tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87221854436461930942024-03-13T21:02:13.432-07:00Deception Detectionrecognizing the language of <br>
distortion ◊ implication ◊ innuendoBill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-10474937381397271222021-05-08T01:26:00.006-07:002022-01-03T12:20:04.146-08:00Schoolyard Trump<p></p>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-81059163179023778382021-03-20T21:35:00.000-07:002021-05-03T00:39:35.715-07:00How to Obamagate<iframe width="480" height="270" src="https://youtube.com/embed/zdlwokkS4DA" frameborder="0"></iframe>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-66473170523696607122021-01-09T17:45:00.017-08:002021-03-20T14:27:24.462-07:00Trump vs Big Tech<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m38SigxVMvg/X_pdducB50I/AAAAAAAAQLw/O7fyfiAW_Z4Y_bQpurztExfOkUyKHCz0wCLcBGAsYHQ/s660/MW-GP101_trunmp_20180828135113_ZQ.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="660" height="253" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m38SigxVMvg/X_pdducB50I/AAAAAAAAQLw/O7fyfiAW_Z4Y_bQpurztExfOkUyKHCz0wCLcBGAsYHQ/w449-h253/MW-GP101_trunmp_20180828135113_ZQ.jpg" width="449" /></a></div></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Social media ‘algorithms’ are more about probability than ideology. They direct people to places they </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;">most likely </span>want to go. It 's more like a popularity contest. Turns out right-wing conspiracy theories take up a lot of this space. Why not. They’re intriguing, especially to their biggest audience: adolescents. In 2016, YouTube decided to throttle back. They were concerned about promoting disinformation during elections. The right-wing was first to cry foul. They accused YouTube of censorship and threatened to reverse their Sect 230 protections. In his final days in office, Trump is doubling-down on this threat. Problem is ..without these protections social media platforms will start scrutinizing content even more, creating a vicious cycle that will hurt right-wing content providers the most. I have a theory. The right-wing isn’t stupid. They're run by a crafty TV-show host who’s looking for a media outlet of his own. Before he goes, however, he wants to take out the competition.</span></div>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-23701570114790432162021-01-05T16:19:00.019-08:002023-08-16T13:04:43.380-07:00Trump vs Georgia<p style="text-align: center;">Transcript Analysis <br />January 2, 2021 </p><p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oJmM-rIoj-g/X_kiw1RC7uI/AAAAAAAAQLQ/OkRSYrGHMHwd-sDD7_7aaFPppOVPrNqdQCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Eq2d-McUYAARr9F.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1546" data-original-width="2048" height="395" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oJmM-rIoj-g/X_kiw1RC7uI/AAAAAAAAQLQ/OkRSYrGHMHwd-sDD7_7aaFPppOVPrNqdQCLcBGAsYHQ/w545-h395/Eq2d-McUYAARr9F.jpg" width="545" /></a><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Trump held an hour-long conference call with Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger. He was joined on the call by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several lawyers. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i><b>Trump: </b></i>“If we could just go over some of the NUMBERS, I think it’s pretty clear that we won. We won very substantially in Georgia.” He spends the next hour presenting "NUMBERS" he thinks prove his case. This is what Donald Trump thinks passes for proof.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: left;"><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Rally size</li><li>Numbers that only White House staff possess</li><li>Number of people who said he couldn’t lose</li><li>Number of people who are angry about the election </li><li>Number of down-ballot votes</li><li>Number of rumors, allegations and unconfirmed reports </li><li>Number of things that don’t pass his ‘smell’ test </li><li>Number of times that Trump has repeated unsubstantiated claims that the election was rigged. </li></ol></div></div>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-37770441344121411412020-12-20T14:14:00.004-08:002020-12-25T16:03:59.188-08:00Michael Flynn<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VKVrO3pKyks/X9_OPqppMlI/AAAAAAAAQKU/RTSMEq-5M9QPzW5mzTXmHCS8mC5amHZawCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/30023120134_eaf7b4ee06_k.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VKVrO3pKyks/X9_OPqppMlI/AAAAAAAAQKU/RTSMEq-5M9QPzW5mzTXmHCS8mC5amHZawCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h225/30023120134_eaf7b4ee06_k.jpg" width="400" /></a></div></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency for Obama who was FIRED for following conspiracy theories instead of intelligence information ..and later convicted of lying about his role in foreign election interference during the Trump campaign ..is back in the White House advising Trump on foreign election interference. He’s saying that the SolarWinds hack was DISRUPTIVE attack on ELECTION SECURITY by foreign influencers. As a result, Trump should declare martial law ..confiscate state election systems and re-do the election under military command. He’s conflating a federal government system with state run systems in order to promote a false relationship between foreign intelligence gathering and foreign disruption of elections. This is BULLSHIT: It was NOT a disruptive attack on the ELECTION conducted by foreign influencers ..IT WAS A COVERT OPERATION TO SPY ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ..!! SolarWinds is a network administration system used by the federal government and has NOTHING to do with state run election systems</span></div>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-91364370111181390802020-05-11T20:18:00.001-07:002020-05-11T20:18:31.402-07:00ask China<div style="text-align: center;"><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hF_LvrUvozQ" width="480"></iframe></div>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-71088870157137620122020-05-11T20:14:00.002-07:002021-03-20T21:36:29.451-07:00Obamagate<div style="text-align: center;"><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DtHfhTSGk-I" width="459"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://youtube.com/embed/zdlwokkS4DA" width="480"></iframe></div>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-89933755304213729922020-05-03T14:58:00.001-07:002020-05-04T13:57:14.499-07:00Pompeo<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fRea4yIE7_8?start=351" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;">RADDATZ:</span></b></i><span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="font-weight: normal;">Do you believe coronavirus was man-made? </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b> POMPEO:</b></i> <span style="font-weight: normal;">The best experts seem to think so</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i> R:</i></b> <span style="font-weight: normal;">But the DNI says the consensus is it wasn't </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i> P: </i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">That's right. I agree with that</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i> R:</i></b> <span style="font-weight: normal;">So to be clear, which is it? </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>P: </i></b></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: large;">What's important is the Communist Party could've prevented thi</span>s</span></blockquote>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-24723765769150328492019-09-14T14:11:00.001-07:002020-12-28T08:33:20.753-08:00Fake news derangement<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vXXb9ysVuYM/XX1WzQi4lJI/AAAAAAAAPrU/KHnkZkBCa2sVjyObBacurLV862vllOibwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/info_o.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1057" data-original-width="1056" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vXXb9ysVuYM/XX1WzQi4lJI/AAAAAAAAPrU/KHnkZkBCa2sVjyObBacurLV862vllOibwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/info_o.jpg" width="319" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">In the 1960’s I saw the news cycle get ahead of the government. Photojournalists were sending satellite images of the war in Vietnam before the next White House press conference. People grew distrustful of the government’s version of events. I believe this is what Trump is fighting when he calls the mainstream media ‘fake news’. They defy his attempts at framing events and controlling the narrative. Label it what he will ...we're not going back to the fifties. Everyone knows the speed of information is accelerating, which makes his attempts at controlling it look about as effective as trying to package water from a fire hose. </span></div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-84176007111074041242017-07-16T21:27:00.001-07:002020-12-28T08:32:01.933-08:00Master of Deception <blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i>Speech perception is ephemeral. The meaning of a sentence is derived by an active, interpretive process. The surface structure is rapidly forgotten and what we remember is the gist of what’s said. Deception works because this process is open to suggestion. </i></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">
</span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b>Half truth: </b></i> Trump signed an executive order that he claims: “Restores religious liberty.” However, all he did was change the wording of section 501 of the U.S. Code which exempts churches from paying Federal income tax. Before it simply said that religious groups risk losing their tax-exempt status for making “..political speeches that amount to participation or influence in a political campaign.” What he changed it to is: “Religious groups do not risk losing their tax-exempt status for making political speeches that do not amount to participation or influence in a political campaign.” Trump simply restated it as a double negative. Changing the syntax does not necessarily change the content. In other words, the same restrictions still apply. He falsely claims that this amounts to a: “restoration of religious liberty”<br />
</span></div><span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b>Framing: </b></i>Trump announced that the new American Health Care Act (AHCA) will: “cover more Americans more cheaply.” A review by the Congressional Budget Office found that the net effect was less coverage at a higher price for most Americans. Trump’s announcement only sounds good if you don’t have a copy of the bill in front of you.<br />
</span></div><span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
</div><span style="font-size: large;">
<b><i>Pre-supposition:</i></b> Trump says he fired Comey because the FBI was in turmoil. He adds “..you know that, I know that, everybody knows that.” Saying ‘everybody knows that’ frames his opinion as a generally accepted reason to fire him. But we all know Trump fired Comey for personal reasons that had nothing to do with his performance as FBI director.<br />
<br />
<b><i> Public record: </i></b>On his termination letter, Trump said: “I appreciate that, on three separate occasions, you told me I was not under investigation.” However, there’s no record of Comey ever saying that. Trump’s statement is deceptive because it enters an indeterminate event into public record
</span>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-75986627943961473432017-04-09T09:04:00.001-07:002020-12-28T08:40:47.974-08:00Discourse analysis of the news <span style="font-size: large;">I’m paying closer attention to news stories these days. I like to see how many examples of fake news and deceptive claims I can spot …I’m weird that way. I know that just because a story sounds sensational … doesn’t mean it’s a widespread pandemic. A picture of protestors at a local college doesn’t make it a campus-wide event. A group of cheering supporters at a political rally doesn’t represent everyone in attendance. I call this a ‘slice-of-pie’ sort of misrepresentation. It’s not necessarily the fault of the reporter …it’s just the nature of news. It’s not always a view from 35,000 feet.<br />
<br />
I’m also seeing where events are reported in a sequence that’s different from the way they actually occurred …and how it affects my interpretation of things. One thing after another is easily mistaken for one thing caused the other.<br />
<br />
I’m also clearer on the difference between ‘speculation’ and ‘data-based accounts’. I know it takes a sufficient number of cases to turn a speculative claim into a credible account. It’s the difference between Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying <i> “…legalizing marijuana will lead to something like the opioid epidemic”</i> and the New England Journal of Medicine reporting <i>“a study of 2,500 users shows that marijuana does not have the same addictive properties as opioids.” </i>I guess it depends on your perspective, and, from what I’ve seen, pre-conceived notions about marijuana can beat out data-based reports almost any day of the week.
</span>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-89403338331054733342017-03-27T09:03:00.001-07:002020-12-28T08:40:06.809-08:00Deceptive speech<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">1. It’s deceptive when Trump calls news outlets fake and dishonest because reports about him <i><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">“…haven’t been positive.” </span></i> He didn’t say that reports about him haven’t been honest. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
2. It’s deceptive when the administration says: <i><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">“The national debt went down $12 billion since we’ve been in power.” </span></i>That’s implying that they deserve credit for events that are actually beyond their control (they’ve only been in power for a month and have not yet done anything to affect the budget). </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
3. It’s deceptive to attribute job losses by middle class Americans to undocumented immigrants …unless you consider gardening and fruit-picking middle–class occupations.</span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
4. It’s deceptive to treat the fair-trade agreement with South America the same as China. South America doesn’t engage in anti-competitive practices like the Chinese. They don’t present the same barriers to foreign investment.</span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
5. This is not necessarily deceptive but a big component of intelligence is understanding the question. Over two-thirds of the errors on an intelligence test can be attributed to misunderstanding the question. This was certainly the case at Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing. When asked: <i><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">“As Attorney General, if presented with evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign communicated with the Russians …what would you do?” </span></i>He replied: <i><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">“I did not communicate with the Russians.” </span></i> Why did he deny doing something he wasn’t asked? He claims he was responding to a something he read in the news that day …and got it confused with the question. Good thing intelligence is not a qualification. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
6. Spicer has reached the level of master of deception. He’s not necessarily good at it …just prolific. In the latest example he cites news-stories about British spying to back up his accusations against Obama. When British Intelligence confronts him, he says: <i><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">“I was simply pointing out these news-stories. I wasn’t endorsing them.” </span></i> However, when you cite news-sources to back up your claims …you are crediting theses sources as valid, which is the same as endorsing them
</span></div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-72350799048219272362017-03-12T16:49:00.004-07:002020-12-28T08:49:01.183-08:00Discourse analysis<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">I look for samples of deceptive speech in the news. Happens more often than you may think. We don’t process speech like a linguist. It’s too ephemeral. We listen for meaning and not a literal transcript of what's said, which makes it easy for speakers to pass-off fiction as fact and make implications sound like direct assertions. The original sentences don’t hang around long enough for us to tell the difference and we’re left with a more general sense of what's said. The new administration provides a lot of examples. Here are a few I've come across lately.<br />
<br />
1. It’s deceptive when press secretary Spicer defends Trump’s travel ban by saying:<span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">“<i>The power given the president to protect our country is substantial and without question.”</i></span> I</span>t’s deceptive because he’s implying that Trump’s actions are ‘beyond question’ because the constitution is beyond question. However, it is not unreasonable to ask whether his actions were a legitimate use of power and met the criteria proscribed by the constitution. The courts clearly found his actions questionable.<br />
<br />
2. It’s deceptive when the administration says they didn’t fire national security advisor Flynn because he did anything wrong but because it was leaked. According to press secretary Spicer: <i><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">“leaks are criminal and what should be investigated here.”</span></i> It’s deceptive when he deflects attention by implying that some kind of “breach in security” was at fault and not the actions of the national security advisor.<br />
<br />
3. it’s deceptive when attorney general Sessions says marijuana use should be prosecuted under federal law because: <i>“<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">When you see something like the opiate addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing that we should be doing is encouraging people.”</span> </i>He’s implying that marijuana carries the same health and safety risks as opioids.<br />
<br />
4. It’s deceptive when the administration denies ever saying:<i><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"> “We are conducting mass-deportations using the U.S. military.”</span></i> But that is exactly what Trump was implying when he announced: <i><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">“ We are conducting deportations at unprecedented levels and doing them as efficiently as a military operation.”</span></i> What’s the difference. Since speech perception is not literal …implications get treated as direct assertions and “ ..mass-deportations by the U.S. military” is exactly what gets conveyed. Denying it because it was not part of the ‘actual transcript’ is like something you’d hear in a court of law. It’s deceptive because it’s not the natural way we process information. We don’t keep record of things like a stenographer and the administration knows this.<br />
<br />
5. It’s deceptive when Trump characterizes undocumented immigrants as criminals based on one case. As tragic as it was … a single case does not represent an entire population. However we don’t think like statisticians. We mistake sensationalism for the size and magnitude of a problem. The administration knows this and they’re relying on it to help make their case.
</span></div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-46932782418796888792017-02-09T08:52:00.001-08:002020-12-28T08:51:43.087-08:00Trump tweets<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Trump is beginning to find Twitter more unforgiving than the press. In addition, it has a multiplier effect that can boost adversarial comments astronomically ..hugely! They’re not just calling him out on his use of ‘alternative facts’ …they’re ridiculing him. Take for instance the (#Bowling Green Massacre Relief Fund). The remark he made about the <i>“So-called Federal Judge …”</i> has spawned (#So-called Presidential appointment) (#So-called Senate confirmation) and (#So-called Constitution). His statement that: <i>“All negative polls are fake news …”</i> and his unrelenting attacks on SNL has generated one called (#SNL weekend update is real). Historically, ridicule is one of the oldest means of deterring socially unacceptable behavior. Twitter has virtually crowd-sourced the editorial and fact-checking process. If Trump thinks Twitter offers him a way around the press so that he can make stuff up without consequence …he’s going to find that Twitter has the unrestrained power to bury his claims with ridicule and mockery. And it’s not subject to libel laws. He may have call in the National Guard on this one.</span></div>
</blockquote>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-67947860448185302016-03-17T16:22:00.000-07:002016-03-19T16:23:54.569-07:00Deception by definition <div style="text-align: justify;">
The Constitution says the role of the Senate is to <i>“... give advice and consent</i>” to the President during the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell re-frames consent to mean refusing to participate. I don’t think consent means agreeing with the process of selecting a Supreme Court nominee. I think it means agreeing with a nominee during the selection process. It’s deceptive because he’s using the Constitution to back a misuse of the term. It’s like saying that the Constitution gives him license not to do his job … because that’s what the process is … his job.</div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-57756816531521116922016-03-16T16:31:00.000-07:002016-03-19T16:32:13.747-07:00Losers<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anxiety can be paralyzing. That’s a fact. Republicans feel threatened and they’re circling the wagons. I get that. They say they don’t want to decide on a Supreme Court nominee … wait until next year when cooler head prevail. Problem is everyone has to make decisions under pressure. I do. Trick is, I’m told, to breathe, take a walk on the beach, then calmly do what needs to be done. I’ve also been told don’t let them see you sweat and the first one to show anger – loses. Obstruction, I believe, is an expression of anger as well as anxiety (i.e. sweat). In the words of the mighty Trump … that makes Mitch Mitchell and the Republican Senate a bunch of losers. </div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-20109713013251701052016-03-12T13:35:00.000-08:002016-03-12T13:44:22.282-08:00The scoundrel <div style="text-align: justify;">
For the record, I’m not proud of my behavior in college. Figuring I wasn’t going to get by on looks alone ... I needed another way to mask my edginess and appear sincere. Stories of past adventures both captivated and added a vicarious boost of adrenaline in my unsuspecting prey, which diverted their attention away from my need for adventure elsewhere. Tales of crossing Baja in a dune buggy and surfing Spider Bay were good (and true). I once told an innocent young debutante about my fool-proof plan to smuggle cocaine from South America aboard a sailboat (a complete fabrication). Shocked the shit out of her …but she was intrigued. I later got her to shoplift, dine-and-dash plus switch theaters at the mall during dates … things that were totally out-of-character for her. Like I said, I am not proud. Horsepower was also good for spiking adrenaline (and providing me with a fast getaway). I had an Alfa Romeo that I kept in immaculate condition. White-knuckle rides through Laguna Canyon or Big Sur tended to suppress discussion and release inhibitions. Then lastly there was the fear of abandonment (or the loss of living vicariously) which was a good motivator. Kept ladies hooked and in-line. Back me in a corner and I’m gone.</div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-16276049682450871762016-02-29T07:57:00.000-08:002016-02-29T08:00:10.493-08:00Deception in Politics <blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Someone asked the other day if I thought candidate Trump was deceitful. When I thought about it I found him far less deceitful than, say … Mitch McConnell the Senate Majority Leader. When Trump says he’ll build a wall along the border and make Mexico pay for it he’s not being deceptive. He’s making an outrageous claim but it’s out there for everyone to hear and judge. He’s being forthright. Besides it’s a campaign speech that few believe.
When McConnell says: <i>“The American people will be heard before the next Supreme Court Justice is determined” </i>… he is being deceptive. Without actually saying so,<b><i> his statement falsely assumes that Justices are somehow elected to the Supreme Court by the American people.</i></b> He makes it sound like it would be undemocratic to do otherwise. McConnell is appealing to a sentiment (representative government) where it doesn’t apply (the Supreme Court). Trump’s appeals to a sentiment where it does apply (immigration issues). What he says may be outrageous and undoable but his message is overt whereas McConnell’s message is delivered in a more covert manner. Makes Trump sound like the honest one here. Theatrical and extreme … but honest. McConnell on the other hand sounds duplicitous to me. He is speaking as an elected official about his duties as Senator (approving Supreme Court nominees).
</div>
</blockquote>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-54635862849159807002016-02-14T17:57:00.001-08:002016-02-14T17:57:55.749-08:00A Change of Narrative <div style="text-align: justify;">
I’ve heard that a winning strategy in politics is <b><i>never </i></b><b><i>change the candidate</i></b> to fit the narrative (national debate) but <b><i>change the narrative </i></b>to fit the candidate instead. So I predict that over the next few months we won’t see much of a change in Jeb Bush. However, we will see him bring out his credentials as member of a military family (his father was a war hero and his brother was commander-in-chief during wartime), which helps foster the illusion that he is – and always has been – a military leader himself. Next, we are going to hear heck of a lot more about threats to national security from places like the Middle East, Russia, Iran, Syria and North Korea – bolstering the narrative that we’re a country under siege. Since fear usually trumps domestic issues, I don’t even believe the selection of the next Supreme Court justice will compare.</div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-12689937132266507132016-02-08T16:23:00.001-08:002016-02-08T21:13:20.944-08:00OJ Simpson <div class="MsoNormal">
Masters of illusion</div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It didn’t take much to persuade a jury that OJ Simpson was innocent by creating the illusion that the LAPD were capable of framing him. Defense attorneys were relying on sensational events in the recent past to pull this off. The LAPD were already being demonized for police brutality in the Rodney King case. Made it easy to create the illusion that they were capable of similar malfeasance in the OJ Simpson case – even though individual instances of brutality do not compare with the kind of massive departmental conspiracy required to frame a celebrity for murder. Attorneys successfully created an illusion of <i>conspiracy </i>by invoking the jury’s memory for <i>brutality</i>.</div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-5966505920720126092016-02-01T16:10:00.000-08:002016-02-08T21:15:09.137-08:00The case against Hussein Masters of Illusion<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was easy for George W. Bush to create an illusion that bringing down Saddam Hussein would help defeat Al Qaeda. The U.S. had just experienced an unprecedented attack by foreign terrorists on American soil. Illusions are easy to create around sensational events. People are more susceptible to suggestion. Bush never actually claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11– he didn’t have to. He implied a link and relied on his listeners to do the rest, which they did in record numbers. A Washington Post survey found that over two-thirds (69%) of Americans actually believe that Bush said Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11. He created the illusion through an unspoken agreement with his audience. </div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-53836918628081086202014-01-31T19:41:00.007-08:002020-12-28T09:30:57.039-08:00spotting a lie<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fxak73CHOX0" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
1. A denial using formal speech (I <span><b><span><span><i><span>did not</span></i></span></span> </b></span>have sex ..)
2. Distancing language (.. with <b><span><span><i>that woman</i></span></span></b>)
3. Qualifying language (<i><span><span><b><span><span>in all candor</span></span></b></span> ..</span></i>)
4. Frozen upper body (<span>.<b><span>.not fidgeting</span></b></span>)
5. Unusually good eye contact
6. Smiling with eyes wide open (..a real smile involves <b><i>squinting </i></b>a little)
7. Using too much detail in irrelevant places
8. A too-strict chronology of events (sounds rehearsed)
9. Shaking the head (no) when expressing an affirmative (<b><span><i><span>I will take a paternity test</span></i> ..</span></b>)
10. Turning anger into contempt (one-sided sneer ..Dick Cheney)
11. Duping smile (OJ Simpson ..in court turning and smiling)
</div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-74686808681889035752013-06-12T18:42:00.000-07:002013-06-18T09:52:05.341-07:00the certainty of possibility<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think I may actually know something about the value of information. It was my field in grad school and I worked in IT for almost 20 years. Seems like I should. Anyway I can usually tell when someone says something will happen based only on the possibility that it could happen. In logic I think they would call that a fallacy. Last week the Washington Post reported Edward Snowden’s claim that the government <i><b>has unfettered access</b></i> to our personal online records. Alarming, but the way the report reads ..only a possibility. Since the Washington Post is a fairly reliable source and some of the other claims turned out to be true, I gave this one equal credit. Next I hear all the major online services denying such a ‘secret government portal’ exists. I felt like I’d given it too much credit. The folks at Google would certainly know when they’re being hacked ..wouldn’t they. Then the New York Times reports that Google and government officials ‘discussed the creation of portals’ where the government can go retrieve online information anytime ..without a search warrant. Certainly bolsters Snowden’s claim. Today I hear that Snowden has been on a campaign against intrusive government for a long time and his claim is based on ‘government-training material’. Certainly a worthy campaign ..but I’ve seen government-training material before. So now I’m back to square one. Just because someone says something could happen doesn’t mean it did. As far as I’m concerned .. the value of his claim is still indeterminate and could go either way. </div>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pjIYReuRxXE/UbkiviFa-jI/AAAAAAAAMgU/Z4wDbBNnYTk/s1600/Empire_5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="60" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pjIYReuRxXE/UbkiviFa-jI/AAAAAAAAMgU/Z4wDbBNnYTk/s200/Empire_5.jpg" width="60" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-47999528950668819852012-09-20T18:31:00.000-07:002012-09-20T18:31:46.227-07:00Fast and Furious <blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A federal program called Fast and Furious allowed weapons to be sold to gun smugglers in the U.S. so they could be traced to drug cartels in Mexico. However, they quickly lost track of the weapons and some of them turned up in the fatal shooting of a Border Patrol Agent near Tucson in December 2010. Since then, an ongoing investigation has looked into the possibility that it was a gun-running operation headed by the Department of Justice.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The investigation into the Fast and Furious program concluded yesterday saying <i>“Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. had no knowledge of the <b>problems surrounding </b>Fast and Furious before the slaying of a U.S. Border Patrol agent brought them to light.”</i> The Attorney General was quick to point out that this proves he <b><i>“had neither knowledge of ..nor did he condone any such operation” </i></b>[ <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fast-furious-20120920,0,4383004.story">link</a> ]. Now, I’m not making a political statement here. ..but I am making a linguistic observation when I say that this proves nothing of the sort. Finding he had <i><b>“..no knowledge of the problems” </b></i>associated with the program does not necessarily mean that he didn’t know ..or wasn’t involved.
This makes me suspicious because it sounds like a non-denial of a non-denial. Makes me wonder what the Feds are covering up, which leads me to conclude that<b><i> they really were supplying guns to drug cartels.</i></b> This doesn’t surprise me. It’s in their interest to keep smuggling operations alive and well. Not only does it keep the Justice Department in business ..but it provides a much-needed stream of revenue for the Federal Government when times get lean and Congress shuts down funding for other such operations.
</div>
Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722185443646193094.post-76968556567928871222012-06-06T16:19:00.000-07:002012-06-08T16:31:43.121-07:00Self deception<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have theory. Reading often takes place from an altitude of 35,000 feet. From this distance we may be able to make out landmarks; but we’re prone to missing one or two features that can lead us into incomprehensible territory. I admit, when it happens to me I usually walk away blaming the author. However, sometimes I’ll go back and find what it is I may have missed. Today was such as occasion. I have an interest in what goes on in Nevada because I have a friend living there who is politically active. So, I’m reading an article about unions representing Vegas Casinos ..like the culinary union and the gaming union. It’s a big issue because of what happened in Wisconsin yesterday. Anyway, it’s talking about a company called Station Casinos that owns a string of casinos that aren’t union. An immediate image of several big strip Casinos comes to mind and I get the impression they’re a big player. Now I’m reading to find out what they’ve been doing right to keep their employees happy and uninterested in voting union. What came next stopped making sense. Why are they engaged in an ugly battle with the unions ..? What went wrong ..? And who’s giving the unions any odds of winning in a state like Nevada ..especially after what happened in Wisconsin? Does this writer know what he’s talking about ..? Should I give my friend a call ..? I left to go do something else and when I came back, decided to give it a second look. Sure enough, I found the culprit and it was me. A sentence that I thought had said:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The company Station owns several casinos that cater to Vegas residents playing at the high-rolling big strip casinos.”</blockquote>
actually said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The company Station owns several casinos that cater to Vegas residents …<i>leaving the high-roller tourist trade to big strip casino (operators)</i>”</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This re-frames my comprehension, turning Station into a small time player ..catering to Vegas residents who play, like ..bingo and slot machines off the strip. The unions have targeted them precisely because they are small and vulnerable. Like adjusting the focus on a pair of binoculars, the narrative comes into resolution. </div>Bill Robertsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15260222901402652314noreply@blogger.com2