Blog Archives

#8 Some Thoughts Regarding Halloween

10/26/2014

In honor of my ancestor, who was hanged as a witch in 1692 (NOTE: there is no evidence she was a witch and she was, eventually, exonerated along with all of the other victims), I thought I might write a bit about Halloween, which, I think, is far too frequently maligned by too many people. You see, contrary to what some people will tell you about Halloween being “the Devil’s night,” or some other such demonic claptrap, in many ways Halloween is a Christian holiday, although one which my Puritan forebears would not have approved of. (Of course, they didn’t approve of much of anything resembling what we’d call a celebration, at least in the colonial days.)

I have to admit that what has become the modern Halloween IS (almost certainly) descended from the ancient Gaelic festival of Samhain (sah-win or sow-in), which marks the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter (the “darker half” of the year). (NOTE: this was a festival of celebrating the harvest and honoring ancestors.) It has (at least rough) parallels in many cultures.

Then, in the 9th century, the Roman Catholic Church (THE Western Christian church at the time) shifted the date of All Saint’s Day (All Hallows Day or Hallowmas) to November 1 (which made November 2, All Soul’s Day). (NOTE: In the Orthodox tradition, All Saint’s Day is the first Sunday after Pentecost (where it started), so that the Orthodox tradition doesn’t seem to figure into this, as best I can tell.)

Anyway, it is fairly widely believed that this holy day was moved in an attempt by church leaders to “Christianize” the harvest festivals, which existed throughout virtually all of Western Europe. Along the line through history, the Mexican Day of the Dead festivities got mixed up in all of this, although the practice of remembering deceased friends and family is a common part of the harvest festivals of many cultures. Examples of this sort of thing exist from Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Finland. (Source: Wikipedia)

As time passed, All Hallow’s Eve (the evening, or day, before All Hallow’s Day) got shortened to Halloween (or Hallowe’en). “It initiates the triduum of Allhallowtide, the time in the liturgical year dedicated to remembering the dead, including saints (hallows), martyrs, and all the faithful departed believers. Within Allhallowtide, the traditional focus of All Hallows' Eve revolves around the theme of using "humor and ridicule to confront the power of death." This would include “souling” which most of us think of as a Christmas tradition (caroling), but which, if you go back, was a part of All Hallow’s as well, with people going door to door to sing and/or pray for the dead and being rewarded with a “soul cake.” (Source: Wikipedia)

What all this means, of course, is that the specific origins of this holiday are a bit murky and anything but really clear and specific. I think one can make a pretty good argument that the practice of going door to door “begging” treats, and dressing up to do so, also goes back to the Medieval tradition of “disguising.” Shakespeare actually makes reference to the whole idea in The Two Gentlemen of Verona (Speed: “… to speak puling (whiningly) like a beggar at Hallowmas.” II, 1, 21-22). This strongly suggests that many of the activities we associate with Halloween were fairly common by the time this play was written (probably between 1589-1592). That’s a while ago and, certainly, anything which smacked of “Devil Worship” would have met with considerably less than a positive response in Elizabeth’s England, so the idea must have been considered acceptable, at least to the official English Church.

What this suggests, at least to me, is that, while there may be some truth to the idea of pagan roots to the modern idea of dressing up, trick-or-treating, etc., on Halloween, there are also roots in the Christian church (at least the Western church), and they are not just in the Catholic tradition.

Actually, there’s a lot which can be said about how the celebration of Jesus’ birth, which was placed (by the Church leaders) on December 25th in the Fourth century, was also an attempt to “Christianize” the Pagan celebration of Yule (midwinter solstice), but that’s a story for another season. I’ll just say that I doubt that the Roman Empire would have been so stupid as to force people to travel for a census and taxation during the most difficult time of the year to do so. Easter is clearly related to Passover (Jesus WAS a Jew, after all) and its date MAY have something to do not only with the traditional date of that Jewish holiday, but that of the pagan “Ostara” (the Spring equinox) which was also an occasion for celebrations in the non-Christian community.

In any event, I have done some looking and nowhere have I found any evidence that there is anything which I, at least, would call “satanic” about any of the practices which influenced the modern Halloween. There ARE pagan influences, although it’s worth noting that the term “pagan” has its roots in Latin from pre-Christian, Roman days and appears to have referred to people who lived in rural areas; or, in military jargon, a non-combatant or civilian, so it’s not a term which really relates to religion.

What all of this seems to boil down to is that, even if we wish to be considered as “good” Christians, there doesn’t seem to be any reason not to have a little fun with Halloween. Dress up (many of us are “theatre people” so we do that with some frequency, anyway), read a ghost story, indulge yourself (and your friends) a bit (NOTE: I did NOT suggest overdoing it!).

There’s nothing evil, nasty or demonic about Halloween and anyone who tells you otherwise just doesn’t get it. One COULD make a case that the “anti-Halloween” “Harvest Festivals” which have sprung up some places are simply a way to avoid the name, which I find really stupid, but I won’t get into that. Have a great Halloween.

Happy haunting!

0 Comments

#7 Voting: A Revolutionary Act

10/22/2014

0 Comments

I participated in a revolution yesterday: I voted. “Okay.” you say, “Big deal.” Actually, it is one. To make things clearer, it’s two weeks before the actual Election Day, so I had to arrange for my absentee ballot (which I did when I was last in Sylva) and yesterday I had to obtain the appropriate witnesses and take the envelope to the Post Office, etc. Now, I don’t expect any particular praise for doing this, but I write about it because I think it’s important.

I don’t mean that my, personal, vote is more important than anyone else’s. It’s not. But, the ACT of voting is, I think, VERY important. It is, I believe, the essential act of citizenship. It’s the thing that separates the American Revolution from many (probably most, maybe all) others. Every so often, we all have this thing called an election, which leads to a (sometimes quite significant) change in our government. And nobody has to pick up a gun, nobody gets shot and everybody (even the losers) goes along with the process.

This was quite a revolutionary idea when it was proposed not that long ago (from an historical perspective) and it remains one, I think. It’s a bloodless coup which takes place at regular intervals. It’s the thing that makes our system of government possible and it’s not all that common in the world, even today.

Is it perfect? I don’t think so. It’s messy, time consuming, often inefficient, much too dominated by money and it’s hard to make sure that the “right” people get elected, at least until you stop to realize that they WERE elected, which is the whole point. Whether we like the result, or not, the people have made their choice. It also leads to the obvious conclusion that, if you don’t like the results of this election, what you have to do is work to see that the next one brings about the results you would prefer (and you can do that and there WILL BE another one, which is of the greatest importance).

I’m not going to try to tell my readers who to vote for. I have my own feelings about many issues and I have expressed some of them on these pages (and I expect to express more in the future). I do wish to urge anyone who reads this, however, to vote. Take the time to do your job as a citizen; find out which candidate you think best represents you, then support and vote for him/her. Election season brings along with it a great deal of discussion as to who is, or what constitutes, a “patriot.” I think there’s a simple answer to that: A Patriot VOTES!

If you don’t care enough to vote, it seems to me that you have little right to complain about “the government.” After all, the vote is all about your right to control that government, which is made up of “We, the People….” Do your job as a citizen, VOTE!

0 Comments

#6 Fact, Theory and Belief

10/17/2014

0 Comments

There are three words which one hears fairly frequently which are a bit troublesome to me. I think they are often misused, or at least misunderstood. I suspect that this does a fair amount to create difficulty, or at least argument, which could be avoided with a better agreed upon sense of what these words mean and, therefore, how they should be used. These words are: fact; theory; and, belief.

According to the Dictionary app, which I got when upgrading to Mac OS 10.9.5 (Mavericks), these words have something like the following meanings:

            Fact = a thing that is indisputably the case

            Theory = a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

            Belief = something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction

            (i.e. a religious conviction); trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something

                                                                                          (paraphrasing is mine – RSB)

These are (slightly) paraphrased, but they do indicate the meaning of these terms, as I have always understood them. I find these definitions to be quite fascinating.

Note that a “fact” is something which is “indisputably the case.” That’s curious, at least to me, because we all know that for a long time it was “indisputable” that the world was flat and that the Universe revolved around the Sun. That means that, during that time, these were “factual” statements. Then things changed and we felt compelled to believe otherwise. So this is problematic because it creates problems with the whole idea of a “fact.” It doesn’t fit the definition above very well, as something “indisputable” shouldn’t be capable of such change. I think that that may be the point; that if we were to make the definition of “fact” more complete, it would have to include some qualification that deals with the reality that we are always dealing with the current state of knowledge. After all, a flat Earth and the Copernican model worked fairly satisfactorily until new discoveries started poking holes in it. At that point, these “facts” became “disputable” and thus lost the status (in my opinion) of being facts. So, what did they become?

This is where “theory” enters into the picture. A “theory” attempts to explain something, usually based on some study, experimentation, etc., but recognizes that there is information missing, or unavailable which does not allow this explanation to be considered “indisputable.” Thus, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution (Note: this is often misreferenced as Darwin’s Theory. He did provide much evidence and argument to support this idea, but he didn’t create it.), are, properly, “theories” because we don’t have enough evidence to consider them “indisputable,” but they seem to fit the evidence we have pretty well. (My apologies to any believers in “Creation Science” which seems much more religious than scientific to me as it seems to begin with a conclusion [that the Biblical account of creation is true] and then seems to try to force the evidence to support that conclusion.)

That gets us to the proper (again, in my opinion) use of the term “belief.” I said above that this term refers to something “one accepts as true or real….” I think the most important word here is “accepts.” Acceptance does not require any sort of proof, or even specific evidence. If you wish to accept that aliens landed at Roswell in 1947, based on conflicting reports and less than adequate (publicly revealed) evidence, I have no problem with your right to believe that, but your belief doesn’t make it a fact, as we have defined the word here. It is not “indisputable.” The same thing is, or should be, true of the Bible and many other writings of a religious nature. If some people wish to accept the Bible, or other works, as being fully and absolutely true, it seems to me that they should have the right to do so, but they have an obligation to admit that their “belief” doesn’t make it a “fact.”

I think this is indicative of one of the real problems which exists in the U.S. today. Far too many people, of a wide variety of beliefs, seem to be under the impression that, since “this is what I believe,” the rest of us should have to believe it (at least accept it as Truth [factual]) as well. I don’t think that’s how or why this country was created and this practice seems to be responsible for much of the turmoil in present day society. Whether we are speaking of race, religion, politics (all too often these three seem to become mixed up together) or a number of other issues, this insistence that everyone ought to believe the same thing seems to be advanced frequently (occasionally rather subtly) and seems to serve only to close off discussion of the real issue at hand and lead to arguing about beliefs. That seems counterproductive.

I’d like to urge people to just “chill” a bit and take a moment whenever conflict starts to develop to carefully listen to the other person’s ideas. I’m certainly NOT suggesting that you should back down from your own beliefs, but actually listening to the other person’s point just might help you to understand where the common ground may be and provide some means for avoiding the “you believe that and you’re wrong” kind of discussion which so often develops and help both of you to focus on how to resolve, or at least reduce, the tension which often prevents productive actions. I think it’s worth thinking about, at least.

0 Comments

#5 Some thoughts on election campaign reform

10/14/2014

0 Comments

As I write this, about three weeks before the mid-term elections of 2014, I have to confess that I’m tired of all the election “hoopla” and especially of all the political ads. As one really can’t escape them, I’ve had to sit through far too many and have noticed what seems to be a trend which may not have been apparent to some.

That trend is that what feels like an increasing number of ads in specific support of specific candidates which are not “approved” by the candidate, but are sponsored by other organizations, often with marvelously vague, almost always “patriotic” sounding names. What amuses me (okay, it frustrates me) about this practice is that all too often these ads speak in the most negative terms of “outside influences” coming in to support some candidate or other, so one shouldn’t vote for THAT candidate because they are controlled by those “outside” influences. That’s how they work, of course. By attacking one candidate, they are, in fact, supporting his/her opponent, but since they don’t mention the opponent by name, she/he can claim a complete lack of knowledge, or control, over these ads which were clearly created to support them.

I think this is a result of the “Citizens United” case of a few years ago which, I believe essentially gave non-profit organizations (now extended to corporations, labor unions and other associations) the right to be free of restrictions for “independent political expenditures.” (Information from the Wikipedia article Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) What this decision seems to have led to is many, many organizations having been created for no purpose than to provide support for specific candidates and/or political positions. These groups frequently, however, decry how terrible it is that “some” candidate(s) are heavily influenced, or controlled, by “outside” influences, which is, of course, highly undesirable. This being the case, people should be suspicious of them, not vote for them, etc. What I find amusing here is the fact that these groups ARE, in many cases, such “outside” influences, as many of them operate on a national level, or at least across district and state lines.

Now, I’m not going to get into an argument about whether, or not, “… corporations are people, too.” I will go so far as to suggest that, whether we are speaking of individuals, corporations, unions, or almost any other sort of organization, political support is unlikely to be offered just for the heck of it. The whole idea behind them is to “influence” the election.

It seems to me that we, as an electorate, might be better served through some process which would restrict campaign donations from any source. I know this can be argued to violate the First Amendment “freedom of speech” clause, and that concerns me, but I am, at least at this point, more concerned about the idea that we often seem to have the best elected officials that money can buy. I don’t think it’s the only factor, but it does seem to be true that paid advertising does make a difference in elections (see “The Big Lie,” blog entry #3) and this advertising doesn’t really seem to be subject to much of any sort of control short of, perhaps, a specific suit for libel, which would almost certainly be too late to have an impact on an election.

It seems to me that the sort of campaign finance reform which has been proposed every so often, is probably a good idea. What I’m speaking of is having all campaigns publicly financed and subject to strict limits as to total spending. This would go a way towards leveling the playing field, although it probably wouldn’t solve the problem, especially in the light of Citizens United, as the advertising which that has generated is (or at least pretends to be) “issue oriented” so that these “non-profits” are making “independent political expenditures.” The challenge here, of course, is that wealthier people (as well as businesses, etc.) tend to advocate a more conservative political philosophy than many private individuals and they are in a stronger position to support their positions financially than most of the rest of us.

Now, I believe in the widest possible participation in the electoral process, so I don’t want to go so far as to request a reconsideration of Citizens United (although I’m not convinced that would be a bad thing). I do think, however, that just as candidates are required to make specific statements about their sponsorship of their “official” ads, it would not be too much to require that more be done in terms of requiring all politically oriented ads to identify who created and is paying for them and making public the names of the contributors to these various “independent,” non-profit organizations.

It would seem to me that these steps might go a long way towards allowing people to see who is sponsoring various candidates and where the candidate’s resources are, in fact, coming from. I strongly suspect that many more candidates than most of us are aware of are heavily supported by “out of state special interests.” I’m not going to suggest that this should be abolished (although that might not be bad idea) but the fact is that, since this support is, almost certainly, being offered with the assumption of influence on the candidate’s position (and vote) on specific ideas, shouldn’t the electorate have the right to know who (individuals or organizations) is supporting (or working against) a specific candidate?

I confess, I think it’s unlikely that any meaningful campaign reform is likely to either be proposed or accomplished because the people who have benefited from the current situation are the ones who would have to enact it. Still, this might be something worth working on over the long haul. I think it’s possible that, with enough pressure from the public, it’s possible that some positive steps might be taken. I think that would be desirable.

If you wish to take action in this area, you might take a look at an organization known as Issue One. I will confess that I haven’t looked deeply enough into it to wish to be seen as an advocate for this organization, but, based on a quick look at their web site: http://www.issueone.org it looks like their ideas and mine aren’t too far apart. Again, if you are interested, you might wish to take a look. At least, I hope that you will think about these questions.

0 Comments

#4 "LY"

10/10/2014

0 Comments

I miss the use of the “ly” ending on adverbs. Has anyone else noticed that they seem to have fallen out of use, or at least into disfavor? It’s probably because my mother was the daughter of an English professor, but I have noticed that many people on the TV news, the Weather Channel and in many other places have apparently gotten into the habit of using the “short” form and dropping the “ly” suffix which, much of the time, indicates the use of the adverbial form of an adjective. That is, they will simply say that “the police responded quick to the call,” “ it’s a rapid moving cold front,” “I wanted to buy it really bad,” or something like that.

Perhaps I’m just overly sensitive, but this always grates a bit on my ears. My guess is that it’s the result of the popularity of “tweeting,” where one is quite limited by the number of characters that can be used to send a message. Still, I’m old fashioned enough that it bothers me.

I was taught that an adverb (defined by Dictionary.reference.com as “A part of speech that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. Adverbs usually answer such questions as ‘How?’ ‘Where?’ ‘When?’ or ‘To what degree?’ The following italicized words are adverbs: ‘He ran well’; ‘She ran very well’; ‘The mayor is highly capable.”) is perfectly proper and, in fact, made things clearer by indicating the modification intended. The same source goes on: “Note: Adverbs are often formed by adding -ly to an adjective, as in truly or deeply.”

There are, of course, ways to phrase this sort of idea which avoid the need for the “ly” ending, but they are often somewhat awkward sounding and, as indicated, the “ly” ending isn’t always required for the adverbial form, but it often makes a lot of sense to use it, at least to my old-fashioned ears.

I suppose that some of my prejudice for the use of the “ly” suffix may come from listening to the “LY” song on The Electric Company when my girls were small. This little song, composed and performed by Tom Lehrer, stuck in my head, and, while I didn’t remember it in great detail until I looked it up, I did remember its existence, probably because I was amused by the fact that Lehrer wrote and sang it. Now, I was first exposed to his songs when I was in high school and felt they were among the funniest (and frequently the most risqué) that I had ever heard at the time. I think they still are. (Some of my more recent students may remember my fondness for playing his Oedipus Rex at the beginning of Lit/Crit class discussions of that play.)

I suppose that I found his songs fascinating because, while he frequently walked the edge of being filthy, he never (to my knowledge) actually used “bad” words. That is, he used innuendo to make the listener understand what he was talking about (especially when touching on sexually related topics) but he rarely, if ever, used “impolite” language. I often wish that more modern comic authors would follow his lead and use carefully chosen, witty language, rather than relying of the shock value of “dirty” words as the source of humor.

In any case, I found the idea of this author/composer writing for The Electric Company, a television program created by CTW (the Sesame Street people) for kids who had outgrown the preschool show, so ironic, that it stuck with me. I’m digressing, I know, by I’d encourage looking up his “LY” song at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ImDSrQ3tY8&index=38&list=PL1954DB8E36117DA6

and, you can probably find recordings of many of his other pieces on line. I know you can still find them in the “comedy” section in various stores which sell CDs.

Okay, I’ve gone off track a bit (one of the privileges of being in control) but as I’ve touched on before (and probably will again) I think that language is important. I expect its usage to grow and change over time, but the lack of willingness to use it carefully suggests a sort of sloppiness which I find too bad, especially from those (teachers, broadcasters, authors, etc.) who probably should be role models for the best use of the language. Certainly, the simple use of the “ly” ending can be useful, make the words flow more easily and make the meaning of what you are trying to say clearer. I encourage its use, quite strongly.

Note: Twenty examples of the use of the “ly” ending to indicate an adverb, only three of them in the quote (and I wasn’t even trying).

0 Comments

#3 The Big Lie

10/7/2014

0 Comments

In this season of frenzied political activity (Fall 2014), I’ve noticed (more than I usually have) a trend which I find a bit disturbing. I call it “the big lie.” This is the practice of some political figures (I think it’s true of folks from both major parties, and, probably, of non-political people, as well) of trying to establish the “truth” of something by simply “screaming” it (okay, I do mean broadcasting it, repeating it, etc.) over and over again, as if sheer repetition of the statement will make it true, or will, at least, make some people THINK it’s true.

One example which comes to mind rather quickly is the notion that all of our problems will be solved if we simply lower (I suppose eliminate would be viewed as better, yet) all taxes on the well-off (and probably on all businesses, as well) because they are the “job creators” who will automatically use these benefits to invest in business expansion, create new jobs and, thereby, resolve all of our economic problems. In fact, this basic idea seems to have been the cornerstone of Republican economic ideas for quite a while.

(Disclaimer: I confess a tendency to be more likely to support the ideas of the Democratic party than the Republican one, but mostly I’m opposed to overly simplistic ideas which don’t seem to work wherever they come from.)

This use of repetition seems to be the case with the “job creators” idea. After all, as I remember it, this notion became a leading one during the Regan administration and has, to some extent, been tried in a lot of Republican controlled areas for more than thirty years. Now, it doesn’t require a lot of research to discover that during this period the rich have gotten richer and the rest of us haven’t even held our own. What happened to all of those “good jobs” that the “job creators” were going to create? I have seen little evidence that the results which were supposed to be achieved have appeared.

Closely related to the “job creators” notion is the one that government regulation and interference is what is preventing the positive aspects of this policy from reaching fruition. Again, as I see the record, most of the recent economic troubles are a direct result (or appear to be) of a lack of judgment on the part of banks and other financial institutions as to how to protect investments which they undertook as a result of the reduced regulation they desired, and got. That allowed them to “play,” with our” money, in the process taking risks which, previously, would not have been allowed. Of course, when they got into trouble, the rest of us (in the form of the government) had to take steps to keep the economy afloat, which they then criticized as “government interference.”

I confess that I don’t understand how it came to be that “The Government” somehow became the bad guy in so many people’s political thinking. If one reads the Constitution (Is that a “dangerous” idea?), it seems rather clear that “We, the People…” ARE “the government,” or are supposed to be. One only has to read the Preamble to get that.

It makes me wonder if students actually even read, let alone study, the Constitution in school any more? I know that I had to learn the Preamble by heart when I was in eighth grade and I was even required to be able to write it out completely and correctly (including correct punctuation and spelling). I can’t do that any more, but I admit that I don’t see where such a practice would hurt anyone. Who knows, perhaps an electorate which was better informed about the nature of our government, as defined by the Constitution, might take its responsibility of choosing leaders a bit more seriously, rather than just responding emotionally to what the candidates claim is the “truth.” Our “leaders” might actually lead!

Another idea which seems to fit the pattern of what I have called “the big lie,” is the notion that the United States is a Christian country, founded by Christians and intended to be ruled by Christian principles. Now, I have no real problems with the fundamental principles of Christianity. I attended a Christian Church as a youngster, was baptized and became a member of a Christian (Protestant) denomination. I like to think the things I learned in that church about “do unto others,” “turn the other cheek,” “don’t cast the first stone,” etc. have been a significant force in my life and that they have had a positive influence on my actions.

On the other hand, one doesn’t have to look very far into history to discover that the First Amendment was created for the specific reason that not all the Founding Fathers were, in fact, Christians. I seem to remember a few Deists, for example; and the ones who were Christian came from a variety of denominations (not all of which always got along with each other terribly well). In fact, if one looks a little further in history, one can find many cases of one group of Christians fighting with another group due to differences, at least in part, over who was the “correct” sort of Christian. I find that somewhat ludicrous! There are also many historical examples of groups of Christians fighting with people who weren’t Christian, at least in part, because “those” people wouldn’t accept the idea that Christianity was the only “correct, true” religion.

As I’ve gotten older, and studied a bit about various spiritual traditions (let’s avoid the all too “loaded” term “religions”), what I’ve found is that most of them have, when you get down to the fundamentals, a great deal in common. Yes, they have different practices, different terms, different names, etc., but they all seem to be trying to provide a set of answers to the same basic questions: Who are we?; Where did we come from?; Why are we here?; and, How does one live a “good” life? Strangely enough, the answers to many of these questions, especially the last one, seem pretty similar. The ideas I listed above as being ones I learned in a Christian church (although I think I learned them from my parents long before I ever thought about them as “religious” in their orientation) seem pretty much universal.

So, I have strayed from my point a bit. The “big lie” as I see it of the “Christian” nature of our country lies mostly with the idea that, since Christianity (specifically, the form of it which a specific group chooses to follow) is the only acceptable form and no other one should be tolerated, this MUST be what the Founding Fathers intended for all.

If the Founders had intended for the US to follow the ideas of any particular sect, denomination, religion or spiritual tradition, it doesn’t seem likely that they would have forbidden the government (“We, the People…”) from establishing any sort of official religion or from limiting other people’s right to practice their religious beliefs as they chose. I LIKE the First Amendment! There are several provisions of it that I haven’t touched on here, although I may get around to discussing them at some later time.

It does seem to me, however, that even the few examples I have indicated might go a way towards making people think about the “big lies” we are being told by far too many of our political figures. Just saying what you think your constituents want to hear (probably based on careful polling) doesn’t make it the truth. The truth is much less comfortable, but is, probably, worth the effort to discover. There IS a difference between “fact” and “belief,” after all. Ultimately, a fact is a fact (isn’t that what we mean by “truth”) and a “fact” can be shown to be one, at least until there is real evidence to suggest that it isn’t.

I wish more of us (we ARE the ones who elect these “leaders,” after all) would make more of an effort to try to discover the facts about the issues. I suspect that they are important. We don’t have to agree on much of anything else, but I think we should try to discover what the facts are and try to base our decisions on them. And, I think we should expect our leaders to do the same. After all, while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they aren’t entitled to their own facts. Those should be pretty much the same for everyone. Wouldn’t it be nice to have leaders who made laws based on verifiable facts, not just on whatever they thought would get them reelected?

0 Comments

<<Previous

#8 Some Thoughts Regarding Halloween

#7 Voting: A Revolutionary Act

#6 Fact, Theory and Belief

#5 Some thoughts on election campaign reform

#4 "LY"

#3 The Big Lie

Archives

Categories