Thursday, December 8, 2011
Do we have to settle for ambiguity?
Is there really a double standard or is that an excuse for an unfavorable ruling? I hear people crying foul because it's a double standard a lot these days, it's right up there with hypocrite and half- truths. In some cases they are right because of the time span between the two incidents; other times some people will use a ruling from 20 years ago to try and prove a double standard. It's the same way with the word hypocrite and half-truths or lies of omission.
Several years ago, our boss decided he was going crack down on sleeping in the workplace but he didn't want to be accused of favoritism by looking the other way when key employees violated what he was now going to enforce. He knew he would be called a hypocrite because he used to sleep on the job, it may have been an infrequent 15 minute cat nap but he knew he would be called a hypocrite. He called a few of us old timers in to get our input but he knew we would tell the others and if he could convince us he was doing the right thing; it would soften the blow when he presented it to the rest the group. We suggested that he should insert the words “from this day forward" to mean that we have all been guilty in the past but it will no longer be tolerated. He answered the 'hypocrite" label by saying he was now in a position of authority and in charge of everyone's safety. He ended by saying that violations would be treated on a case -by- case basis but they would be all treated as “sleeping on the job." All we ever wanted was “fairness"- for example would you punish a brand new father the same way you would a frequent violator?
I'm sure we've all seen posters get a post deleted and then immediately cry “double standard" but it may have been a different moderator, double standard, or that some people are on the short lease. A lot of us have been called a hypocrite from time to time because we're not allowed to evolve in their black and white world. I admit, I've changed my mind on several issues. I've been accused of writing half truths because I don't always include the views of the opposition but am I really required to do that, if I think they are irrelevant? They're more than welcome to include their view in a rebuttal. I don't think I can ever be accused of “lies of omission" because I assume my detractors know that I'm not trying to deceive.
One of my pet peeves is when a person tells a commentator an obvious lie or exaggeration and then calmly admits the lie (only after being called on it) and continues spouting more lies and exaggerations. We are no longer held accountable for not telling the truth; it's becoming an accepted practice. The media will use half-truths and lies of omission to keep from calling a person a liar. Where are the Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkites and Tim Russerts?
I don't know why I'm such a stickler for the truth; it might be because my stepfather would punish me more for the lie than for what I actually did. That's the way I raised my children; I always told them that if I'm going to be in your corner, I need to know that you're telling the truth. They remember me saying" do you really think I'm that stupid." I won't be satisfied until O.J. Simpson admits he killed Nicole and Ron Goldman. I know he killed them but he never admitted it and he was acquitted. I would like to know if we needed a tax abatement to land the Caterpillar contract. I would like to know the actual reasons we invaded Iraq. I would like to know if there really was a crashed alien spacecraft at Roswell, NM. I know I will be stuck with ambiguity because that's just the way it is.
Posted by Mike at 1:29 PM