I hate the term "Patently Untrue"

 

　

Sometimes I wish there were a vaccine that inoculated us from nostalgia. The older we get the more memories we create,and the more susceptible we become to reminiscences. These thought detours announce themselves obscurely. So..... the other day, I have “Morning Joe” on in the background and I hear the term “patently untrue” in regards to some gotcha moment reveal. I start to think... I'm hearing this term a lot lately, but I didn't hear it much when I was young. I then authorize a dissent into the rabbit hole, wondering what has “patently untrue” replaced (if anything) in our evolving lexicon? The hole revealed that “patently untrue” had replaced “categorically false” and I was surprised to notice the slight of hand saddened me a bit.

　

Little had I known “categorically false” left an impression on me as a youth. I grew up in Washington DC, and as one could imagine, there was no shortage of scandal in the nations capital. I was an avid reader of both the Post and the Star, Marion Barry was our mayor, and Ronald Reagan was our president. The 80's were a tempest for corruption.

　

I had no clue “categorically false” was hijacked til I got the ransom note from “patently untrue.”

On it's face “categorically false” does leave a little to be desired. If one is accused of several misdeeds and his/her rebuttal is to deny them categorically it could be reasoned as an admission of one or more of the misdeeds.

　

But... did “categorically false” need to be replaced? And furthermore is this “New Coke” better than “Original Coke?

　

This new fangled Y2K version “patently untrue” feels a bit cold. It's an admission to nothing. It's childish. I wouldn't be surprised to discover its origins were rooted in the canon of Pee Wee Herman's “I know you are but what am I?”

　

I've never embraced the word "untrue" because it feels abstract. It's akin to asking someone if they liked something and they respond "kinda." WTF does "kinda" mean. Either you liked it or you didn't like it. It's the crutch we use when we haven't decided, we don't want to offend, or we don't know where the line of questioning is leading. We say "kinda" so there won't be consequence. "Untrue" feels like that to me.

“Patently Untrue” basically asserts “YOU made up these allegations AGAINST ME because you are trying to destroy me.”

　

It's the “Dynasty” “Dallas”  and “Falcon Crest” of DENIALS !!!!!

　

Not even an admission that "something" happened. No nuance, no dichotomy, and no HE SAID/SHE SAID. It's as if the event (in their mind) never happened. Where is the fun in that?

So just know that anytime I hear the term "patently untrue" my mind auto-corrects it to "categorically false"!!!!

I hate Animal Rights

 

 

Did you know that the ASPCA, the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in 1866? Just one year after the 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified abolishing slavery, and just three short years after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. I can’t be the only person that finds the timing of this conspicuous?  Slavery barely in the rearview mirror and folk had moved on to protections and safeguards for Lassie, Mr. Ed, and Bambi. 

 People, of their own volition, chose to create an organization for the sole purpose of protecting animal rights when human rights were still hanging in the balance.  Blacks and women still couldn’t vote, they still weren’t considered equals, and some felt it vitally important, at the time, to make sure animals had a voice, that animals had someone to champion their cause.  How ridiculous does this sound to you in 2015?... now multiply it by a thousand for those struggling for human rights in 1866.

 I’m a big believer in priorities.  I’m rational. How could animal rights be a priority in 1866?  The nation had just come through its most difficult self-inflicted wound. Couldn’t those finite resources have been used in a better space?  Couldn’t that time have been used to create a wellness plan for our fragile union? Free market thinking is great when it comes to business and technological advances but, it is lacking when it comes to fixing social ills, and can often be a smoke screen that diverts real attention away from real issues. 

We really need someone to create a social hierarchy so that resources can be properly allocated, so that finite resources aren’t wasted in flights of fancy or on far less serious matters.  Can we imagine a world where insect cancer is given a higher priority than human cancer, where a scrape on a bicycler’s knee is attended to in an emergency room before a gunshot wound? 

Those that chose animals over humans in 1866 should be ashamed of themselves.  The problem is they are not alone.  In 2015 there are over 35 international groups whose sole charge is to fight for the rights of animals.  It always fascinates me when I see large demonstrations of people organizing to protect animals.  I often wonder where the self-awareness is?  Where is the humanity?  Where is the respect?  People get treated as less than human every day.  How is this not the highest breach of humanity?  How can it be that the contrast is not distinct and resolute? How can humans overlook humans for animal’s sake? Animal activist seek humane treatment and protected status, but guess what... animals aren't HUMAN so treating them humanely is a flight of fancy. 

The hypocrisy is palpable, and yet it often goes unseen, un-smelled, and un-tasted. Dog fighting is illegal, and can’t be wagered on, but boxing and MMA are imbedded in our cultural fabric, and is provided as entertainment to the masses.  We can kill animals for food, and clothing; we can use animals for transportation, and entertainment in the form of horse racing.  The contradictions are dubious at best.

 

 

Logically animals appear to be an inferior prey, put here to serve the purpose of humans, so why would they need rights? The only conclusion I can come to is that they don’t need rights.  They only have rights because the ruling class at the time chose animals they love over people they despise.  A few weeks back a lion got shot and killed on SAFARI and it gained international notice.  Humans get shot and killed in SOCIETY every day, and barely get a second look.  Human life is becoming more and more de-valued.  Human life is moving down the importance meter.  It’s most devastating because human life should be the most precious thing to HUMANS.

 

 

I Hate House Fires

 

I hate house fires.... Who doesn't right? Not newsworthy, probably not even blog-worthy. Which leads to my point. Why are house fires considered news?

Consider this... Networks get to broadcast the news for free. This opportunity was afforded because the thought was a democracy should/must have a free press. That free press needs a vehicle to report its finding to the public. And by giving time to networks without cost there wouldn't be any need to commercialize news for profit. This will insure adequate checks and balances, leading to an informed democracy, and an informed democracy is the best democracy.

Noble concept, however somewhere along the way, networks decided to add “ human interest stories” to the news rundowns. The masses subsequently responded favorably. This was the tipping point. Now news is 95% human interest and 5% news. Sure murders, suicides, robberies, abductions, car chases are all terrible, but are they news?

I use house fire as the example because it's the most egregious. A house fire affects one singular family, and that by definition can't be news. There has to be more than a handful of stake-holders for something to be considered newsworthy. Terrible YES. News NO. Yet and still, it's being broadcast as news.

If you think about it... A house fire is equivalent to a house flood. It's leaves the families home uninhabitable, the family destitude, and in dispair. Yet I have never seen a news story about a singular house flooding.

When I moved to Atlanta I wanted to be part of the community, and learn more about my new city, so I subscribed to the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper. I quickly unsubscribed when I “learned” that local High School football passes for front page (above the fold) news in this neck of the woods.

I applaud people like Aaron Sorkin, and HBO who created, developed, and aired a TV show about the NEWS. “Newsroom” was a great TV show, that unfortunately only aired 3 seasons. Sorkin has a deep and profound appetite for truth, and he knows that most of the world has lost it's taste for serious worldly subject matter. It's sad.

He, like I, understand that news is a zero sum game. If murders, and house fires are being reported then more serious matter are not.

The news should be important to our highest selves not our human base. Human interest is good, but just because something is interesting to the public doesn't mean it is in the PUBLIC'S INTEREST.