Just the "Facts"?

My preschool daughter came home from daycare one day singing a song about the colors in Spanish. When she sang that "Roh-Joe" means red, I told her that it was actually pronounced "Roh-Hoe". She refused to believe me. I pointed out that I minored in Spanish in college and I'd even spent time in Spain. Despite my street cred, she went on singing "Roh-Joe" at the top of her lungs.

In this day and age, having the facts simply isn't enough to make people believe you. Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald recently posted a commentary about this same subject. As proof, he pointed to the people who refuse to believe that President Obama is a practicing Christian who was born in Hawaii.

I agree with Pitts that it's frustrating when you're not believed, but I'm firmly entrenched in the camp of the overly cautious.

I wouldn't trust any "fact" from Rush Limbaugh, so how can I criticize those who question Leonard Pitts? Trusting someone's declaration that "this is a fact" is like leaving the house unlocked. It's probably safe but if something goes wrong then people see you as a fool, not a victim.

Trust is NOT to be given lightly these days. It's another innocence stolen by those who wrap lies in authentic-looking packages.

The sad part is that this means people are free to choose what "facts" they believe. The same daughter who refused to believe me when I said "Roh-Hoe" was red? I once told her that she had left and right socks, and if you got them mixed up then you couldn't dance. For months afterward she'd get up in the morning, put on her socks and do a quick happy dance to make sure her socks were on the right feet.

Little did I know at the time, but that's the future of our society.

See Pitts' story.