March 03, 2010

I used to wonder how someone could look me in the eyes and lie, knowing that I knew he was lying! I understand lying when you think you're fooling someone, but when you know you aren't? Does that make you a sociopath?

Mar 3, 2010 1:47:49 PM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by:  | 

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.

NEXT POST
Why They Can't Understand I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm watching politicians who are trying to reach a meeting of the minds on something, I find myself screaming at the TV or tensing so I don't throw something at the tube. Why? Because, as you probably already know, they cannot reach any kind of agreement or concensus because they haven't defined their terms. This seems a basic preliminary step to me, but 1) either they are unaware that differing definitions cause major communication problems, or 2) they know and don't care. They posture, babble, and either quote from their favorite "hometown story," or cite well-researched facts and figures to colleagues who yawn and chat like high school students to their neighbors, oblivious to the C-Span cameras which catalog their disdain and lack of etiquette. Yes, I'm talking about Thursday's televised presidential "health care summit." But Thursday's fiasco is no different from all the rest. This "summit" purports a new and different approach in this administration--bipartisanship. Of course, as with all King Obama's court audiences,this one failed to achieve its goal. Once more the American public watched, waiting for something to happen to change the dynamics in Washington. Nothing happened. Nothing that is unless you were listening to their actual words and watching their actions. Once upon a time words had meanings. Most literate people knew them and shared a common vocabulary. Now lexicons of ideology have replaced the dictionary of the English language, and new set of professional politicians have replaced the "statesmen" of my youth. These place party above the people they were elected to represent and seemingly leave all independent thinking and ideas of service at the airport in Washington,D.C.. When did "public service" become "career politician"? When did "reform" translate as "replacement"? When did "Republican" translate as "obstructionist" and "the party of no"? When did "unconstitutional" become "constitutional" when practiced or proposed by the administration or his party? When did "abortion" come to mean "choice"? When did "choices" become "rights"? When did "health care coverage" for everyone become a "right"? When did "human rights" trump "individual rights" and our Bill of Rights? When did "President of the United States of America" become "the-person-who-is-much-smarter-than-you-("you" translates as "anyone who disagrees with POTUS")-and-who-will-try-to-defeat-you-at-any-cost-should-you-continue-in-your-ignorance"? When did "summit" overtake "meeting" or "conference" as the preferred terminology? When did "transparent" replace the definitions of "opaque" and "secretive"? "Arrogance" equals "tolerance". Once referred to as "disrepect," the "grin-and-call-you- by-your-first-name-in-a-national-forum" approach to peers is viewed as "acceptable" and "friendly" when practiced by POTUS. The "exactitude" of basic math becomes "suspect" when applied to figures that contradict POTUS or his favorites among the courtiers. "Federal budget" becomes "my money." The unpopular term "tax" dies and resurrects as "your fair share". "Tax cuts" become "tax breaks for the very wealthy", as if only the wealthy benefit when tax rates fall. The devil either no longer exists or shows himself as anything President Bush may have done since his birth. "Christianity" is a bad word, as is "Christian". (Members of other religions are considered sacrosanct.) "Tea Party" means "rednecks, radicals, and renegades assembled in one place." "My administration" now means "anything-that-we-construe-as-good". Former "conservative administrations" are either defined as "precedents-for-actions-that-we-now-want-to-adopt-to-further-our-agenda" or "the roots of all evils." "Talking points" is pejorative when used of the opposing party, but is used as "obvious factual statements" when practiced by your own. "Threat" becomes the kinder, gentler "challenge." When did "executive branch" branch out to include "legislative"? Can "judicial" be far behind? (I am reminded of the State of the Union address when the president rebuked the Supreme Court for their ruling in a particular case.) The question arises: if this president has no regard for the electorate and no fear of the upcoming election, does he intend to do away with the 2010 election or influence it in some way? (I only raise this, because I have never seen such lack of regard for constituencies' wishes when an election is a few short months away. If I misunderstand,I'm sorry.) I might ask, if I were the sort to ponder such things, which I'm not: When did "Obama" become synonymous with "leadership"? When did unelected cronies--many of whom are known radicals--reach the status of "czars"? When did our soldiers and intelligence-gathering communities become enemies? (Perhaps it is that their name highlights the absence of any "intelligence" worth gathering in the halls of the current federal government?) When did this "republic" short-change its people and replace it with whatever it is now. Whatever it is now, it is most certainly NOT acting or speaking as a republic. When people speak different languages and use the same words to mean opposite things, can any truth or public good be reached? Of course not! When one group convinces itself that all other groups are wrong and unqualified to lead, then no idea, no action on the part of those lying outside that group can or will be viewed as positive or constructive. And so it proved. No movement happened in either direction: the conservatives presented their ideas and objections to the current bills under consideration. The liberal spokespeople countered with their usual "everyone-but-Republicans-want-this" statements coupled with their assertions that if they could just get their bill/bills signed into law, then the deficit would disappear and everyone in America would have health care comparable to the plans the Congress and President enjoy. (My only problem with this last point is that no one in the Washington power group wants to trade their health care programs for the so-called "reform" health care! I wonder why if their ideas are so great?) Obama played to the cameras, attempted to look both engaged and engaging, and interjected his own opinions. When lunchtime approached, King Obama chided those with whom he disagreed that they were taking too much time with their remarks. (I suppose he was hungry.) Though obsessed with time-keeping, Obama failed to notice that his own remarks took more time than was given to either party for the entire meeting. (Thank God that Obama refrains from hosting the Oscars!) Of course being King Obama, this "summit" finished with a not-so-veiled threat, sorry, "challenge" that the House and Senate would simply pass health care without opposition support. This measure of the elected few over-riding the wishes of the electorate many is called "reconciliation"--a misnomer if ever there was one. So ended the bipartisan spirit of this meeting and, perhaps, of this era, which leads me to ask one final question: When did "black" become "white"?
PREVIOUS POST
The old "repeat as needed until you think I'm right" tactic flourishes in Washington, D.C. Those of us who will never think they're right get a bit frustrated. How many lies does it take to make a "credible" politician? Yes, I realize that credible politician is an oxymoron.

I'm a freelance consultant, writer, Jill of all trades, master of some, and a rest stop.

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments