With it's recent inclusion in the dictionary Stephen Colbert's coinage of "truthiness" has become a for real word. But "truthiness" just dozen't cut it anymore, it's passe. The ability of American politicos and the journalists (yeah you heard my air quotes Fox News) who cover them have already left it in the dust and moved on to even slicker ways of obfuscating, denying, and jitterbugging around the truth and we are now in need of a new variation on truthiness. So without further ado I present to you my nominee--TRUTHISHLIKE! A word or phrase is "Truthishlike", my dictionary will tell you, when those of us possessed of three digit IQs have difficulty making sense of the concept /program/whatever it is being used to describe. Truthishlike may be the ultimate go-to word ever created for the slimy politicians and the lazy yellow journalists. Why you ask? Because that which is truthishlike is that which requires very little effort on the part of the user. He/she simply blurts out whatever self-serving, inane collection of syllables he/she first pop into his/her head and then THEY (the audience) go through whatever intellectual or moral contortions necessary--and if they belong to your party or listen to your news channel this usually means there are no contortions going on at all! Voila! As you can see there are numerous opportunities to employ this word in one's daily life--particularly in an election year, and in this one more than any that has preceded it.
Obviously I'm not trying to sell you a word here. I'm just trying to let out a little steam after a frustrating half hour on the computer that was the result of 5 minutes watching the Joy Behar Show. I can't hit you with the direct quote so I won't pretend to, but what got me started was a remark that Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle had suggested that if Republicans didn't get what they wanted in the mid-term elections they should use their guns to get it. Now that floored me--even in this year of absurdly idiotic and occasional vile rhetoric, so I decided to try and track down the original statement because a) I'm old enough to know how comments become twisted though retelling, b) I know frequently we automatically want to believe the worst of those we oppose, and c) I've watched Fox long enough to have seen how things are frequently manipulated to serve individual and group needs. So I'll give the gal the benefit of the doubt.
My first stop was Rachel Maddow on "Meet the Press". It would have been a good source if it had actually BEEN Maddow on "Meet the Press" but it was only a report in The Huffington Post of that appearance in which Angle is quoted as suggesting the 2nd amendment rights as a cure for "the Harry Reid (her opponent) problems--although there was the implication that "the Harry Reid problems" did extend beyond Reid. Uh Oh. I wonder who she might have meant.
Next stop The Washington Post and Greg Sargent's article "Sharron Angle floated possibility of armed insurrection". Yeah, she did it in the same way that the NRA and all the right wingers do it--by using Jefferson's quote about how there should be a revolution every 20 years. (I wonder if he meant we should actually go out and kill each other because we accidentally elected a black man? Oops. Didn't mean to say that last part.) Sargent also interviewed Lars Larson who hosted the radio show on which Angle made her infamous statement. Larson believed Angle was definitely leaving the possibility of armed insurrection open if the government "...becomes too out of control. It just matters what your definition is of going too far."
Another interesting stop while I was Angling dealt with a freaking scary group called the Oath Keepers whom Angle has both embraced (through her husband Ted) and disavowed. But it's late and I didn't make a note of my source and I hate it when people do things without noting their source material. Take the whole argument about heath care for instance. Someone once made a statement here on Lunch that was very negative and I asked him several times to back it up and tell me where he had read it so that I could see it for myself. Ultimately all I got back was a place where the bill was available on line without so much as a page number to give me a hint. I had to conclude that he was just taking the party line and had no real source material other than what he was told to believe.
In the case of Sharron Angle I have to admit that I found nothing other than an extremist Republican taking what has been the official party line for a long time--we need our guns to protect us from the government. Behar was over-reacting a bit to a quote she hadn't heard in its entirety. Or maybe she wan't aware of how many people have been saying the same thing for a very long time.
What did you think of this review?