Webster states that if something is true, it is "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs". It seems to me that there can't be room for perspective in "actual state of affairs". Why then, when Scott Mcclellan says that his book is "truth", from his perspective, does nobody point out that truth is either true or it isn't? Since everyone is conviced of what they want to believe about the Bush administration, regardless of facts, people are jumping at a book that "proves" what they have always believed.
(My) Truth is that this post isn't even about what you believe about the Bush adminstration - it's about my deep disdain for relative truth, and my even deeper disdain for people who finally find their "voice" when there's a book deal available. If Scott truly felt this strongly about what he's writing about, why was he able to continue in his job without any problems. Now all of a sudden we're supposed to trust that he's telling the truth.... from his perspective? Perhaps his perspective is a little skewed by $$$$$$$.
Just my perspective .....
1 comment:
It doesn't help that what he got paid for his book deal in today's money is equal to EXACTLY 30 pieces of silver.
Post a Comment