“The Fine Print”, by Michael Schrader
WHAT IS REALLY THE TRUTH?
(Written 18 March 1998. Published in the Neighborhood Journal. Posted 23 June 2009.)
The verdict is in.
Last week’s column about (the lack of) sleep was a doozy. In fact, according to Mrs. Schrader, it was
the absolute worst that I have ever written.
Not just in 1998; not just for this newspaper. The worst--ever. And I’ve been writing columns for going on
four years now.
To quote my beloved, “Your column was boring and a waste of
time, paper, and ink. I’m surprised they
even published it.” She later went on to
inform me that it was an embarrassment to her to even be associated with such a
lousy piece of writing.
When I wrote it, I thought it was rather funny, I pointed
out. Of course, I was also suffering
from sleep deprivation and beginning to see “The Wizard of Oz” characters. (Who needs hallucinogens when sleep
deprivation will work just as well.) No dice.
“You should have just written, ‘Sorry, I’m on vacation this week.’
” For those of you loyal readers who
agree with my lovely spouse that last week’s column was downright awful, I
extend my apologies. For those who do
not agree with Mrs. Schrader, however, don’t worry about it.
Now, enough about that.
I want to take the remainder of this week’s column to talk about our
beleaguered leader, the President. I am
sure many of you watched the “60 Minutes” interview with Kathleen Willey. I told Mrs. Schrader that the Reactionary
Right was going to have a field day crowing about how they were right, blah blah blah. Sure enough, the Reactionary Right went on
and on about how Mrs. Willey has confirmed that Bill Clinton is a liar, a
cheat, a sexual predator--take your pick.
After all, they argue, not every single woman who claims that she had a
liaison with
Wrong. What? How can that be? Why would these women want to make this stuff
up? There is no reason to tell stories,
so it must be the truth. The truth, maybe, as they want to believe it, but not necessary the
absolute truth. Truth is what we
want to believe it is.
Take Ms. Jones, for example.
I won’t deny that an encounter occurred.
Whether it occurred specifically how she remembers it is quite
debatable. Her perception of the
encounter and
Perceived truths are pieces of the absolute truth, albeit
some of the pieces may be infinitesimally small. However, no part of the truth, no matter how
small, is inconsequential.
The problem with perceived truths is that we, as a society,
tend to accept some as absolute truths and others as out-and-out lies. This is what has been happening with the
controversies surrounding the President.
We are presented with two options:
either the President is correct, and every single one of these women is
lying, or these women are correct and the President is a liar. I opt for a third alternative--all parties
are correct and all parties are wrong.
I don’t think the President himself will deny he ever had
contact in some way, shape, or form, with all of his accusers. Did the encounters transpire exactly the way
they claim? I doubt it.
Say, for example, you are a male employer conferring with a
female employee and decide to close your office door. You tell her you want some privacy. She could interpret this one of three
ways: positively, that you want to
confide in her and therefore respect her as a person and her abilities as an
employee; neutral, that it is just too darned noisy and you can’t hear yourself
think; negatively, that you want privacy to make some kind of sexual come-on to
her. The problem is that you have
absolutely no way of knowing which of the three reactions your employee will
have, and whatever response she has she will believe to be the truth.
The absolute truth was that the door was closed. What was the perceived truth?
Are we, as a society, ready to sacrifice people based on
perceptions? If the Reactionary Right
has its way, the answer will be a resounding “Yes.”
Back to “The Fine Print” Index
