drum roll
the Lie of the Day!
This ought to be just as amusing, and probably much more closely related to reality.
So, here we go:
in order for it to be considered for the Lie d'Jour, it must
a) be a lie
As I'm trying to explain to Jr.Gopher#1, it is rude to call someone a liar. This is because I'm not sure he can understand the longer version: "It's rude to call someone a liar if you just don't like what they say, or if you don't happen to agree with them." My definition of a lie, so far, is: "When you say something that isn't true, and you know it's not true, and you want someone to think it is."
Because my best effort at a "real" definition has another item: "when you say something that isn't true and you know it's not true, and you want someone to think it is, because you want to take advantage of them ... it's a lie"
There is a sometimes fine, sometimes incomprehensible, distinction between a LIE and JUST PLAIN STUPID. Lying will get you ridiculed by me here.
So - looking ahead at the 1st entry from Ms. Sharron Angle, contender for the U.S. Senate from Nevada.
She claims the separation of church & state is not based in the Constitution. LIE: it is based on the Constitution, even if the current incarnation isn't what the Framers had in mind.
She claims that God has a plan for everyone and therefore victims of rape/incest aren't allowed to have abortions. STUPIDITY, but not a lie.
and last, in this description ...
It needs to be either demonstrated by evidence or by very convincing logic that the Liar actually knew they were wrong. Just getting something wrong doesn't make you a liar. At least not immediately.
b) come from a reputable source (as defined by me)
Wikipedia is not a reputable source. The footnotes in Wikipedia might be.
My blog is - if I put references with it.
The New York Times or Pittsburgh Post-Gazette or the Strib or Der Spiegel might be.
If you personally heard someone say it, and I believe you, it is.
c) be significant to the public or me
Tiger Woods saying "i've never screwed around" might make it for criteria a and b, but totally fail on c because I don't care.
d) be so gross a mis-representation of the Truth as to create a Lie
This is to cover the Idiots who lie to themselves so often for so long that they believe it. Like the people who think the Founding Fathers wanted to establish a Christian Nation. Some people espousing this idea are Liars. Some are Just Plain Stupid.
e) be relatively recent or so far back in time as to provide historical amusement
Within the past month or so, preferably in the past few days. Otherwise, it gets stale.
Otherwise, Chester A. Arthur stating he was the 22nd President of the U.S. might count, especially if he said Rutherford B. Hayes was his Vice President.
Submissions are welcome and will be posted if I think it's funny enough or produces enough Road Rage. If you want me to post it, you need to provide
- the lie
- where you found it -- provide links or else standard references
- why it's a lie
- why I should care
so, we're off to the races:
#1: separation of church & state unconstitutional
2 comments:
This could be interesting! Angle isn't the first to claim that the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. I think it's interesting that they always know about the Second Amendment but not about the separation of church and state......
> She claims the separation of church & state is not based in the Constitution. LIE: it is based on the Constitution, even if the current incarnation isn't what the Framers had in mind.
You seem to use the word "based" loosely, like in historical development. It is, however, not a logical consequence of the text of the first amendement -the "separation" is instead based on Jeffersons' correspondence, I think even his private correspondence (not as a president).
> the people who think the Founding Fathers wanted to establish a Christian Nation.
I think those people are just plain wrong. Many of the founding fathers seemed to have been deists.
Post a Comment