Truth. Beauty. Mud. In The Eye

Posted on June 30, 2012. Filed under: KBR | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

8th in the series The Great Cluster Fu…   A treatise on questionable journalism and pre litigation practices.

Your word for the day

  • fabrication = something made up; the invention of something not true.

Old saws that I have heard, all of which relate to sight and perception:

  • Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
  • Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder
  • “Here’s mud ‘n yer eye.”

Honestly, I don’t know what that last one means.  Never did.  It lacks the clarity of sayings like “The truth is what I say it is.” 

An illustration:  There is a grove of trees along the horizon covering the contours of low hillocks and shading the small stream wending its way through it; the reality is what it is.  A squirrel perceives shelter, food, and drink.  The impressionist painter perceives splashes of color to be transferred to canvas.  The still-life painter perceives a pastoral tableau.  The hot-air balloonist who ran out of gas at 800 feet and is now rapidly descending toward that grove hasn’t perceived much since he heard his flame go pppfffffffttt ’cause he is now deeply involved in an intense religious experience.  The same physical reality — once 4 minds apprehended it — became 4 different perceived personal realities.

Enter Super Dan, et alia.  In the spirit of the corrupt senator in the film “The Shooter,” our stand up comic has seized upon  the line “The truth is what I say it is!” and produced a pseudo-deposition, tabloid-like production of “What KBR Really Knew…”   Pseudo because the original footage has been extensively doctored (cut, pasted, re-mastered, opposing counsel rebuttal questions deleted, and on and on).  This work of fiction is designed to instill you with an alternate view of reality.  It comes to you courtesy of the law firm Doyle Raizner (www.DoyleRaizner.com) and is displayed on-line by Ms. Sparky(TM).  I’m not kidding about the trademark thing.  Some of this stuff is just too ridiculous to make up.

Super Dan and Sparky have done a good job of flinging mud ‘n yer eye, so I’m going to go through this travesty scene by scene in an effort to clear the visibility;  you might want to review the work so you will know to what I am referring.  (Just be careful;  bullshit tends to stick to your footwear.)  I found it by entering — Mary L. Wade, KBR — and clicking on the ms.sparky result (video).  I’ll give you a couple of days to research* the item before I resume “The Great Cluster Fu…” series.  Meanwhile, lets talk about..

Next up:  Digressions

* (update:  10-9-12)  A couple of weeks before scheduled court date (10-9-12), this video was blocked and labeled “Private Video”

Series references:  KBR, Mary L. Wade, Qarmat Ali, Doyle Raiznor, Ms. Sparky, litigator, sued, cluster, deposition, hexavalent chromium

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

The Truth Hurts

Posted on June 21, 2012. Filed under: KBR | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

5th in the series The Great Cluster Fu…   A treatise on questionable journalism and pre-litigation practices

Your word for the day 

  • flim-flam = (1) trick or swindle
  • flim-flam = (2) deceptive talk, talk that confuses or deceives

Lest I be guilty of not being up-front (as I am about to accuse Danny Boy and his law firm of doing) I should tell you what triggered this series of posts.  In my preceding post (No Safety in Numbers) I mentioned finding Danny Boy and his apparent venture.  The on-line post I viewed purported to be a deposition taken from employees of KBR.  That display may have started out as a deposition, but after Danny and his firm  cut their testimonies into sound bytes interspersed with silent-movie-era dialogue boards and a “let me show you what you are seeing” voice over, the deposition became a work of fiction.  The “deposition for public consumption” use, instead of being strictly an in-house litigator’s discovery tool, bothered me.  The more times I watched it, the more it just didn’t add up.  

“The Great Cluster Fu…”   series lists my objections to this tabloid opus.

Flash forward:  We are approaching Danny Boy’s opus, a grand fusion of fantasy, journalism, yellow journalism, tabloid style of story-telling, half-truths, speculations, unfounded assertions, mellow-dramatic tear jerker ending designed, tabloid-like, to help you ignore/skip/fast forward over the array of inconsistencies, inaccuracies, outlandish assertions, presented in his vague novella.  In true more-knowledgeable-than-thou-art anchor-person fashion (complete with the inability to even read the teleprompter flawlessly) he condescendingly leaves out important pieces of information in fear that you will decide the true nature of things for yourselves.  Throughout this exercise, Danny Boy has glaringly left out 3 pieces of pertinent information:

  • Who the hell he is representing.
  • who the hell he is trying to convince in the absence of a court-room and jury.
  • HOW MUCH  M-0-N-E-Y  HE EXPECTS TO CLEAR FROM THIS VENTURE OF YELLOW JOURNALISM.

Danny Boy’s failure to include the cream filling in his little Twinkie leaves me no choice but to fill the void with my own assessments.  You are forewarned.

I’m calling this hatchet job  a travesty of the justice system.  Danny Boy and his lackey Ms Sparky (we’ll get to her shortly) have created and posted this piece of propaganda and have the audacity to call it a “deposition.”  It started out as a deposition, witnesses being subpoenaed to appear and give out-of-court testimony.  These witnesses appeared and gave testimony because to not do so would result in charges of contempt of court.   Had this intended use been known before hand, I am sure KBR lawyers would have had a lot to say about allowing the depositions to be given.

Will the truth hurt your case, Danny Boy?  I think, “Probably.”  So, as we continue, I will fill in your omissions (and expose some of your commissions) from my own humble store of life experiences.

Next up:  An inconvenient truth

Series references:  KBR, Mary L. Wade, Qarmat Ali, Doyle Raiznor, Ms. Sparky, litigation, sued, cluster, deposition, hexavalent chromium

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Agenda: 50-50 Foresight

Posted on March 17, 2012. Filed under: Humor, language | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Procrastination.  That’s a word.  It means, “Not now.  Maybe later.”  But, you already knew that.

It also means I should have started working on this post 3 hours ago, but, I got side-tracked surfing for a white wolf sculpture;  no luck yet.  So, I guess I had better hop to it if I don’t want to delay this next post yet another day.

My itches are many.  While it’s true that I’m crabby, it’s not crabs causing that chronic itch; it’s those obnoxious pismires.  Those things are everywhere, in horde-like numbers.  And, socially, they smell bad.  Possibly, it is mainstream media that has caused the harshest rashes I’ve had to endure (heretofore) meekly over the years, so guess who gets to go first in my commentaries?  Whoa!  You came up with that real quick.  And, they (the media) said you were slow and couldn’t even think for yourself.

Anticipated direction of my scratching is thus:  Media, experts, litigators (yeah, lawyers yucca-pa-tooie)…   Beyond that, it’ll be itches of opportunity.  All of it, you understand, out of a sense of community service and not out of festering spite, resentment, or any #%*@! thing like that.

On the light side, is a container — at 50% capacity —  half empty or half full?  What is the sound of one hand clapping?  If a tree falls in the forest…  SID (Ship’s Inane Digresser) said he has a few thoughts along those lines.

And, since I will have more than a few of them, I should include a page devoted to acronyms and abbreviations.  I’ll work on that.

That RSS feed thingy.  Yeah, IWOT.

New Year’s Resolution:  Figure out how to respond to comments.  It seems impolite not to.

Next up:  Bookends

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Why Do LIARS Get To Set The Rules?

Posted on February 25, 2012. Filed under: language | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

LIARS – acronym, Learned Individual Ascribing Refinement to Self

The Great Learned basically have an edge on the rest of us — they’re smarter.  At least they think so, as do their colleagues.  Lets face it, there are a lot more of them hanging out in the university library than security guards, truck drivers, and ditch diggers — combined

That doesn’t mean they are more intelligent than the rest of us, simply that they have focused their interests and talents into the academic arena rather than the physical, hands-on fields.  If you need a load of product delivered across country pronto, do you want the near-sighted professor of star-gazing or the seasoned over-the-road trucker jacked up on Cajun coffee?  (Conversely,  if you want to know the trajectory of a potential killer asteroid, do you want the jacked-up driver or the Einsteinian star-gazer?)

The Great Learned and…   the rest of us…   though hanging out in different milieus, share a commonality:  we are all primal creatures.  We all got our turf, be it real estate or intellectual property, and, we defend it and enhance it in similar ways. 

In academia, rivals joust for position through arguments of logic, be it mathematics or philosophy.   The perceived best argument (ha, ha, I’m right and you are so wrong) takes the high ground.  Homage of various types is paid to the winner.  

Meanwhile, in the real world, if a ditch digger wants to write an expose on graft and corruption (dirt, as it were) in his chosen field, he enlists the aid of a Smart Dude (a Great Learned) to do the word-smithing. Smart Dude is his translator, taking @#*@!! and other quaint expressions and putting them into readable, non-offense formats.  Smart Dude gets the real credit for this opus.

Language and language construction is a staple of academia.  Researching vernacular, ever mindful of a word’s origins, these experts set down rules on construction, usage, and pronunciations.  I applaud this effort at standardization of language, but…

If language is standardized, how come there are so many exceptions to almost every rule?    What’s with this “i after e except after c, and there are exceptions”?  Why are some words pronounced one way, and a close derivative pronounced another?  Because the experts decided it was to be so.  A select group of the Great Learned conferred, researched, voted with their buds (make that colleagues; bud is in the other camp) and decreed “thus shall it be.”  The Smart Dudes, as bewildered as the rest of us, cover their disarray like lawyers with whereas‘s and wherefore‘s.  And, print up thousands of books to make their decisions the undisputed standard.

Next up:  Why not me?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...