The Trump Cancer Spreads in the Federal Government

Multiple sources are reporting that the president’s pick to run US overseas broadcast operations has fired the heads and/or governing boards of those agencies with no reason given for the mass firings. Michael Pack is a conservative and ally of the radical extremist Steven Bannon. Various sources are reporting concerns that the political independence and neutrality of the American voice abroad will become mostly or completely conservative partisan propaganda.

The New York Times writes:

“WASHINGTON — A conservative filmmaker who recently took over a United States global media agency removed the chiefs of four news organizations under its purview on Wednesday night, according to people with knowledge of the decision, in an action that raises questions about their editorial independence. 

The filmmaker, Michael Pack, also dismissed the head of a technology group and replaced the bipartisan boards that govern and advise those five organizations. The boards, which all have the same members, are now filled largely with political appointees of the Trump administration, including Mr. Pack as chairman. One board member works for a conservative advocacy organization, Liberty Counsel Action. 

The moves were criticized by congressional officials, including a leading Democratic senator, and former diplomats as an effort to turn the news organizations under the United States Agency for Global Media into partisan outlets. The organizations receive funding from the American government but operate independently.”

The Washington Post writes:

“Mr. Pack also dissolved the boards of the first three of those networks, which operate as grantees of the U.S. government; a bipartisan cast of luminaries including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former ambassador Ryan Crocker was replaced by low-level Trump political appointees from unrelated federal agencies, along with Mr. Pack and his chief of staff. The sole outside board member comes from the far-right Christian group Liberty Counsel Action, which is known for its militant anti-LGBTQ advocacy.  

Mr. Pack offered no explanation for his actions, but issued a self-congratulatory news release quoting himself as saying that “every action I will carry out will be geared toward rebuilding the USAGM’s reputation, boosting morale and improving content.” 

In fact, in a stroke, he has accomplished the opposite. Disheartened agency insiders tell us that the new CEO seems bent on carrying out a purge of what Mr. Bannon has described as an outpost of the “deep state” and converting it into another vehicle for promoting Mr. Trump.  

The president has made no secret of his contempt for the “disgusting” VOA; in April, a White House statement falsely and ludicrously claimed its news reports had disseminated Chinese propaganda. After Mr. Trump bullied supine Senate Republicans into confirming Mr. Pack, despite unresolved ethical questions, it was a foregone conclusion that VOA’s top leadership, including Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Amanda Bennett, would be forced out. But Mr. Pack’s purge also extended to respected RFE/RL head Jamie Fly, a former Republican Senate staffer, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks’ Alberto Fernandez, another Republican. Was it because they can’t be counted on to convert their organizations into Breitbart-like propaganda outlets?”

Given the president's corrupt, self-serving partisanship and his blatant contempt for truth, it is reasonable to believe that those taxpayer-funded broadcast operations will become radical partisan propaganda operations focused on serving to help the president’s re-election campaign and his own financial situation. 

The president can help himself financially by having foreign government and businesses patronize his commercial properties, including paying bribes to them under cover of doing legitimate business, in return for flattering coverage by America’s official but now corrupted and subverted broadcast voice. This will be an appealing option in corrupt countries and/or by American enemies like Russia and China. 

What about Russia and the secret phone calls?

On June 1, various media sources reported that the president had spoken by phone with Russian president (probably for life) and dictator-kleptocrat Vladimir Putin. A few days ago, media sources reported that the president had decided to withdraw many American troops from Germany, something that Putin very much wants to see. Putin wants to clear US influence from Europe as much as he can so that Russia can step in to fill the void that a US withdrawal will create. In essence, Putin wants to destroy all Western European democracies and convert them to a murderous dictatorial kleptocracy like Russia.

Beginning at about 5:10 of a 10 minute interview shown here, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates discusses the need for soft or non-military American power, including a broadcast voice to counter propaganda from authoritarian powers Russia and China. Gates argues that the decay of American soft power has been going on for decades, and the American broadcasting voice is now weak and incapable of adequately defending democracy or truth. Gates argues that if countries do not go to war, they fight using propaganda. Gates’ comments were prompted by what is happening with the appointment of Pack to head US foreign broadcast operations. Gates argues that we have eliminated or greatly reduced funding for all of America’s sources of non-military power.

Under these circumstances, it is very likely that part of what the US president is doing is gutting what is left of US soft power to open the door more for Putin to try to destroy European democracies and to divide Europe from the US. In return for that favor, Putin will reward the president in various ways, including financially. My guess that (i) getting US troops out of Germany, and (ii) gutting and corrupting the American foreign broadcast are the major parts of what the president and Putin discussed in their secret phone call a few weeks ago.

America is in deadly serious trouble. We have what amounts to a Russian agent in the White House, a corrupt, spineless GOP in congress and a sick society where about 30% of republicans believe the president is doing his job so well that he qualifies as the best US president. 

Book Review: The Misinformation Age

Introductory comments

The authors of this book rely on mostly on computer modeling to suggest means to combat dark free speech or propaganda. Their modeling analyses fit well with past events where false beliefs have arisen, usually by propagandists working for specific economic interests that (i) need to combat or negate scientific knowledge that threatens their profits, or (ii) want to create a false story that is not supported by evidence. Surprisingly to me, their conclusions usually match the beliefs I have arrived at by studying cognitive and social science and in my years of personal experience in dealing with politics. Since my current beliefs were not formed by computer modeling of how information flows in social groups or networks, I consider the book to be an example of consilience. Consilience is the phenomenon where evidence from independent, unrelated sources “converge” on the same conclusion, thereby usually (but not always) making it more likely to be true.

Probably because of how well this book fits with my own beliefs, I highly recommend this book and Sissela Bok's 1999 book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (a chapter review is here). Both are short, non-technical, easy to read books. Together those books allow people to get a solid handle on (1) how America managed to sink this far in terms of detachment form reality, rationality and honesty in politics and political discourse, and (2) the undeniable, profound immorality behind what got us here. I found these two books to be perfectly compatible. The Misinformation Age is weak on the relevant moral concerns, but Bok covers it extremely well.

Because there is so much great material in this book, I will probably write one or more separate reviews of the four chapters that The Misinformation Age contains. This review will be kept general and emphasize the main themes of how propaganda arises and persists and steps that can be taken to try to blunt it to some extent.

Book review

The 2019 book, The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread, was written by Cailin O’Connor and James Weatherall (O&W). They are professors of logic and philosophy of science at the University of California Irvine. The book is fairly short (186 pages) and easy to read for a general non-science audience. The book focuses mainly on how information flows in social networks and how it can be corrupted by both propagandists and well-meaning scientists. The book does not spend much time with human psychology or other factors such as personal biases or morals. Those topics are relevant and important but have been covered in other books. The key point the book tries to convey is that social factors are key to understanding how information spreads, especially false information.

Not surprisingly, the role that social media plays in the spread and persistence of misinformation is a theme that runs through the book. In essence, social media is a source of all sorts of networks that propagandists and special interests now routinely rely on to spread their message and influence public opinion and policy. O&W describe in detail five or six situations where important truth is subverted for a period of time, sometimes decades. This includes detailed discussion of how:
1. the tobacco industry created false doubts and stopped regulations about the bad health effects of cigarettes;
2. the chemical industry created false doubts and stopped regulations about the bad effects of chemicals (CFCs) on the ozone layer;
3. the electrical utility industry created false doubts and stopped regulations about the bad effects of acid rain from coal-fired power plants; and
4. all kinds of industries created false doubts and stopped regulations about the bad effects of carbon dioxide produced by burning of fossil fuels (this doubt and profound industry resistance to truth still exists today and still blocks meaningful policy action).

Common industry tactics to derail the spread on truth to both society and policy makers include (i) creating doubt about how solid the data is and advocating for delay for more data and analysis before regulations are put in place, (ii) creating controversy by recruiting respected experts to advocate false realities that industry wants people to believe, (iii) attacking scientists and claiming they are politically motivated to distract attention from the quality of the data that can't really be attacked directly, and (iv) funding scientists who are inclined to believe the industry's version of reality.

Regarding the false ozone propaganda, O&W write:

“Industry advocates ([e.g.., DuPont] urging a wait and see approach to CFCs into the late 1980s and beyond were right that the evidence linking CFCs to was not definitive. It still isn't. We cannot be absolutely certain about the ozone hole, about whether CFCs caused it, or even about whether ozone is essential for protecting human health. The reason we cannot be certain is that all the evidence we have for this claim is inductive -- and as Hume taught us inductive evidence cannot produce certainty.” 

The issue that O&W referred to was how propagandists literally question what truth is. That is a line of thinking that goes back to the Greek skeptics of a few millennia ago. They believed that maybe nothing can be truly known. From what I can tell, this reflects a human trait that evolution left us. It seems to me to be incredibly easy to create doubt about things that are true but most people are not familiar with. That happens all the time with complicated science-related issues including climate change and vaccines.[1] Because no one can know everything, including scientists, we have no choice but to rely on the knowledge of others. That means that we are susceptible to misinformation and cannot avoid it. O&W write:

“When we open channels for social communication, we immediately face a trade-off. .... Most of us get our false beliefs from the same places we get our true ones, and if we want the good stuff, we risk getting the bad as well.”

Suggested defense tactics

O&W suggest tactics that can reduce the ability of false information to spread and persist. One is to somehow get social media sites to change algorithms to expose small groups to be exposed to content from other sources. In essence this is a proposal to weaken silos or echo chambers where people are not exposed to contrary information or ideas. Another tactic is to recognize that some beliefs aren't worth supporting or even allowing on private platforms such as social media. O&W comment:

“.... we should stop thinking that the ‘marketplace of ideas’ can effectively sort fact from fiction. .... Unfortunately, this marketplace is a fiction, and a dangerous one. We do not want to limit free speech, but we do want to strongly advocate that those in positions of power or influence see their speech for what it is -- an exercise of power capable of doing real harm. It is irresponsible to advocate for unsupported views, and doing so needs to be thought of as a moral wrong, not just a harmless addition to some kind of ideal ‘marketplace.’”

A third suggestion is to change the way science is done or reported in several ways. One suggestion is to increase the statistical power of research protocols. That typically involves increasing the size of test groups. For statistical reasons, propagandists are able to find support for false beliefs more easily in small studies than in large studies. This is a common tactic that propagandists use to sow doubt about truth. Larger studies tend to give the ‘wrong’ result less often than small studies. Among members of the public, there is a widespread false belief that a single study establishes truth. In most cases that is not true and multiple studies are needed. By widely spreading false results that even independent scientists sometimes generate simply due to statistical variability in different systems under analysis, the few negative results can be seen to outweigh the majority of positives. There tends to be noise in most research and that noise is used to sow doubt.

To deal with human bias and psychology, O&W recommend complete cessation of industry funding for research. Both real world and modeling data show that even scientists who are honest tend to be influenced in the direction that industry wants the data to support. This problem is exacerbated by sophisticated propagandists who seek out scientists to fund based on their use of protocols that tend to give results that industry wants. This is a subtle form of influencing both the scientific community and the public to accept false beliefs or truths.

 O&W describe other tactics to try to blunt the power and persistence of false information. They see this as an endless war between forces of truth and forces that want society and/or government to accept a different but false reality. Once a defense tactic to block or neutralize lies and deceit is found, it creates a powerful incentive for propagandists to find a way to neutralize the defense. O&W admit that the problem looks bleak and complicated but they argue that defense of democracy requires nothing less than an aggressive defense, even if it is expensive or labor intensive.

One thing that O&W believe is reasonably certain is this: Propagandists are not going to stop doing what they are doing. The damage they are causing is sufficient to warrant a reevaluation of democracy and its institutions, which they believe are failing in the face of new mass communication technologies and the tidal wave of lies and deceit it is spreading throughout society and government.

I find their arguments persuasive.

Footnote:
1. I'm unsure that evidence related to ozone and adverse health effects really is purely inductive. Inductive means inference of general laws from particular instances. The evidence is rock solid that (i) ozone absorbs high energy UV light, (ii) some high energy UV (UVB) can cause skin cancer and eye damage and (iii) decreases in atmospheric ozone lead to increases in ground-level UV radiation. I guess I don't understand what induction is.

The Real COVID-19 Death Toll

An analysis by the BBC of COVID-19 deaths suggests that the death count is significantly higher than officially reported. This is not very surprising. Many countries have responded with chaos, confusion and incompetence. Also, politics is relevant. Officials in some countries, e.g., the US, continue to pretend that everything is better than it really is, so the data may intentionally under count the deaths.

The analysis is based on excess deaths. Excess deaths are the number of deaths above officially reported deaths in view of the normally expected number of deaths if COVID-19 was not a factor. In the plot below, excess deaths are shown in blue, the dotted line is normally expected deaths and red is officially reported COVID-19 deaths.

For the US, the BBC analysis estimates there were about 26,968 excess or unreported COVID-19 deaths between Feb. 16 and May 2. Most of those deaths were probably directly caused by COVID-19. After May 2, the BBC data shows that reported deaths and actual deaths were basically the same. Presumably, that reflects more competence and/or honesty in death reporting in the US. Thus, one can reasonably add, say, about 23,000, to the official US death count to get a better feel for the real direct COVID-19 toll.

NO ANGST THREAD

CORONVIRUS cases surging again in some countries and in some states in this nation.

JOHN BOLTON'S book will be all the gossip over the next week or longer.

ONGOING protests and examples of police misconduct continue.

SUMMER, with Climate Change increase in heat waves and monster hurricanes likely.

THE Biden vs Trump debate will intensify.

ANGST will rule this nation, one way or another, whether the angst is climate related, Coronavirus related, election related, protest related, or White House related.


SOOOOOOOOOOO …

WHILE ALL THIS is fodder for lively debate, heated discussion, virulent arguments, and increased blood pressure, I have to ask a simple question:

WHAT DO YOU, yes YOU, do to get relief from it all, get away from it all, get some peace of mind from it all, take a holiday from it all, put it all out of your mind?

WHAT IS … YOUR Chill Pill?

All the President's Lies

Whopper: a gross or blatant lie

It is reasonable to believe that the president lies more than any US president. The Washington Post fact checkers checked the president's claim that president Obama “never even tried to fix this during their eight-year period”, in reference to police killing of blacks and other people. The president's claim is false. It is another of Trump's endless lies. WaPo writes:

“Just in recent months, while battling the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has falsely accused Obama of mishandling the swine flu epidemic; leaving “empty” the Strategic National Stockpile, a repository of emergency medicines and supplies; and providing “old tests” for a disease that had not even emerged yet. 

Now, faced with another crisis — mass protests against police brutality in the wake of the death of George Floyd — the president knocked Obama again. Before signing an executive order that seeks to provide incentives for police departments to increase training on the use of force, Trump asserted that Obama and his vice president “never even tried to fix this during their eight-year period.”

Obama faced his own uproar over police brutality in 2014, after the shooting death of an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo. Indeed, one of his critics at the time was none other than then-private citizen Trump.

Obama took a number of steps in response, in particular issuing an executive order that created a task force on “21st century policing.” The group was asked to hold public hearings and meet with officials and nongovernmental groups to develop recommendations.

A final 115-page report was delivered in May 2015 with dozens of recommendations, such as seeking more data on police-involved shootings, “whether fatal or nonfatal, as well as any in-custody death”; improved assessments of community attitudes toward police; and the removal of incentives on police practices such as a predetermined number of tickets, citations, arrests or summonses.

Indeed, elements of Trump’s executive order could have been lifted from the Obama-era report. Trump called on the Justice Department to encourage more training of police officers with “respect to encounters with individuals suffering from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction.” The Obama report had several recommendations along those lines, including making “Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) a part of both basic recruit and in-service officer training.” 

Of course, recommendations are only a start — just as signing an executive order does not mean policy is being implemented. The Obama task force issued an implementation guide for police departments and a year later reported that 15 police departments had agreed to an action plan to implement the recommendations. 

Obama took other steps as well. In May 2015, on the recommendation of a White House working group established that January, he banned federal transfers of certain types of military-style gear to local police departments, including tracked armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, ammunition of .50-caliber or higher, and some types of camouflage uniforms. 

Trump in 2017 rescinded that executive order.” (emphasis added)

WaPo asked the White House for the fact basis to assert that Obama did not even try to deal with excessive use of force by police. The White House responded with a pack of factually unsupported lies:

“This President is about action and this executive order will do more than any previous administration on police reform,” a senior administration official said. “This executive order has both law enforcement and victims’ families’ buy-in. This is meaningful action for victims and their families, but we won’t solve this problem by demonizing police. We must work together with them, and this executive order will help to resolve some of the issues of injustices we see across the country.”

The official added that “the Trump administration rolled back the practice of consent decrees because they were not effective.”

WaPo awarded the president's false claim four Pinocchios, which correspond to whoppers.

 

In another article WaPo wrote on June 1, 2020: “As of May 29, his 1,226th day in office, Trump had made 19,127 false or misleading claims, according to the Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement he has uttered. That’s almost 16 claims a day over the course of his presidency. So far this year, he’s averaging just over 22 claims a day, similar to the pace he set in 2019.”

Questions: Is it fair to call the president a chronic liar? If the president is a chronic liar, is that a fact, a truth, both or neither?

Do you hate religion?

Some people really (I’m gonna say) “hate” religion. I have been having a discussion with one of my online “anti-religion” atheist friends, for several days now.  He insists that religion (in particular, Christianity) is just a “pack of lies” (my words) and sees absolutely no good use for it; that it’s way more harmful than helpful to humans.

Maybe you also consider yourself an anti-religious atheist.  Heck, I myself am an “agnostic atheist” (don’t know, but don’t happen to believe in any god(s)).  For the record, I’m also (spiritually) a Pantheist (recognize/connect with what I refer to as a “God Process”).

OK, enough on our religious bios.  Here is the comprehensive question:

If no Jesus or God exists, does that really matter?  Isn’t their legacy that was left behind the thing of worth?  If those sentiments hold human value (don’t kill, steal, lie, honor each other, do unto others, etc.), what does it matter if there was no actual Jesus or God?  Aren’t the teachings, and the encouragement to follow them, the point?  Weren’t Jesus’ words much more important than the man (or believing he was God in the flesh)?

Please think about it more deeply, and then give your thought on this, my POV.

Thanks for posting and recommending. :)