The intent of haggling conspirators is to create so much
noise around a subject, they confuse the public and manage to insidiously
inject into the debate dubious notions that no one will stop long enough to consider
or do something about.
Because it is important to prevent these characters from
getting away with the sort of dishonesty that can cause serious damage, we must
take it upon ourselves to stop long enough and clarify matters which are
increasingly acquiring momentous dimensions. To this end, we begin by telling a
story in two different versions.
Version number one: You have a one-of-a-kind collector’s
car, and a thief steals it. There is no price you wouldn't pay to get it back.
The thief calls you and says he'll return the car for a sum you know you can
afford. You pay up and get the car back. Did you pay a ransom? Yes you did. In
fact, this exchange represents the classic definition of paying a ransom to get
back something that is yours.
Version number two: You rent a car for the weekend and leave
your credit card with the rental agency. Monday arrives, and you do not return the
car. The rental agent in charge calls the police but learns that they have no
information on you. After another week, the agent considers you a thief that
stole the car and probably shipped it overseas to be sold there. He confiscates
the balance that's on your credit card.
But then, on the eighth day, you call the rental agency from
the hospital, and tell the agent you suffered a case of food poisoning while
eating something in a cheap restaurant. You tell him you drove yourself to the
hospital where you fell into a coma shortly thereafter. You came out of the
coma a while ago and feel better now.
He says bring the car back and he'll refund you the money he
confiscated. You take the car to the agency and exchange it for the money. You
go away wondering if either of you paid a ransom to get back what belongs to
him. The answer in this case is no; there was no ransom paid by either of you.
The difference between the two situations is that both the
money and the car were yours in version number one. You exchanged one thing
that’s yours for another thing that’s yours. This constitutes paying ransom. As
to the case in version number two, you had in your possession the car that
belonged to the agency, whereas the agency had the money that belonged to you.
You did a swap that does not constitute paying ransom. And this is what
happened in the exchange that took place between America
and Iran .
Money that was Iran ’s was
exchanged for prisoners that were America ’s. No ransom was paid in
this case.
But that's not how the haggling conspirators portray that
event, as can be seen in the editorial which came under the title: “Obama's con
air” and the subtitle: “When giving Iran cash for hostages isn't
ransom,” published on August 4, 2016 in the New York Daily News.
This is a piece that's more than 500 words long. It is a
typical representation of the noise that hagglers make by throwing all sorts of
superfluous notions into the debate, thus confuse the audience. And while the
confusion is gripping the debaters, the hagglers insidiously push ideas that
would have been rejected in a normal debate because of what they represent on
their face.
Take a look at the following 'jewel' if you can call it
that, and see for yourself: “Even though the U.S.
actually owed the funds to Iran ,
Obama exchanged money for prisoners – the classic definition of paying a
ransom”.
Given that when someone says definition, they mean to say,
“the dictionary says so,” we must wonder which dictionary these people consult.
Could it be that they created a shifting dictionary which tailor-makes a
definition to suit each of their occasions?
It would not be beyond them to do such a thing. They are
after all a dishonest bunch that will stop at nothing to mutilate a historical
event of consequence, yet spend days haggling about ownership of a single word.
Look at the following passage and laugh or weep depending on your disposition:
“When a reporter asked Josh Earnest about a connection
between the payment and the release, he answered, 'I think we've made it pretty
clear that this is not a coincidence.' … Now, Earnest absurdly refuses to own
up to the word ransom'”.