Friday, December 9, 2011


Yesterday I wrote what seemed to the brain dead readers among you to be just a bunch of personal stuff, some of which was true and some of which was not-so-true or just plain false.

One of those brain dead readers even wrote a comment about how disinterested he was in my personal life and whether or not any of those events really happened.

Before I get to deep into the "hidden" meaning(s) of it all, let me expose my truths and my lies.

Paragraph one was 100% true. So were paragraphs two and most of three. I have never hunted with bow and arrow.

Paragraph four was mostly true, except that I have never walked in or backpacked in the Withlacoochee Forrest.

I HAVE always love alligators and have fished for alligators just as described.

The entire story of me saving a man from a threatening alligator was false (Good job, Ducky, on seeing through that one).

The picture IS of me holding a live alligator, but not the one I did not save the man from. It was taken at a meeting featuring the head of a local animal advocate group. Everybody there got to hold the gator and have his/her picture taken.

So, what's this all about, anyway?

As far as I know, not a single one of my regular readers or commenters actually knows me or anything about me other than what they've read in my blog(s).

So, there would be know way for anyone to actually know what is true and what is not true about what I wrote.

The picture seemed to some to add credibility to the gist of the "save the man" story,  or at least to something to do with alligators, but it was really not related to anything else in the post (unless you count my love for alligators).

The true parts of the post were true, even though there is no documentation to verify them. The false parts were false, even though there is no documentation to disprove them.

What happened, happened and what did not happen did not happen, no matter what you may believe or disbelieve about either case.

That which seems to verify a "fact" in one person's mind, is not convincing to another person, and vice-versa.

Most liberals are not the least bit interested in documentation provided by a conservative, because in their minds, all documentation offered by a conservative is tainted by some clandestine agenda.

Similarly, most conservatives do not trust the "documentation" offered by a liberal because in their minds, all documentation offered by a liberal is tainted by some liberal agenda.

So we are faced with a delima: How do we sift through the agendas to arrive at the truth?

Judge Judy often says, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true."

Only what "makes sense" to one person, does not make sense to another.

To begin with, "truth" is what actually happened and is not dependent on whatever "spin" one group or another puts on the event in question.

Sometimes there are facts presented that do not lead to the truth of what actually went on.

For example, suppose two people witness an automobile accident.

We all are aware that there are likely to be at least two versions of what happened, neither of which is likely to be entirely true.

"The driver of the Buick ran his car into the side of the Honda" might be factual, but it may not be the whole truth.

It is possible that the driver of the Buick had a seizure and had no control of his vehicle at the time of the crash.

It is also possible that the Honda driver was on his/her cell phone and drove out in front of the oncoming Buick.

There are a myriad of other possibilities.

In the end, investigators will arrive at the most likely cause of the collision, and someone will be charged with causing it.

When we post on a blog, we are usually approaching whatever subject we're addressing from a particular point of view. On a political blog, that point of view will be from some depth of liberalism or conservatism.

If I, for instance, post pictures of OWSers leaving a mess, or making a mess, or engaging in a fight or running around naked, the pictures might or might not be evidence that the whole "movement" is made up of people who would approve of such a thing.

A trip around the blogosphere or over to Google might bring up a few hundred photographs supporting the view that they all think like that.

The preponderance of the evidence  might lead one to believe that all OWSers are like that, which may or may not be the case.

On the other hand, if hundreds of pictures of Tea Party events do not show any depictions of people behaving in those same behaviors, one might conclude that no Tea Party members ever do such things.

So how do we arrive at the truth?

One way would be to examine the avowed motives of the members of each group and determine which set of motives might lead to which form of behavior.

Another could be to interview a representative sample from each group and hear what they, themselves, have to say about what they are doing and why.

Ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide what seems to make sense and is therefore closer to the truth.

The evidence seems to me to show that Tea Partiers are cleaner, more organized, more coherent, more polite and more consistent in their stated reason for being than OWSers.

That is a conclusion drawn by me based on "evidence" presented.

For someone else to opine that Tea Partiers are just like OWSers would seem to fly in the face of the "evidence."

Don't miss the point here. The point is not whether one group acts one way and the other group acts another way.

The point is that arriving at truth is the point.

There is no such thing as "your truth" vs "my truth."

Truth, truth!

True or false: There is no evidence that Earth's atmosphere is behaving any differently today than it has over the eons of its existence.

True or false: There were periods of global warming and global cooling long before the industrial revolution began "spewing pollutants" into the atmosphere.

Newsflash: Neither you, I or any living climatologist was there, so what we have to go on is the interpretation of "evidence" from ice core samples and ground core samples, all of which demonstrate periods of both warming and cooling.

Now, as to man's causation of any current changes in climate, that is conclusion drawn from the facts presented.

We can each draw our own set of conclusions from the data, but if we draw different conclusions,  we cannot both be right.

The upshot of it all is this: I write posts on my blog that represent my conclusions from things I have read and watched.

Whether I list all of my documentation or not, the purpose of my blog is not to convince you of how smart I am or how dumb you are. The purpose of my blog is to express what I think is the logical conclusion to be drawn from what I have read and watched.

In fact, if I were to present ALL of my documentation, you would not even read it, because the post would be even longer than this one.

Since liberals typically have the attention span of a 2 year old, and are mostly educated in the progressive leaning government school system, they would not spend the time required to read it any way.

So I shall go on writing what I write, without regard to whether you approve of what I write, are convinced by what I write, like what I write or believe what I write.

Out of the kindness of my heart, I shall afford you the right to read my posts, comment on my posts or completely ignore my posts.

Of this I am certain: There are far more people who will NOT read my posts than will.

And that's OK.

I'll just go back to loving my gators and enjoying my own writing.


Leticia said...

I never doubted you for one minute. Still, I will leave the alligator hunting and so forth to you!

Glad I am not around them. One woman in Florida walked into her bathroom in the middle night and low and behold there was a gator occupying the room.

I would have ran like a bat out of hades and never to return! lol!

Joe said...

Leticia: Alligators are one of the most facinating creatures on earth.

Contrary to popular belief, and old Tarzan movies, alligators will invariably run (or swim) away from humans UNLESS they have been aclimated to them by having been fed by them.

I have actually accidentally stepped on one's tail in the wild only to have him dive immediately into the canal from the bank where I stepped on him.

He only wanted to get away from me.

I swam in Fisheating Creek, which was immundated with gators, without even the hint of an incident.

I love 'em!

tha malcontent said...

Joe, like Leticia said the people that want to believe you already do.
We never doubted you at all. I don't feel that I need to explain anything to those (as you call them) brain-dead half-wits.
But they believe idiots like Bill Maher and Rosie O'Donnell.

sue hanes said...

'and enjoying my own writing'

Really Joe - isn't that what blogging is all about - anyway?

Ducky's here said...

To begin with, "truth" is what actually happened and is not dependent on whatever "spin" one group or another puts on the event in question.


Not so simple.

Exhibit A: Roshomon - Akira Kurosawa

If you have a chance stream it or see if your library has the Criterion release. Of course since film itself brings up serious questions of veracity the question proposition has a long history running right through Lynch's "Mulholland Drive".

But start with Roshomon, great film.

Ducky's here said...

Old Arab saying: "The truth will be known when the last witness is dead."

Joe said...

Ducky: Are you sure that's true?

tha malcontent said...

Old Chinese saying: People with narrow minds usually have broad tongues.

Ducky's here said...

I'm sure we'd have a better time discussing epistemology than discussing politics.

Joe said...

Ducky: Wouldn't it be necessary for you to know something in order to discuss epistemology?

Lisa said...

I love your explanation of your alligator post Joe.
As usual well thought out instead of just throwing words around.
I agree that one's conclusion is not necessarily the truth. That's profound.
I guess that's why the left always says FOX News lies. I guess that is their right to come to that conclusion.
I had no idea yu were a man's man Joe :-)

Joe said...

Lisa: Used to be.

Now I'm just an expert.

Definition: "ex" is a has been.

Spurt is a big drip, under pressure.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "I write posts on my blog that represent my conclusions from things I have read and watched."

Then you should present them as such instead of continually packaging them as "facts" or "truths".

I mean, you wouldn't want to intentionally mislead or lie to anyone, would you Jo Joe?

Maybe try a post where you admit "I just went out and stole the most disgusting bunch of pictures I could find and packaged them up to appear to represent "my conclusions" of what I think the OWSers are like, but there is little if any factual content in this post and I can't really back up any of my conclusions with actual facts. Enjoy!"

Joe said...

XO: If pictures, videos and news articles don't constitute "evidence" of how people are behaving, what sort of evidence did you have in mind?

If I show a series of pictures, videos and news articles of OWSers behaving a certain way, what conclusions would you suggest be drawn from them?

If those pictures, etc. were taken from trusted news sources, such as AP, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN do they carry more weight than the same pictures, etc. taken from some other source?

You have something seriously wrong with your thought processes, though I doubt you'll be able to recognize it.

Xavier Onassis said...

Jo Joe - "If I show a series of pictures, videos and news articles of OWSers behaving a certain way, what conclusions would you suggest be drawn from them?"

The problem is, in more cases than not, the pictures and videos you post are NOT of OWSers at all.

They are pictures you poached off of other internet sites (in clear violation of Federal copywrite laws) of random protests or homeless people engaging in activities you find offensive that you label as being from an OWS protest because that is what you want to believe is true and what you present as true.

"If those pictures, etc. were taken from trusted news sources, such as AP, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN do they carry more weight than the same pictures, etc. taken from some other source?"

Yes. They do. Because a credible journalistic source can provide a provenance for their material. They can document who took it, where it came from, how it was obtained and what it represents with impartial factuality.

The sources of the material you present CLEARLY have an agenda to push and thereby loose all credibility.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, did you read Paul Krugman's column today?

Lone Ranger said...

I hope you washed your hands after holding that gator.

sue hanes said...

and that the gator didn't die from exposure to you Joe.

: )

Joe said...

XO: I have NEVER denied having an agenda.

This blog is about my philosophy of government, which is a very conservative philosophy.

You are not required to agree with me (although you would be better off if you did).

I am biased toward conservatism, and make no apologies for that.

Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.

Government's job is not to provide things for people, but to provide the opportunity for people to persue the things they want via the vehicles of freedom and responsibility.

As for the afore mentioned "journalists," they should report with objectivity, not prejudice. That's why they are "journalists" and I am not.

Only they don't and they aren't.

If I don't please you with my posts, why on earth do you bother to even read them? Do you think you are somehow going to use your imagined great intellect to persuade me to thnk more like you?

Trust me (or not), that is NOT going to happen. And if it did, I would immediately shoot myself (but only in the foot, because I am a coward about suicide).

BTW, I see very few pictures across the blogosphere, from liberals or conservatives that don't come from somewhere else. Almost none are original works.

Joe said...

Ducky: The only times I have read Krugman he has come of as a raving maniac, devoid of rational thought and twisting meanings like celophane in the wind.

Has he written something of value, instead of his usual idiocy?

Joe said...

LR: I hope so...we were at a luncheon. But to be honest, I don't remember.

Ducky's here said...

Yeah, I was trying for some deep irony there Joe.

You aren't capable of considering anything which presents an alternative opinion.

I wonder if this is an outcome of being evangelical and believing in revealed truth.

Joe said...

Ducky: "You aren't capable of considering anything which presents an alternative opinion."

I really like the way you consider my differing opinions.

Very open minded of you.