GATOR GUTS EXPLAINED

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 is...is...is...well, 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.