Rilalities IX


Literature: I’m always surprised when I find a collection of a fictional author’s book of letters essays, memoirs, and other pieces of non-fiction, and I find that so few of them pieces have merit.  The authors I’m speaking of are the titans of the fiction world that have written masterpieces.  I acknowledge that these authors may have saved their best material for their fiction, but my inclination is that their brain droppings (sorry George Carlin) might have some juicy nuggets in it. Brain droppings, as I define it, are those casual asides that the author couldn’t find a place for in their masterpieces, or any of the other works of fiction that I had a voracious appetite for at one point in my life.  I have not purchased any of these collections with the idea that they would be as brilliant, front to back, as the masterpieces, but I’m often surprised at how worthless they turn out to be.

fiction-and-nonfictionPolitics: There is some debate as to whether Hillary Clinton is a socialist.  Those that strain to be objective on the matter, state that she cannot be a socialist: She’s rich. As one that is fond of poignant humor, I thought this was a creative method of declaring that if she is a hypocrite.  It became obvious that this assertion had nothing to do with creativity, when this on-air personality defended his position by stating that she worked the Capitalist system for what it was to her own benefit, and that she had to have some appreciation of it as a result. Whether or not Hillary is a socialist is not important to this discussion, or at least it pales in comparison to the idea that an individual can do everything they can to amass personal wealth while condemning others for doing the same.  If she wins in November, she could also do everything she can to prevent and inhibit wealth production for others while continuing to do whatever she can to amass her own, and if someone asked her if such actions could prove hypocritical, she could say no, and she wouldn’t be lying by her own definition.

Sports: When I hear sport’s analysts breakdown the comments made by an athlete, I often wonder how much of their analysis is an actual breakdown of the athlete’s comments, and how much of it involves the author’s personal interpretation?

Entertainment: If you see a high-profile, entertainment talk show host being interviewed, you can count on a political issue coming up.  When it does, the talk show host says, “I receive audience complaints for what I do, from both conservatives and liberals.”  Some of them add, “Which basically means I’m doing my job.”  The more savvy ones allow the interviewer to add the latter.  The interviewer and talk show host then move on other subjects, and this leaves the impression that the complaints the host receives are around 50/50.  I realize that such interviews are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but if I were the interviewer I would consider it my duty to point out that most of these talk show hosts are divisive in some manner.  Or if I was feeling hospitable, I would say that the American public has become so divided that even silly, entertainment talk show hosts can cause an audience to view them in a subjective manner. Regardless how I phrased it, I would force them to admit that an overwhelming majority of the complaints they receive come from one side.  For if you receive 10,000 complaints from one side, regardless what side it is, you shouldn’t be able to make a blanket, and unchallenged, assessment of those complaints, if you only receive 100 from the other.  I’m not saying that the host should be required to report exact figures, but something along the lines of: “Well, obviously, the brunt of complaints is from one side, I mean (laughter) we all know who I am, and what I believe, but I do receive complaints from my side too that suggest that I’m not partisan enough for them.”

Social:  “Just because you’re predisposed, you can’t be objective most of the time.” There’s no way we’re wrong.  The third party players say that we are.  They say that we make the mistake of assigning our motives and attributes to those around us. We’re forced to concede that this is true, but we don’t think it applies to us.  Have you ever considered the possibility that it might?  Of course, we say, we view ourselves as the personification of objectivity.  We rarely make a decision, until we’ve approached it from every possible angle imaginable.  Honest people, offering honest assessments, tell us we’re wrong.  It’s preposterous.  It’s absolutely preposterous, and it’s something that we often fail to  consider completely.  It’s indescribable when it happens to us, and we wonder how often those that know so much more than we do, realize that they have a lot to learn?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s