ethics of falsified public rhetoric

Moving from exchanging pleasantries from the last post to exchanging politically correctness in public discourse....

First off, it is only appropriate and necessary to avoid pejorative adjectives and nouns in a setting of discussing public policy. That is to say there is no room for slanderous speech or unproductive terminology in trying to figure out a real utilitarian solution to the perpetual public problems that constitute real tension in societies. In this corporate run capitalist pseudo democracy, politicians and some other public figures have adopted a rhetoric that is so excessively dancing on eggshells that it spins the wheels of ambiguity for progress in society without any movement forward. In fact it resembles spinner hubs which give the appearance of movement and are shiny, beautiful and mesmerizing but in fact serve no function other than superficial insatiabilities.

This is the exchange of pleasantries on a public scale that keeps the wool over people's eyes. This is the exchange of pleasantries on a public scale that makes people think that their preferred political soldier is on the front lines when he or she is in a greenroom having foundation applied their face in preparation for the next egg shell waltz. This is the exchange of pleasantries on a public scale that disallows real change to occur, a quagmire that many of us who acknowledge this unfortunate phenomenon are fearful that our president may have slipped into. This is the occurrence of hollow discussions.

Just as we may put on our happy face in the face of a person that we care not for, this is the modus operandi of the political approach to "informing" the public. This is the way to keep us in the dark. We may continue on our way from this metaphorical person we care not for and murmur under our breath, "Like I could give a shit", this is the same murmur these political figures utter when going form the pedestal to the corporate conference to continue the bed fellowing that slowly erases the meaning of the word humanity.

This masking of real debate is why the free thinkers of the world are honorably chanting the same mantras as their predecessors. We have been in the same struggle for a substantive and qualitative existence for a time frame that we can not relate too in our fleeting life spans. The "hope" that came from Mr.Obama is evaporating as we are now observing this exchange of pleasantries that he is so convincing in, resulting in hollow results. A recent result was his speech to the gay rights activist he met with over this past weekend. It is business as usual in the political spectrum.

It seems infinitely more appealing to listen to a free thinker, willing to speak his or her mind. The ability to be candid to speak what one's real principles are even if they are appalling or disagreeable is to be real. We have constructed an atmosphere were when those brave enough to speak their mind are dismissed because it is a new thought. Progressive has a negative connotation, what a sad state of affairs. It is easy to respect realness in a person's personal delivery even when it is taboo, disgusting or insulting that is how things should be addressed. People like Howard Stern, Ralph Nader, and Farrakhan are people who are controversial only because the speak out on what they truly believe in, they are real. (I never expected to lump those three together in the same sentence.)

Here is Andrew Sullivan's take on Obama's speech to the gay rights activists. Although he has an invested interest in the issue, I tend to see him as a rational guy when it comes to evaluating things....from what little I have read by him.