The article had an air of truthfulness about it, and I can hardly blame the folks who shared it for being taken in. They, as I do, believe our new president is uniquely unqualified for the job and is being advised (to the extent he cares to take advice) by a motley bunch of folks whose core values seem to be at odds with those of America as I have always known it. The temptation to believe that the "Supremes," Republican and Democatric appointees alike, would "pen a letter" to resist 45's pick for their newest colleague, was almost overwhelming. The kind of thing that would make Nancy Pilosi kick off her shoes and maybe even tousle her hair.
Yes, years ago, the Supremes had "penned" an opinion in which they rejected the arguments made by Gorsuch (and other Federal court judges) -- arguments which were sufficiently plausible to get the case in front of the Supreme Court in the first place. They had not, by any means, suddenly stepped out of their robes and into the world of politics, a world where results are often dictated by gamesmanship rather than careful reasoning.
For me, skepticism is baked in, and I have even begun to doubt reports from news sources I know to be trustworthy. How do I know them to be trustworthy? History, reputation, and, okay I admit it, sometimes good grammar and proper punctuation goes a long way. But what of others, people who might simply be less judgmental, dare I say more open-minded than I? Why would anyone assume that any widely disseminated spoken or written word is untrue? Why would anyone assume that a stranger might take your purse when you leave it untethered on the floor in a busy urban restaurant? It took me a long time -- and three trips to local police stations -- to figure out that some people do in fact take things that do not belong to them.
These are not "white lies," these fake stories that clog our social media feeds. They are stories told in response to nothing; not to save face, or to protect somebody's feelings, or because to tell the truth would be catastrophic. They are told simply for the purpose of entertaining, or misinforming, or, more sinister still, for the purpose of stirring already simmering pots.
I wonder, these days, how deep the chasm can get. When we feel we can trust nobody, not even the ones who are "on our side" of the divide. Friends of mine have dared to turn on Fox News, even checked out "red" Facebook feeds -- I don't have the stomach for it -- and they have told me how drastically different it is. One world, at least two distinct versions of it. Somewhere, in the vast morass, lies the truth. It is almost impossible, these days, for most people to find it.
Somebody accused me, recently, of being condescending when I suggested he had misconceived my motivations for opposing 45. My motivations are factual to the extent they are what I truly believe them to be. But my opinions are not fact, and I respect the right of others to disagree. What worries me, though, is the basis for all our opinions -- yes even my own. We all bring with us our own biases and our own experiences, but now we find ourselves bringing to the table "facts" from widely divergent sources. We are becoming, I fear, increasingly irrational as a result.
We all need to be vigilant. Check the source, check the facts, check the commas and the spelling if you think it matters. Leaps of faith may be great, but not when we find ourselves on the edge of a cliff.
No comments:
Post a Comment