Clever fellow once offered this impish insight.
"The problem with freedom...is that you have to give it to everybody."
Details momentarily.
First, in the spirit of fair play and full disclosure, the opening statement wasn't exactly a fact. It was more of a playful opinion.
The clever fellow offering the insight....was...and is...me.
And since I'm always at the head of any line ready to skewer Donald for his pathological addiction to glorifying himself, I should avoid any suggestion I might be infected with a little of the ol' bacterium narcissus my own self.
So, I was just kiddin' around.
But that's not to take away from the validity of the message.
And when it comes to freedom that, by its nature, has to be given to everybody, there's one particular freedom front and center these days, much to our intellectual, hell, even spiritual, chagrin.
That would be the ol' freedom of speech.
And, in the interest of brevity, another impish insight that the aforementioned clever fellow didn't originate.
Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.
Shutting the hell up is always an option.
But, if shutting up isn't do-able, for whatever reason, then perhaps its not too much to ask that what gets said, gets said only after careful consideration and, more importantly, after educating oneself enough to offer informed commentary.
Yeah, I know, right?
If education and factual information were orange juice and uneducated, misinformed yammering were vodka, it's absolutely no wonder at all that America is coping with a hellacious Vitamin C deficiency and its liver is just this close to terminal cirrhosis.
Old saying, attributed, often and equally, to either Mark Twain or Abraham Lincoln...better to remain silent and be thought a fool...than to speak and remove all doubt.
Which, and prepare to be completely un-surprised, brings us around to social media.
Was a time that the village idiot or any of the substitutes, stand-ins or stuntmen for the village idiot in the village, had a broadcasting range, if you will, of a few blocks, maybe a couple of miles, maybe even all the way to the city limits. Or village limits, as the case may be.
And then along came Mark Zuckerberg.
Now, just as it's not kosher to blame the Wright Brothers for the plane crashes that kill thousands, its equally cheap shot to hold Zuckerberg accountable for giving the village idiot and/or idiots a boost in their frequency output that would put hitting the moon with a laser seem like hitting your favorite targeted teacher with a spitball.
But there's no disputing that by creating a means for mere mortal every day folks to communicate globally, the village limits that had contained the idiot(s) and the idiotic came tumblin' down like Jericho it its heyday.
That's the extreme end of the dilemma. Toward the more moderate center, we have to deal with people who are possessed of a fair to reasonable amount of intelligence, education, savvy and sensibility but who are, however well intended, still inclined to offer suggestion, opinion, even downright mantra without making sure their t's have been crossed, their i's have been dotted and their vaccinations are all up to date.
One example of a fire to which fuel is too easily added came across our radar this week in the form of that newest of methods used to convey points of view, positions on an issue and/or entertainment in the form of clever punchlines, witty observations or, saints preserve us, bullet point lists of where we've gone wrong.....the meme.
This particular declaration was a combination endorsement/defense of the most polarizing President in the history of the United States.
The largely undiscussed phenomenon in play in unprecedented fashion as a result of the Trump election in 2016 is a sociological term: confirmation bias.
The literal definition of the term reads as follows: "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories".
Here's the inverse of that definition: the tendency and/or inclination of people to discount, disagree with, even completely reject any irrefutable fact about anything if that fact does not confirm the opinion and/or belief that they have about that particular thing in the first place.
I've talked about this a lot on air. Here's a more easily understandable illustration.
Let's say that you believe, to a moral certainty, that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy. Tomorrow, in a starting news report, it will be announced that a new, heretofore unknown film of the killing exists, taken by another witness to the crime, a vacationer who just happened to be in Dealey Plaza taking a movie of the motorcade as it passed by the Depository. This film, though, pans up during the actual shooting and, very clearly, without any doubt whatsoever, shows someone who is NOT Lee Harvey Oswald, with a rifle in his hands, firing, at the car, the shot that hit Kennedy in the head and killed him.
The film has been examined and tested by photographic experts who are willing to swear under oath that the film is authentic and has, in no way, been altered, forged, faked or, in any way, falsified.
Confirmation bias will not allow you to accept that the film is legitimate, that there was someone else in that window, that Oswald did not, in fact, kill Kennedy. Even though you have no photographic expertise at all, you will dismiss the expert findings and, at least, hold fast to the opinion that the film is a forgery.
I mention confirmation bias because its going to play a sizeable part in what comes next.
Allow me to do a brief analysis/counterpoint to the points raised in the Trump meme. And just so we understand each other, be aware that I don't disagree with every thing that writer offers. I am not rejecting his or her assertions and/or Trump in particular, out of hand. For me, its not about my personal dislike for the man. It's about recognizing two things and trying to find a common sense way of dealing with them both..
1. We all have our own point of view, but that's a two edged sword. As Paul Simon eloquently said in his song "The Boxer", "...a man hears what he wants to hear / and disregards the rest..."
2. Facts are now, and will always be, facts. And the truth is now, and will always be, the truth. Whether you or I choose to believe them or not. Neither of us, none of us, are allowed the illusory luxury of having an opinion...about either facts...or the truth.
That said....
- I, too, don't care how much the media twists what he says. I don't care how bad he looks, I don't care about his sex life. I do care that he has little or no speaking skills but not out of some elitist, holier than thou attitude about being better educated. But from the knowledge, based on years of study and research and self education on the subject of the qualities essential in someone who occupies the most powerful and influential position on the planet. Just as I would be adamant about wanting a prospective heart surgeon to be unquestionably skillful at microscopic surgery with a fine scalpel as opposed to a sledge hammer, so, too, do I expect, and deserve, to have a president who has a grasp on the truth that the rats can be run out of the barn...without having to burn the barn to the ground.
- I, too, look at what he does and what his polices accomplish. Let's review your endorsements and see where I fall on them.
- "a booming economy". I am not an economist, a financial expert, I have no formal education in money matters. What are your credentials in that field? What can you tell me about your ability to see, specifically and in plain English, this "boom" you mention. Without Googling, please explain bull market to me, bear market. Define correction as it applies to economic movement. Share a few expert words with me on what level of market volatility will occur as a result of the tariffs. Elaborate on the specific impact that the tariffs will have on specific products, specific industries, specific employment.
- "low unemployment rates"...I am not a Labor Secretary. I am not a labor expert. I am not educated in sociology, business or industry. Please help calm our concerns, even fears, by explaining in simple detail what employment rate is optimum. Have we reached that number? Is this a firm number or can we expect some increase? Or are we going even lower? When will that happen, exactly, and how will we know that we can rely on those numbers to be empirical and enduring?
- "African Americans back at work"....I have to admit, I'm impressed with someone who has the resources, not to mention the education, experience and, simply, time in the day to have done the statistical work necessary to assure me and the rest of the nation, not to mention the African American community, that happy days are, indeed, here again. Please share your insight and what research tools, methods and applications you are using and have used to be correct in making that wonderful announcement.
- "American companies that had fled returning home"....now, see, here's one of those areas where we all have a tendency to get stuck in discussion mud. Because for every company that you can specifically name that has, in your words, returned home, I'm confident that I can name one, maybe two that are leaving or have left. Or, at the very least, are laying people off. Let's play. I'll start. Harley Davidson. Okay, now your turn.
- "oldest President staying up till 3 AM in a suit on Air Force one waiting see our prisoners returning from Korea"....at the risk of being rude, frankly, that one doesn't count. You see, it's been understood for a long, long time that this particular activity, and others like it, are, however well or poorly carried out, are a part of the job he asked to be hired to do. His age is irrelevant. He knew how old he was when he asked to be hired. If you ran an all night diner and a 70 year old man applied to be your graveyard shift cook, you wouldn't give him special props because he showed up to work every night.
- "China paying attention and negotiating..." again, not to keep pounding the same table, but I'd very much like to hear your input and insights based on your obvious experience and expertise in foreign affairs. Oh...that goes for the Israel thing, too. And Iran. Again, gotta tell ya, you've got a very impressive resume of deep, comprehensive perspectives of geopolitics.
- "tough on terrorism"....if by that you mean we haven't heard much from Al-Qaeda lately, then, I'll grant you. Just a thought, though, I don't really know anybody personally who doesn't think of white supremacy and Neo-Nazism as a form of terrorism. Unless your resume also includes some kind of training and/or education that can identify and describe the difference between "global" and "domestic" when it comes to terrorists. But I frequently use the sound byte of him referring to members of those particular factions as "very fine people". At least, some of them. And how about mass shooters? There's a lot of terror, there. Of course, his hard line, get your act together or else dressing down of the NRA certainly gives one encourage......oh. wait.
- I'll spare you the rest and hit the big silver bell I just can't resist. "a man who's delivering on every promise he made, not just talking to get votes." In very simple words and very simple sentences, would you please list those specific promises, specifically? And specifically describe how those promises have been kept? And, ah-ah, no fair, no generic answers allowed. For example, "he promised a booming economy and he has delivered a booming economy." See, we already covered that economy thing, boom and all.
I promised at the outset that I would not disagree with everything you offered in this meme. I'll go so far, at this point, to agree with a few things.
Yes, I agree, no one is without fault. Yes, I agree that we hired a man to do a job. If I was to nitpick, I would do so by saying that you hired him because I had nothing to do with it whatsoever, but, picky and all that.
I won't waste my time or your in trying to figure out why or how he has surpassed your expectations. As I explained earlier, confirmation bias makes that an exercise in futility.
Couple of quick final thoughts, though.
Due respect, he's not fighting the establishment. By nature of the job he asked to be hired to do and that he agreed to do, he IS the establishment.
And he's not doing it for free. He's paid a handsome salary. The fact that he, or says he, donates that salary to charity is irrelevant because he doesn't need the money, so there is no sacrifice, ergo, no charity. And his need, or lack of need, of the money is irrelevant. If he hadn't been born rich, he would still be paid a handsome salary for doing the job he was hired to do.
I don't listen to talking heads. I am a talking head. But I am also a thinking head and a contemplating head and make every good effort each day to stay as factually and truthfully informed as possible.
Because I believe that facts are facts and the truth is the truth.
And I believe that its important, even critical, for me to do everything I can to determine what those facts and truths are.
Like I said, I don't listen to talking heads.
Not even the talking head who has surpassed your expectations in record time.
No comments:
Post a Comment