"I Alone Can Fix It"

This entry comes from a campaign quote of 2016:

"Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it."

If you don't remember that—or 2016, for that matter—it's understandable.  The party in power likes to keep as much obfuscated as possible, partly by continually manufacturing more controversy.  It's a way of keeping us from thinking about what they've done or are doing.  No one has time to think things through.

Still, looking back at "I alone…" is worthwhile.  It's a telling statement in several ways.

First, it's immensely arrogant.  Out of everyone in the nation, over three hundred million, why would any one candidate be the only suitable person?

Second, it's beyond baseless.  A career in real estate, reality tv and, as we now know, committing business fraud doesn't give someone the knowledge base to be able to make such a claim.  "No one knows the system better than me"?  Really?  Coming from someone who's never even been in the system?

Third, it's remarkably revealing.  "Nobody knows better than me."  "I alone."  Fifteen words, and still managing to concentrate twice on himself, and only himself.  He turns out to be a narcissist?  Don't that beat all.

It just goes to show that, regardless of what any of us want to believe, in the case of anyone who might be trying to put one over on us, whether a politician, an advertiser, an influencer, or anyone else, we need to exercise our critical thinking skills.

Do they have something to gain for themselves from what they're saying?  Are there any facts to support their claim?  Do they at least have a history of truthfulness?

If you fell for this one, don't beat yourself up too much.  There was plenty of propaganda going by trying to get you to believe it.  And it was skillfully done, playing into The Politics of Discontent.

No, if you fell for it, don't beat on yourself, just don't let it happen again.  Think things through regardless of the pressure of events.  Consider what the claims are trying to accomplish, and whether there's any evidence to support them.

And, as in this case, if the answer is no?

Tell the one making the claims to beat it.

Truth

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I certainly agree with the sentiment, but at the same time the sentence shows how loosely the word "truth" can be used.  Those aren't truths, they're aspirational goals.  Declarations of intent.  Political philosophy.

I mean, if they were indeed truths, things that are always so, we wouldn't see rights getting alienated so often these days, would we?

The trick, of course, is to distinguish what we want to be so from what truly is.  What is factual, what is provable, and what hasn't yet been disproved.  Those can be relied on to reach good decisions.  Wishful thinking?  I wish.

Faith is fine and beliefs are understandable, but consider this.  People or companies with significant wealth almost always have accountants to keep track of their assets.  Those accountants are hired because their employers trust them to do good work.

But do you expect those employers not to employ auditors?  Faith only goes so far, and trust can become tenuous.  Discovering the truth is best.

Let me add that historians, biographers, and, for that matter, responsible journalists aren't the only ones trying to discover what really happened or what's going on.  It's an honorable endeavor.  All ages can engage.

So here's my advice.  Sorry if it comes across as a bit blunt, but I'm a bit bothered that I need to point all this out:

1. Rely on Those Who Must Be Accurate
- You can trust the wire services more than most information sources, because they mostly sell their material to other media, and that's less likely to happen if their work is inaccurate.
- Likewise, you can trust medical authorities who have to worry about malpractice suits more than anyone who doesn't.
- "Truth in advertising" doesn't go very far, and free speech allows liars a lot of freedom.
Find sources who can't afford inaccuracy.

2. Avoid Wishful Thinking  If you want to sit around and speculate, be my guest.  "Wouldn't it be great if…?" is harmless, as long as you don't base your decisions on it.  Because, yeah, it would be great.  If.

3. Don't Trust, Do Verify  As much as you might wish to just trust a podcaster or somebody, don't.  Don't put your faith in me either.  Don't go trusting a single source, even one with a background and reputation for accuracy.  (I do have one, and I put more than thirty years into getting it.  That doesn't mean I'm always right.  No one is.)  Verification is work, but do it anyway.  Find multiple sources who, as previously noted, Must Be Accurate.  Then start testing their conclusions.

4. Learn Some Science  Understanding the scientific method will take you far, especially if you apply it.

5. Read Some History  For readable historians who try to avoid bias, try Barbara Tuchman or David Halberstam.  Maybe Cornelius Ryan.  (You can also read the biography I wrote, which I don't profit from, thanks.)  You can keep going from there.  (If you absolutely, positively can't get yourself to a library, as a last resort go to history entries on Wikipedia and go on to the entries' sources.)

I'd recommend more authors, but every time I learned a new language (and other times as well), I'd go devour a bunch of histories to learn about the country and culture.  But I read so many, one after another, that I didn't and don't remember the authors, drat it!

In any case, if you know some history, you know some of the mistakes humans have already made, and some of the wrong thinking they've engaged in.  That helps keep us from repeating them.

5a. Note that #5 doesn't say Watch Historical Videos.  Read.  You'll learn to spot bias and evasion a lot more from reading than watching.  (I have a book I've read three times over the years that's a history of the Taney era of the Supreme Court.  It's readable and thoughtful.  After the second time through—and reading a lot of other books besides—I realized the author was trying to rehabilitate Chief Justice Taney, the man behind the dreadful debacle of the Dred Scott Decision.  The author had a point, in that Taney was pretty good at jurisprudence, and only had the one truly terrible decision.  At the same time, Taney was a Jacksonian through and through, with the limitations that come with that.  And he did come up with a horrendous, society-damaging decision.  Rehabilitation is largely unattainable with Taney.)

It takes time and effort before you'll be able to pick up on what any author may be trying to do.  But being able to do so is absolutely worth that time and effort.

6. Flip the Issue on Its Head  There's nothing wrong with considering the opposite viewpoint, but even better, try reversing the issue.  If a businessman proposes taking a chainsaw to the federal government, is that any better than the government proposing to take a chainsaw to businesses?  If a president says they deserve not to have further elections, that brings up all sorts of entitlement issues.  ("Deserve" is a dangerous word.)  But that aside, flip the question over.  How did that president get in office anyway?  Don't future candidates "deserve" their own chances?

7. Last one: Check Credentials  Would you hire someone without a contracting license to put an addition on a house you owned?  Would you go to the barber to get a tooth pulled like people did a century or two ago?  Even for a president who stocks his cabinet with people lacking any expertise in the areas they're overseeing, consider credentials.  When that president has a medical problem, does he go to the free clinic?  When he's in court, does he use someone fresh out of law school?  Think about it.

I wrote a whole series of articles on critical thinking, beginning by examining what distinguishes facts from opinions from theories from beliefs.  They're in my free ebook Parallel Worlds and Skew (named after this blog) (which you'll probably need to create an account to read or download), http://self.gutenberg.org/eBooks/WPLBN0100749959-Parallel-Worlds-and-Skew--Essays-and-Reflections-Essays-and-Reflections-by-Johnson-Kevin-Wade.aspx?  (I don't gain anything from you reading or downloading that book, either.)  If you want to know more, that's a starting point.

Proof

"The Best Just Got Better"
-New Coke slogan

Its elegance,
its engines,
its exciting new features,
make other cars
seem ordinary
— Edsel advertisement, 1957

Now you can be as loud as you want with New Doritos Wow! Tortilla Crisps.  They've got all the super loud, break-out-from-the-crowd taste of Doritos.  And because they're made with OLEAN, they've got only 1 gram of fat at 1/3 fewer calories.  So even with less fat, it's still…the loudest taste on earth.  Wow!

"Everybody Needs A Yugo Sometime."

It was "like Pulp Fiction for the year 3000" and "like Star Wars, only better"
- John Travolta, promoting Battlefield Earth

Do you believe any of those?

You could certainly hear or read those words enough, back in the day.  So the message was there, but who was receptive?

I'll put it another way.  Why would anyone believe anyone's unsupported word on anything, especially when it's self-serving?  The above are just examples, though they're infamous ones.  New Coke was massively perceived as worse, Edsel is still a byword for failure, Wow! chips caused "anal leakage" (Wow! indeed), nobody needed a Yugo ever, and Battlefield Earth is on many "worst ever" lists.

And yet so many advertisers, politicians, and influencers expect you to take their word for things.

Since you can find anything on the internet, you can find plenty of claims that won't hold water.  The earth is flat, we never went to the moon, vaccines are dangerous…the list goes on and on.  And just as nonsensical as the ad slogans I started this with.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Your product is best?  Talk is cheap.  Let's see some proof.

I'll talk more about it soon(-ish), but just keep this in mind for now: If someone suffers no penalty for inaccuracy, maybe don't trust their words.  Furthermore, if they benefit from inaccuracy, maybe don't even listen.

There are reputable sources out there.  But the self-serving, self-promoting, and even self-centered ones, not so much.

Propaganda vs. Journalism

This is from 1894, not 2024

Introduction

Misinformation is bad enough.  Disinformation—meant to mislead—is even worse.  And there's a lot of it out there.  It's been a problem probably ever since town criers started bawling, but it's gotten worse lately.  There are propaganda outlets masquerading as media.  If you want to make intelligent decisions, you need to be able to tell propaganda apart from reputable journalism.

Example

I found when teaching that there's nothing better than a good example.  I managed to dig up something from Chinese state media back in 1961.  The distance in time and foreign origin should defuse anything inflammatory, and enable easier analysis.  I'm going to put some words in italics:

This coup was reactionary, and deliberately engineered by the American imperialists. After the American imperialist running dog Syngman Rhee was toppled, [they] brought Jang Myeon [Chang Myun] to power, bringing in so-called American-style “democracy” with the scheme to strengthen their colonial rule in South Korea. But since last April the people’s struggle had been growing by the day, the struggle for peaceful reunification gathering more and more steam. … So in advance they engineered a so-called “military coup”, with the purpose of suppressing the South Korean people’s struggle and strengthening fascist rule.
- https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/cable-chinese-embassy-north-korea-contents-may-18th-north-korean-party-central-standing

Analysis

Things like the above used to come out of Chinese state media all the time.  (Nowadays they're a little more subtle.)  But let's examine it.  We'll start with everything I put in italics, divided up into three groups:
1.    reactionary, engineered, imperialists, scheme, colonial, people's struggle, peaceful
2.    so-called "democracy"/"military coup"
3.    running dog, fascist

Group 1 consists of words with emotional loading.  Neutral terms, which don't evoke an emotional reaction, would be "conservative," "facilitated," (I can't think of one for "imperialist"—maybe "expansionist"), "plan," "conflict," "foreign," "non-violent."  Note that in the cases of "people's struggle" and "peaceful," the emotions meant to be elicited are positive.

Group 2 consists of redundant phrases with scare quotes.  Scare quotes are meant to scare, on some level, which makes them a variant on the kind in group 1.

Group 3 consists of insults, terms meant to denigrate.  Again, meant to make the audience react emotionally.

(One other note: a lot of "they" in that example, with "they" never quite defined.  It's easier to cast blame without accountability if you never specify who you're blaming.)

Journalism and Propaganda

Now, these bits from Wikipedia are useful (they come from the Journalism and Propaganda entries):
⦁    "Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day" and that informs society to at least some degree of accuracy."
⦁    "Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented."

The key words from each include "informs" vs. "influence," and "accuracy" vs. "emotional…response."  Journalism has a different goal from propaganda.  If you can't tell them apart you can easily be misled, being influenced when you were open to being informed.

Distinguishing Between the Two

Reputable journalists are trying to give you the facts and the context so you can make up your own mind.  They don't seek to persuade.  (Editorials are something separate, and are not a problem if labeled as such and kept apart from news stories.)

Journalists will often point out potential consequences, but try not to let their own biases creep in, and try not to use alarmist (emotional) language.  That can of course be difficult.  But the goal is for rational reaction, not emotional.

But if you read or watch information sources, whether they call themselves news or not, sources that consistently or even constantly use loaded words and emotional language, if the reporters resort to insults, well, go ahead and follow that outlet if you want to.  Just keep in mind you're watching something where influence is the goal, and the message trumps accuracy.  Watch or read it if you want.  But don't trust it.

Let Me Help You with the Covid-19 Risk Assessment

Back before I retired I did risk assessments all the time, although they were highly specialized and unrelated to health issues.  Still, I'm familiar with the techniques.  What are the odds of various outcomes, what are the stakes of those outcomes.  Then balance the numbers.

Feel free to skip to the conclusions.

Covid Percentages

What's the percentage of the (US) population who's been infected?  (I'm generally going with US numbers here.)
⦁    31% estimated as of about a year ago
⦁    Source: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020
⦁    Also: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/09/07/covid-19-infected-many-more-americans-in-2020-than-official-tallies-show/
⦁    As of the end of last month, 57,898,239 cases reported from a population of 333,961,250 = about 17% (asymptomatic and mild cases won't always be reported)
⦁    Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html
⦁    And: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

Of those infected, what's the percentage chance of severe symptoms?
⦁    1 in 6, around 17%
⦁    Source: https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-19-symptoms#:~:text=Most%20people%20will%20have%20mild,diabetes%20or%20heart%20disease

What's the percentage chance of dying from Covid-19?
⦁    859,356 dead in a population of 333,961,250, or just over 2.5%
⦁    Source: https://www.statista.com/topics/6084/coronavirus-covid-19-in-the-us/
⦁    And: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

Vaccination Percentages

What percentage of those receiving vaccines had a reaction?
⦁    2.5% had an allergic reaction
⦁    Source: https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/Real-world-data-reveal-risks-of-allergic-reactions-after-receiving-covid-19-mrna-vaccines
⦁    0.6% in the vaccine group and 0.5% in the placebo group had a severe response.  (Serious adverse events were defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in death, was life-threatening, required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, or resulted in persistent disability/incapacity.)
⦁    Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html
⦁    Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 57 out of 17,200,000 doses (.0003%)
⦁    The chance of Guilain-Barre Syndrome may be (based on preliminary reports) higher, 283 of 17.2m (.0016%)
⦁    Source for both: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
⦁    Myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation): 518 cases as of about six months ago out of (at that time) 158m fully vaccinated: .0032%
⦁    Source: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccine-side-effects-vs-covid-19-damage-theres-no-comparison

What percentage of those vaccinated will get sick from Covid-19 anyway?
⦁    1 in 5,000 = .02%
⦁    Source: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/breakthrough-infections-coronavirus-after-vaccination

What percentage of those vaccinated have died from the vaccine?
⦁    3 out of 187,200,000 vaccinated (.00000016%)
⦁    Source: https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-the-u-s/
⦁    Note: 187.2m vaccinated out of 333,961,250 population = 56%

Infection by Status

For the population of Washington state, at least:
⦁    People ages 12-34 are 2x more likely to be infected if unvaccinated, 10x more likely to be hospitalized
⦁    People ages 35-64 are 3x more likely to be infected if unvaccinated, 14x more likely to be hospitalized
⦁    People age 65+ are 6x more likely to be infected if unvaccinated, 13x more likely to be hospitalized
⦁    Source: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

Conclusion I

Assessing risk means balancing the various odds against the stakes.  Here are your stakes, which are straightforward: death or severe illness/reaction.

Here's your odds:
⦁    You're 2 to 6 times likely to be infected if unvaccinated
⦁    Of those infected, about 17% have gotten severe symptoms, 2.5% died
⦁    You're 10 to 14 times more likely to be hospitalized if you do catch it and you aren't vaccinated
⦁    Of those vaccinated, .6% had a severe response to the vaccine, compared with .5% of those given a placebo.
⦁    Of those vaccinated, .00000016% have died
⦁    2.5% dead from Covid is 15,625,000 times more likely than .00000016% from vaccination

For an alternate perspective:
⦁    3 dead from vaccination, as noted above
⦁    11 or so people die every year from spider bites (Source: https://faunafacts.com/spiders/yearly-deaths-from-spider-bites/)

There's your risk, and it's not that hard to assess.

Do the math.  Get vaccinated.

Conclusion II

No numbers here, just the way infections work and how this one works.

Very young children still can't be vaccinated, vaccines are less effective for those with aging immune systems, and may do very little for people with compromised immune systems (like cancer patients, or people with organ transplants or autoimmune disorders such as lupus or Crohn's disease).

You may like your chances because you're young and healthy.  But are you willing to risk infecting those less fortunate?  Are you going to throw your grandparents and all those preschoolers under the Covid bus?

Worse, keep in mind that viruses are always mutating, but generally only when they reproduce.  The bigger a pool of infected people, the more they're reproducing, and the more mutations we will get.

Delta was deadlier, omicron more everpresent.  Heaven knows what the next will be like.

Even if you figure you won't get severe symptoms or die, do you want to help the next Covid variant come along?

Do the right thing.  Get vaccinated.

QAnonsense

The law enforcement official on the left is wearing a QAnon patch

Heard of "QAnon"?  Wonder what it is?  Well, here's a one-sentence summary, emphasis mine:

QAnon is the umbrella term for a sprawling set of internet conspiracy theories that allege, falsely, that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who are plotting against Trump while operating a global child sex-trafficking ring.
- https://news.yahoo.com/qanon-viral-pro-trump-conspiracy-122409485.html

Want another reliable source?  Try the BBC, which shouldn't share any US biases (emphasis, again, mine):

At its heart, QAnon is a wide-ranging, unfounded conspiracy theory that says that President Trump is waging a secret war against elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles in government, business and the media.
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53498434

In another words, it's another conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, belonging on the lunatic fringe.

So is it staying out of the mainstream, belonging only to lunatics?  I will add this quote, which speaks for itself:

When asked his opinion on QAnon during a press conference, President Trump claimed not to know much about it, saying: "I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate", remarks which have been interpreted by some as tacit approval for the conspiracy.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53849295

Way to ensure an informed electorate, Mister President.  Should I be surprised that "they like me" is when you stopped paying attention?

Anyway, for the rest of us, this is just one more preposterous conspiracy theory.  Something else to mislead the misguided.  Don't give it credence.

Seriously.  I mean, if you find QAnon plausible, why not go whole hog, and believe these too?
⦁    The US Constitution secretly wants us to follow Congress, not the president:

Take the first 24 prime numbers (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89), and find those words (2nd, 3rd, 5th, etc.) of the Constitution, and you get the following:

"The people the states form more justice domestic the welfare secure ourselves do and for all be in states of senate house be second."

Clearly the Founders' prime intention was to say that we and the states could secure justice and domestic welfare for ourselves if we made ourselves second whatever the Senate and House go with.  See?  It's been there all the time!

Too long-winded?  How about these, which have just as much basis in fact:
⦁    Omniscient God always knew what the Trump administration would be like, and knew it even at the Creation.  He decided He would not hide His feelings about it.  And that's why the sky is blue.
⦁    How can Trump be so oblivious to reality?  Well, the aliens who took over the Kremlin got to him on his first trip to Moscow, and took over his brain too.
⦁    Why does he have such weird hair?  To hide the electrodes, duh.
⦁    President Trump is not qualified to be president, anyway, since he wasn't born in the United States.  He came out of a lab in Wuhan, China.

I can come up with more that are at least as ridiculous, but I hope you see the light already.  Get the facts, apply critical thinking, and proceed using logic and skepticism.

That way we will no doubt secure more justice domestic the welfare.  Ourselves.