In my about Boricuafudd on this blog I write this;
I have led an interesting life with a very diverse background that I often find gives me insights that perhaps provide a new way of critical thinking. My aim is not to change anyone’s mind but to illustrate my thoughts and maybe how I arrived there, leaving you the reader to make up your mind. I hope everyone that comes to this site enjoys it and leaves a comment and their insight so that we can share in the experience.
I wrote this to let the reader know that I don’t claim to know the truth, but I have some facts and this is what I feel is the truth to be. Many people say that the Truth is universal, I think that truth can be molded by utilizing some facts and ignoring others by people with Agendas.
Let’s take the current battle going on in Congress, for instance. While politics is the driving the debate, let’s take one aspect of the conflict; Obamacare. To the opponents of the legislation they point out that it was passed on straight party line votes, that it was misleading as it claimed penalties which later became taxes after the Supreme Court decision, the legislation does not do what was promised by far in some cases, the employer mandate was delayed so should the individual mandate and it extremely costly. These are all some of the facts from which their Truth is that they are right in opposing the law.
On the other hand the proponents say that the legislation does what it intended to do, provide healthcare for everyone, it is the law of the land, the Supreme Court upheld the law and we won the election so get over it. Using these facts their Truth is that they are in the right to oppose any changes or implementation of the legislation. As we see both have a set of facts that they used to arrived at their Truth, are they both right, wrong or something in-between and how do we determine the difference. In this case it would depend of how you look at things, what your agenda is and which set of facts you favor.
The Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case was another issue that divided the nation and had its sets of facts that some used to find the Truth. For some the fact that GZ was not black, but TM was, that TM was unarmed, that GZ did not observe TM committing any crime, that he followed TM were enough to convict GZ. Supporters of GZ pointed out the issues in the community, the conditions of that night, the actions of TM prior to the shooting to say that GZ was not guilty of what he was charged with. They also point out that if it was not for the astro-turfed outrage by outside individuals (Media, Civil Rights groups) the case would have ended long before with no charges being filed. Who had the Truth in their side, well GZ was acquitted but was that the Truth?
From the beginning bloggers on both sides used what facts were available to make their case both pro and con GZ. Some decided to concentrate on the racial aspect, the fact that GZ had a gun while TM didn’t and of course the information provided by other posters. Some of them were in Sanford or the vicinity and provided very detailed information that was used by others. But as it is Human Nature and especially in a case like this, some of the information (facts) were just nothing more than rank speculation that was used because if fit the Agenda.
As a blogger I have been guilty as many others, we look for facts that will make my case. While I do look for opposing facts and may try to discredit them with my own set of facts if I can, I think everyone should remember that while my position may be shared by others and it is the Truth as I know it, there may be a different set of facts that lead to a different Truth. Is it up to you the reader to make that determination, vet what I write and my set of facts. As President Ronald Reagan once said:
Trust, but verify.