Transparency, Tweets, Trump

The monokini, designed by Rudi Gernreich in 1964, consisting of only a brief, close-fitting bottom and two thin straps, was the first women's topless swim suit. His revolutionary and controversial design included a bottom that "extended from the midriff to the upper thigh" and was "held up by shoestring laces that make a halter around the neck." Some credit Gernreich's design with initiating, or describe it as a symbol of, the sexual revolution. (Wikipedia)

In 1968 Yves Saint Laurent presented the “see-through” look. Diaphanous fabrics had been used before, but the modern age of “transparency” had now arrived. And, though gossip publications had appeared earlier, People Magazine, which first appeared in 1974, was a success in satisfying the public's wish to hear about everything. Social media, including Twitter, more recently increased the availability of “facts,” whether true or not. (Recently it has become the method of choice for the quick transmission of political messages.) We all wanted to share everyone else's secrets – physical and intellectual.

And political – perhaps like the others not for the better.

We demand to know everything that our government is doing, disregarding the implications of sensitive actions being revealed to the world. And in response to the demands of voters, our representatives made “Freedom of Information” of most political and governmental processes, entitlements. And in the few instances when statutes tried to protect governmental secrecy in the name of security, we encouraged, and published, whatever “leaks” we could find. That the leaks were violations of the law, and potentially harmful to our country, was irrelevant. (The media, of course, defend them usually on First Amendment grounds and contend that we deserve to know. And in addition, leaks sell newspapers.)

Transparency has developed over time. And with extensive opposition. “Spin artists” have been around for a long time, and are utilized by both major parties (and advertisers of all types), to present a story told in their words and perspectives, rather than those of their opponents. Truth is not the issue – particular “information” is. We want transparency that supports our opinions – it doesn't create them, it just provides ammunition for us. If it doesn't say what we already believe, it is fake.

In the past, privacy and secrecy were respected by the media in general, and there was reporting only of generally relevant, and non-sensitive information, with “private matters” and those related to security – health, family issues, sexual proclivities and the like, in addition to secrets of state – considered to be off limits. But those days are over. We're eager to protest loudly against anything with which we disagree even if we have no information to back up our protests; however if we have anything to support our claims – and it doesn't matter if it is true or “spun” – all the better. Protests were far more limited in the past, but nowadays, with a mindset that tells us that we're entitled to have everything the way we want it, and with the promotion of group identity, they're very much in style. We refuse to countenance any disagreement with our views.

It is intolerable, then, if the information questions or contradicts our perspective. Transparency is only valid if it supports our point of view. It can only be believed if we can use it to support our preconceived notions. Otherwise it is not true transparency but spin and lies – the propaganda of the opposition – and should be akin to see-through clothing which is rejected by many as corrupting and pornographic (you “know it when you see it” – or see through it).

But voyeurs want a reason to gape. And ideologues want whatever will help them rant. And they feel entitled to it. That's what transparency is all about and that's what we deserve. It makes no difference that it was denied us in the past (probably justifiably) – even as recently as the last administration – we want it now.

If it helps us.

Happy Bastille Day.

Astigmatism

I'm troubled by the Trump presidency, but I accept the results. Perhaps I'm not as nervous as you, but I'm troubled. And there are many who tell me how to think about him.

What moved him was simply a craving for facile and meaningless banzais, for the gaudy eminence and power of the leader of a band of lynchers, for the mean admiration of mean men.

Indeed, another characterization labeled him as

the monumental fakir of history.

Those were the descriptions, however, not of our current leader, but of the first real “progressive” in American history, President Theodore Roosevelt, assessments by H. L. Mencken and Woodrow Wilson (as cited by David Greenberg in his book Republic of Spin, which is well worth reading). What they demonstrate is that even knowledgeable people may have slanted views of figures of their times. The terms they used then were comparable to what is said now about our president.

As I said in a prior message, history is not always correct – and even honest testimony of the times may be wrong. In this case they were misperceptions of honorable people, but they are more often the creations of politicians and their publicists. Those people have the job of convincing you that black is white, if you look at it the “right” way. And they have the responsibility for helping us form all our opinions in the manner they (are paid to) consider correct. And they also help us form images of the personalities they represent. Positive images, of course. Dedicated to truth and the American way. It's thought control.

But for every spinmeister who says “black is white” there is another who maintains that “white is black.” The script doesn't call for the view that black is black and white white. Accurate and objective determination of the facts is not part of the job; the challenge is to convince voters that there is only one way to understand the facts, and they'll tell you what it is, and anyone who disagrees – anyone who interprets events and people differently – is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Of course they are referring to those in the opposing camp.

Ideology is the prism of understanding. It is not only the moral and educated view, but the tool for convincing others of “Truth.” It's not always necessary. Some have internalized the prism and cannot see anything except through it. They're enlightened. Except to those with a different prism who consider them evil, while they themselves are virtuous.

“Spin-artists” are exemplars of this creative activity. They paint the activities of those they represent (and their families) in warm colors and attractive garb performing virtuous acts, while the opponents are depicted pejoratively, as unattractive stick figures out to do evil. And we can have no traffic with evil (except in a close election between unpopular candidates in which it may be necessary to proclaim our choice as the lesser of evils). And if we cannot tolerate evil we certainly cannot compromise with it. In the time until the next election we must stand our ground against those who aren't worthy of our admiration. In fact when the time comes we'll be pointing out whatever those specializing in spin tell us about the errors of the opposition. Almost all campaign publicity will be negative. It will be more a matter of why we should not vote for the opposing candidate than why we should vote for theirs.

When the election is over, then, we're faced with more contention than cooperation; with avoidance rather than action. And too often the supporters of those who were defeated are so convinced that evil has triumphed that they question the results, protest the acts of the winner, and refuse to cooperate with the opposition. Ideological purity, as defined by those hired to sell it, and teach voters to see it positively in every act performed by those they represent, is more important than honesty. Party loyalty and discipline trump doing the job for which the candidate ran, and for which some were elected. It is better to stand up for proclaimed virtue than to sit down and work things out with those whom your pitchmen have depicted as charlatans.

The challenge to us is to tease from the advocacy journalism we face – that of the spin doctors of the press – what we can of acts rather than the depictions of those acts by others. Difficult as it may be our job is to judge on the basis of accomplishments, not on the judgments of those who oppose those accomplishments.

“Spin” is not a new phenomenon nor a recent technique for controlling the mind of the listener, but it is a hindrance to objectivity. It is a barrier to intelligent evaluation. And it can – no, it probably will – obstruct any achievements by our government. That's the job of the practitioners of spin.

Happy Independence Day.  Make your mind independent of those who seek to take it over.

June 20, 2017  

History

“History is bunk.” (Henry Ford)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana)

And they're both right.

History is an indispensable part of our education but it's sometimes difficult to know what is true.

Let me add another perspective. “History is written by the victors.” Winston Churchill is credited with that thought, although we all know it to be true. We see it every day in the media. The term we use currently is “spin,” and it reflects the way that some want others to “understand” and remember the facts. That's what the victors in battle did. And later generations passed on their views to us as an accurate reflection of what had happened. Sometimes it was true, but not always.

In his “Life of George Washington,” Pastor Mason Weems taught us many myths about our first president – myths that have come to be accepted as reflecting the character of George Washington, even if the “facts” may have been manufactured. Like the work of Thomas Bowdler, Weems goal was to teach morality, but it's been passed down as history.

The Russians made an art of spin. They rewrote history. But they had the power to do so. They could change the text of textbooks and present it to several generations as facts which were eventually accepted. George Orwell, in 1984, fictionalized that act, but his meaning was clear. If we don't know what tyrannies can do, and prevent them, they will deceive us again and again.

And despots, given the opportunity (and if not they'll take it anyway), will use twisted history to justify their own acts. Hitler blamed the Jews for undermining German war efforts and he set out to destroy them both before, and during, the war that he precipitated. History can be used as an excuse for evil.

But it can also be used positively, if that is the aim of those who cite it – even if the “facts” it uses are wrong. The Jewish holiday of Tisha B'Av – a single date – commemorates disastrous events that occurred on different dates so as to obviate the need for additional fast days. No attempt is made to alter the other details of the events – only the days. The source of information is the Bible, admittedly written before factuality became an important part of history, although many accept its words at face value as the words of G-d.

Also problematic as history are the Gospels, written after Jesus's death by people who never met him. They were based on stories circulating at the time and have been accepted as accurate, notwithstanding the disputed historicity.

My words should not be understood as a denial of history. The vast majority of what we learn is probably true. It is based on artifacts which provide the facts on which history texts are based. But the historical record also relies on the accounts of those who lived at the time of those events, and their views may be based on ideology rather than truth. We see that with “spin.”

Quoting a Russian proverb, President Reagan said “ Trust but verify.” He was speaking of nuclear inspections, but he was using the words of a nation that had often covered up or altered history to further its position. They're good words, however, for understanding history. The record we have is a valuable guide for us, but it is strengthened, and more worthy of our reliance and observance when supported by reliable evidence.

Properly documented history is not bunk. But sometimes people knowingly make it so in order to aid their own agendas.

June 15. 2017

In The Eye Of The Beholder

Israel Resumes Bombardment of Palestinians

Observes truce for only six hours

That's the headline I expect to see on the front page of tomorrow's New York Times. Perhaps somewhere in a lower paragraph, or on an inside page well beyond the view of someone whose main interest is in headlines and lead paragraphs, there will be a brief mention of the fact that Hamas didn't accept the truce at all, and that it continued to aim rockets at Israel during the time that no fire was being returned. (I speak primarily of the Times, by the way, because of its influence, but the situation is far more extensive.)

And the article will be accurate in terms of presenting facts. But it will completely mislead the readership. Actually, it won't mislead the readership, who are used to this kind of misplaced emphasis and who approve of it. For them this is the truth that's fit to print; it's the truth they want to read. The Times sees Israel as the source of the problem in the Middle East, and trumpets the victimhood of the Palestinians who fight on bravely, though, despite the billions contributed to the PA, they lack modern weapons and defenses. It is a land blockaded by Israel which is starving the Palestinians and making the area uninhabitable. There is little notice of the long border of Gaza with Egypt nor the large number of smuggling tunnels from both Egypt and Israel.

And in addition to the frequent front page articles bemoaning the fate of the Palestinians, there are regular editorials and “Op-Ed” columns which describe the steps Israel must take if there is to be peace. There are two problems with those columns, however: they imply, wrongly, that only Israel must act in order for there to be an end to hostilities, and, even more wrongly, they lead the reader to believe that if Israel acts peace will result. The refusal of Hamas to accept the present cease-fire, and the long history of failures by the Palestinians to respond to Israeli offers of peace make it clear that agreement is not what Hamas and the PA seek. And the continued indoctrination of their children to hate Israel and Jews makes it unlikely that a positive result will be brought about by anything Israel does.

But that's not what “spin” is about. “News” articles have become editorials and reporters are now advocacy journalists. All you need to do to “subjectivize” the facts is to make whatever supports your view prominent, and bury what brings it into question. The last place to look for the news is in the “objective” media. Better to look in publications that don't hide their bias. At least you know what you're getting.