Defending The Indefensible
Just imagine that a prominent individual, or group of prominent individuals, were to openly admit that he, or they, had deliberately and maliciously lied. Then to admit that those lies were damaging to the reputation and business of an innocent individual. And then to further admit that they had done so during an election campaign for the sole purpose of gaining electoral advantage?
What would you expect to happen when such an admission was made?
You’d think that it would be news, right? You’d think that the local newspaper would be, like, “They said WHAT?”
I mean, it’s really not a small thing, is it? To openly and brazenly admit to lying about an individual just for electoral purposes. To slander an individual to try and get a few dirty votes? You’d think, once they openly admitted this is what they had done, it might be quite a story?
So once again here is my definition of a scumbag:
Perhaps I am naive, but I would have thought that almost anybody would agree that my definition of the term “scumbag” was accurate. Somebody who deliberately lies, accusing an innocent person of a crime, for the sole purpose of political advantage. And yet I am told, several times now, by local newspaper Editor John Elworthy that there is something “wrong” with this post. He has suggested the language is “un-statesman like.” I don’t know if he thinks I am a senator or an international diplomat or something? The word “scumbag” is not some sort of awful swear word – and everybody who I have shown my definition to so far has agreed that yes, somebody who would do that does sound like a scumbag. Most have gone further, using words I would not reprint here.
So, dear reader, why is the Editor so up-in-arms about my definition of the word “scumbag?” Which named nobody and must surely be hard to deny is a reasonably accurate definition?
More to the point, since some people have self-identified from that definition, going so far as to reprint it as a screenshot proving without a doubt that they are self-identifying with exactly what I wrote – why has the local Editor not mentioned this at all? Does the fact that a number of prominent individuals are openly admitting to lying and smearing a man’s character for political gain not matter at all?
Or perhaps its just an uncomfortable fact that can be swept under the table if you have no interest in the truth? Or if you have more interest in your own political agenda than the truth?