Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Monday, February 24, 2020

Some Random Thoughts: Corrupting History & Whatnot

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

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Cyberwar Myths

The Washington Post published an opinion piece today on some common misconceptions about the endless cyberwar we have been in for years now.

Myth 1 - Cyberwar is overhyped and impossible: Contrary to the myth, cyberwar is both real and possible. It does influence geopolitical conflicts contrary to the myth. The common argument that squirrels cause more blackouts than cyberattacks is based on flawed reasoning. Very few cyberwar attacks are intended to cause blackouts or power plants to explode. Instead, most are designed to quietly obtain information or conduct espionage. Some do cause physical damage, but that hasn’t been the main focus so far.

Myth 2 - Cyberwar is mostly about big, destructive attacks on infrastructure and military targets: That is false. As noted above most cyberattacks are designed to quietly obtain information or conduct espionage. The WaPo comments: “Consider, for example, the extensive Chinese economic and military espionage campaign that has hit thousands of American firms and government agencies, prompting the Defense Science Board to warn that more than two dozen U.S. weapons systems have been compromised. Or take Russia’s activities in 2016. Those hacks did not do physical damage to a single computer yet injected themselves into the core of the American political debate.”

Myth 3 - The purpose of cyberwar attacks is easy to know: This is a big issue. WaPo writes: “The motivations behind other very destructive cyberattacks, like 2017’s NotPetya and WannaCry operations, remain opaque. In still other cases, like Russia’s 2018 operation against the Olympics in South Korea, nations have seemed to try to disguise themselves with false flags — the opposite of clear signaling.”

An excellent current example is Russian interference in the 2020 election to help Bernie Sanders. The Russians could be doing that to help the democrats nominate the candidate they believe the president has the best chance of winning against. Alternatively, they could be doing that to exacerbate divisions within the democratic party, making whoever is nominated weaker against the president. They could even be doing that to poison or discredit the Sanders campaign in the belief that Bernie would be a seriously threatening candidate against the president.

Myth 4 - A cyberattacker’s identity cannot be determined: This is also an important myth to dispel. WaPo writes: “In reality, governments like the United States are very good at figuring out who conducted cyberattacks, in part because they use their own hacking capabilities to spy proactively on other nations’ hackers. Even outside of classified settings, there is a robust private sector of industry analysts who study cyberattacks and piece together clues about who perpetrated them and how; examples include studies of Russian information operations, Chinese economic espionage, North Korean bank hacking, Iranian attacks on Middle East rivals, and U.S. espionage and counterterrorism hacking. From these sources, it’s possible to put together clear, convincing and compelling narratives of the past 20 years of cyber-conflict — and to find some great stories of spy vs. spy competition in the digital age.”

Many Americans still falsely believe that the Russians did not provide any significant help in the president winning the electoral college in 2016. The president himself continues to assert this blatant lie. To make matters worse, he is now acting to squelch the flow of information about current Russian election interference the from the US government to the public. He believes it is not in his interest for the American people to know what foreign adversaries are doing to US elections. Since the Russians are acting to help the president get re-elected, his attempts to squelch information flow to Americans is completely understandable. This action is full in accord with the president’s view of how politics should be done for his benefit, even if it damages democracy and the rule of law.

You say you want a revolution?


Edited:

Well, yes.  Some of us want to change the world.  You can count me in. 

I speak not of a bloody revolution, but rather of an evolution in America’s Capitalistic economic system.  It is not working so well for the vast majority of everyday people.  Costs in healthcare and medicines, child care, school tuitions, etc., are overwhelming.  Credit card and other bills just keep on piling up, in an effort to “stay afloat.”

With yesterday’s overwhelming Nevada victory for Senator Bernie Sanders (last I looked, only some 50% of the vote has been reported in), “the people” spoke up, en masse.

As Bernie puts it, “We are sick and tired of…”  You can fill in that blank.  I will fill it in as “We are sick and tired of the goddamn capitalistic greed.” 😡

Capitalism has failed the vast majority of people

Here in Capitalistic America, as the wealth inequality schism grows ever-wider by the year, we can easily see that Capitalism works quite selectively.  It can and does work beautifully for that “privileged 1%,” but it is not working very well for the other 99%.  They say almost half of the people out there wouldn’t be able to sustain an unforeseen $400 hit on their income.

During the Nevada Democratic Debate, multi-billionaire Mayor Bloomberg claimed he “worked hard for his money.”  Bernie responded, “You know Mr. Bloomberg, it wasn’t you who made all that money.  Maybe your workers played some part in that as well.” (see 50-second mark)  I guess that little bit of intellectual insight had been lost on Mr. Bloomberg, over his "raking in the money" years.

Question: Since it takes money to make money, who has gotten to take the most advantage of the “pot of capitalistic money?”  The “already haves and the well-connected” (1%), or the “working two jobs, likely at minimum wage, with no or few benefits” (99%)?

Make your case.
Thanks for posting and recommending.

Friday, February 21, 2020

What is a Lie of Omission?

Lying by omission is when a person leaves out important information or fails to correct a pre-existing misconception in order to hide the truth from others. ... Lying by omission is not always intended to be harmful; it is often thought of as an action undertaken to spare the recipient pain or embarrassment.


The New York Times and other reliable sources are reporting now that US intelligence agencies believe that the Russian government has been acting to help Bernie Sanders in the 2020 election. The point of Russia’s help for the Bernster is to help president Trump win re-election. The apparent logic is that Putin views Sanders as the weakest democrat who is a serious candidate, so Putin wants Bernie to win the democratic nomination.

That’s not a bad calculation. The Russians aren’t stupid. The Russian leadership wants to see the president re-elected because they believe that best serves their interests. The logic is clean.

That sleaze is not the point of this OP. But, it is the grist for it. This OP begins to look into what a political lie is. I've written on the difference between facts, truths and logic. Lies are a different topic entirely.

Here is what the NYT writes:

“WASHINGTON — Russia has been trying to intervene in the Democratic primaries to aid Senator Bernie Sanders, according to people familiar with the matter, and intelligence officials recently briefed him about Russian interference in the election, Mr. Sanders said on Friday.

In a statement on Friday, Mr. Sanders denounced Russia, calling President Vladimir V. Putin an “autocratic thug” and warning Moscow to stay out of the election.

“Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election,” Mr. Sanders said.

He also told reporters that he was briefed about a month ago.

“The intelligence community is telling us Russia is interfering in this campaign right now in 2020,” Mr. Sanders said on Friday in Bakersfield, Calif., where he was to hold a rally ahead of Saturday’s Nevada caucuses. “And what I say to Mr. Putin, ‘If I am elected president, trust me you will not be interfering in American elections.’”


What is a lie?
There are at least two main kinds of lies. Lies of commission are statements or acts that are intended to deceive, knowing the facts contradict the statements or acts that the liar asserts as facts or truth. In my opinion, lies of omission are just as bad as lies of commission. They consist of intentionally hiding inconvenient truth that is usually inconvenient, unpleasant or harmful in some way.

After US Attorney General William Barr (1) refused to release the entire Mueller report to the American people and (2) lied about its content, it seemed to me that what Barr did constituted a lie of omission. The redacted Mueller report was released on April 18, 2019.

But what about the passage of time? It is not neutral in politics or in human life. The longer a lie of omission stands unchallenged, the more power its deceptive impact it has. I decided for myself, that lies of omission like what Barr spewed on the American people about the partially hidden Mueller report deserve to be counted as another lie each day that passes. Thus, if someone hides facts and/or truths for one day, they lie once. If they did that two days, they lied twice.

By the measure of one lie per day of hiding information the public deserves to know, Barr lied over 300 times about the Mueller report and as long as he keeps hiding it, he continues to lie.

That seems fair and balanced to me. If it isn’t, why isn’t it? What is the logic that says hiding information the public deserves to know isn't a lie every single day? Should the time window be every 12 hours? Every 48 hours? Every second? Every trillion years? If so, why use a different time period?


Bernie lied for a month
I presume that Bernie did not tell the public that the Russians were trying to help him because he understood that it would undermine his candidacy. The reasoning or logic is obvious: The Russians support what they believe to be the weakest democratic candidate to help their choice Trump. There’s nothing complicated about that logic.

If that logic more true than not, then I conclude that Bernie’s lies constitute a month's worth of lies, i.e., he lied about 30 times to the American people.

Q1: Did Bernie lie ~30 times?
Q2: Is it nonsense (or worse) to believe that a lie of omission over time does not constitute anything worse that the original lie done just once?
Q3: Is it impossible for a lie of omission to gain power or influence over time the longer it is not revealed?
Q4: What if the Russian interference story is just a cover to confuse people or generate cynicism and distrust, and if so, how do you know?
Q5: What do you think about what Hannah Arendt said about lies, deceit and propaganda, e.g., was she full of baloney?