It's Not An Argument

...'specially not when the point is to sell ad space instead to trying to move us closer to solving problems.

Cleveland.com (Jarvis DeBerry):

We’ve all been there. We’re arguing a point, making a case for why we’re right and others are wrong when the person we’re debating raises a point that weakens our argument. How we respond to that inconvenient information says a lot about our honesty and our integrity, and it signals if we’re arguing in a real attempt to get at the truth or if we’re arguing merely to look better than our opponent.

When people are making honest arguments, they receive the information that doesn’t support their point of view and they appropriately deal with it. They may say something like, “Yes, that is true, but…” and then proceed to explain why that new information isn’t so important or why it doesn’t destroy their argument. And if the other information does destroy their argument, then they concede that they were wrong.

Remember those days? When debating came with the risk of being proved wrong? Today, cable networks feature shouting matches between adversaries who are guaranteed not to lose because they’re guaranteed not to concede any point that undermines their argument. These shouting matches can’t be won; nor can they be lost. Because getting at the truth isn’t the aim. Being unpersuadable is the game – even though being unpersuadable generally requires a willingness to look and sound ridiculous.

In a CNN appearance last week, Ohio’s own Rep. Jim Jordan insisted to host Jake Tapper that the summary transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky doesn’t show what it obviously shows. “We have all seen the transcript,” Jordan said. “There’s nothing there.”

Of course, there’s something there. The document indicates that when Zelensky said Ukraine wanted to buy more anti-tank missiles to resist Russia, Trump, who’d been improperly withholding money for Ukraine that Congress had approved, asked for a favor. He wanted Zelensky to give his attention to a ridiculous conspiracy theory that claims that Russia didn’t hack the Democratic National Committee but was framed by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. And he wanted Zelensky to investigate the family of the Democrat he’s most likely to face in 2020 – even though there’s no evidence that Hunter Biden or Joe Biden did anything that warrants investigation.

During an interview with Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the highest ranking Republican in the House, Scott Pelley of CBS’ “60 Minutes” accurately quoted Trump’s response to Zelensky’s mention of wanting weapons: “I’d like you to do us a favor, though.”

McCarthy: “You just added another word.”

Pelley: “No, it’s in the transcript.”

McCarthy: “He said, ‘I’d like you to do a favor though?” (Here, McCarthy inadvertently leaves out “us.” But the dispute is whether Trump said “though.”)

Pelley: “Yes, it’s in the White House transcript.”

Why would McCarthy go on national television to defend Trump without first familiarizing himself with the contents of the document the White House had released?

Because, like so many Republicans, he walks by Trump, not by sight.

In addition to the easily refuted claim that the transcript doesn’t show anything, Jordan and other leading Republicans are insisting that the whistleblower’s account of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky can be disregarded because the whistleblower says he didn’t himself hear the call but was told about it by people who did.

“He had no firsthand knowledge,” Jordan said.

If the whistleblower’s account is confirmed by the transcript summary the White House released – and it obviously is – what’s the point of arguing that the whistleblower information came secondhand? Besides, Trump and the whistleblower are saying the same thing: that Trump sought an investigation into the Bidens. But only the whistleblower says that was wrong.

Despite Trump’s admission that he did indeed ask a foreign government to investigate the family of the Democrat leading in the polls, a Monmouth University poll finds that only 40 percent of Republicans surveyed believe that he did. Maybe they’ve been under a rock. Let’s ask the Republicans who say they’ve been following the story. Half of them say Trump didn’t do what Trump says he did.

Is that what they really believe? Or are they afraid of where acknowledging the truth will take them?

Social scientists have done quite a bit of research trying to figure out if partisan disagreement on observable facts is a result of some people sincerely believing the wrong answers they provide or if the people giving obviously wrong answers are doing so to signal their politics.

In 2017, two researchers – one from the University of Massachusetts and the other from YouGov -- showed survey participants a photograph of the National Mall during Barack Obama’s inauguration and a photograph of the mall during Trump’s inauguration. They asked one group of people to say which photograph was Obama’s event and which one was Trump’s. They asked the other group, “Which photo has more people?”

Forty percent of Republican respondents answered the first question wrong, and 15 percent gave the wrong answer to the second one. Those researchers concluded that those wrong answers couldn’t possibly have come from people who were sincere – because who couldn’t tell which photo shows more people?

“I say, look at the transcript,” Jordan said on CNN. “And the transcript gives you no reason to impeach this president.”

Who are you going to believe, folks? Jordan et al.? Or your eyes?

Podcast

Make Lying Wrong Again

Impeachment is not Pelosi's problem - it's Mitch McConnell's problem.

DONATE NOW

Mail a check payable to:

The Professional Left Podcast

PO Box 9133

Springfield, IL 62791-9133

Don't forget the merch

Seems A Little Odd

When you try to talk certain people out of their commitment to some conspiracy theory or another, the main thing to remember is that the conspiracy falls apart as soon as one of the conspirators spills the beans - or just slips up and reveals some bit of the secret that leads the whole thing to unravel. It's always somebody on the inside. It's never some random nerd who's spent way too many sleepless nights deep diving on the internet and thinks he's sussed it all out because he buys into some other random nerd's deep dive bullshit.

One ex-Air Force guy blabs and we all suddenly know there are aliens on ice in a secret locker deep underground in New Mexico - or something something weird shit something.

So if Climate Change (eg) is a conspiracy, then tens of thousands of scientists and researchers and all of the additional thousands of support people must be extraordinarily disciplined etc etc etc.

If there really is the kind of expansive "deep state" conspiracy that the QAnon dopes are convinced there is, then it would've been revealed by now - and not in the way they think it's manifesting itself now in the takedown of their beloved Cult45 idol.

Anyway, I'm going to try to land this fuckin' plane by saying this:

The Trump administration is a criminal conspiracy, and we're seeing some of it being acted out by the conspirators in real time and in public. We're also seeing the giveaway - the whistleblowers - some of the people inside the administration - who can't stand being in with the bad guys, so they spill the beans.

Watching this happen, why is there anyone left who still insists on being hung up on JFK and 9/11 and Marilyn Monroe and Apollo 11 and and and?

Seeing 45* commit felonies out in the open, how is anyone still not convinced that he's crooked, and that his crookedness is not the figment of anybody's imagination?

A Place For Don

Rocky Mountain Mike - h/t @MaryinAnnArbor

Ready For Another?

Every time we turn around, there's another exploding example of Cult45 fuckery, and GOP shruggery.

At one of those town hall meet-your-Senator things, someone asked where we might expect certain congress critters to draw the line.

And Ernst did that bullshit limp-arm thing where instead of addressing the question - instead of addressing the problem that the questioner is pointing out - Ernst throws a blanket over it, saying, "Well, all corruption should be ferreted out no matter where it occurs..."

Nobody's going to disagree with it, but that kind of statement coming from someone who is supposed to be among the leaders of our democracy is dismissive and condescending. It says there's no problem with the fuckery as long as it's my guy doing it, and "What makes you peons think you can question your betters anyway?"

And now we have the next shoe to drop.

Business Insider:

With Washington, DC, embroiled in the fallout from a whistleblower's revelations that President Donald Trump pressured Ukraine's president to investigate a Democratic rival, another whistleblower scandal has received scant attention.

But experts say the second complaint could prove just as damaging for the president as the Ukraine controversy.

In a letter recently filed as part of his bid to obtain six years' worth of the president's tax returns, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, wrote that he received a credible complaint from a whistleblower at the end of July.

The complaint, Neal wrote, alleges "inappropriate efforts to influence" the IRS audit of Trump's tax returns.

At this stage, details are sparse. The identity of the whistleblower is unknown, as are the specifics of the complaint.

But experts and former prosecutors told Insider the complaint could land the president in legal jeopardy — and, just as important, lead to the release of the tax returns Trump has long shielded from public view.

It's not unreasonable to start with the premise that 45* keeps making it worse for himself because he's always having to make a calculation on what outrageous shit he can pull today in order to cover for the outrageous shit he pulled yesterday. That's not a fully adequate explanation, but it goes a good bit of the way in trying to get a handle on the lizard brain machinations of this guy.

I guess my hypothesis is that he's running around waving his arms yelling, "Look at me, look at me - I'm breaking the law right out in the open" for a couple of reasons.

First, so that we won't have time or energy to see the other shit that's going on - especially the shit that's hidden in his tax returns.

And 2nd, because if he can get "the base" to normalize this, he's that much closer to the unchecked power he craves.

There's gotta be some pretty amazing shit buried in those tax documents.

25%

Scottish Wildcat - on the brink

Claire Marshall, BBC:

More than a quarter of mammals are facing extinction, according to a detailed and devastating report on the state of the natural world in the UK.

It also said one in seven species were threatened with extinction, and 41% of species studied have experienced decline since 1970.

Providing the clearest picture to date, the State of Nature report examined data from almost 7,000 species.

It drew on expertise from more than 70 different organisations.

These included wildlife organisations and government agencies.

The report said 26% of mammal species were at risk of disappearing altogether.

A separate report outlined the picture in Scotland, where the abundance and distribution of species has also declined.

Scotland saw a 24% decline in average species abundance, and about one in 10 species threatened with extinction.

The State of Nature report shows, in grim detail, that almost one in five plants are classified as being at risk of extinction, along with 15% of fungi and lichens, 40% of vertebrates and 12% of invertebrates.

It paints a picture of what conservationists call "the great thinning", with 60% of "priority species" having declined since 1970.

Is It Parody?

G.I. Schmo

That Deep State Thing

Yes, there's a conspiracy against 45*.

Just as there was a conspiracy against Nixon.

And a conspiracy against McCarthy.

(And Al Capone and Ted Bundy - but that's a slightly different angle on the story)

If we're to have any hope of surviving as a republic, we have to insist on a government planted thick with career professionals "conspiring against" the liars crooks and losers who intend to use the law (specifically, the loopholes in the law - the Smarmspace) in order to rule over us instead of serving the greater good.

I've made plenty of noise about entrenched bureaucracies, but my beef is about people in government who get too cozy with the people they're supposed to be regulating - too much of an interlocking-interests kinda thing.

As Cult45 devotees continue to remove the support structure, we're seeing the implosion of our system of self-goverment, and it seems to be rapidly accelerating towards collapse - at which time we can either regenerate it, or kiss it goodbye forever.

The New Yorker:

Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, told me that the Administration is propagating a long-held conspiracy theory to justify its behavior. “My understanding is that Trump, Giuliani, and others in the Administration believe that there is a deep-state conspiracy in the State Department against the President and that Masha Yovanovitch was part of this.” Her recall from Kiev, he said, “was a consequence of that conspiracy theory.”

The Deep State conspiracy theory is hardly confined to the West Wing, Murphy went on: “I hear this, too, from my Republican Senate colleagues. There is a belief that there is a group in every corner of the government that is out to get Trump. There really are morally centered people who find him deeply distasteful, and it is required of them to raise questions of corruption if they see it. The Trump Administration sees that as a conspiracy.”

I may be indulging in a simple Argument From Ignorance, but when I look at what has to be obvious - Trump's corruption and outright law-breaking - and I see a Republican party hellbent on maintaining solidarity with him - and perpetrating all manner of anti-democracy rat-fuckery - how do I conclude anything other than this being a deliberate effort to tear down the republic in order to replace it with plutocracy?

A Poem

Lobocraspis Griseifusa

This is the tiny moth who lives on tears,
who drinks like a deer at the gleaming pool
at the edge of the sleeper's eye, the touch
of its mouth as light as a cloud's reflection.

In your dream, a moonlit figure appears
at your bedside and touches your face.
He asks if he might share the poor bread
of your sorrow. You show him the table.

The two of you talk long into the night,
but by morning the words are forgotten.
You awaken serene, in a sunny room,
rubbing the dust of his wings from your eyes.

-- Ted Kooser

Today's Quote

If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be between Masons and Dixons, but between patriotism and intelligence on one side, and superstition ambition and ignorance on the other.

-- Ulysses S Grant, 1875