Something tells me the "views" reported in the Blogger statistics are actually bots sent to see if any money can be made, and not actual readers.  I can't tell you how cynical it would sound if that were the case.

I'm impressed.  74 views.  Not one comment.  Evidently my writing is pretty goddamned boring.

So, let's try this: In my inbox this morning, was an email from Ebates breathlessly telling me that Walmart on this day (Black Friday, even though it's only Wednesday) is going to increase (actually they don't increase anything, it's already 4%, but I'm not supposed to notice) my cashback to 4%.  Holy shit!  What they're not telling me, I have sussed, is that if I buy absolutely nothing I don't need (which is almost everything), I will save 100%.  Er... that's a full 96% more than Walmart is offering.  But then, if I don't do what they want, how will I add to the pile of stuff I rarely if ever use and at the same time make the Goddamned Walton family even richer?

And if the Waltons don't get richer, who will provide the money for the politicians who advance the interests of people like the Waltons (don't kid yourself, it's all of 'em) to become elected?  Now there's a conundrum for you.  If I buy stuff from rich folks, I'm simultaneously giving the bastards the ability to buy politicians who will, in turn, write laws that allow the rich to create "barriers to entry" that protect them from competition.  If you listen to the rich, they harp on "free markets."  Except they don't mean free markets, they mean walled markets that belong to them.  So, the rich get richer as the saying goes.

I think for today at least, I'll avoid Ebates and the Walton's marking experts.  It's far cheaper and somehow empowering at the same time.

Today's issue has to do with accusing your opponent of doing what it is you have done.  Here's a quote from the first article produced by The Hill.

"The national debt surpassed $15 trillion for the first time on Wednesday, according to the Treasury Department, and Republicans are seizing on the occasion to pin the blame on President Obama."

Obama is to blame?  Really?  I doubt it.   I've noticed that for the past ten years or so, especially since Karl Rove, the conservatives have been using a very effective tactic.  I think of it as preemptive blaming.  A sort of Tu Quoque before the other guy even gets a chance to point the finger.  Apparently, many Americans believe that if someone shouts accusations loudly and for a long period, the claim is justified.  Moreover an unsupported claim should be re-asserted without any real evidence backing it except using ad populum fallacies.  In addition to that, constant and continual belief preservation tactics should be employed.  Why?  From Washington Monthly's blog "Political Animal" comes information like:  

"1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget

  

   1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt. "

"1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. The debt clock, which hadn’t been programmed to run backwards, is unplugged."

This would have been under Clinton, of course.  But then:

"2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt. "

And so on. The facts are evidently quite different from the claims. Of course, exaggerating and pontificating are not GOP-only issues.  Politicians are pretty good at blaming someone else for anything that goes wrong.  Where this is distressing, at least to me, is in the blatancy of the unsupported claims and the number of Americans willing to buy any story that's anti-Obama.

I'm reading the headline on this, this morning and wondering, who is this guy?  When I get to "Few media columnists are more adept at cajoling the reader into sharing politically biased conclusions through the careful selection, bald-faced dismissal or blatant omission of pertinent facts than Paul Krugman." I wonder if the writer is going to produce any evidence to support the charge.  After reading the entire article, I conclude that no, he's not going to.  He produces a quote from some agency I'm not familiar with (the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection), but no link, no footnote as to where I can read this for myself.  The guy ends with this: "Do your own research -- and always consider the source."

I agree with that whole-heartedly, so I tried to look up "Don Engebretson, of Excelsior, is a writer and small-business owner. "  Try it yourself.  Google the phrase and parts of the phrase, the name and so on.  I came up  with very little.  The person does not seem to be a journalist, but he might be the Renegade Gardener.  There's a small construction company that might be a match.  What there isn't,  is a web page or other source that provides us with the author's bona fides or curriculum vitae.  So, that leaves the reader with the option of simply accepting the opinion this guy or of Paul Krugman who has information pages galore and not just a few qualifications.  I'll stick with Krugman, thank you. Because the only way you go against a Paul Krugman in this case is to share the existing belief that Mr. Krugman is politically biased (I'll buy that without accepting that bias is necessarily bad) and engages in bald face dismissal or blatant omission of pertinent facts (no sale there). Short of producing facts that support the assertions against Mr. Krugman, what we have here is a he said, he said situation.

In other words, if you want to know more, and possibly what's really taking place concerning fracking, you'll need to do much more than read an opinion.  You'll need to find out who the best sources are on the subject and what their consensus is.

Protesters ousted

Image via CBS news

Here's a quote from the New York Daily News:

"The mayor's office tweeted earlier to Occupy Wall St: "Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protesters can return after the Park is cleared."

Believe that?  I don't.  Why?  Because the mayor of New York, Mr. Bloomberg, has repeatedly indicated that he doesn't think that the occupiers are as good as he is.  For instance, "they" are "not productive" (source) is one of his supposed criticisms.  Why supposed?  Why would you call someone or a group not productive without evidence to that effect?  Because it is not a fact, it is both an assumption and the erection of a straw man with which to do battle, rather than deal with the actual protesters who tend to be pretty much like the rest of us.  Later, he blasted the protesters for encircling wrong-doers and ejecting them from the park.  Bloomberg implies that all the protesters need do is hand the alleged criminal over to the police.  You know, as if the police and the protesters are on the best of terms.  Anyway, protesters bad, police and mayor good, therefore protesters should expect to be treated like lesser beings.

The occupiers may get to return, but not to what was there before.  I would assume that property can be recovered – for a price.  I would also assume an attempt will be made to institute a curfew thus allowing the mayor to have the police evict the protesters.

I don't know what the mayor hopes to accomplish other than to temporarily get his way, 'cause these people are definitely not going away.  Anyway, we have here good examples of assuming a conclusion (circular thinking) the erecting of a straw man (protesters are bums) and red herrings (the park must be "cleared").

I'm starting this in hopes of stimulating some critical thinking.  I'm a former Goldwater republican who would now be called a RINO (republican in name only).  So, okay, now I'm an independent.  Why?  'Cause I don't believe everything I read or hear from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or any of the other conservative sources available.  What about progressive sources?  I check them out too.  Anyway, the title of the blog is the result of a Republican congressman shouting out in an Obama address to a joint session of congress.  More later.

So, how do I check them out?  I begin with sources.  Unfortunately, even in this day and age there's not always a counter source to the source you're questioning that'll give you an unbiased view.  Some of those that I try are Snopes,  Factcheck.org,  The Washington Post fact check blog, Politifact, Media Matters (this one is progressive leaning) and some others that'll come up later.  Not the least of which is Wikipedia.  If none of those (or a few others) has a formal refutation, then I simply have to use deductive logic in the form of known logical fallacies in conjunction with belief preservation, it's cousin confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and the Dunning-Kruger effect.  These compose most of the tools, but by no means is the above a comprehensive list.  None of this comes easy.  It takes time and patience to begin to use these tools well.  But with some determination a person can figure out for him or herself what the hell is going on.

Many, if not most of us rely more on what's called a narrative.  That's a story told by a politician or other interested party that involves facts, but only those that support the story teller's position.  And quite often, as in the case of some Islamists, complete fabrications are asserted without any hint of facts or evidence supporting their claims.  It behooves us - all of us - to question narratives and dig deeper into the claims of people who clearly do not have our best interests at heart.  More later.