spotting a lie

1. A denial using formal  speech (I did not have sex ..)  2.  Distancing language (.. with that woman) 3. Qualifying language (in all candor ..) 4. Frozen upper body (..not fidgeting) 5. Unusually good eye contact  6. Smiling with eyes wide open (..a real smile involves squinting 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 (I will take a paternity test ..) 10. Turning anger into contempt (one-sided sneer ..Dick  Cheney) 11. Duping smile (OJ Simpson ..in court turning and smiling)

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.

Fast and Furious

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.

The investigation into the Fast and Furious program concluded yesterday saying “Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. had no knowledge of the problems surrounding Fast and Furious before the slaying of a U.S. Border Patrol agent brought them to light.” The Attorney General was quick to point out that this proves he “had neither knowledge of ..nor did he condone any such operation” [ link ]. 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 “..no knowledge of the problems” 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 they really were supplying guns to drug cartels. 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.

Self deception

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:

“The company Station owns several casinos that cater to Vegas residents playing at the high-rolling big strip casinos.”

actually said:

“The company Station owns several casinos that cater to Vegas residents …leaving the high-roller tourist trade to big strip casino (operators)”

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.

Propaganda

“We rely on media to serve as our window on the world, but media can also distort what we see. It can act as a lens or as a filter, enlarging some topics and minimizing others”

Propaganda is defined as “the systematic dissemination of information meant to support or discredit an idea.” A new study out of Georgia Tech [ link ] identifies four ways to recognize propaganda sent by political advocates over Twitter. They refer to them as hyper-advocates, whose actions separate them from typical users.  Their tactics:

 

1. Send a high volume of tweets over a short period of time. 2. Re-tweet frequently, sending little in the way of original content.  3. Quickly re-tweet the content of others and   4. Coordinate with other, seemingly unrelated users to send duplicate or near-duplicate messages on the same topic simultaneously.

Oracle vs Google

In 2006, Sun released it’s final version of Java as ‘open source software’. In 2010, Oracle purchased Java and described itself as the “steward of Java’s open source movement with a commitment to fostering a community of participants.” The components that make Java ‘open’ are known as ‘application programming interfaces’ (APIs). They allow participants to extend Java functionality without going back and either replicating or changing it. Most apps running on Facebook today are written this way. It’s what allows them to plug into different platforms across the net. On May 7 Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement because it used API’s to extend Java to work on Android devices. Now, did Oracle go back and declare Java API’s proprietary ..? If so, non-public APIs would make it a closed system. If not, a public API referencing non-public software really isn’t open anymore either, now is it ?

False advertising

Ads by the group called ‘Americans for Prosperity’ are accusing Obama of  “..sending $2.3 billion in tax credits overseas that were intended for green energy at home.” The group also accuses Obama of “..sending $1.2 billion to a solar energy company that is building a plant in Mexico.”

 

These claims are accurate but misleading. They’re intended to leave the impression that Obama is undermining growth and tricking American taxpayers into sending jobs overseas. In the first case, $2.3 billion was sent overseas ..but either to American companies with subsidiaries overseas or to foreign companies with subsidiaries in the U.S. That’s the way businesses operate in a modern economy. Either way, we benefit. In the second case, $1.2 billion in loan guarantees were sent to Sun Power to build a solar facility in California. The company just happens to have a facility in Mexico. Like a home mortgage, a loan guarantee is secured by the assets and property for which the loan was intended. Campaign ads are rich in half-truths and provide excellent opportunity for the practice of deception detection.

Traveler vs inept bureaucracy

How do you exceed ‘unlimited lifetime miles’ on airline travel? Apparently when the ‘elite revenue team’ (of former ticketing agents) decides you’re doing something ‘fraudulent by nature’. This means it complies with the rules .. but smells fishy. I suppose you could say it doesn’t pass the test of reasonableness. In the case of Steven Rothstein [ link ] who paid for a pass that included a companion seat; it comes down to your definition of a companion. But who determines who and who isn’t a companion when the contract doesn’t spell it out..? And if the contract doesn’t spell it out ..where do they get off calling it ‘fraud’? Because he makes frequently trips to Hawaii with different companions ..? Perhaps helps a college student he meets at the airport trying to get home for the holidays? Now if he sold those seats that would be one thing, however, this isn’t the case. He never charged them a cent. No, the way you charge him with exceeding the ‘unlimited miles’ program is by getting a federal court judge to agree that he was doing something ‘fraudulent by nature’. But, by nature ..that’s an indeterminant and subjective charge. Sounds more like the airline was looking for an excuse to terminate his contract, which he paid $350,000 for in 1987. They were doing it under the cover of ‘fraudulent by nature’ hoping to avoid being counter sued for breach of contract. But I can’t imagine anyone paying $350,000 being fooled or intimidated by that. No, this has got to be a case of customer vs. inept bureaucracy. Even I’ve been there before.

Widespread inference

Obama has run up against the boundary of language, leaving him open to widespread inference. He declared he was in favor of “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion.” His choice of words doomed him up to criticism-by-inference. Santorum and other Christian conservatives immediately charged that “he’s against freedom of religion” and “he’s declaring war on religion.” Collateral inferences followed, confirming widespread suspicion of his Christian faith and fears that he’s a practicing Muslim. Now religious leaders are saying “he’s robbing us of our right to practice religion freely without fear of persecution from the state.”

Ordinary misinterpretation

Hard to be neutral without coming across as partial and perhaps even disloyal. I remember in 2008 my father asking me “Bill, who do you think will be the next president ..?” I interpreted this as a request for information and, thinking back to some poll results, replied “Looks like Obama” He reacted with disgust and terminated our conversation. Since then he looks at me with suspicion and considers me an Obama fan with liberal views. He swiftly ends our discussions with “I know exactly where you’re coming from, Bill” and calls me a “behaviorist” ..which is a polite way of calling me a “socialist”. I’ve been an independent all my life. I think I see where I went wrong though. He wasn’t asking for an independent assessment ..so my answer appeared more like a preference than an forecast. He’s been that way all his life. When he asks me which team I think will win a football game ..he’s never looking for the answer that an odds-maker would give. Today I’m reading where Obama’s adversaries are accusing him of “appeasement to Iran” in response to his handling of Israel’s saber rattling. I may be going out on a limb here but I think I’m beginning to see a built-in tendency to interpret straightforward answers as prejudice bordering on disloyalty.

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.

The case of Nathan Fletcher

Today I read about the case of Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (R-San Diego). He co-sponsored a bill with Governor Jerry Brown that even Republican lawmakers thought was a good idea. He wasn’t prepared for what happened next. The bill would eliminate tax loopholes for companies that did business in California ..but operated outside of California. The money was to be used to lower taxes on businesses that did operate inside the state. The intent was to make it more interesting for other businesses to locate their operations in California and create jobs. Then the same Republicans who said they’d support the bill, defeated it in the Senate. Astonished, Nathan asked them why and they replied “It may be the right thing to do, but we can't let Jerry Brown get a win.” This was a tipping point in Nathan’s career. A young, articulate legislator who had the potential to lead the Republican party ..he bolted and became an Independent. I think it’s hypocritical and downright duplicitous for the party that preaches meritocracy to oppose good ideas just because they come from someone else. What it shows me is that they’re really playing favorites and not making choices based on merit at all.