Kevin Peterson’s obsession with “the meaning of ‘is'” had its roots in his early teenage years, a time when the political landscape was marked by the infamous impeachment of President Bill Clinton. As the nation watched, captivated by the scandal involving Monica Lewinsky, Kevin, too, found himself drawn to the proceedings.

In the hallowed halls of Congress, Clinton faced a grilling interrogation, with one particular question echoing in the minds of the American public: “Is it true that you had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky?” It was a moment of high drama, and Clinton’s response would leave an indelible mark on Kevin’s psyche.

Clinton, with a certain finesse that Kevin admired, replied, “It depends on what your meaning of ‘is’ is.” This seemingly evasive and lawyerly response left the nation in awe and spawned endless discussions about the elasticity of truth. For Kevin, it became a mantra, a shield against uncomfortable truths and a justification for his relentless pursuit of wealth.

In the years that followed, Kevin wielded “the meaning of ‘is'” like a weapon in his personal and professional life. When questioned about his ambitions, he would confidently invoke Clinton’s words, asserting that the pursuit of wealth was an indisputable truth. The memory of Clinton’s testimony became an anchor for Kevin, a justification for his unyielding pursuit of economic self-aggrandizement.

Fast forward to Kevin’s moment of financial reckoning. The cryptocurrency investments, the loans, and the dreams of a lakehouse had all crumbled. As he faced the harsh reality of his overdrafted checking account, a sudden realization struck him. The very phrase he had borrowed from Clinton had become a twisted symbol of his downfall.

For Kevin Peterson, life was defined by two seemingly self-evident truths that he clung to with unwavering conviction, each serving as a pillar in the edifice of his worldview. The first was the unshakable belief that his mother, in his eyes, was a deplorable person responsible for all the perceived ills in his life. This conviction, deeply rooted in bitterness and resentment, fueled his every action and provided a convenient scapegoat for his troubles.

The second truth, equally sacrosanct to Kevin, was the notion that the pinnacle of existence revolved around economic success, particularly measured by the acquisition of a lakehouse. To him, this symbolized not just financial prosperity but a definitive triumph over his mother, a visible manifestation of his superiority. These convictions were etched into his consciousness, forming the core of his aspirations and actions.

No amount of reasoning or well-intentioned advice could sway Kevin from these foundational beliefs. When confronted with questions about his mother’s character or the wisdom of his single-minded pursuit of wealth, he brandished the shield of Clintonian rhetoric: “It depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” This refrain became his go-to defense, a linguistic barricade that shielded him from introspection and justified his relentless pursuit of economic dominance.

In Kevin’s mind, questioning the validity of these truths was akin to challenging the very fabric of reality. Why interrogate the assumed deplorability of his mother when it was a self-evident truth? Why entertain the idea that life held more significance than outperforming her economically? The meaning of ‘is’ served as an impenetrable fortress around these convictions, rendering them impervious to doubt or critique.

Little did Kevin realize that this linguistic defense, borrowed from the political theater that once captivated him, was not an infallible shield. As his financial misadventures unfolded and the fragility of his assumptions became apparent, the meaning of ‘is’ transformed from an unassailable refuge into a haunting reminder that sometimes, the most profound truths are the ones we are reluctant to question. As Kevin faced the wreckage of his financial choices, he understood the true meaning of ‘is’.