10:33 p.m. - 2004-04-24
Truth
One of the things I was fussing over a bit yesterday was the issue of credibility. For example, when someone else provides us with information, we tend to give it weight if the person is someone we trust. We tend to give some media outlets more weight than others, because, over time, they have proven to be consistently reliable. A lot of the things I was writing about yesterday had that at the crux of why things seemed weird from my point of view. Cognitive dissonance. Could I verify what I was hearing or reading? Could something that didn't make sense be trusted, because it came from someone I trust? Conversely, could something that made sense not be trusted, because of the source?
The staff member who called yesterday may have been reacting to a late night news interview with the Premier (Canadian for Governor) of our Province. According to number two son, who caught that interview Thursday night, the Premier said he felt strongly that the Prime Minister would call the election this weekend. Well let's think about this. Do we trust the Premier's word? Obviously my staff member does implicitly. Is that reasonable? Well he is in a senior position, but how did he get there? Not by honesty, that's for sure. However, he should know being that highly placed, right? Well maybe, but he is also a member of the opposing party to the the ruling Federal party. If he makes it appear that his opposition is uncertain and in disarray - well that serves his party doesn't it. The truth is in politics anything is possible.
However, our Prime Minister has a two day scheduled of meetings with the US President, as well as some of his high level decision makers, next Thursday and Friday. Some of the topics discussed are going to be about an issue or two critical to our province's - all provinces' - farmers. If the Prime Minister calls the election this weekend, that means our Federal government is dissolved until the end of the election. No leader. He would not be our Head of State at that meeting - just another candidate running for office. Would the US President even choose to meet with him under those circumstances. Given the polling numbers of voter attitudes that might not be a sensible choice - for the leader of any other nation. Would the Prime Minister want to convey to farmers that their serious problems aren't all that important to him, just before asking them to vote for his party? It certainly would be to the benefit of the Premier of our province's political party to create that impression. Qui bono?
On the other hand, although my friend in the Middle East wrote some very strange words in her e-mail, they had weight in my mind, partly because she is brutally frank most of the time. Dissembling would be almost unthinkable where she is concerned - unless she was at risk. Since it didn't seem safe to ask directly, I checked several credible news sources trying to figure out what might be behind the missive. I can guess, but there again the politics of the area mean just about anything is possible. I just hope that she and her hubby are safe.
Another friend from in town called after dinner yesterday and talked about a very serious criminal incident that she had just learned occurred. I trust her, but I don't trust the source - individual - who gave her the information. I chose not to write about it, because even though she obviously believed it to be true, my instincts told me otherwise. So far today there has been nothing through any local media outlet that would indicate the incident occurred, and I've checked all of the main ones.
While I was fussing with the fax machine last night - and yes the cats are still laughing - I was researching another story that has appeared in several different e-zines with various credibility ratings; my own personal assessment of them, that is. Something just wasn't sitting right, so I didn't want to post those topics even though they are important. Some of the discussion centered around agreements between the US and Canadian governments, so I went to our Federal government's website to try and find the text of those contracts. There doesn't appear to be actual legislation as much as a set of protocols, which although important, are not something that can be invoked as laws. For the issue I was worrying about, the legislation that likely would be invoked would be either under the Immigration and Refugee statutes or our Charter of Human Rights. The issue was about potential US draft dodgers, but that assumes the re-instatement of the draft in the US - in an election year - the continuation or expansion of the occupation of Iraq or an assault on another country - in an election year - by the existing government. Do US voters really support those things? How does one assess that? Don't know.
Sometimes when I add links in my posts, dear diary, I'm not certain I can verify in any concrete way, that the information is "true" - the two blogs I've linked to lately, for example. However, with personal journals I think it is always important to keep in mind that it is an individual's perception of reality based very intimately on the writer's state of mind, mine included. It is the truth of the writer as they know it - subjective, but just as "real" if one belongs to the "direct experience, only" branch of philosophy. The rigour I apply to their assessment of the events they record is less stringent with respect to fact-finding, because that is less of an issue with people who blog. I know I journal as a way to mutter out loud about what I'm perceiving in my own corner of the world, trying to make sense of it all. It is also a way to process emotional or psychological reactions that could otherwise turn toxic, if unexpressed or suppressed. And, you know, for me that works.
�
�
