Archive for April, 2005

I love the truth.

It’s got its good side. Shedding light on the despicable behavior of human cockroaches; bringing the light of understanding to a questing mind; exposing concepts and principals never before understood to the whole world. The truth also has its bad side. Sometimes it hurts. Sometimes it gets people killed. Nevertheless, I have always preferred and will always prefer the cold, hard truth to the soft, sweet lie.

Even when the truth is not a pleasant thing to know, at least I know it. I’ll take the harsh light over stumbling around in darkness any day of the week.

For some, the soft, sweet lie seems to be the preferrable option. I do not mean “soft” and “sweet” in the literal sense. I mean in the sense that the lie that is being believed is one that best fits with the beliefs and convictions of the believer. Some folks, where the rubber meets the road, would choose to be anethetised by the untruth that is easier for them to believe, rather than the truth that flies in the face of how they view their own personal bubble of reality.

Observe, an example: "Congress Denies Legitimacy of US Courts"

The poster of this message cites an associates’ blog, and makes some innacurate evaluations of H.R. 1070. He seems to think that this bill is intended to severely limit the Supreme Court’s power of Judicial Review, to the point where if the Supreme Court dares to rule H.R. 1070 unConstitutional they can be Impeached and tried for Treason.

As it turns out this is not the case, as anyone who bothers to read the text of the bill can plainly see. Tthe wording of the bill is fairly plain and brief (about a page and a half long as of this posting). It would seem to me that anybody with a High School education and a very basic legal vocabulary would have a hard time misreading this bill.

H.R. 1070 has three distinct goals:

• To make matters involving officials’ "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" not reviewable by the Supreme Court, or any other Federal Court.
• To restrain the Supreme Court and any Federal court from making decisions based upon forigen or international law.
• To allow any judge that exceeds the authority of their court to be removed from the bench and tried for treason.

Why it is that the poster would read anything else out of H.R. 1070 is beyond me. You can argue the specific goals of the bill all day long if you want, but inventing meanings that are not based in reality is nothing shy of a bald-faced lie.

The worst part, in my view, is that the poster actually provided a link to the bill, but was apparently too busy to even glance at it prior to commenting on it. He had the energy to vent his frustration about the lie. Why did he lack the desire to know the truth?