tfp31

                                     THE PAINFUL TRUTH
(Written under the psuedonym, "George Steinkrueger", and published 2 October 1996 in the Neighborhood Journal. Posted in toto with Preface and Epilogue 9 October 2001)

PREFACE -- By the time this column was written, my friend Johnny Dollar had quit writing his column for the Journal. Frankly, he was sick of being criticized by Joe Starr. Now, as Johnny was a beer-drinking buddy as well, I took it upon myself to defend Johnny’s honor. Of course, the editors liked the sparring, as it increased circulation.
       Unlike Jeff Mills, the columnist for the Press Leader (see Columns prior to #20) who was a frequent target of attack in my column for that paper, I had a great deal of respect for Joe Starr. The late Joe Starr was an extremely intelligent man (unlike Mr. Mills), but tended to be overly insulting and downright nasty to those who did not agree with him.
       The descriptions George gave of himself--German and a Missourian -- were, unbeknownst to the reader, the description of the true author.
       One point of chronology-- about this time, I injured my knee. As walking was becoming increasing difficult, I was becoming much more short-tempered and crabby. Thus, the tone. (The title was not intended to have a double-meaning.)

        It seems that Johnny Dollar and I have something in common--we have both been attacked by Joe Starr. I don't mind, though; I have been attacked before, and I'm sure I will be attacked again. Joe, I must warn you--I am a German, and I do have the German stubbornness (as well as the German orneriness). I just hope you are ready for what you have started.
       In your column of last week you state "George did the same thing Johnny did, he accused me of saying something I didn't say when he quoted 'godless liberals who expose themselves'. . .. Not my phrase."
       You've got me on semantics, Joe. I paraphrased a paragraph from your first column. What you actually said, and I quote, is "A liberal is a person with his feet in the clouds and his head in the sand and, barring previous conviction for indecent exposure, is likely to expose his privates while hoping for the best from whatever a Providence he does not believe in may deliver." In short, godless liberals who expose themselves.
       Joe, you claim that I am wrong in saying that you are attacking Johnny Dollar by calling him devious, and then proceed to quote from the dictionary the synonyms subtle, cunning, crafty, artful, and sly, as if deviousness is a good thing. According to my American Heritage Dictionary, one definition of the word devious is "done, used, or acting in an underhanded manner; not straight-forward; shifty." And sly--"secretive rather than open; underhanded; deceitful." For good measure, cunning--"skill in deception; craftiness; guile." Finally, crafty--"skilled in underhandedness and deception." Even your synonyms evoke negative images.
       "George says I have failed to support my arguments with facts and that simply isn't true." This statement implies that I am a liar, which I am not. And, since I am not a liar, then the above statement cannot be true, as I must be a liar for it to be true, and, as I have already established, that fact is not true. (Another argument not supported by facts.)
       However, being a believer in fairness, I will cite some examples of arguments that you have made that are not based on facts. In your column about the California Civil Rights Initiative, you say, and I quote, "Those who benefit from such unfair advantages and the liberals who support them . . . see the California Civil Rights Initiative as a return to the true meaning of equal rights . . .. They have attacked that initiative with distortions and outright lies."
       Oh really? What is the true meaning of equal rights? (Give me facts, Joe; you state it as fact, not opinion.) What proof (not opinion) do you have of the distortions and outright lies? Joe, I was raised in Missouri--you have to show me. Unfortunately, you haven't. You just make a blanket statement of opinion that is cloaked as fact.
       The blanket statement is bad enough; however, your prognostication proves my point even further. "As the election approaches, they will fabricate hysterical descriptions of imagined injustices which will become ever more vivid." How do you know what they WILL do? You don't; neither do I. How, then, can you make such a statement? There are absolutely NO FACTS to back it up. If you are able to predict the future, then you should open up your own psychic hotline. You could make millions. (After all, isn't that what every good Republican wants out of life?)
       Joe, you basically say that I have no right to comment on a president's war policy. Gee, Joe, that sounds like censorship to me, which violates the Constitution. So, by censoring the opposition, you are actually opposing the concept of liberty that our people in uniform are fighting to protect, so you, in essence, are not standing solidly behind our armed forces. After all, how can you claim that you stand behind our armed forces when you oppose the Constitution that they are defending?
       Take a serious look at your column, Joe. Then take a serious look at what I said about your columns. You will find that your column proved my points better than I ever could. After all, you keep resorting to insults, and I will quote myself this time, "...Joe Starr...does not hesitate to use...insults to make his point."
       I will say, Joe, that I am flattered that you read my column. I would like to say, though, that if you read all my columns, you will discover that I am not a liberal. (Ask Johnny if you don't believe me.) But, alas, once again you resorted to stereotype.
       Yes, Joe, the truth, like a shot, does hurt. But, like a shot, it will make you feel better in the end.

EPILOGUE -- The departure of Johnny Dollar completely changed the dynamic of the Journal. Although at the time I was disappointed, in retrospect, it was good for me personally. When I started at the Journal, I was a very distant third string behind Johnny and Joe--after all, I was an unknown quantity. With Johnny’s departure, I came into my own, and the Journal discovered that they still had two very strong columnists. This sudden increase in prominence helped me greatly when I suspended the column, as I was welcomed back with open arms. Twice.