Saturday, September 11, 2010
what is the question?
A recent trend seems to be emerging by political commentators, journalists and politicians. This has been observed both on the radio and on television. When someone is addressing a political issue and is asked a question a standard default response can become, "But I think that real question is.....". This has become a seamless transition into another aspect of the topic at hand that may be more conducive to illustrating the particular agenda that the individual is determined to generate. I have yet to hear a host of one of the programs call this out.
This blatant and simultaneously subtle side-stepping of issues was widely used during the BP Spill in the Gulf, used about the Muslim Cultural Center in Manhattan debate and regarding the pompous egomaniac that threatened to burn the Koran in Florida. This strategy of non question answering keeps the efforts of those with legitimate questions from achieving the inherent goal in asking a question. An answer. Being frightened of being wrong or even showing the slightest understanding of the other side of the argument is now being projected as a weakness. In fact the opposite is true. Someone who knowingly chooses the side of ignorance or dismissal is stockpiled with weakness.
Since when is it a novel idea to answer a question straight up? I suppose the practice of politics would not be what it is if answers were actually offered to the questions that were asked. This dance of avoidance is so blatant that it validates an idea that politicians and political pundits think, in fact are banking on literally, that the majority of the public can not tell or is indifferent when the wool is being pulled over our eyes, with a pulling fee.
It depends what the definition of is, is.
There are known unknowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns.
What about the known knowns. Do they exist?