Master of Deception

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.

Half truth: 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”
 

Framing: 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.
 

Pre-supposition: 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.
 
 Public record: 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

the certainty of possibility

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 has unfettered access 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.

Obama's fallacy

Obama accused the Supreme Court of ‘judicial activism’ (unfairness) for questioning the constitutionality of a law that he says, “was passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress.” This is a false accusation and he knows it. He is relying on listeners to agree with the tacit premise that “if it was decided by elected officials it must be constitutional.” However, this is a misleading. Just because a majority rallies behind a law does not mean it complies with the Constitution. That’s why we have a Supreme Court ..to make sure our constitutional rights aren’t overtaken by mob rule.

Compound error

Obama leans over and whispers to Vladimir Putin “..lets wait until after the election when I'll have more flexibility (on missile defense)”, which Ambassador John Bolten immediately infers as “ ..a signal he’s planning to scale back the missile defense program.” Then makes the collateral inference that “Obama could be planning to give ground on a range of national security priorities.” And concludes by saying “There’s a huge cause for concern here.” Romney agrees saying “If re-elected, Obama will go soft on national security.” He then goes on to extend Bolton’s tenuous claim that Obama’s statements are cause for national concern by reading something that sounded like it came from an out-of-date 1950’s script “Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage ..” then refers to Russia as “..our no. 1 geopolitical enemy.”

 

Apart from it’s clandestine appearance ..Obama’s statement by itself presents the listener with a range of possible meanings. We know that missile defense is a weighty issue so a likely possibility is that Obama simply wanted to take it off the table at this venue. Bolten, however, makes it a cause for national concern ..basing one questionable inference on another. A preemptive strike based on the fallacy of false-certainty. Romney further compounds this fallacy by invoking demons that no longer exists.

 

Now it comes out that the purpose of Obama’s meeting was to discuss ways to better secure nuclear waste. Hardly an issue of national security and, realistically, not the most appropriate place to carry on high-level negotiations regarding missile defense. The outcome confirms the least consequential interpretation, which makes the Republican alarm sound insubstantial and based on a world-view that is out-of-touch with present-day reality.

Axis of evil

From Iran’s perspective, we overthrew its government once before. After 9/11, Iran supported our allies in Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance. They offered, through the Swiss, to normalize relations and to discuss nuclear cooperation and the acceptance of Israel. The Bush administration’s response was to chastise the Swiss and designate Iran as part of an axis of evil. Then it invaded another member of that axis. Iran now has U.S. troops on either side of it. If China called the U.S. Canada and Mexico an axis of evil and invaded Mexico, I wonder what the U.S. response would be. The danger with demonizing other countries is that it results in a deceptively simplistic worldview. Perspective is compromised, mythology prevails and the battle of evermore ensues.

Tropic of Iran

The U.S. military depicts Iran is as “..a fanatical regime that, once armed with nuclear weapons, would not hesitate to use them.”

I think this is a misleading and downright deceptive rationale for going to war on our part. It’s an example of a fallacy that says if something could happen, it inevitably will happen. ‘Having nuclear arms’ may be a necessary condition for their use .. but it is by no means sufficient. It fails to consider whether Iran could develop a delivery system that we couldn’t detect ..and it ignores history that shows that the prospect of assured self-annihilation is actually a deterrent. I believe this makes it less likely that Iran would dash off to use them and lowers the odds of success if they did, fanatical as they may be. Or naive as I may be. But consider this, what would be riskier: a nuclear-armed Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran that’s been attacked by Israel ..? Seems to me an attack would be more likely to diminish deterrence, remove restraint and boost the chances of retaliation once they have nuclear weapons. Like trying to put out a fire with gasoline, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates a cycle of violence, escalation and retribution. In my opinion, demonizing Iran as a “fanatical regime certain to use nuclear weapons” is a deceptive claim that ignores conditions in the world that would greatly reduce the chances of that happening.