Anecdotal Evidence: “The Mitigation Worked to Save Lives”
During the Coronavirus Crisis of 2020, there has been a lot of bantering about concerning various treatments and protocols; never mind the full reversals, like don’t wear a mask and do wear a mask. The argument from anecdote is thrown around like baking soda on a grease fire. Arguments like these are often really about spin; when the anecdotes (stories) serve you, you use them. When they hurt you, you diss them.
President Trump specifically stated that he hoped hydroxychloroquine would be a game changer. Critics attacked Trump as relying on anecdotal evidence for his ‘highly 'touted’ cure. They further went on to attack hydroxychloroquine as dangerous, based on nothing less than their own anecdotal evidence of what they’ve heard from some doctors. In an article about the lack of hard evidence, the authors do accurately quote Trump:
While this is called a ‘lie’, it really is simply a common way humans discuss and discover the truth of things. Some studies have indicated that hydroxy doesn’t work against the virus, but those are focused on hospital admissions. We would need studies that show an early prescription at the onset of symptoms (with zinc and azithromycin) doesn’t work.
While this is called a ‘lie’, it really is simply a common way humans discuss and discover the truth of things.
Trump’s comment has both anecdote and data in it. He is saying we are hearing positive stories, but that we need to keep collecting data. There is nothing wrong with anecdotes, but they neither prove nor disprove anything. There is no lie in anecdotal proof, since it could turn out to be true.
In a hard-scientific world, we really think of anecdotes as hints or hypotheses, and you’ll see it again if the virus gets to a truly manageable level.
However, that too is speculative. It makes sense, as does anecdotal evidence. However, we can’t know without a real comparative study. We would have to have the ‘curve’ studied with partial mitigation and no mitigation. Sweden is the curious example that seems to have a similar curve to the rest of the countries, but without the level of lockdown commonly employed.
This kind of spin shadows a logical fallacy calledpost hoc ergo propter hoc(after this, therefore resulting from it: used to indicate that a causal relationship has erroneously been assumed from a merely sequential one). We mitigated, so lives were saved. Well, yes, maybe, but were they saved short-term or long-term? The simple fact is that we do not know. We do not currently have the scientific data to prove it. So, when unvalidated anecdotal evidence doesn’t serve, it’s bad. When other unvalidated evidence serves, it’s good. When trends on a chart serve, they are good. When trends don’t serve, they are bad.
Karl Popper gave us a better standard with his principle of falsifiability (if you can't prove it's wrong, you can't prove it's right) https://youtu.be/wf-sGqBsWv4
In the world of news and crisis, however, all you need to know is that everyone is talking about hope and predictions…which get’s tangled in the web of spin.
When they say that anecdotal evidence suggest something, you can simply say, “Maybe.” When the ‘experts’ come out and insist that the mitigation worked, you can also simply say, “Maybe.” Definitive proof is another question entirely.
Hope and hypotheses are not lies, but they also aren’t conclusive. Don’t get tricked, always spin-check.
Spin-check is about preparing readers to discern the truth, which isn’t easy in a spin-happy world. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALWAYS LIES. Accusing people of lying is the quickest spin of all that groups embrace, and it misdirects us from seeing the truth of things.
Plenty of people out there think it’s true that President Trump always lies, but clearly this is suspicious unless they change the meaning of the words ‘lie’ or ‘always’. The energy to overreact seems to be without boundaries. Here’s a recent example:
Well, this looks obvious! He says he signed the CHOICE Act, but we know he really didn’t. Ha! Liar! A few comments that immediately follow this post found at #trumplies show the instant conclusion:
The Trump tweet is explained by considering Trump a deliberate liar on one extreme, and a self-deceived (delusional?) liar at the other extreme. Apparently, “We know Trump is lying, we just don’t know exactly why!”
But is he lying? The simplest thing to do to avoid getting sucked into this spin-cycle is to begin with the assumption the other person might not be lying, that something else may be in play. This mindset will lead you to FIRST UNDERSTAND…and, of course, you can still condemn the sorry liar later.
We always try to ask, “Would Trump (or ________) really knowingly make such an outlandish statement that is blatantly false?” The answer is always, “Not likely.” So, we need to look at what the President actually said and compare it to what is claimed he said.
They say he said:
I signed the Choice Act, not Obama.
Last year I signed legislation that gives our Veterans CHOICE, through private providers, and at urgent care facilities! Today we fully funded this $10 billion a year effort that gets our brave Veterans care quickly, and close to home.
Now, first we can notice that he did not say he signed the Choice Act, but rather he signed ‘legislation’. From here we’d simple ask, “Did he sign legislation that does this?” With a little googling we can find that he did sign legislation:
So, he did sign legislation (referring to either story above?). He extended the Choice Act (and improved it, apparently). Is he taking credit for something he didn’t do? Is he misleading everyone? Is he a jerk anyway? Well, all of these are clearly important questions. And, of course, congress passed the law, so they can get credit too.
One might still want to call the President a liar anyway, but the legitimacy of the claim in this case needs some explaining…or…perhaps an admission that it’s just not true in this rabid instance. The overreaction to whatever Trump says makes both spinning and looking stupid rather easy.
As we like to note, if Trump were Shakespeare and said, “But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun,” wouldn’t he be open to the accusation of being a liar? Juliet is not the sun; it’s a gaseous ball of explosions about 93 million miles from earth; Shakespeare/Trump is a liar.
Of course, always make sure you get the actual quote which is declared the ‘lie’. Next, to avoid getting caught up in group-spins like these, simply ask, “What did they mean?” and “Is it true?” In this way you’ll be fair-minded and call a liar a liar with accuracy, rather than getting egg on your face like those who buy spin in Costco-sized containers.
The story is simple. The Dems are saying the US Prez pressured the Ukraine Prez to do what he (US) wanted or else he (Ukraine) would lose out on aide (get punished). Sound right?
There is confusion and complexity in the details which may (or may not) get sorted out in the weeks ahead. What we do know is that there is widespread disagreement among those who could be legitimate witnesses to what happened. That aside, the propaganda lesson here is that this argument can easily be used again and again on any US president. There are two big points to ponder.
1. All presidents can be accused of an implied quid pro quo in every conversation
This is a framework the anyone can use on any President. Think about it; isn’t there an implication in any phone call with the most powerful leader in the world that, “if you don’t behave there will be repercussions?” Does he really have to say anything quid-ish?No president can escape that accusation; no matter what the situation, true? We need to appreciate this reality, because it shines light on the fictional finger-pointing we are enjoying as a nation today. So, wait, what is quid pro quo? It’s Latin for ‘this for that’ and largely a relates to contracts, and is aligned with consideration; or an exchange of value. This value can be as little as a dollar (real estate assignments often use this standard), but value must be exchanged for the contract event to happen.
In the case of the President, was there an exchange of value? Even the always-against Judge Napolitano admits there was no exchange:”The Ukrainian president didn’t ever feel pressured, and he got his money. Do we know if he turned over anything about Biden to the president?” Earhardt asked. When Napolitano said he didn’t, Earhardt remarked, “That’s not quid pro quo. “The delay is the quid pro quo,” Napolitano answered back. “The delay of 55 days, knowing that the Russians are at the border.”” https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge-trump-delay-ukraine-aid-quid-pro-quo-1471758
Huh? Ignoring the fact that there is no evidence the Ukraine president knew about such a delay, there still was no actual exchange of either information (Ukraine) or a delay (US). One might try to spin it into a threat; but again, what conversation could anyone have with any US president that opponents couldn’t claim an implied threat? Every president from the past or the future can be accused of the same thing.
2. Everything any president does can be framed as ‘personal political gain’
Every photo-op, every trade deal, and every military threat can be seen as advancing a president’s standing politically, especially if they are up for reelection. The curious case of Hunter Biden (and Joe) is that the story suggests that if it had been a John Doe (and Joe) that were under the president’s concerned eye, then there would have been no ‘crime’ at all in play. Common sense says if something is wrong, then it is wrong. Changing the characters shouldn’t change anything. Oh, but it does, doesn’t it?
When either party has a biased desire to take down an opponent, then looking for a scandal will always be easy work…if the attack is about implied consequences of crossing the US president, and if it helps his personal political cause. There is no way out of this spin except to see what is motivating those who are questioning others’ motives. CNN’s notion of ‘facts first’ is a good one if followed, which the Democrats have ignored. In the law-and-order world this is highlighted with, “I have the criminal, now I just need a crime.” The same reversal is seen in the preaching world too, “I have a message, now I just need a Bible verse.”Keep spin-checking!
In a 17 June 2019 article in USA Today titled, “Supreme Court upholds ‘double jeopardy’ standard that could blunt impact of potential Trump pardons,” the Mueller Mandate is redefined with the the phrase, “Russian Interference.”
A FEW JUST DEFINITIONS
1. Red Herring[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue].
2. Russian InterferenceA computer hacking conspiracy involving gaining unauthorized access into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, stealing documents from those computers, and staging releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
3. Mueller Mandate(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBIDirector James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee onIntelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
THE ISSUESo, the red herring of ‘Russian Interference’ is being drug across the trail of ‘Russian Collusion’ in this USA Today article (and via other media outlets):
The case had gained attention largely because of the possibility that Trump could pardon one or more of his former associates convicted in federal court by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In other words, Russian Interference in the 2016 election was an issue dating back to the Obama administration, but it was not about whether the Trump Campaign had colluded (secret conspiracy with the intent to defraud) with the Russians. Mueller was charged to specifically determine if there was coordination between Trump Campaign officials and the Russian government.
1. If there had been no Russian Interference in the 2016 election, it could still have been possible that the Trump (or Clinton) campaign could have conspired with the Russian government.2. But if Donald Trump had lost the presidency to Hillary Clinton, then there * WOULD NOT BE a Special Counsel or Mueller Report * WOULD STILL BE Russian Interference3. So, Russian Interference is not the same as Russian Collusion
The spin here is that USA Today is dragging a red herring across the trail to confuse (or conflate) the issues. Without discussing the ‘obstruction’ question, the Mueller Report and it’s confirmation by the Attorney General, the investigation was about whether or not members of the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian government; which has been thoroughly investigated and established that there was no collusion. It is safe to assume (unless there is unintentional incompetence in play) that in order to keep the issue in the news, USA Today (et al) have muddled and conflated the Russian Investigation with the Trump-Collusion Investigation. It’s a red herring which continues to ‘mislead or distract from a relevant or important question’— which in this case is, “Did any members of the Trump campaign collude with Russian?” The Mueller Report ended the question with a specific, “No.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Watch for this common tactic called a red herring — whether it’s intentional or not, it’s a spin to check.
The simple fact is that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge or accuse President Trump of any wrong doing.
Mueller’s key words from his May 29, 2019 public statement were,
And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
If we were sure the president didn’t commit a crime, we would have told you.
We did not determine the president committed a crime.
The convoluted wording alone should make us wonder about spin. Clearly Mueller did not have a legal case against the president (or he would have stated such), but spin allows him to make a political accusation; by suggestion.
We can’t say the president didn’t commit a crime; suggesting that maybe he did
We can’t say the president did commit a crime; suggesting that maybe he didn’t
All of this leaves a cloud of suspicion, but rightly viewed, Mueller is an agnostic rather than a true atheist.
Agnostic: I don’t know if there is a God or not; suggesting not enough proof or evidence either way
Atheist: I know there is no God; suggesting evidence and proof exists to show ‘no God’
By posturing himself as an agnostic, he leaves room for speculation on the part of all the rest of us. To bend Robert Frost’s words,
We dance in a ring and suppose, Mueller sits in the middle and knows.
To Un-Spin this matter, we simply need to know if Mueller thinks he had a case to indict Trump if he were not the president. If that were so, his language would be something like, “While I know a sitting president can’t be indicted, I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove he committed a crime.” That would be provable and explosive if true. Indicting the president is one thing, accusing him of committing a crime is another.
Of course, he says nothing close to an accusation since he flatly states, “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”
Mueller’s spin is to nuance the difference between these two statements:
We determined a crime was not committed
We did not determine a crime was committed
In either statement, there is nothing for the legal system to do. If there was no crime or if no conclusion is reached that there was a crime, it doesn’t matter legally; THERE IS NO CASE.
Mueller’s entire problem is one of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. He states this in the same public statement when he says,
[Volume One of the report] includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
In the legal world, insufficient evidence mean you don’t have a case, especially during a trial. When there is not enough evidence, then charges are dropped and the person under investigation is cleared and freed.
n. a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough convincing evidence. Insufficient evidence usually results in dismissal of the case after the prosecution or the plaintiff has completed his/her introduction of evidence or, if on appeal, reversal of the judgment by the trial court.
We can call this one a spin-by-deletion or context error. Honestly, I don’t know if Chris Cuomo just made a mistake, is engaging weak journalism, or is up to something. In his video from Cuomo Primetime (“New Abortion Laws Aim to Provoke Roe v. Wade Protections” – May 7, 2019) he accuses President Trump of ‘fiction, BS, and ignorance’, charging him with misstating the law. Chris Cuomo is the one, however, who is doing the misstating. Here’s the Cuomo verbatim:
CUOMO: What you’re seeing is Republicans running with the fiction POTUS is pushing. It’s fear-mongering. It goes back to the campaign.
TRUMP (video clip): You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day.
CUOMO: That’s just not true. That’s complete BS. So, whether he is ignorant or not on the issue doesn’t matter anymore as President of the United States.
So far so bad for the President, except the video tape is both edited and out-of-context. Here’s the verbatim from the New York Times:
CONTEXT: October 20, 2016 debate moderated by Chris Wallace. The question concerned partial-birth abortions.
TRUMP’S ACTUAL WORDS: Well I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying. In the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother in the ninth month, on the final day.
First, this statement was made during the campaign and shows Trump attacking Clinton’s view (or his view of her view). Trump is clearly not stating this is the current law as Cuomo insists he thinks. Instead, Donald Trump is arguing what he believes will happen if Hillary’s view becomes accepted.
Second, this statement also has the words ‘of the mother’ removed. Why would CNN edit Mr. Trump’s words in mid-sentence? Speculation would suggest that it softens the rhetoric, making the issue sound less mother/daughter and more woman/body. Another option is the clip was edited to essentials because of time constraints. Whatever the reason, it doesn’t make Cuomo and his team look good.
Chris Cuomo may have been ignorant (didn’t realize the clip was an out-of-context and edited clip) or he may have been simply offering BS (his term), but in either event he’s wrong on this point. The spin is for the Pro-abortion/Pro-life debate. Cuomo is making a case for women’s rights (pro-abortion) and is using a false narrative (via a video clip) to invite people to think this President (and pro-life advocates) are so lame that they don’t even understand the laws and are willing participants in promoting false information. It’s a spin. Of course, the irony is that it is a part of his Facts First segment.
THE REMEDY One should always insist upon two essential things before making a conclusion about another’s BS;
Assume the person being quoted means something that makes sense to themselves, and then look for it.
Gather the context of words, setting, and intended audience.
These two simple practices will steer you well, and they will allow you to see where spin-meister’s, entertainers, op-ed writers, and sometimes journalists, can go awry. CNN’s Chris Cuomo would have done better engaging these tools.
NOTE WELL: The ‘abortion issue’ isn’t going away and is, at its core, a conflict of values: The mother’s rights vs. the unborn daughter’s rights. Pro-abortion advocates are making the mother’s rights the issue, while pro-life advocates are making the unborn daughter’s rights the issue (an alternate framing would say the woman’s rights vs the fetus’s rights, but that’s another Spin-Check). THE QUESTION: At what point does the unborn daughter’s rights exceed the mother’s rights (if ever)? Wherever you land, please check the spin and keep the facts in play, especially within the context they’re quoted.
One of the favorite ways in which media outlets (like CNN and The Washington Post, see below) spin the news for us is by REDEFINING the terms to prove the opposition wrong.
If you think we mean that certain outlets ALWAYS spin, then you are missing our point. We are all given to spinning because of our biases; however, certain news organizations clearly spin more than others. True?
Remember that spin = propaganda. “In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in favor or against some organization or public figure. While traditional public relations and advertising may also rely on altering the presentation of the facts, “spin” often implies the use of disingenuous, deceptive, and highly manipulative tactics.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(propaganda)
Media have continued to enter into the domain of politics by taking a slant on the news in order to influence public opinion. Redefining terms is a favorite tool of all spin-meisters.Let’s start with a pretend scenario to understand the game. Imagine you simply want to find a flaw in what someone says in order to write about it. In this case, you don’t like Trump saying he is the oldest president to be sworn into office. While on the surface it’s true, since he was 70 at the time of his inauguration, it gets a spin like this,Trump’s Claim: “I’m the oldest person ever sworn in as president.”Fact Check: While it’s technically true, it needs some context.Donald Trump was sworn in at 70 years of age, but relative to life expectancy, he is actually among our youngest presidents. Trump was 70, but life expectancy at the time was 78 years old in the United States. In contrast, consider Abraham Lincoln, who was 52 years old when he became the president. The life expectancy in 1861 was only 40.5 years in the United States. Relative to the population, Abraham Lincoln was much older than Donald Trump, therefore Trump’s point of accomplishment is nothing much to write home about.
Now, do you get the idea? A term is REDEFINED to suit an argument or analysis to support a bias or slant in the ‘reporting’ or opinion piece. You’ll notice it often once you start paying attention to this tactic.Here’s an example from the world of news.
2019 – Pence & Tax Cuts
(CNN March 4, 2019) While praising President Donald Trump during his remarks at CPAC, Vice President Mike Pence listed off some of the accomplishments he believes the administration has made in its first two years. Among them, of course, was the 2017 tax reform.
“With the support of this generation of conservatives, President Trump signed the largest tax cut and tax reform in American history,” the Vice President said. “That’s promises made and promises kept.”
CNN and the Washington Post (and others) took exception to this claim and called it false in early 2018.
2018 – Pence & Tax Cuts
CNN – The biggest tax cut in history? Not quite.“The Treasury measured the sizes of tax cuts by looking at the revenue effects of the bills as a percentage of gross domestic product — in other words, how much federal revenue the bill cuts away as a portion of the economy. Reagan’s 1981 cut was 2.9% of GDP. Obama’s tax cut extensions in 2010 and 2012 were 1.3% and 1.8%, respectively. https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/is-trumps-bill-largest-tax-cut-in-history-no/index.html
So, these two outlets rely on the Treasury measurement based on the GDP or as compared to the national economy. It’s fine, of course, to measure it however you’d like, but it isn’t addressing the fact-claim. The writers should be asking, “What did Trump and Pence mean when they said, ‘We gave the largest tax cut in history.” This goes to determining meaning in communication. As Stephen Covey points out in his 7 Habits book, “First understand, then be understood.” I frame it as, “First understand, then disagree.”
What did Trump/Pence mean? Were they thinking of the GDP and the national economy as a comparison over time? No, the Whitehouse told us exactly what they meant by the statement:President Trump’s tax cuts are the biggest gross tax cuts in American history, cutting over $5.5 trillion in taxes over ten years.
The President’s tax law included substantial reforms to make taxes simpler and fairer, which helped offset the cost of the tax cuts and thereby limit the net tax cut to $1.5 trillion.
President Trump cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, the largest percentage point reduction of the top marginal rate in history.
President Trump’s tax cuts include the biggest increase in the child tax credit in history.
So, if Trump/Pence meant that it’s the largest dollar amount tax cut in history, then they are not factually wrong. They said and meant what they said and meant (though it can be it’s own spin, perhaps). For the Washington Post to give Trump four Pinocchio’s and then base it on ‘the best way to compare’ is a spin using redefinition. In other words, neither Trump nor Pence meant what the Washington Post or CNN said they should have meant.UNSPUN VERSION:Trump/Pence: “President Trump signed the largest tax cut and tax reform in American history.”Journalist: While it is true that Trump’s tax cut is the largest dollar amount cut in history, it is doubtful that it will be the most impactful tax cut in history. The Treasury has a consistent way to measure a tax cut’s impact…SPIN-CHECK TIP:Watch for it and keep asking, two basic question to avoid their propaganda-spin:
What did they say?
What did they mean by what they said?
That will guide you well through the brackish water of spin into the clear waters of the Gulf of Truth.
Sep 28, 2012; Medinah, IL, USA; Billionaire Michael Jordan smokes a cigar as he watches the afternoon matches during the 39th Ryder Cup on day one at Medinah Country Club. Mandatory Credit: Brian Spurlock-USA TODAY Sports
The logic of immorality has taken a fresh turn in public discourse as US representative declares billionaires to be persona non grata
THE FACTSWhile we are not a fact-check site per se, it is important to notice that Ocasio-Cortez is asserting that there are people in Alabama who are contracting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health. There is so much wrong here it is confusing to even address. It might be surprising to those from (ironically) the Empire State to learn that Alabamians actually have health care. It may not be in the top tier nationally, but by world standards it’s certainly able to handle ringworm. Of course, she probably meant pinworms. Ringworm is a fungus that is contracted in numerous ways everywhere. When the fungus is between the toes it’s called ‘athlete’s foot’ and ‘jock itch’ when in that vicinity. It is commonly spread in public places and has nothing specifically to do with the quality of health care in a state (though flip-flops in a public shower may help). Oh, pinworms are everywhere too.
THE SPINFacts aside, what is the spin here? Ocasio-Cortez is offering a rhetorical way of reasoning that looks like this:Either X or Y is trueEither fair or unfairEither moral or immoralEither billionaires or health care
This is known as a False Dilemma or the Either/Or Fallacy. She is saying that it is immoral or wrong for the system to allow individuals to have a billion dollars when there are injustices (like the Alabama Ringworm Epidemic) that could be erased with the money. While there are more complex nuances in saying something is immoral, the naive argument is that preventing individuals to amass wealth would guarantee solving real-world problems.
Either Billionaires or Ringworm
While sometimes things are either/or, it is pretty rare in the economic or political worlds. If money cures what ails us, then the lottery winners would all do exceptionally well. Sadly, they don’t fair well and are far more likely to go quickly bankrupt than the average American. The assumptions Ocasio-Cortez must have in mind are numbing. She must assume that there is only a limited amount of money in the world, that the money above the billion mark would find its way to the injustices in the world, and that someone (the government?) would guarantee the money got delivered to the right places in the right way. There are more assumptions, but…The spin is to set up an apparent contradiction to force a choice that is patently unnecessary. It’s a very common problem in politics because of the emotional nature of locking one’s identity into a cause or person. Are you a Never-Trumper or an Always-Trumper? In a False-Dilemma there is never a third option (sometimes Trumper).
When Ocasio-Cortez says the system shouldn’t allow people to make a billion dollars, she is specifically talking about removing one’s freedom. Of course, the billion mark is arbitrary. It could be a million or one hundred thousand just as easily. It’s a perfectly anti-freedom, pro-socialism, spin that ignores both the reality of problems like the Alabama Ringworm Epidemic or the truth surrounding how much the wealthy contribute to things like the growth of the economy and humanitarian efforts (see Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).Don’t fall for this spin: It’s immoral to allow people to keep their money because that money would otherwise be solving problems.Instead, inquire about the discrepancy:
If we prevented billionaires from existing, why would that mean the Alabama Ringworm Epidemic would go away?
This question exposes the dilemma and invites clearer thought surrounding ‘how it works’.
This past summer, Kyle Olsen declared concerning her acceptance speech for the AFT Woman’s Rights Award that, “Hillary begins her speech: ‘I’m so tired, I can barely stand.’’While his quoting her is innocent enough, he goes on to claim, “The failed presidential candidate started her speech to the American Federation of Teachers Union on Friday in a bizarre way: by telling everyone how tired she was.”
Nothing is factually errant about her statement, but Olsen spins the statement with a disregard for context. In my theological training, it was commonly said in interpreting the Bible that “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” The logical fallacy is called Quoting Out of Context [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html]. Olsen’s assertion that Clinton is being bizarre misses the context of her statement.
While Olsen did quote some of the context, he left out a couple of things.Clinton: “Well, I’ll tell you,” she said, “I’ve been back there listening to Randi (Weingarten) and I’m so exhausted, I can barely stand here.”
So, we can see that she was referring to an exhaustion from listening to a speech, rather than some health related (implied) issue. She goes on to say,
Clinton: “That was an amazing speech.”
Is Hillary Clinton being bizarre or is she complimenting Randi Weingarten? Clearly she is praising the prior speaker. There is simply nothing bizarre, or even slightly odd, for a speaker to observe that the energy and excitement of a speech can be a ‘drain’ emotionally and physically on an individual.
When I was a kid I found a way to connect with my dad by watching boxing (both in the Olympics and in a Friday Night boxing show on TV). I consistently felt exhausted after a bout, as though I too had been in the ring. We commonly assert this same notion after watching a close football game involving a team we love.
Of course, it simply needn’t be true. Hillary didn’t have to be exhausted and unable to speak after hearing an introduction for her award. She was probably just speaking in hyperbole, exaggerating the point to complement Weingarten.
“Well, I’ll tell you, I’ve been back there listening to Randi and I’m so exhausted, I can barely stand here. That was an amazing speech…”
In learning how to discern and think, we must constantly look at the context rather than to accept a passing editorial headline as the gospel-according-to-the-writer.
Context matters, and Hillary Clinton was simply misrepresented in the spin. She may actually be exhausted, but she went on to talk energetically for about 25 minutes in her acceptance speech.
“President Trump on Monday denied that he offered Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) $1 million to take a test proving her Native American heritage, even though he did just that.”
Elizabeth Warren’s DNA analysis revealed that she can claim some native ancestry, however, the Boston Globe put it in perspective:
“The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If O.C. Sarah Smith were fully Native American, that would make Warren up to 1/32nd native. But the generational range based on the ancestor that the report identified suggests she’s between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American. The report notes there could be missed ancestors.” https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html
There are two important things to note for context:
1. Elizabeth Warren’s results appear to make her about as Native American than the average Native European (American). Here’s the average according to the New York Times, “The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.” https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html 2. The requirement for being consider a Native American is commonly considered between 1/16 and 1/4 genetically, “To give you a clue, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians a minimum of 1/16 degree of Cherokee blood for tribal enrollment, while the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Higher Education Grant expects you to have the minimum of ¼ Native American blood percentages. That’s 25%.” https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/
The spin here isn’t concerned with the facts exactly, but with the writing within the article itself. The claim is that Trump offered to pay if Warren ‘took the test’ —but that is also contradicted in the article. In fact, contradiction and incongruence is often a sign of spin.THE HILL: “Trump spoke after Warren responded to the president’s challenge and released the results of a DNA test showing she has a distant Native ancestor. ‘I didn’t say that. You’d better read it again,’ Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about his $1 million offer.”
In other words, “We gotcha!” But The Hill writer Jordan Fabian goes on to give the exact promise Trump made in contrast to the headline:
“I will give you a million dollars, to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” Trump said at the time. “I have a feeling she will say ‘no.’ “
SHE DIDN’T SAY, “NO.” BUT, SHE’S ALSO NOT A NATIVE AMERICAN.
Fabian/The Hill is asserting that Trump promised 1 million if she took the test, but later notes that ‘SHOWS YOU’RE AN INDIAN’ is a necessary condition. The spin is that she ‘merely’ need to take the test to call Trump out, but that isn’t Trump’s offer, despite Fabian’s claim.
By any standards of genetics or common sense, Elizabeth Warren is not a Native American. In fact, statistically speaking, Trump himself may actually be more Native American than Elizabeth Warren.While this could be a fact-check issue, it’s really about spin. The spin here is that a conclusion is asserted based on one part of a statement while looking past the other part of the statement. Often when we dig in the same article, we can find the spin on the truth. This isn’t about facts or ideology, liberal or conservative; it’s about framing the known information in such a way as to guide the reader to a certain conclusion. Trump clearly was not saying, “Take a DNA test and if you have any amount of Native blood, I’ll donate a million dollars.” He said what he said, “I will give you a million dollars, to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.”
Senator Warren took the test and is not a Native American, so the promise isn’t violated.Nothing to see here folks.
UPDATE – Posted Online After Elizabeth Warren Indicates She Will Run For President (early 2019)