s definitely something that people are going to be concerned about. But, it’s just not going to change the truth of the situation.

The criteria for these matters must always be, is it true or not. The criteria must not be “does it help my side or not.” And with large agencies, organizations and political parties — it seems that the criteria is never “Is it true?” — it always seems to come down to “Does it help my agenda or not?”

That viewpoint is totally prevalent throughout the political system and the government and its agencies and with companies, too. One can find individuals with personal agendas, too — but these are much easier to deal with and understand and sort out. One can usually get to the bottom of that, rather quickly with individuals and sort out fact from fiction.

However, with political parties and government and agencies and companies and other organizations — their processes are so labyrinthine that it would take a gang of lawyers and researchers (along with a team of theologians) to get one sentence of truth out of them — which would be *absent* an agenda or an end-goal that they are trying to accomplish....

As far as a traveling companion, I doubt many of those (whom you consider “in opposition”) are traveling with me or my thinking. They would probably depart my path in short order...

And — “You protest wanting the truth, but instead you seem to want to believe the worst. To speculate on how a charge of lying that is unsupported is worthy of packing your belief in what the Military shares is just wrong. Its a very immature and naive stance and this is why this comes back to me each time we kick words back and forth.

Adults know the impossibility of establishing a single truth for any event other than by consensus. This doesn’t mean that an objective truth doesn’t exist, it means that the more contentious the issue is, the more the spin can distort the facts by interpretation.”

Oh yes, I believe the worst all right. I think the Bible makes that pretty clear. It basically says there is not one bit of good in people. It says that their best is actually the worst — when one looks at what the best really is — which is the character of God Himself (who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). The book of Romans, in the first few chapters, give a clear view of that and how this destines each and every one of us straight to hell, because of it. The “best” of what we might consider, is to God the absolute worst that you can come up with. So, no doubt, the “worst” is easily believed, as that is the basic character of the human race, on its own, absent God working in a person, personally, in their life. And so, this is simply a general statement on the condition of mankind, pertaining to every sphere of life, and not exclusively to the Pentagon or one particular party or another. It pertains to all spheres of life.

When you say lying is unsupported and how it’s a naive and immature stance — well, it’s pretty clear that “lying” is the norm, in the human race. It’s the norm and it’s the standard. The Bible also makes it clear that this, along with several other behaviors (in mankind) is the *norm* and is the *standard*. That’s not naive, that’s what God says about it.

If lying were not the *norm* and the *standard*, we wouldn’t need courts or trials or examinations (or fact-finding) or “accountability” or many other tools and methods that we use (as a society) for rooting out the “rampant condition” of lying in all spheres of society in every imaginable form that it can take. If lying were not the standard mode of operation of every person, we would not need any “security” or cameras or “witnesses” or “ethics” to “guard” and “watch” everyone, all the time.

No, we wouldn’t need any of it. We would simply ask the person, straightforwardly, what the situation was — we would get a true answer and that would be the end of it. Nope, we have all this in operation in our system (i.e., culture, society, mankind) precisely because lying *is* the norm and the standard.

Going to the end of the paragraph I just quoted above, you said that “Adults know the impossibility of establishing a single truth for any event other than by consensus.”

Truth is not by consensus. Truth is absolute and exists outside of what you or I or anyone else says (or what a committe says). Truth exists in its own right, independent of what a consensus says.

So, sorry, I reject that definition of truth. It’s *completely* and *totally* independent of anything someone says or a group says, by consensus or otherwise.

Lastly, you say — “At the end, the spin interpretation that the Democrats have been weaving is not accepted by the Vietnam Vets who lived through this crap once already, or by the current Iraq War Vets and their families. The Democrats and their traveling companions are doing everything they can to demoralize these groups and get them to accept defeat and get them to blame Bush for this defeat rather than the Democrats. This tactic is as old as time. The MSM is a willing accomplice, but some folks have the intellectual foundation to see these folks for who they are and the words they are spinning for the treasonous, bitter lies they are. YOU SEEM TO BE HAPPY SPREADING THIS CRAP. I don’t know why.”

The main problem with this — in general (but not necessarily the specifics) is that it sets up a standard in which it’s not the *truth* of a situation that matters (in whatever you’re talking about, personal, miiltary, government, business, etc...) — but rather, it’s always the outcome that matters. And thus, you “craft truth” (by “consensus” as you say...) — thus creating an “outcome” that is desired. Now, while I may desire a similar outcome, this cannot be the process, because it is a *corrupting* process.

The Bible, for one, makes it abundantly clear that it’s a corrupting process. No matter what the “end” — the truth of a situation must come out. And if the results are going to be bad, then they must be bad. *That* is the “rule” that God sets down on these types of things.

Unfortunately, people are not looking at this in that framework — but rather in the framework of political expediency and of “end results”. That’s a *process* that God rejects and totally condemns. That’s the bottom line of that.

I understand how the MSM and the political hacks from the opposition subvert things and also work towards a corrupt end (at least it’s corrupt from the way I see that the Bible presents things). So, it’s not that I think any one particular side or one of a particular political persuasion is better than another — it’s simply that it’s not relevant, when it comes to determining what is the truth of the matter and what is not.

I’ll continue to maintain the standard that the Bible upholds, as spoken from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and through Jesus, the Messiah of Israel. And that goes for any party, business, government, agency, organization or person...