I hate spin.  I thought it would end with the election cycle, but it continues almost unabated.  My rant is not against the O’Reilly styled art of bloviating or anyone’s idiosyncratic discourse on an issue du jour.  No, I am referring to political spin of the sort that utilizes half-truths and out-of-context snippets as an illegitimate premise or basis for their position.  Merriam (I prefer first names…) defines deceit as the act of deceiving, deceiving as the “inflected form of the root verb deceive” and to deceive is “to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.”  <br> <br>

Someone I know and care about (I say this not to advertise the fact, but to suggest a foundation for my concern) recently told me that the situation in Iraq is worst than we thought because “more soldiers have already died in Iraq than the first five years of Vietnam!” Turning this statement over in my mind, I wondered if the facts supported his warning that the Iraq was on an accelerated pace of deterioration towards a Vietnam like quagmire that would ensnarl another generation and claim thousands more casualties. But then I recalled that US soldiers weren’t fighting in Vietnam during those early years. Their mission then was observation and education. We sent advisors to review the situation the French had created, stimulated and deserted. We provided consultants for training, logistics and strategic purposes. Our troops did NOT enter into combat with the North Vietnamese. My friend had tried to illustrate his point by equating apples to oranges and pointing to the obfuscated results as support for his position on Iraq. When questioned about the differences between the activities in Vietnam and the Iraq he acknowledged saying that it was a difference without a distinction! So I wondered, what was he trying to accomplish? What was the point of suggesting more casualties and dehumanizing events a la Senator John Kerry’s self-promoting, harsh, excoriating testimony of soldier’s atrocities? I suspect that he was trying to persuade me that President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration were fraudulently pursing war with Iraq and to promote ulterior or nefarious agendas. Unfortunately, his deception was so transparent and his goal to incite was so badly focused that his inspiration was successful at evoking repugnancy; but not his intended victim. No, I was offended by him, by his logic and the willingness to mislead me with his patently biased statement and to accept it as truth in support of his personal animosity and malignancy. His spin had become a hurricane of deception. And therein lays my angst.

I want discourse, I want to hear alternate views, I want to share ideas and I will accept the ideas of others where logic and veracity compels such results. But we can’t lose the truth or perspective when we debate, as both are integral necessities for persuasion. So, here I am, offering my own little contrivance and I wonder have I attempted my own deception or offered a bit of introspection?

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion