The Truth Pays

Representative Joe Wilson was disciplined by the House today because he wouldn't apologize again. But this little dust-up with the President has illuminated a valuable lesson.

The story:
1. The President said something that was not true.
2. Representative Wilson said something that was true, albeit rudely.
3. The Health Care Bill has now been changed to include provisions Wilson had, twice previously, been unsuccessful in attaching.
4. Wilson's reelection campaign fund has now reached levels unprecedented in his State of South Carolina.

The Moral to the Story: Telling the Truth Pays.

Will it start a Washington trend?

We can only hope.

Civility or Truth?

"He lied" shouted Congressman Wilson, during the President's Joint meeting with the Senate and Congress last Wednesday. The head, of the Speaker of the House, spun.; the President's face seemed to darken with anger; he seemed to slightly, verbally, stumble and then went on with his speech. It was a memorable moment.

It was reported, the Congressman called the President to apologize for interrupting the speech as soon as the event ended. The White House accepted it with the admonishment that civil discourse must be used to solve problems.

I agree. I believe in civility and good manners. "Please" and "Thank you" are every day necessities. Respect for others is requisite to our society. People should not be interrupted when they are speaking.

But I do have a question. .....

Is dishonest political rhetoric a part of Civil discourse?

I suggest that it isn't. A lie, and half truths are included, in that category, is an insult, It is a verbal sucker punch. The person to whom the lie is told doesn't expect it and often is surprised by the audacity of the liar. They ignore the lie to maintain civility. Their act of civility allows the liar to assume: they are easily duped; too trusting to check the facts; or too foolish to think it necessary. Each political lie represents arrogant smugness and total lack of respect for those to whom it is told. Respect can not co-exist with lies; and without mutual respect there is no real civility.

There was much hand wringing by the press, and the major political parties the next day about the lack of civility in our society as demonstrated by Congressman Wilson and by direct extension, all of us little people. We had shouted down unprepared or prevaricating politicians at the rowdy Town Halls. We joined the march on Washington to demand honest responsive government from those we have elected. Our "perceived" lack of decorum and civility was duly noted by much of the inside the beltway crowd. Neither press or pundits seemed interested in the truth they were only concerned with civility.

But someone was dishonest. If the President's statement was true: Representative Wilson's was not. Somebody was not telling the truth. Would, or would not, illegal aliens be covered by the health care bill. The congressman claimed he had offered two amendments to preclude them. Both were voted down. Over the weekend the party in power announced that they would now add a verification of citizenship to the bill. We know who told the truth and that is important because.....

Truth is important

There are those who think the parsing of words is a game. Arguing over the meaning of "is" is clever and sophisticated. Those activities make money for lawyers, and provide cover for the dishonest. Crisp, clean truth gets hidden by evasions, clever language and planned omissions. Sometimes the labels of truth and lies seem corrupted. Right is wrong, up is down, and white and black have merged to gray. Maybe it's time to look for the simple truths and honor those who share that value and vote from office those who don't.

When the content of a bill, is hidden by complicated language, hundreds (if not thousands) of pages, and sold to the American people with lies, half truths, and obfuscated pork, it is obvious that those who sponsor it know, it has no merit. Yet it is offered and voted on as a solution for the latest generated crisis. And they do it all, with feigned concern, staged courtesies, and bogus sincerity. The belt way crowd calls it "civility". I call it politics as usual.

Hmmmm,........... No thanks. I'll take Truth.

"Liar, liar, pants on fire " the old playground chant shot through my mind as I listened to the President's Joint Address to the Congress and Senate, on health care reform. What triggered that flash from the past, was my memory of a town hall type meeting, held by President Obama, in July. May I share that with you.

A woman said her mother had been informed by her Physician that she would benefit from a pacemaker, but he was reluctant to do the procedure because she was 100 years old. They sought a second opinion. The second doctor was impressed by the woman's vitality and spirit, and in spite of her advanced age, he thought it was worth doing. The daughter continued, "My mother is now 105 and still going". She then asked the President if his health care plan would consider the "whole" person and take their zest for life into consideration.

She was told no. President Obama explained that would be too subjective. He explained that the most expensive health care normally occurs in the last year of life. He hoped under his plan the Physicians and patients, could be encouraged to look more towards the hospice program. Perhaps they should have offered her mother a pain "pill instead of a pacemaker."

For a moment I couldn't believe what I had seen and heard from his lips. I was amazed by the cold callousness of the suggestion that this woman's mother, a living, breathing, fully functioning person should have been denied the last 5+ years of her buoyant productive existence.

How could such a statement be made about someone continuing to live a fulfilling life? How could that be said to the daughter who loved her? What humane person would suggest that the opportunity to live, that she had enjoyed, should have been denied?I was incensed by the suggestion, that a pacemaker and a pain pill could be used interchangeably. It was not only an incredibly stupid statement but it also showed a profound lack of understanding of the issue.

My disbelief and shock had turned to anger. How dare this mortal man presume to put in place a program that would decide who should live and who should die, based on the demographic of age, and a cold and calculating value system? This had become a life and death issue for seniors.

Tonight he spoke with disgust of those who had claimed that health care reform would somehow "kill off the old people." There would be no "death panels" he declared. That is technically true.

No one has suggested there would be a firing squad at the 65th birthday party nor will we be forced to stand before a panel of judges who will tell us whether we live or die. But there is also the lie of omission.

President Obama, in that town hall meeting made clear his intent.

There will be bureaucrats who develop economic health care policies, based on demographics which will include age, and value to society. In addition Section 12;33 of the House Bill, demands government mandated end of life counselling at 65, and every 5 years thereafter, unless you are in ill health, and then it would be done more often.

Maybe, it could be considered "killing off" when people are denied knowledge/choice of treatments that would extend or improve their quality of life. Would it be "killing off" if Doctors are not allowed to do those procedures because the person is too old, too fat, too anything, that marks them as "of too little value" to society? Would it be "killing off" if the person, after government mandated counselling, decided their life was no longer worth living?

You can't "pull the plug on Granny" if Granny wasn't allowed to be plugged in.