13 09 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Every morning outfitted with bathrobe and slippers I venture out from the sanctuary of my bedroom pleasantly pleased that another day is coming my way. Prompted by addictive anticipation I can smell the illy coffee brewing even before I have flipped the switch of the coffeemaker to “on”. I audaciously scan my living area for reassurance that the world is as it was before the night fell. I instinctively seek validation to abate my early morning anxiety: Did the sun rise? Are the newspapers delivered as promised? Have I remembered to take my medications before I consume? With validations assured, coffee cup in hand, I sit to read the newspapers, check the Internet, and from time to time – depending on the previous day’s event(s) – view the television news channel. 

And then it begins… For morning reading I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. The amount of information to review and digest is voluminous. The task of reading a newspaper with clarity of understanding and sufficient retention is difficult (for me). I dare say, even the credentialed erudite would uncover perplexing ambiguities formed either by unfamiliar vocabulary, the subject’s specialties, or just the simple vagueness of contesting exactitudes and interpretive(s).

Educational institutions should offer courses in the literacy necessities of newspaper reading; maybe, as a suggestive to the college curriculum, an MBA in The Investigative Ascertainment of Newspaper Comprehension, a sort of wonks guide to reading a newspaper.

The articles in newspapers are capricious, impulsive, thoughtful, whimsical, predictable, variable, and often entertaining; issues of absolutes are rare. But these rarely stated absolutes are often indistinguishable to the layperson of common knowledge. Hyperboles are ordinary. The posting of hubristic undertakings a constant irritable; opinions aligned with undeclared ideological preference have preferential placement. It is not unknown for fiction to be portrayed as factual and the factual portrayed as fictional. More than likely, (my assumption alone) the truth of the matter sits atop the chaos but requires time and behavior to shred its shroud.

The placement of information is ubiquitous, to the extremes of persuasive opinions diverse, and seemingly more subjective than objective. The constitutionally driven concept was that free speech and a free press are a symbiosis-continuum that advantage the citizen and checks the assume power of the government. But then the government has its own means to press their message and the government does so as free of truthfulness as the common blogger. In fact the government unlike the press cannot be prosecuted for libel or slander.

In practice the free press, as with the government, and other lobbying interests are maligned by their own ideological bent, their prejudices, as well as, the shadowy influences of pecuniary benefits.

The topic of general interest in today’s headlines and subsequent contextual is the presidential election; therefore more than any other time information is flowing into misdirection, outright propaganda, and the slips and slides of pundits and advocates protecting or promoting one’s candidate.

I think that we receivers of information are challenged to decipher the wheat from the chaff, the fact from the factoids, and the illusion from the real. I also believe that the development of our own sense of inner virtuousness is a prerequisite to the forming of one’s political ideology. Self-governing within the confines of this nation’s constitution has never been easy; that’s exactly why so many of our leaders have blatantly violated the very document they are sworn to observe and uphold.

In this world of subjective and relative; this world of maybe, a world where I’m thinking about it passes as an independent position, and victimization is a clinical reason for personal failure, I would like to present my thoughts on the Democratic candidate striving for reelection: President Obama as to how he represents himself to be is instead a sham, a charlatan, and dangerous deceiver. He is not a principled politician. He lies. He dances to the tune of any alternative to plainly defending the results of his term of office. He is an incompetent manager and leader. He should not be reelected.

Now isn’t it enlightening even satisfying to define one’s opinion in absolute terms with no caveats or remissions.




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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: