Trump tweets

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 “So-called Federal Judge …” has spawned (#So-called Presidential appointment) (#So-called Senate confirmation) and (#So-called Constitution). His statement that: “All negative polls are fake news …” 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.

Deception by definition

The Constitution says the role of the Senate is to “... give advice and consent” 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.

Losers

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.

The scoundrel

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.

Deception in Politics

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: “The American people will be heard before the next Supreme Court Justice is determined” … he is being deceptive. Without actually saying so, his statement falsely assumes that Justices are somehow elected to the Supreme Court by the American people. 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).

A Change of Narrative

I’ve heard that a winning strategy in politics is never change the candidate to fit the narrative (national debate) but change the narrative 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.

OJ Simpson

 Masters of illusion

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 conspiracy by invoking the jury’s memory for brutality.

The case against Hussein

 Masters of Illusion

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.

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.