FROM MY CORNER
A recent first and second criticism of my recent commentaries arrived by email a few days ago, and yesterday. These were both well-intentioned critiques. However, in both cases they stressed technical imperfections I may indeed have made, while avoiding the substance of the point I was making.
The first one was a rather lengthy critique from a fairly close past associate, explaining in detail the “faults” he assumed are likely to be in the new VideoBook I reported I am working on.
He was not actually attacking me, and I am not attacking his critique. But, I do note he did go into quite some critical detail without yet having read or viewed the content of my book.
So, I answered him privately, that his assumptions about the content of my VideoBook were, in my opinion not accurate, and that he should prudently wait until I start actually sending the Video chapters to him before critiquing the work.
The Second critique said that the White House Secretary has verified, that Trump did indeed contribute to, or influence, his son’s words to the press on the Russian Attorney meeting about Hillary Clinton. The critic pointed out that I did not mention that fact.
Well, yes, but who was the Press Secretary using as her source? And, under what exact circumstances? The pertinent point I am making is that most everyone these days is claiming in their comments that: either ‘this’ or ‘that’ is the truth about some matter without really factually supporting the source of their claim.
If we do not start paying intensely close attention to a broader picture, are we not getting lost among rhetorical trees rather than observing and discussing what really matters regarding the entire political forest?
For example: Was the Press Secretary Lady in the room when Mr. Trump allegedly “dictated” a note for his son to send to the Press Corps? Or was she not? If not, who was there? Names, please, date of dictation, who else was present, why, under what circumstances? How did she get her information? Why is she clarifying this issue? Was she explicitly told by Trump to do so? Or, by someone else? If so, by whom? Etcetera.
All I am attempting to establish is that the media gossip stream today (from the butcher in his shop all the way up to the world’s leaders, including Senator Franken, Democrat, whom I shall mention in the next paragraph) are all reporting via email, phone call, press release, TV show, or secret leak, their opinion on knit-picking details without focusing on what is really going on.
Even Senator Franken, whom I like a lot for his candor and his now-muted Senatorial humor, was not above recently pumping his new book (which I bet is a super read!) on another comedian’s TV show recently, while allegedly commenting seriously on the state of our U.S. political scene.
In the Political Media Frenzy of the moment, are we not all listening to Words by people being said (or Images being projected) that usually reflect primarily the speaker’s point of view from the perspective of that person’s particular bias – rather than actually getting to the crux of the real collective phenomenon we are all experiencing: the one that is politically and economically affecting us all in a dubious manner?
Are we not to a great extent all being taken in, like sheep to the sheering, by all those who have daily access to the Media by virtue of their Celebrity status, while the rest of us just vent our emotional frustrations to one another?
The largest celebrity circus the world has ever seen is having a field day being reported on by Media, while the rest of us just let them go on; and we treat their piddling words as if they are important when most often they are not.
That’s the commentary for the day. If you care to personally comment on it, I prefer you do so Online so all the other readers can see it. If, otherwise, you demand anonymity – I will comply with your request. Reluctantly.
Come on in. Join us. The water’s fine. Anonymity, though, I propose is like mimicking the Cowardly Lion loping along by Alice’s side on the Yellow Brick Road.