Predictions and Hindsight

There is a lot of speculation on if the Russians "stole" the election for Trump.  I will jump in and give you my thinking and let's see if it turns out to be true.

First we start with the fact that then businessman Donald Trump is an astute student of humanity.  His entire life has been that of exaggeration, boasting, confronting and intimidating.  He knew going into the primary that he could not best the other candidates on political knowledge and world affairs so he did not even try.  He played right to people's fears, anxiety and selfishness.  His Twitter account and use of right-wing media such as Fox (even when it seemed to be against him he was still using it for his advantage.  No conspiracy theory was off the table, no claim too outlandish, no correction unchallenged by turning back on the accuser.

Once he became the Republican candidate, people thought he would become more mature, even headed, and maybe even calm.  That did not work - enter Kellyanne Conway.  As per his previous persona, he doubled down with items like Hillary Clinton should be locked up, President Obama started ISIS, and that the election was already rigged against him.

Then a curious thing happened.  Social media became the method by which many people got their information.  Why read a newspaper when the news comes right to your phone.  Why search Google when your friends are all sending you news on Facebook.  Twitter allowed people to send rumors around the world before Politifact or any other fact-checking organization could respond.

People tend to believe what they want to hear and when they are bombarded by the same thing over and over and it becomes the truth - even if there is no shred of evidence.

Now enter the Russians.  I do not know their reason,  Maybe President Putin was mad at Hillary, maybe he wanted to help Trump, maybe he just wanted to mess with our minds.  Hacking the Democrats provided no information that would last more than a 24 hour news cycle.  Hacking the election machines was too daunting as it would only affect a small percentage of the votes.  So they hopped on the Trump bandwagon and started flooding social media with fake stories and unsubstantiated claims.  The fact that 100% of these were anti-Hillary just fueled the fire.

Now we have a perfect storm of two entities trying the same tactics and feeding off each other, and perhaps there was no direct collusion, just the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Hillary Clinton was too slow or incapable of taking the fight back as she would always be firing from behind.  Even the statement that the Russians were interfering, normally a statement that would infuriate any American, was not looked as just another feeble attempt to change the focus from Clinton's "crimes".

So we had the perfect storm. One that fooled the pundits and the polls.  One that gave now President Trump the thought he had a mandate that he did not have.  Now that he is in office, he is finding that the real world in Washington does not work like the campaign trail.

The silver lining in this debacle?  If, and I believe it will be, it is shown that the Russians did play a part in upsetting our election process, people will come to the realization that they cannot blindly believe anything they hear.  They will be come the ultimate cynics.  This will be the beginning of a new era where people actually think and research what they hear.

Well I can hope.

Is it the method or the results?

When you were in school, you not only got credit for the right answer, but for "showing your work" which was to make sure that you did not just guess or cheat.

Both were important but in the end, if you showed you knew how to get the right answer, but did not get the right answer, you really did not know how to get it - did you?  Either that or you made a stupid mistake.  (My hand is up for that - a painful lesson.)

Now to today.  Let's start by establishing a truth.  A "leak" must be true by definition.  You cannot leak something that is not true - it is just something that is made up.  I cannot leak that President Trump is really 5 foot 5 inches tall, no matter how seriously or how widely published it is.

So to Representative Trey Gowdy.  Here is what he said in response to Senator Charles Schumer's comment that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, be removed from that position. Note, the details of the events are not essential to the point I am going to make.

"I wish Senator Schumer and some of the other Democrats would be interested in the authenticity and reliability of the underlying data [rather than] the means by which it was acquired," Gowdy said.

Now, Let us go back a few weeks to when Rep Gowdy was asking FBI Director James Comey about if the leak on former national security adviser Michael Flynn was being investigated.

Gowdy asked Comey to also assure the American people that the FBI is investigating the leak which led to the resignation of Trump's national security adviser Michael Flynn over communications with the Russian ambassador.

"I can't," Comey responded. "But I hope people watching know how seriously we take leaks of classified information. But I don't want to confirm it by saying we're investigating it. I'm sorry I have to draw that line, I just think that's the right way to be."

Gowdy shook his head in response. He said he wouldn't argue, but that he and Comey agree the release of classified information is "most definitely" a crime.

He then asked Comey to "seek authority from whomever you need to seek authority from" to assure the American people that the leak is being investigated.

Okay - which one is it - in the first case the that fact but not the method is important, in the second, the method and not the fact is more important????

Hmmmmm.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/27/trey-gowdy-chuck-schumer-devin-nunes-intelligence-wiretap-info-white-house

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/20/gowdy-presses-comey-whether-flynn-leak-will-be-investigated

The Technique of Diminishing Exaggerations

This was Charles Krauthammer on Fox News Network 3/22/2017

“There appears to have been, for sure, um, illegal, if not illegal improper, unmasking of Americans,” the conservative pundit added. “We know that’s so because of the Flynn the unmasking.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/krauthammer-hesitates-to-say-nunes-revelations-vindicate-trump-we-are-in-the-dark-video/#ixzz4cAHBApqd

I have corrected the quote in the bold section, to better represent what Charles said and to give some inflection to this.  

In my mind, this is the Rush Limbaugh technique of Diminishing Exaggeration.

This usually goes like this:

1. Everybody is doing it
2. Most people are doing it
3. Many people are doing it
4. I heard about a guy who did it.

Look at his statements

1. There appears to have been,
2. for sure
3. illegal
4. if not illegal, improper

So he starts out by saying that there is an appearance.
Then he says it is for sure (definite)
Then he says it is illegal,
then he says it may not be illegal but improper.

A fair statement should have been:

There appears to be improper unmasking of American citizens

We do not have enough information to go beyond that.

But the words that will be picked up by people who have a bias are:

“There appears to have been, for sure, um, illegal, if not illegal improper, unmasking of Americans,” the conservative pundit added. “We know that’s so because of the Flynn the unmasking.”

Hmmmmm....

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Paul Simon from his song "The Boxer"

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/paulsimon390928.html

Wikileaks and morality

It is interesting about the discussion regarding the in and out of Wikileaks as it pertains to the current administration.

Here is the bottom line - Wikileaks is neither evil or good, in the traditional sense.

Wikileaks is amoral,  it does not care what it releases, it feels that EVERYTHING musty be exposed, no matter who it hurts.

That does not make it evil, but it makes it wrong.

The right of free speech is not absolute, it is always constrained by humanity.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just because Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, does not make every religion right. 

Just because Congress can make no law abridging the freedom ............of the press, does not make the press always right.

And just because Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech, goes not make all speech right.

With any freedom comes responsibility - if you do not accept the responsibility, then you cannot claim the right.