Interpreting words is now the 2017 subjective of words, by those who know better, therefore, only the better informed than me can attribute the true meaning.
Just a few days ago, I was flummoxed into word interpreting when I read an article on the front page of the prestigious The New York Times.
How could it be that the meaning of what our EPOTUS says has to be interpreted by a reporter?
I asked myself why this reporter believes I cannot understand the words used by our EPOTUS.
Could it be this reporter assumes I am not one of the some 60 million voters who elected a candidate, knowing full well what he meant with commonly accepted words, placed in the kind of sound bites not accepted by one and all of the media.
Yet the media continues to boil down what they cannot understand, but I am supposed to place the believe of their editors as transmitted by a reporter who identifies as a journalist who knows facts.
Those who know better than me, the editors and journalists of The New York Times tell me what should be said by anyone who is elected to the highest office in the land, but if the EPOTUS who becomes POTUS on January 20 uses words that some 60 million voters did understand when they voted for him, I am not capable of understanding because?
The loser candidate won the popular vote in the bi-coastal states, but the winner of the Electoral College speaks in sound bites and campaigned according to the rules—whether I voted for him or not, I should have the opportunity to seek my own meanings in these words that are simple, but certainly to the point.
Could it be that words can have the effect of making me question what has been said in the past?