Voting the old-fashioned way - by mail
I mailed my old fashioned, horse and buggy days paper ballot in today. The dem party here let me vote on their primary ballot. The reps don't allow that for unaffiliated riff raff voters in California. I voted for mayor Pete. He’ll give those darn Russkies (including the president) a run for their money. Just can't vote for old white guys any more, unless of course there’s no choice in the general election. Hm. Looks like I’ll be voting for an old white guy in November. Sigh.
Faking history
Yesterday, those feisty folks at WBUR’s On the Media program broadcast a short segment about what’s going on at that hotbed of overheated politics and wild clambakes & sex orgies, the National Archives. What, the National Archives? Yes, the National Archives (NA). Turns out, the NA has been doctoring photos to make the historical record surrounding America's president look better, i.e., different, than it actually is. Oh, that naughty Donald the Sneaky. Will the dirty tricks never end? Woe is me. Forsooth and egad.That wailing and gnashing of what’s left of my teeth aside, in a 9 minute broadcast segment, The Vanishing National Archives, OTM reports on the audacity of the NA to produce fake, pro-Trump history for posterity. It’s a total hoot.
The NA got caught and apologized for doctoring a photo of the 2017 Women's March in Washington, DC. The photo had been doctored to remove unflattering (disparaging) references to the president. The excuse was the NA didn’t want the little children of the future offended by naughtiness on protester’s signs. That’s just the beginning. The NA plans to allow millions of documents simply go away and never come back. The New York Times reports: “The National Archives is letting millions of documents, including many related to immigrants’ rights, be destroyed or deleted. .... But less appreciated is the fact that vital information is actually being deleted or destroyed, so that no one — neither the press and government watchdogs today, nor historians tomorrow — will have a chance to see it.”
Once again, a democratic norm has been crushed. It turns out that there is no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Records Act, and the president is free to take all of his papers and burn them. When the NA tried to save some of the papers that the president had tried to destroy, which is his normal mode of operation, he fired them. The president hates leaving a paper trail, which as we all know, makes plausible deniability more fun and much easier to get away with. Be prepared for pro-Trump history books and real history books. A fight is brewing, to say the least.
Brandolini’s law of bullshit - a new law of human nature
A comment here a few days ago alerted me to a new fundamental law of nature. Here it is:
Discovery of this new law possibly came from Alberto Brandolini in a Tweet, but I’m not sure. My unpaid, illegal research minions are digging into the shrinking National Archives to see if there are any records left. Let’s hope the minions don’t get singed in the bonfires going on in the basement of the NA. Safety first.
The thing is, Brandolini’s law is true. It really is much harder, often impossible, to refute bullshit and lies than it is to generate it. In fact, bullshit and lies are so difficult to refute, that sophisticated speakers and politicians usually avoid trying to do so. Doing so is usually considered to constitute the grave rhetorical mistake called “stepping into an opponent’s frame.” As we all recall, this rhetorical issue has been discussed here before[1] in a delightful OP cleverly titled The Morality of Framing Issues in Politics. OK, it’s a dumb title. Whatever. With Germaine at the helm, you get what you pay for.
Anyway, stepping into an opponent’s frame is very much like stepping in something one needs to get off the bottom of one’s shoe after the neighbor’s dog left a deposit in an inconvenient location on the lawn. Oh, these are troubling times indeed. Ruffians spewing bullshit and lies and there's no good recourse for society but to absorb the social and economic damage. Woe is us.
Brandolini has it about right.
Bye for now facts fans.
Footnote:
1. Here's my scintillating blather about the rhetorical boo boo (mistake) called stepping into the opponent’s frame:
Frames can be very powerful. Some experts argue that politics for smart politicians is a matter of framing and reframing. Inexperienced politicians make the mistake of ‘stepping into their opponent's frame’, which significantly undermines their argument and power to persuade. If you make that mistake, this is what usually results:
1. You give free airtime to your opponent’s frame, including his images, emotions, values and terminology
2. You put yourself on the defensive
3. You usually have a heavier burden of proof to dislodge the opponent’s frame because lots of contrary evidence and explanation is needed to overcome a little evidence, including lies, that supports the frame
4. Your response is often complex and vulnerable because complicated responses to rebut simple frames are usually needed
No comments:
Post a Comment