May 14, 2007
Knowledge, Disinfomation, and Lies
Information comes in many forms: opinions, truth, facts, lies, spin, and distortions of information. But, information, I speak of political information here designed to sway opinion, can be categorized as either Knowledge, Disinformation, or outright Lies. There is an over abundance of each in today’s political media and information circles. How does one sift and filter out the disinformation and lies?
From before the time of Plato this has been a question that has occupied enormous amounts of time and writing by scholars. But, we now live in the 'Information Age', deluged by it, seemingly without the time, energy, nor in many cases, the education in specialized areas to filter through the information to get to the knowledge. Knowledge is simply useful information.
What is useful depends upon the inquirer's goals or needs. Spinmeisters for example seek information which can be used to disarm opponents, or, support their cause or candidate. Thus, for them, knowledge need not be truthful or factual. Dr. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, has made a science of finding words, ideas, or phrasing that will garner public support for Republicans, or undermine Democrats and third party candidates or independents. Dr. Luntz seeks knowledge as to what will persuade. Truth and accurate facts are not the kind of knowledge he seeks, though it is a bonus if the words or phrasing he seeks is both truthful or factual, and persuasive and appealing.
Those who make their living promoting a political party, candidate, or policy direction, will engage in spin to the best of their ability. The important point here is to recognize that spin need not contain truth or knowledge for the voting public. Fear can persuade the public. Often in the past, fear persuaded better than fact or truth. That was the case with the selling of the Iraq War with images of Iraqi created mushroom clouds going off in America, and conspiracy ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Queda to attack the U.S. homeland. When spin deceives the public in this fashion, it is correctly categorized as disinformation. The opposite of useful information. It is harmful information, fraught with consequences no one in their right mind would wish to incur as a result of acting on that disinformation.
Spin, however, can be useful information. Spin in this case simply puts forth the best face on the facts and knowledge at hand, and ignores more debatable circumstances or information which may bring doubt upon the political party, candidate, or policy direction. Often, we humans must act before we have all the relevant and confirmed information needed to effect a positive outcome.
In such cases, we take the best and most sound information we have, and use it to act in situations where avoiding action has predictable negative consequences. This is a basic principle applied in our courts where one person kills another but does so acting on incomplete or inadequate information and without premeditation such as when a police officer enters an active crime scene and shoots an innocent suspect mistaking the TV controller in their hand for a gun. They will not be convicted of first degree murder.
So, the second rule for acquiring knowledge in a political environment is to reject information from those with a vested interest in your believing them, until verification of their claims can be made from non-vested interests, either independent sources or, even the opposition. If Democrats and Republicans and Independents are in general agreement upon certain statements, it is reasonably assured that knowledge is being imparted, and not lies or disinformation. An excellent current example is the nation's financial crisis looming from the baby boom generation's retiring from the work force. There is general agreement by all parties that this is a major problem that must be dealt with.
The third rule for acquiring knowledge in a political environment is to test the logic. This involves a little more effort and education by the public, but, anyone with a High School education is capable in many cases of testing the logic of many political information parcels. Every logical statement is dependent upon at least two assumptions. If the assumptions are true, and the conclusion based on those assumptions can not be otherwise, then the conclusion is logical.
Example of an illogical conclusion: The sky is dark. When the sun is on the other side of the earth, it is night. Therefore, it must be nighttime now, because the sky is dark. This is obviously not a logical conclusion. The sky may be dark as the result of a number of other causes, a volcanic eruption nearby or an impending and intense broad based thunderstorm. HOWEVER, note that just because the conclusion is illogical, it doesn't mean the conclusion is false. It may be dark because it is in fact 3 A.M. in Chicago. In other words, a political statement can be both illogical and true. In which case it can be said one acted on true information for the wrong reasons.
Saddam Hussein was a potential threat. That was a true statement. The man did not like the United States nor its containment policy after the Gulf War. But, the argument that stipulated that if he had nuclear weapons, he would launch them at the U.S., was illogical. What is a dictator without a nation to dictate to? Saddam Hussein was evil and merciless. But, Saddam Hussein did not acquire and keep his position as a ruthless dictator for decades by acting in ways that would eliminate his nation in a nuclear counter-attack. That was an entirely illogical argument by the Bush administration.
When V.P. Dick Cheney painted verbal pictures of mushroom clouds in America as a result of Saddam Hussein sending nuclear missiles here, he was engaged in an illogical argument. In addition, we now know, Cheney was lying. They had no evidence at all that Saddam Hussein had either nuclear weapons or, the inter-continental ballistic missiles to deliver them. None, whatsoever. Yet, the Bush administration painted for the public those images as real and imminent threats that could occur next month or, next year.
Pres. Clinton's statement that he did not have sexual relations with that woman was a blatant lie. Clinton knew perfectly well, that the activities he engaged in would be defined as sexual relations. His statement, was not spin, nor disinformation. It was a clear lie designed to contradict and hide the truth. Our First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the right of politicians to lie to us. Not that our founding fathers intended politicians to do so, though they clearly recognized power corrupts. They viewed the power of government to silence dissent and inquiry into the government's actions a far greater evil.
Thus, it was the intent of our founding fathers to grant the vote ONLY to those who could reasonably be predicted to have both a vested interest in the workings of government (landholders) and be reasonably educated (males) to discern for themselves logical and truthful knowledge from spin, disinformation, and lies. And for extra measure of safeguard, the Constitution protected such speech in the media as well, insuring that learned and literate persons would disseminate accurate information and as can be obtained, the true facts in politics, as well.
In other words, our Founding Fathers put the burden of discerning the truth and facts on the voters; not on government politicians and bureaucrats. Many would argue that was a grievous mistake. More would argue it was not. For therein lies the democracy in our republic. By giving the voters the power to decide who leads the nation's decision making, and giving the voters the power to discern and decide for themselves, whether the politicians are lying or telling the truth to them, they created a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the responsibility for leadership ultimately lies with the voters, who exercise their power to remove liars, cheats, and deceivers from office, or become party to the lies, deceit, and cheating, as they choose.
But it should never be forgot that our Constitution was designed to function well ONLY with voters who are educated and vested in the decisions of government. That is a mandate upon our society from our founding fathers: to place the highest possible premium and expense to insure education of all potential voters to the greatest extent possible. For without education in the affairs of the world, finance, literature, history, and industry, the democratic portion of our democratic republic will surely fail, leaving the people at the mercy of republicans who will disregard the interests of the people for their own interests, if allowed to do so. Surely, we have ample evidence over the last many years to conclude this is both logical and true.
Knowledge, useful information, does not grow on trees free for the taking. Disinformation, spin, and lies are handed out freely to any takers. To be skeptical of political information from politicians and political party spokespersons is the first rule to follow toward becoming a responsible voter and protector and defender of our Constitution and this great nation. To test the logic and truthfulness of what parties and politicians say before accepting it, is to become a masterful voter and champion of America. Any five year old can cast a vote if allowed. It takes a responsible educated adult to cast an informed and educated vote in defense of their own liberty, their own children's future, and against those politicians who would deceive, lie, and serve themselves before the people and nation.
When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato, Republic)Posted by David R. Remer at May 14, 2007 12:30 PM
David… great article… I agree with everything you say in principle… and I do have a couple of things to point out…
The example of Slick Willy lying about the Lewinsky affair does not hold water… you point out that the first ammendment gives politicians the right to lie when they open their mouths, and that it is up to the voter to discern the truth… absolutely agree! The problem with this example, however, is that the first ammendment does NOT give anyone, politicians or otherwise, the right to lie while UNDER OATH. I am not wanting to start a debate about whether or not he should have been forced to take an oath to tell the truth about the affair in the first place… frankly, I didn’t (and still don’t) care, BUT… he was giving testimony in a grand jury investigation under oath. In our legal system, no one has the right to pick and choose what they will tell the truth about while under oath in a court room. It’s called perjury and it is a felony offense.
A better example of showing how politicians have the right to lie might have been to recall Al Gore’s lie in the first presidential debate in 2000 about visiting the scene of a hurricane in Texas when in fact he didn’t come within a few hundred miles of the place. Your pointing out the need of citizens to determine whether or not politicians are telling the truth and acting accordingly would hold water here as, had Gore not told that completely needless lie, 600 more people in Florida might have voted for him and he would have been elected president.
And knowledge DOES grow on trees, it’s just a few branches higher up than all the BS that grows on the lower branches. We need to learn to climb through that layer to get to the more productive fruit.
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 14, 2007 05:22 PMDavid, good common sense, and very well said.
Rather sad though the way that this thread so quickly took a turn toward “Slick Willy”/Gore bashing.
Doug:
“The problem with this example, however, is that the first ammendment does NOT give anyone, politicians or otherwise, the right to lie while UNDER OATH.”
What seems far more important than the fact that Clinton lied about his sex life under oath, is whether or not an extramarital affair should have ever been allowed to garner a six year long partisan witch hunt headed by a special prosecutor, and an impeachment trial, all of which ended up spending a total of 47 million in tax payer dollars.
“A better example of showing how politicians have the right to lie might have been to recall Al Gore’s lie in the first presidential debate in 2000 about visiting the scene of a hurricane in Texas when in fact he didn’t come within a few hundred miles of the place.”
Got any proof to back this claim up?
The way I see it, we’d have been much better off if Al Gore had been the president in charge both before, and after Katrina. Indeed, ANYONE could have done better job than Bush did with that disastrous hurricane.
Nice article, David.
Sometimes I’m grateful and sometimes I regret that many political advocates do not seem to understand the art of persuasion. How many times have we read a partisan article and said “yes, but…” only to not have that “but” addressed? The most rabid article writers here rarely acknowledge obvious objections, and thus their articles fail to be persuasive. At best, they are engaging in cheer leading.
More sophisticated advocates address in a reasonable way objections to their arguments. They don’t make it easy for opponents to be dismissive. Further, by providing the counter arguments and counter evidence, they present themselves reasonably, and thus establish their ethos. I can respect advocates of this type. They tend to be less absolutist, more thoughtful, more interested in genuine debate. The type of discourse such writer and speakers engage in is ethical. Much political discourse is not ethical, even when an advocate tells no deliberate lies. Leaving evidence unnoted, or failing to bring up strong counterarguments, is also unethical because the intent is to make a case appear stronger than it is. David, you brought up Plato — as you know, his favorite character Socrates fought hard against the Sophists, those who used their skill to achieve particular aims instead of discovering the strongest arguments, those arguments that best accounted for the available evidence and best represented common values.
All of your three rules are important, but I would boil them down to 1) always check sources. Even if someone doesn’t have a vested interest in his or her argument, they may be misinterpreting or misinformed. If you’re reading a book, keep your thumb on the notes page — it’s amazing how very often you find writers making definitive statements based on the slenderest evidence.
Posted by: Gerrold at May 14, 2007 07:12 PMDoug,
The way I read David’s example was a reference to when Clinton took to the podium on TV and with a wag of the finger declaired that he didn’t have sex with that woman. He wasn’t under oath then. He could lie at will.
Posted by: bigkenzombie at May 14, 2007 07:12 PMAdrienne…
1. I agree… it shouldn’t have gotten to that point… but it did, and he lied under oath about it. No one has the right to pick and choose what they can and can’t lie under oath about… if that were the case the very basis of our justice system would crumble.
Listen, I was a fan of Clinton… I miss Slick Willy something fierce… and I am glad he was not removed from office over this ridiculous witch hunt… we agree on that… AND… you cannot lie under oath… you just can’t.
2. Yes… Gore later admitted that he had exaggerated his claim of touring the damage done by the storm and was in fact hundreds of miles away in Houston.
Look… I’m certainly not saying, especially with hindsight being what it is, I’m glad Gore lost… I’m not. The world would probably be a better place had he won the election… I am simply pointing out that 600 more people in Florida probably would have voted for him had he not lied so pointlessly…
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 14, 2007 07:26 PMThanks, Doug. And your point is well made. I had Clinton’s televised lie to the American people in mind in drawing on that example.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 14, 2007 08:09 PMAdrienne, Richard, and Gerrold, thanks.
Gerrold, the problem I see with ‘Check your sources’ is that it implies simplicity when it is anything but a simple thing to do in politics. And no, the truth in politics is usually not free. It costs large sums of money for Congressional oversight hearings to discover the truth, and FactCheck.org folks have bills and royalties, and dependents to feed so their ‘facts’ are not free either.
The truth or, reality based facts, are not easy to come by in politics. In fact, political parties were formed in part, as a kind of short cut to having to check the sources for yourself. What is the main objective of a political party’s rhetoric? To instill trust in their rhetoric. All too often they are far too successful in that art. Especially with 100’s of millions of dollars to hire the Dr. Luntz’s, PR firms, Brookings and Heritage Institutes to craft that tested rhetoric designed to instill trust.
Fortunately, as your comment implies however, there are people, which the intelligent and educated public can usually rely upon for fact based information, if not always timely.
The real problem however is in falling into a habit of relying on a political party or, spokesperson for a candidate or, office holder for the facts and/or truth. It is easy enough to do. And that violates the rule of not remaining skeptical of vested interests who speak on their own behalf.
And there just isn’t any substitute for good logic and common sense. But, logic and common sense need details and arguments upon which to exercise. And gathering up those details and arguments is time and energy costly. So much so, that more than half the public in the U.S.A. tunes out the news media, rather than tuning it in. That is the Achille’s Heel of the ‘democratic’ in our republic. The republic in our system is the easy part. The democracy in that republic is the hard part.
America has lost its standing as the role model for democratic governments, as many other democratic nations do it much better than we do today, with much greater voter participation and a far better informed and more skeptical voting public.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 14, 2007 08:28 PMbigkenzombie, you read it correctly.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 14, 2007 08:41 PMDavid,
True enough; truth can be difficult to determine, and even when the facts are clear, one’s perception largely determines the “truth” of a situation. But verifying sources (and by that, I mean examining their methodology, etc.) at least can help us decide how solid are the foundations for particular assertions.
The larger point, which you’ve at least implied, is that rhetoric is the tool we must use when we are in the realm of the uncertain. There is no point arguing about whether a heavier or lighter mass falls faster; we can simply demonstrate they fall at the same rate. But when we’re dealing with values, morals, politics, such demonstration isn’t appropriate. You seem to like the Greeks; Aristotle wrote of the “flexible ruler”; one must adjust expectations of precision according to the task or subject at hand.
You are quite right, of course, in saying that unethical means of persuasion can be very effective. It’s our duty as citizens to value ethical discourse. And I also agree with your comments about the democracy component of our democratic republic. This is a big experiment; can a people as a whole govern themselves? The jury is still out.
Posted by: Gerrold at May 14, 2007 09:20 PMClinton has a specific understanding of truth. It was like the legal definition of what you can prove. When researchers would check his speeches, they often found that he remembered things that didn’t happen or at least didn’t happen to him. It is a common failing of politicians. I am not sure they consider it untrue. It is more like fish stories as far as they are concerned.
I am also not sure WE can have a such a clean definition of truth. Eyewitnesses to an event give a variety of accounts and they all think they are telling the truth. Memory is not like a tape recorder. Subsequent events influence our memories of prior ones and it is possible to create entire synthetic memories.
There is also the problem of framing. Opponents call it spin, but it is impossible to relate all but the most simple facts w/o it. Consider two medical cases. One doctor tells you that you need an operation and there is a 95% success rate. The other doctor tells you that you need the operation, but warns that there is a 5% risk of failure. Who is misleading you? Studies indicate that people react very differently depending on how it is stated.
Finally we have the problem of misleading for a greater good. FDR lied to the American people repeatedly and directly. His lies probably ensured our victory in WWII. We also have the obvious problem of secrets that cannot be revealed.
You might remember the case of the “missile gap” in the 1960 election. There was no missile gap. Kennedy knew it, but he also knew the Eisenhower or Nixon could not contradict him w/o compromising secrets. Who lied? Kennedy by claiming it (and suspecting he was wrong) or the others who would not reveal the truth?
Jack, your comment above is the closest thing to a sophist’s remarks as I have seen in sometime. Despite all your accurate descriptions of potentialities for mistaking or failure to grasp truth and fact, they nonetheless exist.
As Plato said, it is usually not difficult for the rational mind to recognize the truth when it is presented. The big problem in politics is getting it presented.
Let’s take a real world example. The disinformation promulgated by some incompetent or deceiving Republican Representatives on the House floor who have stated without equivocation that cutting taxes creates more tax revenue and therefore the answer to deficits is to cut taxes.
This is both illogical and false on its face. First because it fails to take into account spending. If spending continues to increase, cutting taxes will not end deficits.
But, moreover, even if spending remains the same, cutting taxes will not end deficits. The fact is that cutting taxes in times of recession or a period following the end of a recession, can stimulate economic growth and add government revenues which would otherwise have been lost had the economic stimulus of tax cuts not taken place.
But, and this is an important but, over time, tax cuts do not recoup the revenues lost by a cut in tax rates. As the economy is stimulated and growth occurs, the revenues lost by the tax cuts quickly exceeds the revenues gained by the stimulus in economic activity. Those who say tax cuts create more revenues than are lost by the rate cuts, are involved in Disinformation. There are only a small set of narrowly defined parameters in which tax cuts can increase tax revenues over what is lost by the tax cuts, and it is a very short lived period of time in which this can occur.
Outside those narrowly defined time and economic circumstances, tax cuts do not generate more revenues than those lost by the tax cuts.
The converse is also true. If taxes are raised in a recession, the tax gains may not equal the revenues lost by reduced economic growth caused by the tax increases, over time.
The accounting of our revenues from 1999 through 2006 demonstrate clearly that that if we had raised tax rates in 2004, the revenues generated would have exceeded those received by the marginal increase in economic activity stimulated by the previously lower tax rates.
This is just common sense, as well. Anyone who balances their checkbook knows that if your expenses stay the same, taking a wage decrease will not increase one’s wealth over not taking a wage decrease. A wage decrease does not free more hours in a day to take an additional job.
But, this is precisely the argument Republicans make on the House Floor. That issuing a tax cut when the work force is fully employed, will magically increase economic activity to the point of making up the lost revenues by more workers paying taxes. In a full employment economy tax cuts cannot increase tax revenues. That can only occur in a recession where businesses are not hiring due to loss of profitability. The tax cuts free up more capital in a recession to allow businesses to hire extra personnel who will pay additional tax revenues. But, this ONLY works while recessionary unemployment can be reversed by tax cuts.
Therefore, it is Disinformation for Republicans to continue to tell the American people that at this time with very low unemployment and high business profitability, that tax cuts will increase revenues.
Tax cuts now will exacerbate deficits and increase taxes for future workers who must pay the increased service on the debt those deficits create. And it is dishonest by those Republicans with sufficient education to know that this is true, to tout the fallacy anyway for election votes.
David
Re taxes - it depends on what kind you are talking about. Cuts in capital gains taxes over time will grow the economy enough to make up for the cost and high taxes in general can slow growth enough to mortgage our future. We need a balance.
I agree that it is equally dishonest to maintain that raising taxes will yield as much revenue as the amount of the tax.
What we really need is dynamic counting. We need to estimate the cost of taxes on the economy and the cost of cutting taxes on revenues. That would be more honest. At some points cutting taxes WILL produce more revenue and raising them will produce less. We are at neither point now, but each cut produces less growth and each rise produces less revenue.
But I think there is legitimate disagreement about how much taxes will cost the economy. One thing that is true is that revenues are at all time highs.
Speaking of dishonest, we also get people saying 4.5% unemployment is too high.
BTW - do you expect another tax cut? Who told you that? Will the Dems go for it?
Re Plato - I think people overestimate Plato. He did a great thing back then, but just like you would not go to Hippocrates for an operation or Ptolemy for physics, you should probably avoid Plato for advice. Beyond that , if you read Plato carefully you see he is pretty tricky with words too.
Do you really think Socrates could get all those smart guys to fall into his rhetorical traps.
Re lying - memory is tricky. It is foolish to believe otherwise. Much of what you or I think we know - and would truthfully testify - is wrong.
David,
Plato’s character Socrates does suggest that grasping more or less spiritually (or intuitively, if you like) the truth is possible, but capturing it in argument is extremely difficult. The so-called aporetic dialogues generally end with all interlocuters befuddled. The only thing of which I am aware of that Socrates said he knew was the nature of love. We should remember that Socrates/Plato was not concerned with matters of fact but rather matters of value and ethics. Matters of fact can be demonstrated or they are not matters of fact.
Having said that, I think we can often, on a practical level, distinguish between different perceptions (the glass of half full vs half empty) and the deliberate distortions of which you speak. My real concern is when politicians engage in deliberate distortion — I say deliberate because what Jack says about determining “truth” even with many eyewitnesses is completely correct. A video capturing a beating may “prove” something that wouldn’t be proven for most of us if we had fuller context.
Jack, the political lies for the greater good you describe may have been efficacious, but that’s not the issue. We could eliminate much crime if we completely scrap privacy protections — that would certainly be efficacious from one point of view. But if we really believe that power is invested in the people, than political lies are subversive. If the people knowing the “truth” didn’t want to get involved in WWII, then the powers have spoken. I admit that in a representative democracy, the issue is more complicated than that, but the general principle remains valid.
Posted by: Gerrold at May 14, 2007 10:51 PMDoug, I agree. You can’t lie under oath, otherwise our laws and our courts have no meaning.
“Gore later admitted that he had exaggerated his claim of touring the damage done by the storm and was in fact hundreds of miles away in Houston.”
I’ve googled this a bunch of times using many different key words and I can’t find Gore’s admission to exaggerating/lying during that debate. I give up. Do you think you’d have better luck finding me a link you could share about this?
“I am simply pointing out that 600 more people in Florida probably would have voted for him had he not lied so pointlessly…”
I’m really surprised by your comments, as I’ve been completely unaware of this controversy up until now. On the flip side of the 2000 debates, I knew without a doubt that Bush was lying through his teeth when he talked about “compassionate conservatism.” On the other hand (and I’m rather embarrassed to admit this), I really did think he was sincere when he said he was against nation building. Knowing what I now do about the Neocon’s history and writings within their think tanks, I realize I couldn’t possibly have been more wrong. This has taught me a very valuable lesson however, because I will never again look at any presidential candidate without looking at who his/her friends are, what think tanks they belong to, or are in anyway associated with. Live and learn.
Jack:
“Clinton has a specific understanding of truth. It was like the legal definition of what you can prove.”
Same goes for Bush. But I can’t help but make the distinction that when it came to Clinton it was about sex, whereas with Bush it’s been about whole lot of gravely serious and illegal things that he’s trying to keep secret and/or cover up.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 14, 2007 10:54 PMJack,
From my point of view, Plato is important for two reasons: (1) he transformed the eristic devices of the sophists into a tool for rigorously examing arguments and uncovering base assumptions, and (2) he was a literary genius of the highest order. (I suppose you could add (3) his historical influence.) The very dialogue form he employed supports the tentative nature of his investigations into virtue, ethics, and politics. Too often people cite lines of certain characters of his philosophic dramas as if they express Plato’s views; that approach ignores the fact that Plato never speaks except through a character (except in the letters believed to be genuine). Whatever Plato actually believes has to be interpreted in context. My own take is that the dialogues are intended to inculcate the philosophic process itself and not to “secure” any particular truths. That’s why he is still relevant.
Posted by: Gerrold at May 14, 2007 11:05 PMGerrold
The American people did not have the option of not getting involved. They did have the option of losing. Roosevelt lied to get them prepared to win.
Adrienne
Clinton lied about lots of things. Remember his passionate speeches re burning churches? The stats show it just did not happen when he was a kid. Clinton was not honest re Kosovo or Bosnia. I supported his policy, but he was not giving us an accurate estimate of the time and risk. The gamble paid off, but it might not have.
I do not think that a president can tell the full truth. He has to tell it from his perspective. He has to try to be persuasive.
Roosevelt’s lend-lease (the garden hose analogy) was very tricky, but effective. Did Wilson really mean to keep us out of war? Did Kennedy really intend to pay any price? Even Washington did not tell the whole truth re Valley Forge.
We solve with politics what we cannot agree is cut and dried enough to be law or custom. If we all agree that something is so, we do not call it politics.
Posted by: Jack at May 14, 2007 11:09 PMGerrold
I see Plato as an originator, but today best seen as a historical figure. We have come a ways since and while we got there by standing on the shoulders of people like Plato, we are still higher up for standing on their shoulders. Plato is not always wrong, but he is incomplete. His allegory of the cave is just silly and his rejection of empirical knowledge was damaging to progress for centuries after.
Posted by: Jack at May 14, 2007 11:15 PMJack, you’ll have to be more specific than that.
Posted by: Gerrold at May 15, 2007 12:06 AMAdrienne… OK, so… what I was talking about earlier was a little off as it was 7 years ago and it was off the top off my head… I said “hurricane” and, upon further review, it was fires and floods… everything else is accurate. I was able to find an article outlining what Gore said about visiting the scene in Texas… Because it was from the National Review, which most of us would agree is not exactly a credible source, I double checked what Gore said against the actual transcript of the debate and found it to be true (you’ll find it about 5/8 of the way down the page).
Gore HEAVILY implied that he visited the scene of the emergency in Del Rio, TX but never actually got any closer than Houston, which, if you know your Texas geography, is 5 1/2 hours away. Also, he said he visited TX with someone, presumably from FEMA, when in fact he was not with that person. In reading the transcript, his quick response and name dropping were certainly pre-planned.
Again… in hindsight, I wish Gore would have won… AND… he did a pretty good job of turning off the 600 voters in Florida that could have given him the presidency.
Oh, and… uummm… hopefully I did the links correctly…
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 15, 2007 01:15 AMUpon further review, I would like to retract my statement that the National Review is not a credible source… they are certainly a source with an agenda, but that does not make their news items uncredible…
is “uncredible” a word?
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 15, 2007 01:26 AMGerrold
I cannot be much more specific because it is a general observation. It is great to read Plato. Everybody should be familiar with Plato. But we have made a lot of progress since then.
My biggest complaint against Plato is the idea that reason is superior to experience. A modern person uses both in whatever mix works. I also do not like the whole concept of the ideal type and that the ones we see are corruptions. There is no ideal type of anything.
BTW - I have not closely studied Plato for around 30 years. I recently reread the “Apology of Socrates.” It is full of wonderful insights. We built western philosophy on these foundations But they are not enough for the whole building. Just like you better not rely on Hippocrates if you get sick, you cannot take only Plato. It is an earlier stage of development. Our technologies of the mind allow us to think more clearly and broadly. We have access to Plato, plus 2400 years of others from around the world.
Posted by: Jack at May 15, 2007 02:21 AMDoug, this little comment of Gore’s doesn’t strike me as an intentional lie at all. I also don’t think this should have become a reason for Floridians to turn away from him en mass or brand him a big liar.
Here’s the portion of the comment in question:
First I want to compliment the governor on his response to those fires and floods in Texas. I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out. And FEMA has been a major flagship project of our reinventing government efforts. And I agree, it works extremely well now.
My immediate sense is that he was not trying to tell some outrageous lie on purpose, but was instead ready and eager for the opportunity to tout their work on FEMA in order to plug how well they had been making it work. Besides, as that National Review piece said:
FEMA spokeswoman Mary Margaret Walker told NR: “During the fires in Parker County, Texas, the vice president participated in a roundtable about the fires with FEMA’s regional director… . He was not with Mr. Witt at that time.”
So, whether with or without James Lee Witt, Gore did make a special trip down to Texas due to those fires. His belief that he did so in company with Wit could easily have been an honest mistake, and nowhere did he claim he was “at the scene” of the fires.
Furthermore, this seems like Much GOP Ado About Nothing because:
Gore admitted as much on ABC’s Good Morning America: “I’ve made so many trips with James Lee to these disaster sites. I was there in Texas, in Houston, with the head of the Texas emergency management folks and with the federal emergency management folks. If James Lee was there before or after, then, you know, I got that wrong then.”
No big whoop here — at least as far as I can tell. In fact, it’s rather refreshing to see a politican be able to easily admit that they’re capable of making a simple mistake, without automatically becoming overly defensive or belligerent. Reading this only heightens awareness of the differences in attitude between someone honest and straightforward like Gore, in comparison to the whole cocky ‘n’ petulant Bushco crowd.
“Upon further review, I would like to retract my statement that the National Review is not a credible source…”
Ah well then, allow me to fill that retracted space with my own skepticism where they’re concerned — even though I do sometimes read them to get their rightward spin on things.
“they are certainly a source with an agenda,”
Indeed.
“but that does not make their news items uncredible…
is “uncredible” a word?”
That’d be incredible, I believe. Better still, how about unbelievable? ;^)
Thanks for sharing those links with me.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 15, 2007 02:42 AMJack,
If you run across any writer who can give us the whole building, let me know ;)
I would think a doctor could just learn modern practices and be fine. But can you say the same about philosophy? Philosophy is a discussion with the past; you can’t just skip to the last page. You can’t just learn current best practices and set up shop ;)
Posted by: Gerrold at May 15, 2007 04:19 AMJack said: “One thing that is true is that revenues are at all time highs.”
But, again, as I point out many a time, it is not relevant to take a snapshot in an instant of time. It is meaningless. To be accurate and relevant, you must include the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 in which tax revenues dropped as a result of tax cuts. It wasn’t until the latter half of 2003 that the tax cuts stimulated the economy and employment sufficiently to dramatically increase tax revenues.
To be meaningful, one must take the full range and consequences of tax cuts into account from 2001 through today as those tax cuts are still in place. In the calculation one must take the revenue increases of ‘03-07, subtract the revenue losses of 01-03, and add in the deficits created by those tax cuts as well as the service interest on those deficits, as well as the end of the recession which tax cuts brought about in part. Then one has a fairly accurate picture of what the tax cuts cost or gained for the nation’s balance sheet.
At this time the tax cuts are costing our nation and future taxpayers because they are promoting deficits that would be lessened by repealing some or many of the tax cuts at at time when employement is low and business profits are high.
The tax cuts from 01-03, taking into account the economic growth gains from 03-06, were appropriate and benefited not only government revenues on net, but, American workers newly employed by the economic stimulus. But continuing them now, in 2007, that we have achieved a growth economy, low employment and high profit margins, is actually costing more than they are creating.
If we repealed the capital gains taxes, businesses would not shut down nor layoff workers given domestic and international demand, their high profit margins would simply be lessened. But, the government revenues would increase substantially.
(As a side note, the global recession in ‘99-01, though short lived, cost American companies international revenues as global demand decreased. Those international earnings and profits would have returned as the global recession abated with, or without American tax cuts, as we are witnessing by the equity markets today, in which new records are being set in large part on the back of American company international sales profitability.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 15, 2007 08:45 AMJack, Plato/the Socratic method, could not be more relevant today, if you have ever sat on jury duty in our courts. The Socratic Method is at the heart of our adversarial judiciary system, the method lawyers utilize to uncover the truth as they wish the jury to see it. This is true all the way up and in our Supreme Court deliberations as well.
Plato could not be more relevant in that regard. In fact, show me a lawyer who doesn’t know what the Socratic method is all about, and I will show you an ambulance chaser without much income.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 15, 2007 08:50 AMDavid,
Yes, quite right. It’s also often used in classrooms and by good parents. What’s empowering about it is that it enables/encourages students to construct logically consistent accounts instead of simply memorizing the accounts of others.
Posted by: Gerrold at May 15, 2007 09:31 AM“How does one sift and filter out the disinformation and lies?”
As the clinton/gore BS and excuses here prove, one sifts and filters according to ones political views.
Facts and truth no longer matter.
Adrienne… I’m sorry, but you seem to be a bit blinded by partisan ship against the Republicans… this was OBVIOUSLY a lie… but if you don’t want to believe it, that’s fine… Gore say he’s toured “so many disaster sites” with this guy… how many do you have to tour before they start to run together? Maybe I haven’t been keeping up with the news, but… I can’t recall enough Federal Disaster Areas to justify all of them running together… butu if you want to believe anything a Dam says but discount anything a Rep says, that’s your choice…
My original point was that Gore, Bush, Clinton, Cheney, and nearly ALL politicians lie to achive their ends… sometimes warranted, sometimes not… the ONLY reason I chose to call out a Dem lie was because, in the original article, Reps were made out to be the demons… BOTH of the major parties employ the SAME tactics…
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 15, 2007 10:37 AMDoug, I make no bones about the fact that I stand on the left, but I am not shy of being critical of them when I feel it is necessary. Gore’s comment doesn’t strike me as all that obvious or terrible a lie (or mistake?) to me. It damn sure isn’t on the scale of Bush claiming he wasn’t interested in nation building when clearly he was. Now that was a giant whopper of a lie.
Jack:
“Clinton was not honest re Kosovo or Bosnia.”
It’s true. And if your party had been more interested in going after him for that with an impeachment trial, I’d have been a lot more understanding. But the GOP instead went with the sex scandal for their witchhunt — and clearly because they knew it was more splashy and sensational, and that it would cause up their Rabid Religious base to foam at the mouth.
Posted by: Adrienne at May 15, 2007 11:27 AMAdrienne… We disagree about whther or not Gore was lying vs. not recalling correctly about the floods in Del Rio, and that’s fine… now on to more important things…
As I was reading that transcript of the debate, it struck me as odd that bit about the nation building… I absolutely agree with you… now… let’s talk about those 600 voters in Florida that could have turned the election under the context of David’s original article…
Gore said that he was there in TX with so-and-so when in fact he was not… not even close. Bush said, many times throughout the debate, that we should not be in the practice of nation building and should never attack a perceived enemy unless they were a direct threat to our security, which, in the last 6 years of his dictatoship… uh… I mean presidency, we have more than proved to be false… each gentlemen in that presidential debate spoke things that were untrue…
Those 600 voters in Florida had no way of knowing that W was lying when he said he did not believe in nation building… there was no way for anyone to see that popular TX Governor with the nice smile was going to turn in such an unsuccessful presidency.
Those 600 voters in Florida DID learn, before the election, that Gore was nowhere near Del Rio with the man he said he was there with…
I agree, this lie pales in comparison when it comes to consequences… W’s lies have killed thousands, while Gore’s lie was just a little white lie meant to make him look sympathetic to the people of Texas and the country. In retrospect, I think everyone can agree on that… but here’s the rub…
You say it shouldn’t have been enough for those 600 voters to turn away from Gore and vote for Bush (or Nader or Browne or whomever)… but that is/was your opinion… in the minds of those 600 or so voters in Florida that ultimately decided the whole election, it might have been enough…
Again, remember, they had no way of knowing that what Bush was saying was a lie… they had concrete evidence that Gore had no problem telling a little white lie to make himself look better… to some people, this is a character flaw, and was indeed a reason to not vote for him.
David mentions above that it is ultimately up to the voters to decide that what politicians say is the truth or not… in this case that mechanism worked for Bush and against Gore. Probably, enough voters in Florida were turned off by what was probably perceived as a completely unnecessary white lie… My guess, and you will probably agree, is that MORE people are now turned off by the lies the current administration have told and are biding our time until they are removed from power…
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 15, 2007 01:02 PMkctim, hero worship is very alive and well in America. Republicans have Reagan, and Democrats have Clinton. Neither measured up to G. Washington or Lincoln if history is to be believed. Folks do indeed let go of critical analysis when it comes to their heroes.
And ya know, that’s fine. Heroes tend to be past figures. What I am writing about here is incumbents and challengers seeking the American people’s vote. Few if any of these have achieved hero status, so, there is no excuse for not maintaining a healthy skeptical “Show Me” attitude when it comes to 2008’s election.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 15, 2007 01:49 PMGerrold, teach a person repetitive thinking and you have a robot. Teach a person creative thinking and you have a human who can adapt. No instruction in college stimulated creative thought in me in the way learning the Socratic Dialectic did. It literally opened the universe to me assuring me there were no sciences, no religions, no metaphysics, and no bullshit that I could not penetrate and understand if I chose to do so.
I majored in psychology. A science after Plato’s own heart, seeking to understand the prime mover of behavior and the core of what it is to be a ‘human being’ in the Sioux sense of the word. It was exhilarating to study both disciplines at the same time.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 15, 2007 01:59 PMI followed you David and I wish the people would do that. I just don’t believe people are willing to be “skeptical” when it comes to their own party.
Of course, seeing Adrienne admit clinton lied about Bosnia/Kosovo kind of floored me ;)
In todays political worlds, incumbents and challengers seeking the American people’s vote must first pass the “which party do they belong to” test.
Knowledge, disinformation and lies, are only determined after the party is known.
kctim, you are right about the party test. But, as Nov.’s election demonstrated, the Independents are deciders, not the party loyalists. The independents now have the weight and voter participation to tip the scales either way in any national election. There is much to be hoped for by that turn of events, I think.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 15, 2007 02:55 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
