Context is important. One can argue that they "quoted you," but if the context is not there, the interpretation of what you said can be in error. Politicians and political speakers say time and time again, "I was taken out of context." Sometimes, they will even proclaim they "misspoke," which doesn't always mean that they think they said the wrong thing, but that they said whatever it was they said in the wrong way.
By definition, context is even often taken out of context. Sometimes, I truly believe this is no accident. After all, if one has an agenda to push, why would they wish that anything their opponents had to say came across with any clarity?
Biblical passages are taken out of context on a regular basis. Those that argue against the Scriptures don't take into consideration that the Bible is filled as much with historical data as it is with doctrinal messages. Some passages are to be taken literally, while others are parables, or stories told to show a point. Song of Solomon, for example, was written at a time when the author was questioning God, and doing so in the least flattering way. Considering the nature and context of that Biblical Book, it is not wise to look upon that text for doctrinal data.
When observations of limited data create an environment of misunderstanding, or the originator of the writings (or verbal communications) is taken out of context, the constructor of such data, of course, has the immediate desire to try to correct his or her critics by attempting to apply the proper context to whatever passages are in question. More often than not, then, the opposition will proclaim that the person in question is simply "back pedaling," or changing their position, when all they are doing is trying to clarify their point in something they thought was pretty clear-cut in the first place.
Recent discussions regarding Rush Limbaugh, for example, and how the Liberal Left has turned its sights on him and has begun to fire with both barrels, led me to proclaim that Rush Limbaugh is not "The Leader of the Republican Party," or even the leader of the Conservative Movement. The closest thing we have ever been to having a leader was Ronald Reagan, and in his humility, he would have never accepted that as being his role. The nature of Conservatives, in my opinion, is not to follow a single leader, but to be inspired by leading voices. Rush Limbaugh, as much as I respect him and his political savvy, is not the leader of any party or movement, but he is definitely a huge leading voice for Conservatives.
Leaders of the kind the Liberal Left keep referring to are more in line with dictators, than of leading voices of a political movement.
Knowing that Rush Limbaugh is a highly respected voice among Conservatives, and because the Leftists are frightened of the power he wields when it comes to energizing the GOP's Conservative Base, the Democrats have placed Rush Limbaugh in their cross hairs. They fear him, and for good reason.
What amazes me is that while in normal conversation throughout the day how many times I hear Rush Limbaugh taken completely out of context. I understand that the people who tell me what they think Limbaugh said did not hear it from the horse's mouth, but instead are simply replaying for me what they heard from MSNBC, or NPR, or whatever non-journalistic, liberal agenda driven member of the mainstream media they listen to. One individual was telling me about how angry he was that Obama was going around saying that this is Obama's Recession. Well, in a sense, it is Obama's Recession, now that he is President of the United States, but not in the way that this individual interpreted that remark.
During one of my business stops during the day at one of the facilities in the California Prison System, while in the office of two individuals that are employed by the California Prison system, I heard a small radio spewing commercials in the corner of the office. Simply being the conversational person that I am, I asked, "Talk Radio, or music?"
The taller individual in the office says to me, pointing at his shorter, Hispanic counterpart, "He has to listen to his Rush Limbaugh."
"You don't like Rush?" I asked.
"No," said the guard, "He's just another blowhard."
At this point in the conversation I think about the few criticisms I have had of Rush Limbaugh in the past. His arrogance has always turned me off. Yes, I know that his "Smarter Than Thou" attitude is simply a part of his "shtick" on the radio. He is an entertainer, and statements like "half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair" is simply a part of the show, and his persona. But, I have never been a big fan of that attitude.
However, I have only disagreed with Rush Limbaugh twice in my couple of decades of catching his shows when I can, and one of those times it turned out I was wrong in the first place.
Rush voiced support for NAFTA when it was first uttered into existence, and I have always been in staunch opposition of it. My position is not because I don't believe we should be freely trading with other global partners, but that the agreement gave too much leeway to the other countries, and not enough free to our own businesses to do business right here in the good ol' USA. This, I felt, opened up the opportunity for abuse, and a loss of American Businesses stateside because it would become more practical for them to move their operations out of the country.
I am, after all, a believer that treaties should never be entered into lightly, for once we agree to a treaty, that treaty becomes law under the U.S. Constitution.
The other disagreement with Rush was over a proposition in California on the funding of our school system, and I didn't recognize the dangers written into the provisions of the proposition that Rush recognized. My opinion may have been tainted by the fact that at the time I was the Parliamentarian of the local PTA.
My response to the tall prison guard in our conversation over Rush Limbaugh is that sometimes Rush can come across as a blowhard, but he is almost always right. I have only disagreed with Rush a couple of times that I know of. I suppose it would be safe to say that I believe Rush is right somewhere between 98 and 99 percent of the time.
"Well," he says, "since you think he is always right. . . "
"That is not what I said," I insert.
"Yes it is. You just said Rush is always right."
"No," I replied, "I said I have disagreed with him a couple of times, so obviously I don't think he is always right. However, he usually is, and I respect what he has to say."
I was beginning to realize I was in a conversation with someone who wasn't listening to what I was saying, he was simply hearing me speak.
The prison guard asked me, "Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that the drop in stocks, and the economic recession is all Obama's fault?"
I usually recognize when someone is taken out of context, and this was definitely one of those instances. I replied, "Rush never said that."
"Yes he did, he's saying it right now. He says that Obama's policies are driving this nation into the ground. So, do you agree with him?"
Hoping to educate this individual, to explain to him how our economic difficulties were caused by a number of factors, and Obama's policies are simply deepening the situation, I said to my opponent, "You have to realize there are many variables that caused this."
He snaps back, "You are not answering the question. We are a couple of intelligent individuals here, or at least you seem to be fairly intelligent, so answer the question. Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that this is all Obama's fault?"
"But that is not what Rush is saying. . ."
Before I could go into the importance of keeping Rush in context, the guard says to me, "See, you won't answer the question. Well, okay, one of us is intelligent here."
That kind of assault on one's intelligence is a common tactic by The Left. I ignored it, and continued on about the many variables that have caused the current economic downturn, including Carter, Clinton, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, and so forth. I then asked him, "Does it seem strange to you that after being attacked on 9/11, rather than plummeting into recessionary times, our economy, under Bush's policies at the time, rebounded, and we went into a period of great economic growth? In fact, the problems in our economy, if you'll notice, didn't become prevalent until the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006. If they would have left the Free Market alone. . . "
At the very mention of The Free Market, my opponent in this discussion practically jumped to his feet. His face reddened a little, as if the very mention of the Free Market and Capitalism disgusted him. He said, "The Free Market caused all of this."
"No," I replied. "The governmental manipulation of The Free Market caused this. The Free Market is self-adjusting. Capitalism is a sound system. It is because of a Free Market Economy that during the first 200 years this nation's existence it became prosperous, and the wealthiest nation on the Earth."
He went into a ramble about the problems of capitalism, and the reasons the free market caused this "recession," and I stopped him and said, "You know, I have heard this argument many times. Your talking points are nothing new. In fact, your position has been argued for many decades. You sound exactly like the opponents of Capitalism in the 1950's, 60's and 70's from the Soviet Union."
He must have realized the truth in what I had just said, because he fell suddenly silent.
I continued on to try to explain how Obama's policies, though not the sole source of economic difficulties in this nation, are definitely a driving force in weakening an already rapidly deteriorating economic environment.
I explained it to somebody else later using Baseball as an example. When the relief pitcher comes into the game, and the effort is close to becoming a lost game, it is up to the relief pitcher to turn the game around, or save it if the lead is small. If he gives up a bunch of hits, walks a few batters, and a couple runs cross the plate, the argument is that the efforts of the relief pitcher lost the game for the team. His actions worsened an already bad situation. But by saying that, the people are not necessarily saying that the relief pitcher is totally at fault. The guy that got caught stealing in the third inning, the error made in the fourth, and the home run ball that didn't get over the fence and was caught instead in the sixth, are all contributing factors to the loss.
Rush recognizes that Obama's policies are disastrous for this nation, and that implementing these policies will in fact continue to drive our economy into the ground. For this reason, he is indicating that Obama is hurting our economy, and he hopes (or should I say "knows") that Obama's policies will fail.
Of course, that brought on another instance of Rush Limbaugh being taken out of context. Rush proclaiming he wants Obama to fail is being taken way out of context by the Liberal Left. Barney Frank even went so far to say that Rush said he wants Obama to fail because the GOP wants to be able to take credit for recovery when economic recovery should come.
Limbaugh does not want Obama to fail for some vindictive reason, nor is he saying he wishes America's economy to fail just because some Democrat is at the helm.
As a football fan, if I knew my team had a chance at a winning season someday in the future, but the plays the Head Coach was calling were a large part of the reason for the current difficulties my team was having, wouldn't I want him to continue to fail? Why would I want a head coach that obviously doesn't know how to take his team to the championship to get lucky and succeed, so that his poor coaching skills remained a part of my team? I would want him to fail so that eventually the team ownership would recognize the guy is an idiot, and bring in a coach with policies that could turn the team around, and return it to its winning ways.
Obama's policies are detrimental to this nation's future, and Rush desires Obama to fail so that the owners of this nation, specifically the American People, will recognize that those policies are doomed to fail, and vote in someone with Conservative policies that have been historically proven to succeed.
Interestingly, those upset over anything said against Obama are the same people that demonized George W. Bush for eight years.
And as a final thought, I wonder how many Liberals will still succeed in taking me out of context after reading this piece? Rush, I feel your pain.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment