Showing posts with label bowling Green. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bowling Green. Show all posts

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Buzzing Flies and Cow Patties

Threat Against Democracy (TAD).  I like to tell a story about the risks one takes when walking through a cow pasture.  There are at least two – buzzing flies are everywhere and there are cow patties on the ground.  If you don’t keep your priorities straight, you can get so engrossed batting the flies away that you don’t watch where you’re stepping and you find yourself standing in cow dung.

That’s kind of what it’s been like watching the Trump administration since the inauguration.  
Take, for example, Kellyanne Conway’s response when she was called out about the so-called Bowling Green Massacre.  “Honest mistakes abound” she said.  She didn’t say “I made a mistake” though.  
Or the disconnect between administration officials comments about our relationship with Mexico and the Trump’s own statements.  
The scary information that Reince Priebus attempted to influence the FBI, while still being debated, is a troubling part of the pattern.  
Watching Propaganda Secretary Spicer try to explain away Trump’s description of immigration actions as military wasn’t pretty either.  But his actions to keep mainstream media out of a press gaggle were worse.  
Steve Bannon’s statement about the deconstruction of the administrative state was additional evidence of the intentions of the administration. 
And there are so many more.  

Are these individual incidents cow dung or flies?  Whether you swat at them individually or take them all together, it’s clear what we’re standing in.

Are our form of government and our basic liberties at risk?  Yes, and more than just a TAD.


Please share if you are concerned, too.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Lies or Falsehoods?

Threat Against Democracy (TAD). Last week NPR had a segment in which it explained why it is referring to administration statements as falsehoods rather than lies. The rationale is simple.  The word “lies” implies intent to deceive whereas Falsehood leaves open the possibility that the speaker does not know that what is being said is wrong.  Seems simple enough, right? 

Let’s take a look at one of last week’s controversies through the lens of falsehood or lie.

Kelllyanne Conway, counselor to Trump, made headlines this week when she claimed that (1) there was a massacre in Bowling Green, (2) it was masterminded by two radicalized Iraqis and (3) that President Obama instituted a six month ban on the Iraqi refugee program as a result.  We all know that none of these things happened.  Lies or Falsehoods?  Conway seems to say they were the latter.  Her explanation was that “mistakes abound.”  What does that mean?  Is it a reference to the abundance of untrue statements not only from her, but also from others in the administration or is she just saying “everyone makes mistakes sometimes?”

It matters.  If she really made an honest mistake, she has an obligation not just to admit it, but also to take steps to keep such mistakes from happening in the future.  Lots of people make lots of mistakes, but Kellyanne and the rest of the administration have a different responsibility to ensure their statements aren’t false.  Their honest mistakes can result in great harm to individuals, organizations, this country and others, and can lead to economic disarray and even war.  If she made an honest mistake, she has a responsibility to understand where the misinformation came from, why it wasn’t verified before she repeated it in public and what she’s going to do to ensure that additional errors don’t occur in the future. So does everyone in the administration  And we have a responsibility to demand that they do that and explain the new procedures in public.

And what if she and others in the administration are lying?  Well, the consequences to individuals and others here and around the world are similar to those I listed above.  However, the likelihood of their occurrence might be higher since there is some motive behind the lies.  They may not intend those outcomes, but the seeds are being sown nonetheless.

I understand the distinction NPR was making, but it seems to me that, in many ways, it’s a distinction without a difference.  What’s worse, an administration that has a policy of lying to attain its goals at all costs or one that is so bent on attaining those goals regardless of the cost that it is unable to distinguish between truth and falsehood? 

Either way it’s a TAD.

Do you think this topic is important?  If so, please share.