Football Games and Politics

[coreystone]

I have always viewed much of the endeavors of politics, as they relate to the incorporate and eclectic embodiment of such bodies as being rather similar to a “football” game. There are those who choose team “A” or chose team “B”. There are the referees who are supposed to fairly and equally interpret the rules of the game as the action progresses. Some just look on to appreciate the love of the sport. There are others who report the “play by play” action of the game as it progresses. Then, of course, there are those who sit on the sidelines and fall into many categories from total apathy to total cynicism; though I really am not particularly sure of the boundaries.

So, if we were to graph the entities involved in our “football game”, then, we would have circles for the: (1) “A Team”, (2) “B Team”, (3) Referees, (4) Reporters, (5) Observers, and all of the (6) “Gray Shader’s”. Some of these circles may not be so distinct in the delineation of their perimeters. There may be much overlay of space amongst the circles of perspective.

The polarization of those who are wholly “A team” and “B team” supporters, regardless of independently viewing the rules and ethics of the game are those who support the solidarity of their team winning within the supporting labels of those teams; such as the “Wasps”, the “Hornets”, or whatever. Though there are still members of each group who have a certain respect for fair play.

There is a rule book the “Referees” have to resort to in their explanation of their “rulings” during the “play by play” of the game. The “Referees” must be very objective in their interpretation of the rules as they apply to the “play by play” action of the game. Those “Referees” who are usually deemed as being good “Referees” are those who most objectively rule upon a play of the game in accordance to the “implicit intent” of the guidelines which they utilize in ruling upon; in addition to exemplifying that their senses have accurately perceived the information necessary to invoke the relevant rule.

NOW, the “Reporters” of the “football game” should be giving an objective, unbiased accounting of the events of the game with any visual, audio or written record to support the dissemination of their information. The “Observers” and the ““Gray Shader’s” will make their own determination of how the unbiased reporting of the facts affect their outlook of how they will recognize their point of view.

If only the realm of politics were so simple.

We have these “buzz” words: conservative, liberal, radical, reactionary, amongst many others. Do these words really define who one is, what one thinks, or what one believes? Is there anyone that is able to place themselves into a circle so inclusive of their conscience being, that they would be able to exclude any portion of any circle which does not totally encompass the “A Team” winning, or the “B Team” winning; regardless of the means? Is it possible that the “circles” are less defined as clear cut and unambiguous in their clarity to address the issues which are before us. This is not a “football” game. This is not about the Republicans v. the Democrats, this is not about the conservatives v. the liberals; this is not about “labels”; those terms are completely irrelevant. They are only circles that restrict and bind us from forming a consensus of values and aspirations of what we share.

Those who have been reporting the events of the “football game” have kicked the ball. I can’t remember when the last time I heard a report of a politician introduced without “editorializing” the “political label” that would be given; whether “liberal” or “conservative”. These terms have become so divisive in a rational discussion of the ISSUES, that we have only resorted to the further dissection of any common goals which could unify us for a universal purpose in our political and national aspirations. This obfuscation has served to obliterate any of the gray shades that lay between. This is not healthy, nor does it provide for an environment to alleviate the tensions of the “A team” vs. the “B Team”. Please remember, these two circles are quite defined and rigid in their perspective of “winning” in the words of Lombardi, “is the only thing”.

I have my perspective. I do acknowledge that PNAC is a venture of some aberrant individuals who are very confused about ethics, morals, power. I do acknowledge that alternative energy sources, if they had been developed over 40 years ago, would have been a great deterrent to the current diplomatic/imperialistic process that has been depleting our sons and daughters, economy, and internal infrastructure of our own security; rather than the “control the world’s oil” energy resources mentality of the current tide.

I realize other things………..but, until the “Fourth Estate” has been taken back, until the “Reporters” reinvent their “original role” in a democracy, then we may all realize many things; but, most of our country people will never be able to decide for themselves until they are given an objective account.