Truth Is No Laughing Matter

The politicians are too afraid too veer off the script, lest they, oh horror, say something truthful! And we all know what a steep price they pay for saying the truth! A weekend shackled in the Hand Maiden, a few hours in the Rack, and, the worst of all - losing the election.

The journalists and pundits, as a requirement for getting their diploma from the journalism school, have a little part of the brain, nucleus criticalthinkius, surgically removed.

So where do we go to get the truth? We get some from the traditional unnamed sources, some juvenile ("the mouths of babes"), others equine ("from the horse's mouth"), some vegetative and not so reliable ("the grapevine"). Where is Deep Throat when we need him most?

But who is allowed to publicly say the truth? The village idiot, of course (no, not that one, not the one you thought of first!). And the court jester.

What kind of time we live in when only comedians can tell the truth and not end up in GITMO? Every joke has its seed in some truth - that is what makes it funny. But this time around - the humorists tell the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth, and we all laugh with unease.

Everyone has already seen and heard Jon Stewarts' appearance on "Crossfire" (you can find it on pretty much every blog, for instance here: http://video.lisarein.com/cnn/crossfire/oct2004/Jon_Stewart_Crossfire-small.mov) - what a great display of truth, as well as a great demonstration of masterful re-framing.

The best, as usual, is The Onion. They have put all their election-related stuff on one page, here:
http://www.theonion.com/election2004/

Look at, for instance, this little golden nugget:

Bush Calls Incumbency Key Issue Of Campaign

WASHINGTON, DC—At a campaign dinner Monday, President Bush identified incumbency
as the key issue in the upcoming presidential election. "Look at my opponent's
record on incumbency," Bush said. "John Kerry is not the president at this time.
That's an indisputable matter of public record." Bush added that the American
public should seriously consider whether it wants to risk electing a president
who has no experience heading a nation, has never resided in the White House,
and does not have even one State Of The Union address under his belt.

I am afraid that many people actually think this way (if they think at all). They did not realize there is a difference between these two sentences:

Voting for President.

Voting for the President.

They think that their duty on November 2nd is to do the latter - vote for Bush. Oy vey!