12 05 2011

Authored by William Barber

The keeper of the flame is a designation once held by a person of high regard. No longer is the maker of weapons testing one tree’s strength of wood against another. For Americans, food and water are no longer the day’s most significant pursuit.

In the present, the claim is that we can be comforted that our duly elected leaders and supportive institutions have established the agreed upon societal norms; hence, we citizens are regulated by laws. For example, similar to all of the nation’s laws, the tax law has requirements of adherence with penalties for non adherence. Every citizen must comply with the established law. Now the law is complicated. So our leaders and institutions present lawyers and accountants to aid and assist the citizens’ requirement of lawful adherence. Naturally, a common person must pay these licensed by the state professionals that are specifically enlightened and licensed by the state institutions…

Politics is another complicated endeavor so we have politicians and news reporting sources to help us common understand the comings, goings, and makings thereof. In other words, the theory is that if one can listen, see, and read the information is at hand.

However, offerings of information in today’s globally enriched hypermedia environment is not only voluminous in scope, variance, and particulars the available sum is overwhelming. Additionally, because information is susceptible to the whimsical discretion of relevance and the unpredictably of forthcoming events; it must be understood by all seekers of truthfulness that the truth of the matter maybe too illusive to capture. Nevertheless, often after only a snap shot of exposure one’s eye has transferred the intended message to one’s brain and moved on; the media have completed its mission. Notwithstanding the after for mentioned, after one’s initial reading, listening, or visual of the information there is, seemingly, a never-ending perchance of the media for inaccuracy. Hence one must arm oneself with (in order to satisfy a reasonable expectation of truthfulness) the parity of contrasting media means, along with the utility of prudent sensibility in the hopes of reaching a sense of subject clarity.

Between the gathering and comprehension of information one is easily dazzled (if not outright befuddled) by the number of available sources, noting the deficiency of time between comprehending the old while keeping abreast of the new; conclusively, the idea that one could access all the information offerings are impossible. Therefore the concept of investigative parity will always fall short of available sources; there is no doubt that in today’s media environment the basis of and for judgment of issues and concerns is derived from repetitive scanning.

Through all these offerings of 24/7 multimedia information; (print, oral, and visual) one ingests such with a bellyful of askance. One understands that because of the sources’ ideological persuasion, one’s personal favorable which applies to the probable distortion of meaning both for the originator of information as well as the recipient, the possibility of pecuniary interest, or some political agenda… truthfulness is often under represented. Indeed, as a condition of thematic substance the truth of the matter expressed could be purposefully excluded. Legislation such as healthcare, the new financial reform act put forward by elected representatives Dodd and Frank, or issues such as raising the national debt, to the average citizen (and probably over half of those who voted for the legislation) these issues require more than simple contemplation to intellectually absorb. The methodology of processing such foreign to the common information is presented as if the contextual was a chapter within a mystery novel. With multi-plots wrapped snuggly within an enigma or misdirected by some rhetorical vestige of truthfulness into, ultimately, some soon to be forgotten, metaphoric terra of oblivion. If such fuzziness is not sufficient confusion for Joe citizen; there are latent ambiguities, stirred by contrarian’s that are constantly redefining the factual. And then of course there is humankind’s stubborn regard for factoids that repress contradictory evidence. Writing, as well as, reading and interpreting/discovering the truth of the matter is difficult achievements.

To layer another coat of confusion to one’s goal of gaining access to the facts of any material particular just think of the number of interpreters of circumstance and events the public is regularly weathered-by: Experts from think-tanks, wonks from the sector of concern, pundits of every persuasion, historians, political strategist, writers, journalist, former politicians, television hosts, celebrities of every inclination, comedic programming and of course comics who have decided that they have insightfulness. Long gone are the days when the tribe member went to seek the advice of the wise man or some sage-like council of elders.

Data gathers spew out computations founded on accepted criteria; when comparing data gather’s computations with another the result is indefinite definitive’s. Such contradictions are inherent within the particulars, variances, and wherewithal of established criteria. Plus, most importantly, because of the constant effect of humanness and its subjective influence contrasting ideological perspectives emerge and forever forsaken the purity of absolute clarity. After all is said and disseminated, with exceptions in the minority, the truth of the matters contemplated seems to rest solely, regardless of the underlying evidence, with the believer’s inclination to believe in what is intrinsic to one’s predetermined beliefs instead of what is presented.

Considering the constant driving impact of an all-intrusive media one must have a firm grip on one’s political beliefs because from that starting point all other critical issues and concerns stem.

I believe that everyone should pay federal income taxes; indeed, not to pay is a disenfranchisement of citizenry-obligation. Besides not to pay taxes simply means some politicians has purchased one’s vote. Respective of outcome limited government protects individual freedom and the direct opposite is true by the continued endorsement of unlimited government. I am a firm believer in “state’s rights” versus the constant ingress of state sovereignty by the federal government. I do absolutely endorse a strong armed force; I do not want to cede America’s super power status. I do not trust in the United Nations nor do I blindly trust in Russia’s or China’s good intentions. The world has been and will always be a hostile environment. I believe in a capitalistic economy. That laissez-faire policy is intrinsic to limited government and personal liberties.

I could go on…



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: