Can a Lying Elected Politician Keep Their $174,000 dollars a Year Job? 

28 Dec 2022 26 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , ,

  santos

‘Twas several nights after Christmas and a few nights before the New Year of 2023 when I first heard the news about George Santos.  A recently elected Representative from NY to a very narrow Republican Majority in the US House of Representatives.  Santos has been caught in a series of lies regarding his background and credentials.  Tulsi Gabbard conducted an interview with him on the Tucker Carlson show this past Tuesday night (12-27-22).  The transcript of this interview was published in “The Hill” by Emily Brooks on 12-27-2022.  I would like to add my commentary to the views that were published regarding this interview.  First, I must give my congratulations to Ms. Gabbard for her interview.  She asked some hard questions and literally kept the lying Santo’s feet to the fire. 

tulsi-gabbard-george-santos-republicans-lies-congress

My prologue to this interview is simply this.  Lying starting with Trump has become endemic in the Republican Party.  They seem to have no qualms or shame when it comes to telling lies.  They will do little or nothing to sanction Santos for two reasons.  First, because lying is the norm for Republicans today, and it is not illegal.  Second, because they do not want to risk losing Santo’s seat in the house.  With this preliminary insight out of the way, I want to add my comments to the following transcript.  I shall try to make my comments obvious by bolding my opinions and viewpoints.

I have one caveat to make before I start.  I am not kicking a sleeping dog.  This dog refuses to stop biting.  He is not giving up his seat and he refuses to accept any responsibility for his lies.  Instead, he says he is ready to serve his constituents and wants the world to just forget his transgressions. 

Tulsi Gabbard tears into George Santos during Fox interview: ‘Do you have no shame?’  —  BY EMILY BROOKS – 12/27/22 9:38 PM ET

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) ripped into Rep.-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.) over his embellishments and fabrications about his background, asking him point-blank, “Do you have no shame?”

“If I were one of those in New York’s 3rd District right now, now that the election is over, and I’m finding out all of these lies that you’ve told, not just one little lie or one little embellishment — these are blatant lies — my question is, do you have no shame?” Gabbard asked while filling in for Fox News host Tucker Carlson in an interview with Santos on Tuesday evening. “Do you have no shame? And the people who are now, you’re asking to trust you to go and be their voice for them, their families and their kids in Washington?”

“Tulsi, I can say the same thing about the Democrats,” Santos responded. “Look at Joe Biden. Joe Biden has been lying to the American people for 40 years. He’s the president of the United States.  Democrats resoundingly support him.  Do they have no shame?”

Here we have the time-honored way of deflecting the blame by attacking someone else.  It is a version of the philosophical “Ad Hominem” fallacy, where you attack another person to avoid taking any responsibility for your own problems.  Santos attacks Biden and avoids answering the question regarding his lack thereof of any shame.  If he was going to mention a President who lied, he should have mentioned Trump who undoubtedly broke all records for lying to the American people. 

Gabbard interjected, saying that her question was not about the Democrats.

Three cheers for Gabbard who stepped on his strategy.

Santos has emerged from days of silence following reports from The New York Times and other outlets this month that revealed misrepresentations, fabrications and lies about his personal background.

In various interviews with the New York Post and elsewhere this week, Santos has admitted to “embellishing” his resume, including saying that he did not graduate from college and that he did not work directly for financial giants Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

I love this.  He did not graduate from college.  He did not work for one of the major financial giants.  But he just calls adding these lies to his resume an “embellishment”.  I wonder if you went in for a job interview with lies like this on your resume whether the interviewer would see it as a simple embellishment?   If they found out after you were hired, do you think they would keep you on the job?  Where else in the world can you lie repeatedly and keep your job except for the US House of Representative and US Senate.  The present salary for a US Representative is $174,000 a year.  

Santos says a poor choice of words led to confusion about his work history, insisting that he did business with both companies and helped make “capital introductions” through “limited partnerships.” He relayed some of that explanation in the interview with Gabbard.

I did not lie says Santos, I merely chose my words poorly.  Like me saying that Santos is a lying sack of putrid excrement instead of a lying sack of shit.  Sorry, I just chose my worlds poorly.  I hope I did not offend anyone.  I promise I will choose my words more carefully in the future.

He has also come under fire for representing himself as an “American Jew” and saying that his maternal grandparents fled Europe during World War II, even though reports have emerged that those grandparents were born in Brazil before the war.

This is truly unbelievable.  He is on record and on video as lying to a Jewish assembly about his religion and heritage.  He claims he is culturally Jewish but was raised as a Catholic.  I was raised as a Catholic but was culturally Italian since my father was Italian.  I cannot see how any Catholic could be culturally Jewish.  As many Jewish people will tell you, for many years, Catholicism treated Jews as “Those killers of Christ.”  I remember being told that it was a mortal sin to step into a synagogue.  I am sure my Catholic priest would have had a heart attack if he found out that I attended a “Seder” or Passover rite with some Jewish friends.   

Gabbard pressed Santos on those points.

“My heritage is Jewish. I’ve always identified as Jewish. I was raised as a practicing Catholic,” Santos said. “Not being raised a practicing Jew, I’ve always joked with friends and circles, even within the campaign, I’d say, guys, I’m ‘Jew-ish.’ Remember, I was raised Catholic.”

This sounds like some sort of Orwellian Double Speak.  “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” — George Orwell. 1984. Part 1, Chapter 5. 

Santos uses some convoluted thought to try to convince us that deep down he is Jewish.  I suppose if he were running in Alabama, he would be a Baptist and in Utah, he would be a Mormon. 

“So, look, I understand everybody wants to nitpick at me. I’m gonna reassure this once and for all. I’m not a facade. I’m not a persona. I have an extensive career that I worked really hard to achieve. And I’m going to deliver from my experience because I remain committed in delivering results for the American people,” Santos said.

Boohoo.  Please feel sorry for me.  Santos must have picked this shtick up from Nixon.  He needs a small dog in his lap while giving us this speech before I can feel sorry for him.  Yes, I know he has a mother who loves him. 

“Congressman-elect Santos, we’ve given you a lot of time. I think the time that is owed is to the people of New York’s 3rd. It’s hard to imagine how they could possibly trust your explanations when you’re not really even willing to admit the depth of your deception to them,” Gabbard said.

This coming from a Tucker Carlson show host really surprised me.  Gabbard skewered him mercilessly.  She must have forgotten that she switched parties and was now a Republican.  I would not be surprised to see a rebuttal from the Republican party concerning her remarks. 

Gabbard is the second former Democratic member of Congress to interview Santos this week. He also spoke with former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who resigned in 2011 after the revelation of sexually explicit messages he sent to a minor, on WABC radio this week.

My guess is that Weiner and Santos have a lot in common and it is not their Jewishness.  You might remember Weiner as the man who sent a picture of his penis through a text to one of his girl friends while he was married.  Birds of a feather flock together. 

I have nothing more to add folks.  As they say, actions speak louder than words.  When are we going to demand some level of truthfulness in our politicians and trouble them for their lying ads and words?  Even now, I hear people saying “Well, he did not do anything illegal.”  Whatever happened to unethical and immoral?  Are we willing to tolerate deceit and falsehoods regardless of the circumstances because they are not illegal. 

There is a difference between justice and the law.  Justice demands that people we elect are honest and ethical and moral.  Any less should disqualify a person from holding a public office.

The Biggest Lie That I Ever Told

23 Aug 2022 6 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , ,

download

The other day, we were having a discussion in my writing class and someone suggested we all write a piece on “The biggest lie that we ever told.”  At first, this sounded like a fun exercise.  Before starting it, you quickly realize that it makes one feel very vulnerable.  To open our consciences and share with others something that we may not be proud of.  In fact, something that we may have kept hidden for many years.  This is a very challenging and scary thing to do.  If you don’t think so, than I suggest you try this activity.  Here was my contribution to the effort.

How do I start or even write on this subject when I have never ever told a lie in my entire life.  Some of the things I did, I don’t think count as lying.

There was the time that I chopped the cherry tree down and my dad asked me who did it.  I simply told him that I did not remember.  I think someone must have done it but I could not remember who.

Then there was the time that I blew the three houses down and ate all the juicy fat pigs.  When they took me to court, I plead the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.

The only other possible time that anyone could accuse me of lying was when I slept in the three bears’ beds and ate their porridge.  I ran so fast that even the bears could not catch me.

Oh, I almost forgot the time that  I stole the goose that laid the golden eggs.  The big old ogre did not need the goose anyway.  I fixed his butt when he tried to climb down the bean stalk after me.

So that’s it folks.  I have lived a life of honesty and would never ever lie, steal, or not tell the truth.  So help me God!

download (1)

Don’t Tell the Truth, Hide Behind a Euphemism

07 May 2021 9 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Collateral-Damage

New Introduction:  May, 2021

I wrote this six years ago.  Last week, (May 2021) I was teaching a class on Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and was explaining the difference between analogies, metaphors and euphemisms.  I remembered that I had written this blog several years ago and decided to see if it had any relevance.  I was struck by what I had said about policing back then since my comments have supported more recently by numerous examples.  I have decided to republish the original blog.  I will go through and correct some egregious editing and grammar problems.

January, 2015

I woke up at 3 AM the morning of January 2, 2015 with military euphemisms on my mind.   Knowing that I would forget the ideas I had, I jotted down a few notes on paper before going back to bed.   A few of the specific euphemisms that were running through my brain included:

  • Collateral Damage
  • Surge
  • Village Pacification
  • Enhanced Interrogation
  • VUCA
  • Shock and Awe
  • IED
  • Drone Kill

Thinking that this was probably a very incomplete list of the euphemisms out there, I decided to Google the following:  Military Euphemism Examples.  Here is what my screen looked like:

Pages of Search Query

You will notice that I now had 254, 000 results.  I next went to the “Glossary of Iraqi War Euphemisms” and I found a site full of euphemisms that I had not thought of.  At this point, I realized that any possible list of euphemisms that I could compile far exceeded the limits of my prose for this blog.  I had originally thought to list a few of the more commonly heard euphemisms and discuss the implications of these words in respect to our thinking and behavior.  I would still like to accomplish this objective but now with more deference to those who have gone before in this effort as well as with increased humility in terms of the extent of the problem we are facing.  (Following this blog, are two references which anyone who wants to explore this problem further should pursue.)  See the late great George Carlin on Euphemisms.

What is the problem you may ask?  David Bromwich put it very succinctly:

“The frightening thing about the use of euphemisms is their power to efface the memory of actual cruelties.  Behind the façade of a history falsified by language, the painful particulars of war are lost.” —– David Bromwich

Dangerous-LiarsLet’s take a concrete example to illustrate the problem more.  The United States Senate recently released a report officially titled as:  Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program.   Unofficially, it has been called the Senate Report on Torture.   I downloaded and saved the above report (525 pages) which I assume is the condensed version or summary of the full report.  Just for curiosity sake, I searched for the word Torture in the summary.  There were 131 instances of the word in the 525 page summary.

I then typed in “enhanced interrogation” and found 997 instances of the term in the report.  Apparently our Senate is no fonder of the word Torture then its intended victims were.  Given our penchant for euphemisms, I am almost surprised that they did not call it the “Senate Report on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.”  With such a title, they could probably sell it to Human Resource Managers looking for better ways to screen potential new hires.  I also typed in the word Victim to see how many times this was in the report.  It was found a total of 6 times and in each instance, it was related to the phrase:  “United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.”  Apparently, the word victim is too harsh to use.  Maybe we should call victims of torture something like “unintended recipients of undesired attention.”  You must admit it has a sort of ring to it.  I think it sounds a lot more interesting than “victims of torture.”  We could abbreviate it as URUA which can then be used when needed so as not to offend anyone.

grave yard euphemismA euphemism is a word or phrase used in place of another word or phrase.  However, a euphemism is different than a synonym.  The difference is important because it is insidious and it strikes to the heart of the problem that we are facing here.   This is an example from Baker Editing Services on the use of synonyms versus euphemisms which I think does a good job of illustrating the differences:

“You need to select your synonyms carefully.  Euphemisms are sometimes a good choice as a specific category of synonym when selecting an alternate word.  They are neutral, mild, or vague terms that can be used to express a more offensive or traumatic word or situation without giving offense.  Rather than saying a coworker is a competitive ass, you might say that he is “driven” or “very dedicated to achieving his goals.”

war picturesNotice the difference?  When we use a euphemism, we may be trying not to give offense.  We may also be trying to hide the truth or something that might be unacceptable if rendered in plain English.  Thus in war, words like casualties replace deaths and “suppressing the enemy” replaces “killing” the enemy.  American casualties are reported but not enemy casualties since we don’t really care about the number of freedom fighters (Oh, I meant terrorists) we kill.   We did not really destroy the village and all the women and children and freedom fighters (Oops, my mistake again, I meant terrorists) in it.  We pacified the village.

(‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it’, a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.) — Peter Arnett

We certainly pacified the town of Bến Tre which now has a population of over 140, 000 people.  Of course, back during the Vietnam War, they were not people, they were Gooks.  I was curious to find out just how many people were killed while we “pacified” the village but I could not find any specific figures.  (If anyone knows the number of people killed at Bến Tre during the offensive, please let me know.) 

Another euphemism or at least it seems to be a euphemism is the concept of “force continuum”:

force continuumA “Use of Force Continuum” is a standard that provides law enforcement officials and security officers (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation.

excessive forceThe principle idea here is to use only the amount of deterrence necessary to protect oneself and also accomplish the objectives needed by the situation.  Practically speaking this means that if someone calls you a name, you do not shoot them.  If someone comes at you bare handed, you may use the minimum level of force necessary to protect yourself.  This might mean you would use tear gas or a Taser before you would blast them with a shotgun.  I mentioned that the concept of force continuum seems like a euphemism but perhaps it is more of a misnomer since it often seems like it is an upside down continuum with police shooting first and asking questions later.

The problem of euphemisms is evident in policing as well as in military situations.   However, it is more insidious and subtle here and thus more difficult to recognize.  Nevertheless, it plays an important role in police efforts to prevent crime and violence.  If instead of looking at someone as a human being or a citizen, police label them as “violent perps”, then they will likely use more force than they need to.  Many of the recent examples in the news of “police brutality” reflect this overuse of force due to the stereotyping of African Americans as more violent and dangerous than Whites or other ethnic groups.  Again, we see the problem here is that we are labeling people not as they really are but as we are programmed for them to be. Human life becomes cheap.  Maybe we should call it a “killing” continuum instead of a “use of force continuum.”

euphemismMadison Avenue has become an obscene part of the communication process in both the military and law enforcement.  Hide it.  Obscure it.  Obfuscate it.  Give them what they won’t understand.  Make it sound benign.  Sugarcoat it and they will buy it every time.  We did not kill the man.  We neutralized him.  We did not choke him to death.  We used acceptable deterrence procedures.   We did not abuse the woman; we used standard assault control techniques.   Let’s not say what we mean.  Let’s not call it what it really is.  He injured himself in the course of our investigative process.   She was injured while we were restraining her for her own safety.

Euphemisms are dangerous.  I would go so far as to say they are evil.  They hide the truth.  They convey a message which does not fit reality.  They paint an inappropriate picture of what is happening in our lives.  They distort the facts.   Without seeing things as they really are, we are lost in a fog of illusion.  We are navigating in a maze without any sense of direction.  We are looking in a mirror that shows us what others want us to believe and not what is really happening.   Here is a recent news story about a 90 year old war veteran who was arrested for feeding the hungry.  Notice the euphemisms:

“While video available on YouTube shows Arnold Abbott and ministers being taken away in police custody, the Mayor states that Mr. Arnold had not been arrested, but rather was detained, cited, and ordered to appear in court.  Those cited face possible jail time and have taken the city to court to fight the ordinance.”  CNN,  11-5-2014

Should you get arrested, I hope you will remember the difference between detained and arrested.  It might help in your plea to the court.   Here is another example of a euphemism that has evolved over time.  It is from the pen of the famous cartoonist Scott Adams known for his Dilbert series.

“You’re fired.”  (1980)

“You’re laid off.”  (1985)

“You’re downsized.”  (1990)

“You’re rightsized.”  (1992)

Do words matter?  Of course they matter.  Why would advertisers, marketers, PR people and political pundits go to such trouble to use words to disguise meanings if they did not matter?

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’  (From Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass.)

bank exampleThe golden rule applies unilaterally when euphemisms and misinformation must be spread.  The golden rule is “he, who has the gold, makes the rules.”  In most cases, this easily answers Humpty Dumpty’s question about who is to be the master?  The person who has the most gold is the master.  The poor, the underprivileged, the defeated, the economically disadvantaged, the bottom of the pile minorities, and lower income groups do not get to choose the words and make the euphemisms.   If they did, it might lead to a type of new grammar which I would call “reverse euphemisms.”  This is euphemisms named by a group that has nothing to hide or would really like to see the truth out.  Thus, in Michael Brown’s case it would have been said that he was:

  • Indiscriminately slaughtered
  • Butchered in cold blood
  • Executed
  • Assassinated

Eric Garner did not die from aspiration or asphyxiation or not being able to get a breath while in a police restraint.  Eric (it would be more accurate to say) died from:

  • Being strangled to death
  • Choked to death
  • Unwarranted and unnecessary application of dangerous and lethal police procedures

article-eric-garner-wife-1203All lives matter:  Black, Brown, Yellow, White, Blue, Pink or any other color.  No exceptions.  No one’s death is a cipher.  When we diminish the victims meaning and their importance through the use of sophistry, euphemisms and carefully crafted words to hide behind, we increase the probability that no lives will matter.  We must not allow others to hide behind words designed to conceal the truth.   Start speaking the truth.  Say the truth.  Change the words you use to reflect the truth.  The truth may just set you and the world free.

Time for Questions:

What is your favorite euphemism?  Why?  What do you think would happen if we stopped using so many euphemisms?  Would we have more truth or less?  Do you think euphemisms are helpful or harmful?  Why?  Can you trust what anyone means anymore?   What is the difference between a lie and a euphemism?

Life is just beginning:

Here are some good sites to visit if you want to explore this subject further:

 

 

 

 

Facts, Data, Evidence and the Search for Truth. How do we know what to believe anymore? – Part 1

10 Oct 2016 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

truth-2I watched several shows the other day in which Trump supporters were interviewed.  People are as curious about his supporters as they are about Trump.  Given the unquestionable fact that Trump is a greedy sexist racist hate monger, why would anyone support him?  The assumed knowledge is that his supporters are a bunch of ignorant losers:  people who are uneducated or at best semi-literate.  However, the data and demographics do not entirely support this conclusion.  Many Trump supporters are intelligent educated and literate people.  These are also people who believe in the United States of America and care about their country.  What then persuades or convinces them that Trump is the right person for the job of POTUS?  His qualifications pose a questionable proposition that would seem to fly in the face of all known facts in the entire universe.  This dilemma strikes at the heart of the matter.  We do not know what to believe any more.  What is a fact?  What is evidence?  What is objective data?  Where can we find facts that are truthful (not really a redundancy)?

I think about my graduate students at the college where I have taught for many years.  These are students who are working on an MBA and are highly literate, highly educated and highly intelligent individuals.   Many of them already hold very well paying jobs and responsible positions in successful companies.   Nevertheless, the challenge that I continually face is to teach them the difference between facts, data, evidence and truth.  Despite their literacy, few of these students understand the difference.  This is a scary situation.  If these highly educated students do not understand the difference between these concepts, how can we expect the many uneducated members of the general public to understand and comprehend the essential elements of truth finding?  I say essential because facts, data and evidence are the three pillars of truth.  If you do not have these, you cannot find the truth.

liesSeveral problems make the issue even more complex.  In academia, we are dealing with a subset of life in which there is much less confusion over the truth since no one is deliberately trying to distort, lie or sell us anything.  There may be stupidity, lack of knowledge and even ignorance by many scientists and professors but the greed motive is much less tangible.  I am not saying it does not exist, but for most of my teaching career, I cannot think of anything I have ever tried to sell to my students and make a profit on.  I can say with some confidence that this is also true of all the instructors whom I have ever known or worked with.  The same situation does not exist outside of academia.  The marketplace is a vicious jungle when it comes to searching for the truth while academia is a tame zoo in comparison.

When we enter the marketplace and even more so in the political arena, the motive to convince us of something relies much less on elucidating the truth than it does on obfuscating the truth in order to sell us something.  Wells Fargo Bank wants you to open a credit account.  They don’t care whether you need it or not.  Volkswagen wants to sell you a car even if they have to hide the truth about pollution levels.  Every politician in America wants you to vote them into office.  They don’t want you to know the real truth about their competition or that they do not have all the answers to the problems facing our country.

Companies and politicians have a vested interest in hiding the truth from you.  Stories like Miracle on 31st Street where Macy’s sent people to Gimbels are few and far between and exist mostly in fantasy.  Similarly, stories about politicians with ethics such as “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” have become legendary because they depict a reality that seldom exists.  Most politicians will promise you the moon to get your vote and most companies will not tell you the truth about cigarettes, drugs, food or anything else unless forced to do so by some form of government regulation or mandate.  It does not matter whether it will kill you or not as long as you buy it or elect them.

trump-versus-hillaryFinally, we come to perhaps the biggest ruse of all.  If anyone is searching for the truth, they will eventually enter into the Fourth Estate.  This hallowed ground is defined as:  “A societal or political force or institution whose influence is not consistently or officially recognized.  Fourth Estate most commonly refers to the news media, especially print journalism or The Press.” (Wiki).   Thomas Jefferson believed that the two pillars of a democratic society were an educated citizenry and a free press.  Mark Twain was somewhat more skeptical about the power of the press and information to inform people when he noted that:  “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”  The truth seeker has been taught since early childhood that in the domain of the Fourth Estate is to be found the truth.  Little do they know the quagmire they have entered into or that the role of truth finding in the Fourth Estate no longer exists.

Today, the major purpose of the news (whether print or digital or video or audio) is to sell.  Sell, sell, sell, sell and sell some more.  Sell junk, sell drugs, sell expensive credit cards, sell stuff and more stuff.  Stuff you don’t need, won’t need and will probably never need.  The job of the media is to convince you that you do need stuff, that you desire stuff and that you cala_verite_par_jules_joseph_lefebvren not possibly live without stuff.

I once thought that journalists were a group to be respected.   This was based on the knowledge that they had often risked their lives and their reputations to bring us the truth.  Today, journalists are little more than pimps for advertisers.  They have sold their souls to the devil, descended into hell and may never come out again.  The measure of a journalist is not how much information they provide to the public but how many advertisements they can sell.  The changing role of journalists has made it even more difficult for people to find the truth.  Nothing in the news is remotely objective or unbiased any more.  Every paper, every station has their spin on things.  The spin is determined by who owns and controls the media.
Take polls for example.  As we go into the final days of the 2016 US presidential election, you can find polls that favor one candidate or the other candidate.  If there are seventy polls, half may favor one candidate and half may favor the other candidate.  There is no truth even in these so called unbiased statistical polls.  Many of my friends have suggested that the news media want the race to be close because this keeps people tuned in.  Much like a sports match, we would rather watch an event that had a pair of evenly matched contestants.  My friends have suggested that the news seems to do its best to insure that first one candidate gets major media attention thus elevating them in the polls and then it switches to the other candidate providing them attention that elevates their poll numbers.  I am not a big conspiracy theorist but this theory does seem to have some merit to it.

78-trump-debate-lies-758x426Regardless of whether the media intentionally want to keep the race close or not, there is no denying that the candidate who is the most obnoxious, the most outrageous and the most sensational will garner the most press.  Trump has been well aware of this and has continually manipulated the media into providing him billions of dollars in free advertising.   The fickle public seems to swing from one candidate to the other depending on who they see in the news.  Trump has undoubtedly benefitted from his ability to keep the press absorbed with his every utterance regardless of how inane they are.  He can tweet at 2AM in the morning and be assured that Fox News will carry his tweet on the 7 AM morning news.

stupid-trump-supportersHow then can we blame the general public, educated or not, of being uninformed or misinformed when most of our society is conspiring against them finding the truth?  It is a trap that I have fallen into when I have railed against the stupid, illiterate and uninformed Trump supporters.  Sadly, they are not to blame for their reliance on Trump to give them the truth.  The have certainly not found it in academia or the Fourth Estate.  I have some solutions to this issue but I do not have the entire answer to it.  I do have part of the answer.  It is quite clear to me that one must understand the difference between facts, data, evidence and the role of these three elements in helping to shape the truth.   In Part 2 of this blog, I will go into the subject of Facts in more depth.  In the following parts, I will cover Data, Evidence and Truth.

Time for Questions:

How do you know what to believe?  Who do you trust to give you unbiased information?  How much do you trust the news?  Are you satisfied with the quality of the information you get from journalists and the news?  What do you think we need to do to improve the quality of information the American public receives?

Life is just beginning.

“There’s a danger in the internet and social media.  The notion that information is enough, that more and more information is enough, that you don’t have to think, you just have to get more information – gets very dangerous.” — Edward de Bono

%d bloggers like this: