A Vexing Plague

Stupidity and ignorance are things I spend a great deal of time thinking about. Although the conditions know no national boundaries, I find the Americans easy to single out for their profound inability or refusal to think. But here at home, the same condition, although less widespread and deep, is also to be found. We see it reflected in our leaders, who frequently ignore empirical evidence with no negative impact on their standing with the masses. Doug Ford, Ontario's premier, is a good case in point.

Ford, ever the populist, has declared war on speed cameras, promising legislation to ban them, dismissing them as ineffective and mere cash grabs to augment municipalities' coffers. 

Despite study findings and the opinion of police associations and municipalities to the contrary, Ford said speed cameras don't slow people down...

Others beg to differ. 

Automated speed cameras have reduced speeding around Toronto school zones by nearly half, according to a new study.

The study, published in the journal Injury Prevention and led by researchers at The Hospital for Sick Children and Toronto Metropolitan University, looked at the effect of automated speed enforcement cameras deployed across 250 school zones around Toronto from July 2020 to December 2022.

Looking at speeding data in these areas before and after speed cameras were installed, it found that cameras have reduced the proportion of speeding vehicles in urban school zones by 45 per cent. 

While the proportion of drivers going 10 km/h over the speed limits decreased by 74 per cent, the study found the proportion of drivers going 15 km/h over the limit decreased by 84 per cent. Drivers going 20 km/h or more over the limit fell by 88 per cent, the study found.

Statistics, indeed, most things empirical, mean nothing to people of Ford's ilk, so 20 Ontario mayors are trying to get him to change his mind with compromises and the opportunity to save face.

"For most of us, the intention has always been to install cameras in school zones to protect our most vulnerable residents — our children," says the leaders' letter.

"A total ban on ASE would reverse years of progress on safety in school zones. It would place more pressure on police, increase enforcement costs, and most critically, endanger lives," it says.

The letter lists compromises the municipalities are willing to make to keep ASE measures in school zones, including the following:

• Warning tickets for a first-time offence.
• Setting cameras at a reasonable threshold of speed before a ticket is issued.
• Cameras only operate during school and community use times.
• Blackout on additional fines for seven days after a driver receives the first ticket to allow them to change their behaviour. 

Perhaps Burlington Mayor  Marianne Meed Ward said it best:

"Our letter is really our plea. It's an SOS to the premier. A 'save our schoolkids.' When you get hit by a car at 30 (km/h you have a chance of surviving that. When the speeds go to 40 or 50, your chances of surviving that impact drop dramatically," she said.

Will any of this be enough to move the Premier? I have my doubts, but there is something else that might persuade him to change course. 

A Canadian Automobile Association South Central Ontario survey, conducted by market researcher DIG Insights and released Wednesday, finds 73 per cent of respondents support automated speed enforcement in certain areas.

The survey, which was conducted from March 7 to 19 and surveyed 1,500 Ontario drivers 18 or older, also found 76 per cent of respondents believe cameras deter speeding. The survey's margin of error is listed as +/- two per cent. 

Populists prefer to be popular with the electorate. Whether the engaged element of the citizenry have enough influence carry the day in the midst of wide scale ignorance, however, remains to be seen.

UPDATED: State Control: Limiting The Range Of Thought in Amerika

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . 

― George Orwell - Nineteen Eight-Four

Orwell wrote his seminal novel as a warning,  presenting a world of rigid control over thought, word and deed. With a little updating, it would seem to fit precisely the world of  fascist orthodoxy Donald Trump (or those behind him) is trying to impose on his Amerika - a domain without critical thought.

One needn't recount all the ways in which the suppression of thought, views and voices is being effected. There are, of course, his constant attacks on the universities, initially over so-called DEI initiatives and anti-semitism. Then came the demands for further, massive government control over them. Then there is the increasing militarization of America's cities, with the National Guard and ICE instilling fear in the populace; it is becoming common for masked officials to grab people off the street, out of their cars, ripped from their homes. Impeding any of this becomes a crime. Indeed, another literary icon anticipated such in one of his best-known works:

Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning. 

Franz Kafka - The Trial

Beyond the obvious strongarm tactics, most recently we have witnessed very overt attempts to censor contrary opinions, especially ones that expose Trump for the duplicitous, hypocritical dictator he is. See, for example the lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal over its coverage of his sordid relationship with the late pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. The New York Times has been targeted for its endorsement of Kamala Harris and its critical coverage of his mad machinations.

Unfortunately, corporate compliance has been extensive, with CBS, ABC, And Disney falling into line either through payoffs on meritless lawsuits or the termination of employees, as per Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmell. NPR and PBS are being defunded, and broadcast licences are being threatened. Even the 'progressive' MSNBC has bent the knee. But that is only the beginning. 

The murder of Charlie Kirk is offering up new opportunities for repression, all for the 'crime' of people practising their free speech rights.

Over thirty people across the country have been fired, put on leave, investigated or faced calls to resign because of social media posts criticizing Charlie Kirk or expressing schadenfreude about the conservative influencer's assassination earlier this week, according to an analysis by NPR.

 ...some GOP lawmakers and officials are signaling their readiness to punish people for their speech. Conservative activists are collecting and publicizing social media posts and profiles that they say "celebrated" his death and are calling for them to lose their jobs.

"If they have their picture on their profile, even without a name, download the picture and reverse image search it," posted right-wing influencer Joey Mannarino. "Cross-reference it with their LinkedIn profile and find their place of employment. Call the place of employment, leave Google reviews." 

So what is the endgame here? There are some obvious but superficial explanations for the current reign of repression and terror in Amerika. One is that Herr Trump is so malignantly narcissistic that he cannot brook any criticism. Such is always a hallmark of the cult of personality. However, to me it goes far beyond that and far beyond attempts of a malevolent Republican Party to stifle all opposition for mere political gain. The fascist state that America has become is bent on controlling not only what people say but also what they think.

My assertion, at first blush, may seem preposterous, and to be honest,  I initially considered that I might be overthinking things. Censorship and propaganda were easy in earlier times, when media were limited. But how, especially with the internet and social media, is it even possible to limit people's exposure to a diversity of voices and hence to the information needed to critically assess things?  The internet may be a toxic stew, but progressive voices still abound, especially on Bluesky (which I now use).

While I am not necessarily predicting success, the dark forces at work are doing their damndest. Justin Ling writes that back in 2022, Charlie Kirk was warning his followers to be wary of social media, and he and his fellow travellers concocted a plan.

They moved to alternative, conservative-friendly social media to start getting their message out. They prioritized real-world organizing. And they began plotting how they could bend the internet to their will.

Not even nine months into Trump’s return, this plan has worked even better than they could have imagined. Alternative social media is a hotbed of pro-Trump fervour, a right-wing youth movement is ascendent in America, and the big tech firms have volunteered to comply.

Given that people like Mark Zuckerberg (who, as Ling notes, "has publicly bent the knee to the Trump administration") and Elon Musk employ algorithms that favour rage (the more rage, the more clicks), it is easy to see how this might get even worse under a regime bent on suppression. As Ling notes, 

Trump exploited online grievances about censorship and deplatforming. He weaponized a steady stream of viral videos to claim that America’s cities had fallen to lawlessness. He elevated racist chatter about migrants to set the stage for mass deportations.

It doesn't end there.

On Monday, Vice President J.D. Vance occupied Kirk’s broadcast chair to memorialize his fallen friend and promise retribution. With his White House colleague Stephen Miller, he warned of a secret “pyramid” of media outlets, activists, and NGOs who had formed a dangerous underground terror network. Miller vowed “channel all of the anger that we have … to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks.”

This has already begun online. Pro-Trump online activists have already compiled databases of those allegedly responsible for provoking or celebrating Kirk’s death, including journalists and academics in Canada. One Trump-friendly Congressman is floating an “immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.” 

So a potent formula has been put in place: suppression of voices, both academic and lay, the imposition of terror in the streets, the opening of snitch lines,  the policing of dissident voices on the internet, the threats of dismissal and incarceration. Will the voices of dissent diminish or dry up? I hope not. With less access to unbiased or progressive sources, will people feel increasingly wary and isolated and less inclined to assess things critically? Will they decide that speaking out and thought crime are not worth the risk? 

There are many ways this could turn out. As always, it will be the people of the United States who decide their own fate.

UPDATE: Defense Secretary Pete hegseth has ordained all information from his department must be vetted first, or the press will be locked out.

Reporters will now need express approval from the department in order to publish any information gathered at the Pentagon, and are forbidden from accessing most of the building without an escort.

And this letter from The Star effectively bookends my post:

Why Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension looks like a step along the path to American autocracy, Sept. 18

I never watch Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show on ABC. I’m also a centrist, not a liberal or conservative. Still, I’ve been disturbed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s attacks against liberals and journalists. It reminds me too much of the Nazis’ playbook, which saw the Third Reich take control of the press after Adolf Hitler’s ascension to power. To me, this situation with Kimmel is simply history repeating itself.

Alan Pellettier, Toronto

On Binary Thinking And The Gaza Genocide

I read an interesting column the other day. In it, Janice Kennedy reflects on our tribal natures, natures that promote binary thinking. 

... one side or the other, black or white. Shades of grey are forbidden.

Condemn the Israeli government for the catastrophe in Gaza, and you’re antisemitic. Don’t condemn it, and you’re Islamophobic. Our capacity to understand nuance, make distinctions and accept complexity seems increasingly like a dying intellectual art.

Kennedy observes that in this age of rabid social media, the propensity for bifurcated thinking has deepened and spread. The internet has much to answer for in this regard.

As a teacher, I always felt it was part of my job to help cultivate critical thinking skills, skills that can only gradually develop through thought, analysis, and reflection. The world badly needs those skills today.

The latest announcements by Israel to occupy Gaza are an opportunity for the world in general, and Canada in particular, to break free of the stigma of criticizing the Jewish state and take concrete action that morality demands. No one should believe Netanyahu's claim that it will only be a temporary measure; past practices suggest it will ultimately be annexed by Israel.

Given the history of the Holocaust and it prior unstinting support of Israel, Germany is taking a bold move in reprisal.

The German government will not approve any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice, chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Friday in response to Israel’s plan to expand its military operations there.

Merz said it was Israel’s right to disarm Hamas and to seek the release of the Israeli hostages but “the German government believes that the even tougher military action in the Gaza Strip decided upon by the Israeli cabinet last night makes it increasingly difficult to see how these goals can be achieved”.

Under these circumstances, the German government will not approve any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice.

The release of the hostages and negotiations for a ceasefire are Germany’s top priorities, Merz said, expressing deep concern over the suffering of civilians in the Gaza Strip.

Germany’s parliament said in June that export licences for military equipment to Israel worth €485m ($564m) were granted between 7 October 2023 and 13 May 2025, reports Reuters.

Canada, despite its stout denials of  sending such equipment, needs to immediately cease its military exports to Israel. However, that should only be for the first step. It also, in my view, needs to suspend its free trade agreement with the Jewish state. It would send a powerful message of condemnation over the ongoing genocide in Gaza, as well as Netanyahu's annexation plans. 

Canada could take a page from Ireland's recent actions.

 On June 25, the Irish government introduced the Occupied Territories Bill, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at aligning Ireland’s trade policy with international law.

The bill prohibits the import and export of goods and services to and from Israeli settlements located in occupied Palestinian territory, outposts deemed illegal under international law by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The issue of Israeli settlements is not merely a political or moral concern; it is fundamentally a matter of international law. In July 2023, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion reaffirming the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court urged states to refrain from any support—whether through trade or other means—that could sustain these unlawful settlements.

While Ireland's actions deal only with the occupied territories, Canada should go further, leading the world in expressing its revulsion at Israel's ignoring of international law, law that is supposed to protect all.

We live in fraught times, times when  public and political morality often exist only as passing whims. For the sake of all, including our collective soul, we need to act with resolution and dispatch.

The Horror Of Uncertainty

I am convinced that, as a species, we have an innate aversion to uncertainty. Rather than admit to some very real facts of life, contingency and complexity, we prefer to cling to the illusion that all problems are solvable if only we have the right people leading us. Unfortunately, the 'right people' are seldom fit for the job.

Hence the appeal of demagogues like Donald Trump and PP, both of whom make life sound so easy. "Make America Great Again" and "Axe the Tax" and "Let's Bring It Home" readily come to mind as taglines by and for the simple-minded.

Lord knows that our world is beset with chaos from which we would like to hide. Raging conflict in the Middle East, intractable war between Ukraine and Russia, civil wars in Africa are but three examples. Unfortunately, and this is a profound failure of political leadership, we are urged to see such conflicts in binary terms, the "good guys" versus "the bad guys". I can't think of a better recipe for the prolongation of such chaos.

But one need not look to the world stage to see this aversion to uncertainty. Here in Ontario, our populist premier, Doug Ford, continues to ride high in the polls. To listen to Doug, so much of the domestic chaos we bear witness to on a daily basis is eminently solvable. Are you homeless? Then get off your ass and get a job. Traffic congestion got you down? Let's build a tunnel and stop building bike lanes. 

Things are simple when you are simple. Unfortunately, our collective passion for certainty only encourages the reckless rhetoric and sophomoric solutions offered by people like Ford et al. One of the latest examples of this is the Ontario government's response to a very serious problem investigated by the Toronto Star: the plight of Ontario's most vulnerable children with complex needs in care. 

Ontario is failing its most vulnerable children. A broken system is leaving kids with complex mental health and developmental needs unable to get medical help and supports — and pushing families to the brink. 

The series includes details about how kids are being housed in office buildings, Airbnbs, etc., because Children's Aid Societies lack the resources, both in monetary and personnel terms, to adequately safeguard them. And they are getting little help from the province.

CAS leaders say the problems extend beyond the child welfare system and they’re demanding both an immediate emergency response and commitment to long-term systemic change. It’s far past time, they say, for the provincial government to confront the crisis.

“We’re yelling at the top of our lungs that we have a five-alarm fire and it feels like the intervention (from the government) is: here are some batteries for a smoke detector,” said Derrick Drouillard, executive director of Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society.

If you were to read the series, you would know that this is a complex problem to which the bromide of certainty is inapplicable, but that has not stopped Mr. Ford from trying his best to reduce it to its lowest common denominator.

Ford said his government has increased funding to children’s aid societies, but alleged some are abusing taxpayer money rather than properly spending those funds on kids. 

“We’re hearing nightmare stories about the abuse of taxpayers’ money — I’ve heard stories of some of these agencies working in Taj Mahals. They’re paying rent — $100,000 for rent,” Ford said when asked about the issue at an unrelated announcement Wednesday morning in East York.

Not everyone is comforted by the premier's 'analysis'.

Irwin Elman, who served as Ontario’s child and youth advocate from 2008 to 2019, said he was angered by the Premier’s comments Wednesday.

“To think that this crisis across the sectors is in any way about the mismanagement of money — and will be solved by addressing the mismanagement, if it exists — is dangerous and puts children at risk. Pure and simple,” Elman said.

Unfortunately, "pure and simple," aided and abetted by an often complicit electorate, is exactly what Ford and his fellow travellers are offering. And until more people do the hard work of thinking, analyzing and voting responsibly, nothing will change.

 

Living In A Void

Maybe I am in a bit of a mood today, but I can't help but be disdainful of those who live in a news void. Even if you don't subscribe to a newspaper, there are plenty of sources that can keep you reasonably well-informed, be it Google News, the CBC website, The Guardian, etc., etc. And I have no patience with the excuse that people are too busy making ends meet to know what is going on around them. To live in ignorance is to live in a void, one that can be unscrupulously manipulated by others.

What prompts my criticism today is the rail lockout that has affected commuter lines, most notably seen in the cancellation of the Go train on the Milton line. Apparently, many were caught unaware.

Some commuters arrived Thursday morning at GO Transit stations along the Milton line, which cuts through Mississauga to Toronto's Union Station, only to learn service had been suspended.

"This is completely unacceptable, and we should have been informed earlier, said Om Sangekar, speaking outside the Cooksville GO station. "I'll definitely be late for work."

The larger point here, of course, is that if people cannot even keep themselves informed about events that have an immediate and local impact, what hope is there for them when it comes to issues that affect all of us? 

The spread of misinformation, whether through AI or fake news, is facilitated when one has no context by which to evaluate it. In our country, little PP exploits the void relentlessly and sometimes skillfully. To accept his version of 'reality,' we are a highly taxed and failing nation that has been led to the brink by Justin Trudeau and his merry band of men and women. Only PP can save us from falling over the edge, because he will surely "bring it home."

To a much worse degree, the same is happening in the United States. To hear Trump and his minions tell it, only he can save America from the abyss that awaits it should they choose the "radical Marxist" Kamala Harris.

Again, if you live in a void, defining the country in stark and absolutist terms has much appeal, especially since it saves you from the hard work that real, critical thinking entails. But in my view, you are a citizen in name only, since you choose to excuse yourself from any real participation in the duties that real citizenship requires.

That's the end of my little screed. Regular programming will resume soon.

 

Connecting The Dots

Were we abundantly blessed with critical-thinking skills, we would have no problem asking some serious questions about the direction in which Ontario is headed with Doug Ford at the helm. As well, we would be able to discern a pattern that suggests the premier is leading us nowhere good.

I am hardly the first to note that this Progressive Conservative government has been progressively and relentlessly paring down the revenues we need to fund our healthcare, our education system, our infrastructure and our social safety net; to be fair, this process long predates Ford's ascension. But since the time of Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution, it has only gotten worse.

• In the guise of helping 'the little guy',  Ford has kept extending a popular gas-tax cut that, while saving the average household about $130 per year, has thus far cost the treasury, since its inception in 2022, a total of  $3.2 billion. 
• Then, of course, there is the ending of licence plate renewal fees, again costing the treasure about $1.1 billion per year.
• Additionally, as I pointed out in a recent blog post, there is the war against the LCBO, a public institution that on average contributes about $2.5 billion to the provincial coffers.
• And on the expenditure side, it has been estimated that the early cancellation of the Beer Store agreement in order to get more product into private hands could cost upwards of $1 billion.

So where does all of this lead? To an impoverished public purse and a turn to the private sector to fill the void. 

Jordan Roberts writes of the move to put more alcohol into stores, now that the way has been paved for beer and premixed cocktails:

Having won this major battle for beer and wine revenue, Ontario’s big box stores and grocery stores will put additional energy into lobbying to sell spirits like gin, vodka and whiskey. “Hard liquor” is currently only sold at the LCBO or LCBO-licensed outlets. The inclusion of ready-to-drink products (like hard seltzer) in the announcement will help support industry’s argument that they should be allowed to sell all kinds of alcohol, because they are already selling products which include spirits.

The chains have also been lobbying for the right to be wholesalers and distributors of alcohol, taking advantage of their own integrated distribution systems and subsidiaries. Currently, only the LCBO and the Beer Store can run alcohol distribution in the province.

The fate of the LCBO becomes increasingly precarious, as the prospects of grocery and big-box store  profits soar, especially if one considers  the following:

Claudia Hepburn, who was appointed to the board of the LCBO in 2021, is Galen Weston’s first cousin. Galen Weston, of course, is the chairman of Loblaws’, and stands to benefit enormously from these changes. 

The there is the chair of the LCBO, Carmine Nigro,

a developer (CEO of Craft Development) who was hosted at the premier’s table at Kayla Ford’s wedding reception. Nigro’s company benefited from a number of MZOs (or Ministerial Zoning Orders, which are fast tracked zoning approvals) from Ford’s government. Prior to MZOs being issued to his company, Nigro was also vice president of the PC Ontario Fund, a fundraising arm of the Ontario PC party. Nigro is also part of the controversial scheme at Ontario Place, as chair of the Ontario Place Corporation. 

Thanks to available public sources, all of these facts are fairly accessible to the public. But it is up to all of us to connect the dots to see the larger picture, one that Jordan Roberts concludes is pretty grim:

Within this strategy, a key tactic is making sure government coffers are empty, so that government cannot provide services to its constituents, ensuring the only options for services are private ones. In that regard, the Ford government’s moves on alcohol sales are not only a gift to friends and donors in the private sector, and a way to reduce the influence of labour unions, but another nail in the coffin for Ontario’s government revenues.

Thinking Clearly

Those who read this blog with any regularity likely know that I make frequent reference to the importance of critical thinking. As I have said before, it is an ideal toward which I am always striving, never claiming to have perfected the skill.

When I was teaching high school seniors, we did a unit on Orwell and the use of language combined with an examination of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies. I would have the students clip things out of the newspapers (yes, they were still fairly widely-read in those days), and they would tell the rest of the class what language errors and logical fallacies they found. The results were mixed, as there is a certain maturity, intellectual level and contextual knowledge needed for sustained critical analysis.

Nowadays, given the bombardment of arrant nonsense that social media and extreme websites embrace and spread, critical thinking is more important than ever; admittedly though, it goes against a strong and widespread inclination to indulge in what I call lazy thinking. 

Real thinking can be hard work, but the following helps in our efforts to spot and refute bad arguments.

1. Appeal to ignorance

This is when a lack of evidence is interpreted to mean a claim is real – rather than placing the burden of proof on the person making the claim. It's a fallacy that commonly underlines arguments for conspiracy theories. Ask one of the estimated 10 million-plus people who believe that lizards run the world about the evidence for their claim, for example, and they might counter, "Well, these lizards are too clever to leave any evidence – that's what makes this situation so dangerous! How can you be sure it's not true?" You might wind up scratching your head, but, hopefully, it's not because you've been persuaded; it's because they've set you the trap of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

 

 2. Ad hominem

This is a fallacy in which a claim is rejected on the basis of an aspect of someone's character, identity, motivations, or even the relationships they have with others. Think of the health professional who is told that they are only recommending vaccines because they must be a shill for Big Pharma, or the research of climate scientists being dismissed on the basis that they must be ideologically motivated.

3. Slippery slope -

This is the argument that taking one step, or putting into place one measure, will inevitably lead to more and more drastic measures – like an object sliding down a slippery slope. [It could be called the Domino Theory of the mind.] It's particularly common in debates over policy. Think of the argument that some opponents of same-sex marriage made against legalising it in places like the US or Europe. In 2016, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles found that many people who were against the policy were persuaded by the argument that it would lead to greater sexual promiscuity across society, and threaten their own way of life. This particular argument is fallacious because, rather than debating the policy change itself (whether same-sex marriage should be legalised), the policy was dismissed because of the fear of its predicted outcome (the breakdown of traditional society).

4. Strawman

I see this one on social media, especially, all the time. It's misrepresenting the argument of the other side to make it seem more ridiculous, and therefore easy to defeat. Think of someone who puts forth a nuanced argument that excessive sugar intake may raise the risk of health issues like heart disease. A strawman response would be, "Oh, so what, sugar is killing everyone and should be outlawed? That's absurd!" This distorts the original argument, making it easier to defeat – a strawman.

 5. Appeal to authority

This pernicious argument holds that someone's credentials, fame or reputation alone prove that they must be right. If people perceive someone as an authority, they have an innate cognitive bias to assume they have expertise in all things (even subjects they have no background in). 

More problematic still is the version known as "appeal to irrelevant authority". Our tendency to believe something because, say, a celebrity states it, even if they have no expertise at all in the topic at hand – a classic tendency in today's influencer-obsessed world. But "irrelevant authorities" aren't always so obvious. Take arguments about climate change, for example, when sceptics quote someone like a theoretical physicist as an expert – despite the fact that theoretical physics generally has very little to do with climate science.

 

6. False dichotomy

Presenting a complex scenario as if there are only two either-or, often opposing options, rather than multiple options. Think of that famous, often-recycled and even ancient phrase, famously used by President George W Bush shortly after 9/11: "You're either with us or against us." It implied to the international community that they had only two options – back the United States completely, including in its invasion of Afghanistan, or consider themselves enemies. In reality, of course, there were a spectrum of other options nations could take, and kinds of allies (or enemies) they could be.  

7. Whataboutism (also called whataboutery)

Sometimes considered a type of red herring – a logical fallacy that uses unrelated information to redirect away from the argument's flaws – whataboutism is intended to distract attention. It describes when, normally in response to an accusation or a question, someone responds with their own accusation. 

In politics, one of the most infamous examples has been when Russia is accused of human rights violations, and its leaders respond "Well, what about the West?". While a whataboutism can serve to illustrate hypocrisy, it deflects from the original argument.

There is no magic elixir that inoculates us against the ignorance so pervasive in the world today, and the problems will only be compounded by the increasing use of AI. Whether it will prove a winning or a losing war remains to be seen, but do we have any real choice other than to fight the good fight?

 

 

What The Transcript Shows

 

My previous post addressed a concern that the media are writing narratives for us, telling us what to think, creating a consensus that may be at variance with reality. I cited the conclusions drawn about the Liberal loss in the Toronto by-election of Toronto-St. Paul and the debate between Joe Biden and Don Trump.

A producer of nine federal leaders' debates in Canada, Mark Bulgutch, offers his view of the American debate, observing that if one were just to read the transcript and not fixate on Biden's weak performance, one might come away with a different perspective.

Compare the content, not the performance, and then decide who should be president.

For example, when Trump spoke about abortion, he claimed that Democrats, “will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth — after birth.”

Biden responded, “He’s lying. That is simply not true.”

Trump: “Every legal scholar, throughout the world, the most respected, wanted it [abortion law] brought back to the states.”

Biden: “The idea that states are able to do this is a little like saying, we’re going to turn civil rights back to the states, let each state have a different rule.”

Trump on illegal immigrants: “We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now. All terrorists, all over the world — not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere. All over the world, they’re pouring in.”

Biden: “I’m not saying no terrorist ever got through. But the idea they’re emptying their prisons, we’re welcoming these people, that’s simply not true. There’s no data to support what he said.”

Trump: “And because of his ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies, people are coming in and they’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen.”

Biden: “Every single thing he said is a lie, every single one.”

As I said in my post, Biden did, despite his muddling performance, had policy on his side, while Trump relied on his usual strategy of total fabrication.

When Trump was asked about climate change, the best he could do was, “I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air, and we had it. We had H2O.”

Biden pounced. “The idea that he is claiming to have done something that had the cleanest water? He had not done a damn thing with the environment. The only existential threat to humanity is climate change. And he didn’t do a damn thing about it.”

Biden skewered Trump time after time. On Trump’s election denial: You’re a whiner. When you lost the first time, you continued to appeal and appeal to courts all across the country. Not one single court in America said any of your claims had any merit.”

On Trump’s accommodation of white supremacists: “What American president would ever say Nazis coming out of fields, carrying torches, singing the same antisemitic bile, carrying swastikas, were fine people?”

And finally, on why those who have seen Trump close-up now flee from what they saw: “His own vice president — look, there’s a reason why 40 of his 44 top cabinet officers refused to endorse him this time. They know him well. They served with him. Why are they not endorsing him?”

And I have nothing to add to Bulgutch's conclusion:

Yes, Joe Biden had some truly awful moments during the debate. But I’m not sure a president makes his toughest decisions in two-minute sound bites. Judge what he said, not how he said it.