Government - #101 - #29 - Some critical questions as of April 19, 2004 - #3 of #3

#101 - #29 - Some critical questions as of April 19, 2004 - #3 of #3


1. Question: What did you think of the Woodward interview on 60 Minutes? Did it change your mind?
Comments: Did you think that Woodward dealt in “facts” or “third party” chit chat?
Did you think that Woodward gained or lost “credibility” in the broadcast?
Did you think the broadcast and interview technique was tilted or was it straight news?
Did you think the money from the current sales of the book were an issue?
Did you think 60 Minutes lost or gained “credibility” in the performance of the interview?
What was your reaction to the statements in opposition made the next day by “formidable” figures in the White House? Was it all lies or propaganda? Do you believe the people highest in the Government?
BT: Many opinions are expressed about this program. Did the program or the White House statements in opposition change anybody’s mind? Was this program important in any respect? Is this just another “word game” of “I gotcha’”?

2. Question: Are there any specific proposals or are there just criticisms and defensive statements?
Comments: Is all the “oral static” in the media just “oral static” (noise) or are there any specific proposals?
Are “We must do more!”, or, “We must internationalize more!”, or, “We must be less imperial!” specific proposals? Is this the rhetoric that can produce change?
Are general conclusions now being made based on pure “oral static” (noise)?
Does the general public care whether they hear “oral static” or “specific proposals”?
Does the general public know or care about the difference?
BT: I, personally, do not think enough of the general voting or speaking public know or care about the differences between “constructive dialogue” and “oral static”. I believe that reason and logic are generally lost in this society. I, personally, believe that “opinions” have become substitutes for “facts”. I do not believe we are able to get “facts”.

3. Question: Suppose you do not believe anything you hear or see publicly. You are just “fed up”!
Comments: Where are you supposed to get accurate information?
Who determines whether the information is really truthful or not?
If you have more than one side, will the “truth” vary?
If you believe something is “true”, does that make it so?
Is there a “cure” for this problem?
BT: If you leave “room” in your conversation for a different point of view of the “truth”, you are engaged in an “exchange of views” rather than an argument. “Leaving room for” does not mean you have no convictions. It merely means that you maintain a certain point of view and you allow others to have theirs. Again, you “exchange” views. You are informed why another has a different view. Again, you are just “informed”. That does not mean you have to change. It merely means “you are informed of a different view”.



Again .... “What’s the Successful Alternative?”