When the lies just fall like rain.

How do we know when something is true or not? Until they shut it down in ignominious defeat, the first clue could have been to listen to what the Biden Disinformation Governance Board had to say on a topic - then believe the opposite until proven otherwise. Now that it is gone you pretty much just have to listen to anything the administration says at all.

I saw a great t-shirt today, worn by an acquaintance at the bagel store. "I don't need sex. The government f**** me every day." They do. All do. But, never like this before. I thought Obama was the worst president in my lifetime. But he would be a godsend compared to this one. The lies are unending and without shame.

As I often do, I most sincerely address my moderate and independent friends, those of you who are not Republicans or conservatives (as I am not) and believe you just seek what is best for America, not a political party. You, all of us, have been lied to at an unprecedented rate for years, and even when it comes out, you don't seem to care. 

I have wondered why this is and I've come to the conclusion that there is what some are calling "mass formation psychosis" going on in more than one way. For some of you, it is believing what the government is telling you is true about masks, lock downs, vaccinations, etc. For most of you, it is like the brainwashing in the Manchurian Candidate with respect to one word. You hear the word "Trump," and you immediately feel something is is evil or wrong. You say you like facts or data, but you have virtually none, only negative adjectives to describe him. You cleave to theories, rumors, conspiracies about him, though they are proven wrong so often. Yet you are willing to believe the next one. How often do you have to be shown that they are lying to you to realize it? I'm not sure it is possible anymore. Once an emotion is connected to a political thought it is very hard to break the bind. 

Now with Trump, 

The media and the pols told you told you he couldn't win the primary. He won easily, but, you still trusted them.

You were told by them he couldn't win the general election, but he did and yet you still trusted them.

You were told that he was brutal to woman (NYTs article during the campaign*), until the woman who was the focus of it said the very next day to say that she was lied to by the Times, who told her it wasn't a hit job and it wasn't what I told them. She said, in fact, he had been good to her. I admit it took me a while before I realized you could not trust The Times politically at all anymore, but it had been for a half century my favorite news source and I was very biased in its favor. But, still you trusted them, The Times, CNN, MSNBC, the networks, etc. Why?

*Her name was Rowanne Brewer Lane, if you want to look her up.

You were told his campaign illegally conspired with Russia, which turned out to be not only a complete lie, but a Clinton campaign tactic that our country wasted two years on. We have learned there was a deep state that acted against him and that we can't even trust the FBI. It was actually much worse than Watergate and we aren't even at the very bottom of it yet. It was a disgusting attempt to take down a presidency by political opponents, some his electoral opposition and some in government. The lying has been exposed. But, that somehow doesn't bother you. You don't hate Hillary Clinton the way you do Trump. Why? Many of you still believe that there was something to the Russia story though it was completely disproven AND that the FBI knew it almost from the start.

You were told that Trump saying to the Ukrainian president . . . can you do us a favor (investigate corruption, which would not bode well for his opponent - Biden) was a crime, then a quid pro quo, then. . . uh . . . well we can just impeach him because we want to. Despite the obvious partisanship of it, and a second attempt to take down an American president, and more lying by the left, you still don't care. Why?

You were told that his rule to try to prevent terrorism, temporarily preventing citizens of a few countries from coming here, and which rule did not permit religious discrimination, was somehow a "Muslim Ban." In actuality, only a small fraction of Muslims in the world would be temporarily kept out because of where they came from and not their religion? When it was pointed out in court that Obama had a very similar order, the attorneys for those attacking the rule actually argued it was okay for Obama but not Trump. But you are okay with that. I have to wonder why you don't realize they lie to you about almost everything or don't care?

When he actually solved a border crisis by working with Mexico and other countries, they told you he was keeping children in cages, which turned out to be Obama era cages. But, that doesn't bother you (despite what Biden has done to the border since day 1 of his administration). Why don't you care about it?

They tried to blame the riot on January 6, 2021 at the Capital on him, despite that he only asked that them to march "peacefully" (actually, "peacefully and patriotically"). https://youtu.be/n4Bq6ADEaBk. But they repeatedly lie to you about it, tell you a cop was killed there, that their was a gallows (it was a mock gallows). They tried to impeach him for it even after he was out of office, because it really had nothing to do with the normal purposes of actual impeachment, simply revenge and to try and keep him from running next time. It failed again. But you don't care. I really don't understand the sufferance of the exposed lies being told you unless the mass formation psychosis is that strong, that you not only don't care, but don't even notice.

These aren't small lies, they are big ones. Some of them are major events, or caused major events. For four years they tried to take down the government and almost did several times.

They tell you Trump lies all the time, and no doubt, he does lie sometime. But, he seems to lie about small things that inflate his ego, like how many people were at an inauguration. Differences of opinion are not lies.

One could go on for pages about the lies told you every day and yet you cleave to the belief that the left is better or at least, the Trump right is so bad. 

That most everything is bad is Trump's fault, including:

Inflation.

The debacle in Afghanistan.

The border crisis (which he had actually resolved).

They also lie to you about -

There not being such a thing as men and women but the thinking you are one or the other.

That there are multiple genders.

That mothers are "birthing people," not women.

That men who cut off their penises and take hormones are now women.

That the Florida law forbidding teachers talking to children about sex is about saying the word "gay."

That the biggest problem in America is white supremacy, which certainly exists, but concerns a tiny portion of people in the country and is responsible for an infinitesimal number of deaths by murder compared to blacks (most of which I suspect is connected to economics and the support of what author John McWhorter calls the Elect (woke folks).

That whites are devils and automatically racist.

That cops are trying to murder blacks.

That you are racist if you don't agree with the (racist) "anti-racists."

That antifa are not terrorists despite trying to burn cops alive and taking over territory, but parents who argue against their children being sexualized in grade school are.

That the top 1% of earners, who pay roughly 40% of income tax - do not pay their fair share.

That socialism works.

That capitalism is racism.

That CRT is not spreading in schools and it is only taught in law schools.

That many schools all over the country are not involved in trying to change the sex of children without even their parents' permission or knowledge.

That parents who opposed biological men using girls' bathrooms are domestic terrorists.

That the border is under control.

That homicide is a red state problem (it's an urban problem almost exclusively in Democrat run cities).

That Justice Kavanaugh is a rapist or molester.

All the lies about the Iranian nuclear deal.

That Hunter's laptop was a Russian hoax.

That Biden didn't know about Hunter's business dealings. Really, the lies and omissions over Joe and Hunter Biden - its own topic and not for today.

That Biden was a moderate about the border.

That Biden wasn't going to end fracking (which he did Day 1).

That the military and intelligence advised Biden to handle Afghanistan in the way we did.

That Trump was responsible for 400,000 American deaths from Covid (more died during Biden's first year and he had a vaccine).

That the vaccines prevented the spread of Covid.

That the 550 violent BLM/Antifa/Floyd riots of 2020 were mostly peaceful

That the Florida law stopping teachers from sexualizing 1-3 graders was the "Don't Say 'Gay'" law, though it does no such thing.

That what was known as CHOP in Seattle was about Democracy, not an insurrection (until 2 kids were murdered, then suddenly they had to go).

That Portland wasn't under siege (until they showed up at the mayor's house).

______________________

What's really important is that -

You believe these lies.

You are hypnotized into believing that Trump and everything associated with him is evil and that is the appropriate response to almost every question.

You don't realize that the media lies to you every day.

You don't realize that the media won't cover things they don't want you to know - whether about Antifa, or how many minority children have died because of the defund the police mission, how dangerous the cities have become, Democrat corruption by candidates (Bloomberg officially took the position of not reporting on it, but it was true of most of the other left wing media too), the whole Hunter Biden scandal and his father's knowledge and/or participation in it, the FBI and Justice Department's favoring the left (the Clintons and Bidens more than anyone) Joe Biden's long history of lies and unwanted and inappropriate touching . . . . 

I've run out of steam. It's overwhelming. Hitting Post. 

Why women can't compete in sports with men.

Consider Kevin Mayer’s, the world’s no. 1 men’s decathlete, who does not specialize in any individual event. He could not begin to compete in any individual track and field event like the 100 meter dash or the shot put as a male with any success against those who train just for 1 event like the high jump, or a few similar events, like a sprinter.

But, if he Daley identified as a women and could compete against the best women in the world in the individual events as opposed to female decathletes, who have general ability but are not the best at any of them individually, he would be 1/100^th of a second off the 100 m. world record for the 100 m, tied for the world high jump record and hold the world record in the long jump. I can’t compare the shot put, javelin and discus, because women use lighter weights, but, it is probable he would hold the world record in them, certainly if he used the lighter weights. In fact, in the javelin, he would have the world women’s record despite using a heavier weight. But, if he competed in the 2020 Olympic games against women, again, record holders in their individual events, he would have gotten gold medals in the 100 meters, the 400 meters, the high jump and the long jump. Using women’s weights in the throwing events, we have to reasonably presume he’d also be the winner in the javelin (definitely), shot put, and discus. Certainly, he’d be very competitive. And remember, this is against the best women in the world in those events, not female decathletes, against whom he’d likely win every single event.

The following chart compares Mayer’s best in the decathlon against the women’s world record in the individual events, the women in the 2020 Olympic events and the men’s world records. I do not include the shot put, javelin and discus because women use much smaller weights and they run the 100, not the 110 hurdles. [Note, in the track events, the lower number is superior (ran faster); in field events, the higher number is superior (threw or jumped further)].

Present                       Women’s                                                        Women’s            

Event                  Kevin Mayer’s best        Women’s WR               2020 Olympics    Men’s WR        

100 meters           10.50 seconds                    10.49                           10.61                     9.58    

400 meters           48.26                                  47.60                           48.36                     43.03

1500 meters –      4:18.04 minutes/seconds   3:50.07                        3.53.11                  3.26.00

High jump            2.09 meters                        2.09                             2.04                       2.45

Pole vault             4.80                                    5.06                             4.90                       6.20

Long jump           7.80                                    7.52                             7.00                       8.95

 Consider even Bruce, now Caitlyn, Jenner, who was the Olympic decathlon champion in 1976, 44 years before the 2020 Olympics! Despite the huge changes in technology of the tracks, shoes and other equipment, training and nutrition, if he were allowed to compete against women in the 2020 Olympics and did only as well now as he did then, he would have gotten the gold in the 400 meters, the pole vault and the long jump and a silver medal in the high jump. If he had the same advances in technology and training, he’d probably win every event, or almost every one.

Of course, even now, he would easily, easily, had won the Olympic decathlon, probably if you let a team of women, the best each in their event (that is, not the decathletes, but the world record holders), compete against him.

Event                   Bruce Jenner’s best        Present women’s WR         Women’s 2022 Olympic

100 meters          10.94 s                                10.49                                       10.61

400 meters          47.51 s                                47.60                                       48.36

1500 meters –     4:12.61 m/s                         3:50.07                                    3.53.11

High jump           2.03 m                                 2.09                                         2.04

Pole vault            5.45 m                                 5.06                                         4.90

Long jump          7.22 m                                 7.52                                         7.00

Please do not tell me that Bobby Riggs, who was defeated by Billie Jean King, generally women’s best tennis player, when she was 31 and he was 55 (a former champion) out-of-shape and without training, and who played the first three games in a warm-up suit jacket, means anything (and, actually, earlier, he beat Margaret Court, who was actually ranked no. 1 in women’s tennis that year). In 1998, after bragging that she could beat any male tennis player ranked lower than 200, Serena Williams, probably the all-time greatest women’s player, played one set against Karsten Braasch, who was ranked 203 in men’s tennis and lost 6-1. Her sister, almost as good, played a set with him and lost 6-2. In 2013, Serena acknowledged that then champion Andy Murray would beat her in 5 minutes 6-0, 6-0. When Jimmy Connors was over 40, he played women’s champion Martina Navratilova. No one, certainly not Martina, thought she had a chance and she was given the advantage of hitting into a larger court and Connor was handicapped by getting only one serve. He still won.

I could go on, but allowing men in women’s sports is obvious - beyond crazy and deeply unfair to women athletes. Why are the woke, supposedly on the side of women, so much against them and why in the world does anyone listen to this idiocy? I cannot believe so many go along with it. But, I've said before, we are a sick country and it looks like getting sicker.

I was overjoyed to learn that this year the International Swimming Federation finally determined not to allow biological males who experienced puberty to compete with women. It’s time for all states to follow suite. I literally cannot comprehend how it has not been found to have violated Title 9’s benefits for women’s sports. While I understand the challenges that “transgender” people may have and have empathy for them, it’s a misnomer, and I really don’t see how it is different than a 18 year old high school athlete wanting to play jr. high sports because he feels younger. It’s just an unfair advantage.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which I cannot understand legally (I thought Justice Alito’s dissent excoriated Gorsuch’s majority decision), applies the federal discrimination law to LGBT, despite the fact that they are not covered, and both sides (plaintiffs and defendants) admitted that it was not intended that it be the law when made. Though the decision was limited to saying a business cannot fire someone for being transgender, it might be taken someday to mean you cannot prevent a transgender athlete from competing against his/her chosen or imagined (rather than biological) gender group in sports (male or female). I would argue that since a transgender athlete does not actually change genders, whatever the surgery or hormones one takes may be, it is not the same as not firing them.

It would make it easier if congress would simply re-write the statute essentially barring transgender males who experienced puberty (because it is reported that it tremendously affects performance) from competing against women or girls, unless the women voluntarily agree (e.g., their could be a co-ed league).

I must admit, I am completely baffled by this new movement to multiply genders. I was talking to a college student recently who was certain that there were more than two genders and that it was up to the decision of the individual, the same as deciding if you will be a doctor, lawyer or candlestick maker – except there’s no process or work involved. You just decide, and can undecide (some people say their gender changes often).

When I asked him to tell me what those other genders were he couldn’t say or how the change happened. I asked if “cake” was a gender (he hadn’t heard of that one, but it does exist in some people’s minds – not that they think they are a cake, but they say they feel like one). He fixed me a dark look and said something to the effect that I could not possibly understand and that we shouldn’t talk about it anymore. He was polite but very serious. That's among the more pleasant ways they are trained to react when their arguments are shown to be illogical.

My position is hardly unique, though I wanted to use decathletes to highlight the disparity in male and female athletes and did not know if it had done before. But many people have been outspoken against it. But many are afraid to as the current political/media situation allows for destroying people’s lives over their opinion. Riley Gaines,* who competed in college against Thomas in one of the events he didn’t blow everyone away, tied with him – but officials let him hold the trophy when the photograph was taken. She speaks out (her school backs her up), but explains why others are frightened:

“Once I found out that Lia Thomas was formerly a male because I thought oh, because it makes sense, you know, it ‘makes sense how these times that are so incredible are being swam. And I thought there’s no way the NCAA will let this happen to where females are competing against this person who is 6’ 4” and has male advantages. But I was clearly proven wrong. . . I saw Thomas win a national title that first day which is just heart breaking watching that happen, the tears of the 9^th and 17^th place finishers who missed out on being named an All-American, the extreme discomfort in the locker room. You know there’s just grumbles of anger and frustration but no one really . . . we just weren’t sure how to take action and I feel like that’s something a lot of female athletes are facing. . . But I am sitting here explaining how this is so harmful to women. It’s something that jeopardizes what title 9 was intended to protect. . . I can’t even believe I have to sit here, like you said, and explain why this is wrong.”

[Concerning locker rooms] “As females we should at least have a say in, you know, getting completely naked in front of a male and having to see male parts. You know, these are things a couple of years ago would be sexual harassment. . . And how in the world have we gotten to a point where we are not even letting women know there will be a naked male in the locker room. . . To be in that position it’s absolutely insane. Like this is something you would think we wouldn’t allow.”

[The new Biden proposed Title 9] “But now, rather than that being sexual harassment, this new Title 9, Biden Administration’s Title 9, it’s sexual harassment to refer to refer to a transgender as their own pronouns.”

BTW, likely to be discussed in the future, the proposed Title 9 by the Biden Administration is insane. I’m not concentrating on it here. It is one of many, many, many reasons to defeat the Democrats in the next election.

*P.S., for Trump haters who think Gaines avoided a kiss from him on stage recently, she said: “In no way, shape, or form did I ‘dodge a kiss’ from Trump nor was I uncomfortable on that stage with him at any point in time,” Gaines wrote on an Instagram post Monday that included a photo of her and Trump. “I slightly turned my head so I could hear what he was saying to me. Proof that not everything you read is factual. But keep clutching at straws, it’s almost comical.”

As Gaines said, I can't believe it either that I have to explain this. It's like having to explain that dirt is not a vegetable and you can't eat it just because you decide it is one.

Like the culture wars in the ‘60-80s, you never know where this will come out. It seems as predictable as what video will go viral. But, I do know which way leads to trouble and I feel like we are headed that way. Really, in so many ways.

 

Tilting at the "that's an anecdote" windmill.

From time to time I write here about the way people argue, which fascinates me. I have been doing this for about sixteen years now so you’ll have to forgive me if I can’t remember everyone, but just last month I wrote about accusations of whataboutism and sometime in the past I recall writing about the "you can’t prove that” argument and also analogies.

They are similar in a few ways. They are based on technically fair arguments. Whataboutism is based on relevance. “You can’t prove that” is based on the fact that you can’t prove anything scientific or many other things unless it is logically excluded. Disagreeing with someone else’s analogy is always allowed, but, as I have said at least once in this bulging sack of blog-opinions, though I know at least once I did well on a standardized test on analogy, somehow no one has ever agreed that an analogy I used when disagreeing with them was close enough to the facts of the subject to be useful.

All these arguments are technically valid. But often it is overkill. But, both are used by adversaries in an argument to get you not to be able to speak – which is, sadly, what a great deal of argument turns into if people are determined to win and cannot be convinced. Whataboutism is overused to refuse you to allow you to give any context to the discussion that would not support your adversary’s view, or demonstrate hypocrisy or at least err by them, by making it a thing – as if you may only refute or agree with the exact set of facts your adversary says. It is as if they can cross-examine you and insist you answer “yes” or “no.” The difference is, in an argument, it’s not a trial and you or your lawyer doesn’t get a chance. That’s just the end of the argument for them.

Here's something you might notice about those who accuse you about whataboutism or that you can’t scientifically “prove” your point (you can’t, of course, if you know anything about science, absolutely prove anything). You will probably never hear them say it to you when you are agreeing with them.

But, this post is about anecdote as in, that’s just an anecdote and therefore isn’t persuasive - so I will not go on about the other arguments people raise. I was debating with someone this past week about politics, and I made what was absolutely an anecdote to which he said – that’s just an anecdote. Okay, fair enough but only as far as it goes. I hadn’t actually made the argument that – “Here is my anecdote, and, therefore, I win!” Nor had I said, here is one time something happened.

Anecdote can actually be very persuasive sometimes, and actually can prove something (again, it’s hard to absolutely prove anything, but sometimes you can). When someone gives you an absolute, such as, “There were no chocolates in that bowl EVER!” and you respond with, “There’s a chocolate right there,” or, “I just ate a chocolate from the bowl,” as long as you are being truthful, demolishes their point.

I can think of two better, less abstract examples. Some years ago (I believe in 2004, when Bush was facing off against John Kerry in the presidential election) at someone else’s family dinner to which I was invited, someone said, “No president who was a war leader was re-elected,” which was of course an absolute. I started to think and said, “Well, Madison, War of 1812,” to which she agreed as an exception. Then I said, “Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon – who am I forgetting?” Frankly, I felt a little bad as I could see she was embarrassed, and it wasn’t my intention. Nevertheless, I gave anecdotal evidence. But, if I had only given one name, it proved her argument false.

In my second example, my opponent deserved a little embarrassment. For the second time in my life someone said to me “I don’t do absolutes,” with not a little bit of an air of superiority. The first time I thought of a comeback too late to use, later that day, but this time I was ready with – “You do know that’s an absolute, don’t you?” The point here is that, again, it was an anecdote – one personal example. But, enough to disprove their point, because it was an absolute. My anecdote just happened to be on that same exact topic.

BUT, for those of you who want to use anecdotes in discussions - FEEL FREE. Even if you are not pointing out that an absolute is not so by your story and your story just furthers your point, there is nothing wrong with it. Here’s the reason. An anecdote can be given for many reasons. Sometimes you just feel like telling a story. But, even if you are using an anecdote to try to be persuasive, it’s okay. Very few things in life are subject to enormous amounts of data or scientific experimentation. Trust me on this, your “I call anecdotal” opponent has and will continue to use them too. But, just because you use an anecdote (or can’t prove something with scientific precision) doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

I am not saying, prove your arguments by using anecdotes all the time, as obviously it is true that an anecdote that doesn’t exclude the truth of what you are arguing against (as with disproving someone’s absolute with an example) can only do so much. I’m saying that people accuse others of a fallacy when they say - that is an anecdote and doesn’t prove anything, but it is they who are really making the fallacy when they assume that you are trying to do so, and what you say might actually be true as a point.

Very often with anecdotes, it is the factors surrounding them that make them more or less useful. For example, suppose you are in a group discussion about the dangers of Chernobyl to tourists and someone says, “My Uncle Hubert went to Chernobyl when he was 40 years old and in perfect health and died of radiation poisoning a few weeks later” I will find that goddamn persuasive and not go to Chernobyl.

And of course the more anecdotal evidence you have the more persuasive it is to us. Where anecdotal evidence turns into data or a good sample size I don’t know. But, I know I was persuaded that Bill Cosby was a rapist by the sheer number of women who were prepared to give evidence who had no benefit from doing so (they got no political advantage, they could no longer sue him for money, they were coming out to the world that they were raped – and women, many of them no spring chickens tend to feel shame about it). Each had an anecdote, but together it was extremely powerful.

As with the other arguments I discussed above, you will probably find that no one ever says “That’s just an anecdote when you are agreeing with them.” Then they will very likely find it very persuasive in that case. At least, that has been my long experience.

Arguments usually means something is unsettled. What interests me is the way they are used, or overused, and how they usually lead to some form of an opponent dictating to you – you can’t say that. I’m sure my critics (the only critics I actually have are close friends, relatives and my evalovin’ gf) would say I am guilty of all the above. Fine. Maybe so. Maybe I’m the worst ever at it. But, doesn’t make it not so. I don’t think I discovered anything in writing about this topic. But, it is something I think about a bit and I don’t think most people do. Perhaps wanting to help people argue better makes is Quixotic. Okay. Then I am tilting at windmills (again). Hope not too much.