It is what it is is a worn old expression born of a person’s resignation that something specific, usually a negative circumstance within his encapsulated society is beyond his ability to manage and that henceforth the end of it is left to the hand of fate. Problem is, “is” has betrayed its office by forsaking its peculiar assignment and gone traipsing off into the grey legalese of the lawyering game. The Lawyering Game is a game wherein, whereby and wherefore certain words of the dictionary are taken apart, dissected and given more colorful and creative definition, one diverted to a unique outcome. These various definitions are then archived to be drawn upon at an opportune moment of time.
In a magical and privileged judicatory association “is” is a worm hole in space where whichever political Houdini seeking an avenue of escape from a self inflicted public embarrassment, gets to decide which definition best helps to extricate his self from uncomfortable circumstance. The ideal outcome for a hack is to find a wormhole which allows him to step from a negative dimension into a suite at the Gentleman’s Club uptown; he may do that, perchance “is” is not really what is is.
There are certain words in our lexicon that our society trusts to keep human industry flowing in an orderly and dependable fashion; “is” is one of them. We just never figured “is” as having infinite possibilities. Our mistake. When the late great news anchor Walter Cronkite signed off his nightly show with a final “and that’s the way it is” well, by golly, we could depend on is being the way he said it wuz! Upon “is” being is; is stood for something. No if, ands or buts about it.
No wonder people – well, at least some people pine for the “good old days” when steadfastness and honesty was more clearly defined, when a word meant what it meant and the man that gave it, well, was good as his word. One could truly say “that that is,” is that that is. Period. Things have changed; these days “is” isn’t what it used to be but has become malleable, capable of being reformed and refitted to serve whatever purpose or design. If any of this is confusing to the reader, well, it is no less confusing to the hand that writes which must take responsibility for content, whether brilliant or discombobulated it may be. Yet because of recently set precedent, one hesitates to say it is as it is, period; still however it is, herein I find refuge and I’m a sticking with it upon advice of my able council, I.B. Shyster.
Don’t mean to speak badly of the legal profession, Lord knows, God bless, there would be revolution without them – or at least something similar to the old time duels and family feuds infamous of the South. Lawyers with their creative definitions of what is is, – is the cartilage that separates and cushions the abrasive friction of bone on bone. That is—of the utmost importance when an American President is caught with a hand in the cookie jar.
About that: Now let me say, that in proper and genteel society it’s just not dignified to accuse anyone of a bald face lie, especially so if that man is entitled to the dignity allotted the office of the U.S. President. Still, here we have the liberal-leaning Washington Post awarding Obama four Pinocchio’s for “misspeaking” the facts of Obamacare: Why they ought to be ashamed. Yet the foundation of such tough stuff is that the president’s statements concerning the basic applications of the ACA were sweeping and unequivocal (period) made both before and after its passage and not quite in line with the stated value of the product.
The result is that the White House is all lawyered up defending the indefensible with creative definitions intended to deflect charges of deliberate deception in promoting what a couple of months ago the administration and the DNC proudly embraced as “Obamacare” but now more soberly refer to as the “Affordable Care Act.” It has however, done little to halt the president’s plummeting poll numbers or to deflect the embarrassment to the MSM who was offered the Republicans as scapegoats for the programs failures, flailing them to a fair-thee-well only to find themselves had been suckered by false advertising in that the administration itself knew from the beginning the law could never attain the promises made.
Did the president lie? He certainly has his defenders, some of which say yes but it’s of no consequence, that every resident lies and what really matters is good intentions. About 37 percent flat out say no. Maybe it depends on who we are and where we stand on the issues of ideology and healthcare; perhaps he was truthful to the faithful who supported his health care initiative, but lied to those that did not?
Consensus is a word environmentalist are apt to use in the debate of human caused climate change, lending weight to the “pro” argument by saying there is consensus (agreement) amongst most of the worlds scientists that human induced global warming is real. By the same token, polling statistics indicate a consensus among the populace that the president did indeed lie in order to gain passage of the ACA and to win it public support. That consensus floods the nation, crosses into liberal circles and include many mainstream journalists scrambling to regain a bit of credibility lost by their blatant partisanship in the overall healthcare debate.
Whatever face one chooses to put on it, the people believed that which the president needed them to believe in order for ACA to succeed and thrive; the foundation to Obamacare passage was them believing they could “keep their private insurance plan if they liked their plan,” and the means whereby they were convinced, whichever title one chooses to apply, has managed to badly damage the credibility of a U.S. president.
There is a difference between “them” and “us.” Here on the American street where ambles the commoner, saying something “is” when it isn’t is labeled a “lie.” Up in Washington, D.C., where sits the chambers of political power, lying loses much of its negative impact upon personal character. Up at the nations Capitol where banks of lawyers expand the dictionary with fanciful interpretation of words and phrases, the terminology is “misspoke.” The public will not tolerate outright lies from leadership, but may be far more forgiving if they find one has merely “misspoken.” That gives the partisan, political shelter and a set of talking points whereby he may “save face” i.e. do something to lessen the impact on a damaged reputation, or to avoid or reduce embarrassment.
Conclusion: This little treatise does not argue the pros and cons of ACA, whether it is good or bad, whether it will work, work for the benefit of society, or whether it will detract. It’s about the questionable nature of the measures taken by a person or association of persons to achieve his/their political goals. However, it is that’s the way it is on this bright day early December.