skip to main | skip to sidebar

Don't Fret!

We're under construction and adding content daily! Thanks for your support!
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Mar 9, 2012

Truth: The only true form of “progressivism”

0 comments

Words are powerful. So much so that war, peace, relationships, and the fate of our daily lives seem to hang in the balance.

We've all heard the old adage “actions speak louder than words.” However, words are usually the jumping-off point for subsequent action. Actually, words are the foundation for our actions and the actions of others.

Words propagate knowledge (in addition to action). Knowledge, derived from the spoken or written word can either be based on truth, half-truths, and of course, lies.

What is dishonesty? What is the purpose of it? In short, dishonesty is a shortcut; a means to effect a desired result, based off outright lies, deception, or willful non-disclosure of information needed to gain a full perspective. Dishonesty is a means of control. Dishonesty is also a means to avoid an undesirable consequence, or to hide motives. Dishonesty, then, gives way to ignorance.

All elementary, right? Apart from being an elementary, honesty and dishonesty are fundamental parts of our lives. Logic is a tool that helps us differentiate between the two, if we choose to use it. Both dishonesty and honesty can cause two brothers to fight, or to draw them closer together. A mother can use honesty or dishonesty to comfort or “protect” a young child, or cause the child to be frightful. The problem with dishonesty, though, is that the truth usually surfaces at some point, causing inevitable issues between the two parties or desired goal. We, as ego-filled individuals, hate to be proven wrong due to our ignorance of a particular topic or situation. If we are lucky enough to realize our ignorance, thanks to our little friend called logic, we come to a crossroads; do we change course on a particular stance or action when proven wrong/inaccurate, or do we shun truth to “protect” our own selfish and egotistical selves? Those who choose the latter will go to great lengths to keep up the appearance of being “right” or justified in their position. They will compromise their personal ideals to “protect” the narrative, if not ultimately themselves. Godwin's law usually prevails if we aren't flexible enough for the mental gymnastics needed to “prove” our ignorant position.

Perpetual ignorance, born from dishonesty, is equivalent to dealing with a crappy building foundation that was never based on quality design or materials. The problems related to the foundation will materialize in the building- costing much more to maintain or repair the building than it would if the foundation was constructed correctly in the first place.

Upon reading the title of this article, you probably expected a negative rant about the “progressive” brand name of politics that emerged in our country over one hundred years ago. Make no mistake! The label “progressive” is in fact a brand name. It might be safe to say that almost all of us want to “progress” in our daily lives and want to see the rest of the world “progress” on the micro/macro level. One's definition of “progress” will be different than another's. In spirit of that fact, the specific goals and needs will be different to achieve said progress, which may or may not align with that of the “progressive” political party. The same could be said with the term “conservative.”

Both “progressive” and “conservative” terms in today's political context are based on dishonesty, designed to divide and compartmentalize potential constituents.

Instead of relying on the core definitions of what “progressive” or “conservative” means, we allow dishonest, agenda-driven media outlets and politicians (that are anything but) tell us what these terms mean. Not only that, the proponents also tell us why we should slap ourselves/neighbors with these unspecific and skewed buzzword bumper-stickers.

In our carnal nature, whether you believe we're “fallen sinful creatures” in a biblical sense, or not-very-evolved primate derivatives that walked out of the jungle, we have a thirst for conflict. I truly believe conflict and competition is catnip for humans. Doesn't matter if we're referring to sports or gaining the attention of the opposite sex (or same sex, of course). In the same manner, the political arena has been relegated (or designed) to be a made-for-TV sports game. A never-ending “us against them” bout, where the players and spectators incessantly one-up each other for a perceived level of “gain.”

Unfortunately for the American people, the political “game” has real consequences attached to it, and for many....it gets pretty personal. This is where truth goes out the window. This is where people will perform the above mentioned mental gymnastics to remain “right” at all costs. This is where Godwin's law prevails......... This is where every logical fallacy defined in the dictionary will get traded between the players, commentators and crowd. This is where the “referees” get hanged.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Want to be a true “progressive” in your life and in the lives of others? Only you can define personal or widescale “progress.” However, whatever your goals may be, make sure they're rooted firmly on the bedrock of truth. You'll thank yourself later, and so will your neighbors. Unless, of course, you've already called them a Nazi, fascist, troglodyte, rethuglican, democrap, or any other hollow blanket term you saw on a chat board.

Dec 16, 2011

Newt calling shots at Fox Iowa Debate?

0 comments
Preceding his bid for the Republican nomination, Newt Gingrich enjoyed a lucrative and beneficial relationship with our nation's largest right-wing propaganda outlet. As a FOX News contributor, Newt appeared on several segments as a commentator or panel member.

It wouldn't be of any surprise if Newt still maintains a strong working relationship with Fox, considering the fact that the news organization appears to be less critical of the former speaker. Neither is it of any surprise that Fox continues to beat the war drum, while misrepresenting the facts concerning Iran.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Fox News debate in Iowa was the curious manner in which Newt appeared to signal the moderators to silence his competitors.


  
Beginning at 30:43 and happening at precisely 30:47 in the debate video, Newt appears to give a strong look to the Fox News Debate moderators, which resulted in the camera focusing in on Michelle Bachmann, and her subsequent “dinging,” while criticizing the presidential front-runner. It is important to note that none of the moderators “dinged” any other candidate during the Fannie and Freddie exchange.  

Between 1:36:53 and 1:37:01, Newt appears to look intently to the side of the stage, with Bachmann being “dinged” shortly after, and Gingrich giving a slight nod, aimed at the same corner of the stage.





Since the debate, Fox has worked in a diligent manner to promote Newt as the winner, while being critical of Bachmann and even less flattering toward Ron Paul.

Follow us