Was Colluding with Russia OK?

This morning on CNN there was a discussion with a group of Trump supporters. One of the questions they were asked was something like: Does it bother you there might have been collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? All but one of the group of seven said no, it doesn't bother them. As seeming justification for their position they said the US has interfered in foreign elections.

It sounds like they are trying to make the argument that: BECAUSE the US has interfered in foreign elections THEREFORE, it is OK for foreign countries to interfere in our elections and since it is OK for foreign countries to interfere in our elections THEREFORE, it is OK for Americans to collude with foreign countries who are interfering in our elections.

Is this a good argument?

Now many people don't care if they are making good arguments. When many people set out to defend their TRIBES they don't care about facts or logic, they just defend their tribe at any cost.

But WE are not like that.... WE are intelligent human beings who want to think carefully and make sure we have good reasons for what we believe and what we do.

So let's examine the argument I heard this morning.

One way to examine an argument is to apply it to a different, but similar situation, and see if it still makes sense.

***

What if we were not talking about an election, what if we were talking about business instead? Let's apply the election argument to a business case and see if it still makes sense.

BECAUSE my employer is trying to undersell a competitor in order to win a contract THEREFORE, it is OK for our competitor to try to undersell my employer to win the contract and since it is OK for our competitor to try to undersell my employer THEREFORE, it is OK for me to to collude with our competitor in trying to undersell my employer.

That doesn't really work does it? It does not follow from the fact that my company is trying to undersell a competitor that it is OK for me to collude with the competitor in trying to undersell my company. In fact, if I were caught doing that, I would be accused of disloyalty and I would certainly be fired.

***

Let's try another example. What if my country is fighting a battle against an enemy during a war. Let's see how the argument looks in that situation:

BECAUSE my country is trying to defeat an enemy in battle THEREFORE, it is OK for the enemy to try to defeat my country in battle and since it is OK for our enemy to try to defeat my country in battle THEREFORE, it is OK for me to to collude with our enemy in trying to defeat my country in battle.

That doesn't work either does it? It certainly does not follow from the fact that because my country is trying to defeat an enemy in battle that it is OK for me to collude with the enemy in trying to defeat my own country in battle. In fact, if I were caught doing that, I would be accused of disloyalty and I would most likely be charged with treason, and possibly executed for my crime.

***

So an argument might sound reasonable to us just because it supports what we want to believe. But if we apply that argument to other situations and see that it makes no sense than it probably makes no sense in the place where it was originally used either.

Based on this analysis our conclusion is that even if the US has interfered in foreign elections, whether rightly or wrongly, it does not follow from this that an American is justified in colluding with a foreign country to interfere in our elections. In fact, colluding with a foreign country to interfere in a US election would prove that you were disloyal to your country and to its political system, and a person who is disloyal to the US should certainly not be working for the US government.

[Based on the direction we are moving now it might be wise to learn about the last time a dangerous President had to be removed. This book looks like a good place to start. Please buy it, read it, let me know how it is!]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

The Trump Hypothesis

Shortly after we found out about the meeting between Trump, Jr., Manafort, Kushner, and the "Russian government lawyer," we found out there were more people in the room. One of them was connected with Russian counter-intelligence. However this particular detail turns out... it just felt like the last straw to me.

I'm going to propose what I now think is a very reasonable hypothesis for testing:

"In 2015-2016 the Russian government and Russian intelligence launched an operation to put a friendly person into the White House, someone who would give them favorable treatment over sanctions, the Ukraine, and other issues. They used a variety of methods they are known to have used in other countries. At some point, the campaign they were helping began communicating with them and cooperating with them in this operation and the Russian choice for 2016 is now the President of the United States."

The first part of the hypothesis - that there was a Russian operation - is already supported by overwhelming evidence. The second part of the hypothesis - that an American Presidential candidate cooperated with a Russian intelligence operation designed to make him President - is becoming more likely with every new revelation.

So that's my hypothesis. Now we will test it with all the available evidence. Let's see if it's true. If it is not true, no harm done. If it is true, this will be a tragedy for the United States, and an embarrassment of epic proportions.

***

[Now that Trump is President we better learn all we can about him. This book looks like a good place to start. Please buy it, read it, let me know how it is!]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Practical Thinking for Busy People

To be PRACTICAL thinkers we have to be able to make reasonably good decisions without spending 12 hours per day doing research. We have to be able to do this even in areas where we don't have expertise.

How is this possible? Even if we can't expect to make PERFECT decisions - and never make a mistake - can we at least find a way to make GOOD decisions given the very limited amount of time most of us have available for research?

Let's take a look at the Senate health care bill as an example.

To be honest I don't have time to read the Senate health care bill. To be even more honest I might not understand the bill even if I did have time to read it. Still, I feel like I have to know SOMETHING about this bill. I feel like I have to know enough to decide if I should call my Senator and say "support it" or "reject it."

So what can I do? Well, what if someone with more time and expertise than I have reads the bill and reports on it? Maybe I can rely on them.... In fact, this is exactly what the Congressional Budget Office does. I feel confident the people at the CBO are smart enough to understand this bill better than I would. Of course, the CBO might make a mistake but I certainly trust them more than I trust politicians who are arguing about a partisan political issue. So using the CBO report to help me make a decision about this bill seems like a good potential strategy.

Sadly, it turns out, I don't have time to read the CBO report either! Even more sadly, I might not have the background knowledge or expertise to even understand the CBO report. So what can I do now? Can I find someone who can read the CBO report and kind of summarize it for me?

Fortunately, many newspapers and news magazines have done just that. I will turn to a magazine I like and trust: The Atlantic. I have a reasonable level of confidence in the writers at this magazine. I think they are smart and honest so let me see what they say about the CBO report.

This is what I found in the article below which reports on the CBO report for the Senate health care bill:

• The Senate health plan will increase the number of uninsured Americans by 22 million over the next 10 years.
• Premiums will go up at first but then come down to less than what they are now.
• For many people total costs will rise, however, because plans will cover less and deductibles will be higher.
• The government will save $321 billion over 10 years. (Since the federal budget is approaching $4 trillion this means we will save less than 1% of the budget.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/cbo-senate-republican-bill-22-million/531663/

Summarizing what I learned from this article I get:

• Many more people without insurance
• Total costs higher
• Coverage less
• Savings negligible...

My conclusion: BAD PLAN! Try again. So now I know I should call my Senator and say "Reject this bill!" And if he says "Why?" I even have bullet points to share and a source to reference so I don't sound like an idiot.

If I have a little more time I could read a second article in another magazine to see if it basically agrees with this one. If I wanted to be very careful I could try to read one article from a liberal magazine and one article from a conservative magazine. If they both agree on certain key points about the CBO report I can probably be pretty sure that is the truth about what is in the CBO report.

In the example I am writing about in this essay I am relying on the CBO report to help me decide whether I should support the Senate health care bill or not and I am relying on one or two news articles to help me understand what is in the CBO report.

Now I admit, if I have the time and the expertise to read the whole Senate health care bill and understand it and make a decision about it then that is what I should do. If I DON'T have the time and expertise to do that then this little essay describes a way to make a reasonable decision anyway. This "shortcut" method is not perfect but it is PRACTICAL. It is certainly better than making a decision based solely on feelings or partisan speeches, certainly better than doing nothing, certainly better than throwing up my hands in despair.

So this is what I call PRACTICAL thinking: find a source you trust and understand and that you have time to read. If you have time, check it with a second source. Look at the facts presented and make your best decision.

As a final note, keep your mind open. If someone says your decision is wrong ask them why they think that. If they have good reasons, adjust your thinking accordingly. If they don't have good reasons stick to your original decision and move on to the next issue! :-)

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***
[This looks like a great book about critical thinking. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here at Anything Smart.]
[If you want to support Anything Smart just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. Anything Smart will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Testing Beliefs

Good thinking is the essential foundation for all our efforts to be successful in life, to achieve our goals, to create better lives for ourselves and our families, and a better society for everyone. Whether we are choosing a mechanic to work on our car or a doctor to perform surgery, buying a house or planning for retirement, changing jobs or voting in an election, the quality of our thinking will have a lot to do with whether we succeed or fail, whether we win or lose, whether we make our lives, and our world, better or worse.

Bad thinking, on the other hand, leads to failures and foolish mistakes; it leads to missed opportunities and leaves us at the mercy of manipulators who cunningly make sure they get what they want... without any regard to what is best for us. It can even lead to injustice, or worse: as Voltaire once said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

Learning to think better is a lifelong quest but it begins with the recognition that good thinking is important, vital to our success, in some cases even a matter of life and death, and then making a conscious effort to improve our critical thinking skills.

"Criticism is the examination and test of propositions of any kind which are offered for acceptance, in order to find out whether they correspond to reality or not. The critical faculty is a product of education and training. It is a mental habit and power. It is a prime condition of human welfare that men and women should be trained in it. It is our only guarantee against delusion, deception, superstition, and misapprehension of ourselves and our earthly circumstances."

A lot of critical thinking just comes down to asking ourselves questions about our beliefs and then trying to answer them:

• What is it exactly that you believe?
• Can you clearly and unambiguously define the words and phrases you use to express your belief?

• How important is the belief?
• Is it something very important that is worth spending a lot of time on or not? (Deciding which restaurant to have lunch at should not take much time. Deciding which house to buy should take quite a lot of time.)

• Why do you believe what you believe?
• Do you have strong evidence or just weak evidence?
• Can you prove it with a logical argument? (Remember that "proof" comes in different "levels." It can be a matter of probability, or beyond a reasonable doubt, or actually certain, which will usually only happen in mathematics.)
• Do you have to depend on expert testimony or can you analyze the evidence for yourself? (Don't be afraid to listen to experts and learn from them. That's what experts are for!)

• Do you have time to learn more about your belief by reading articles or books?
• How do good thinkers defend your belief?
• How do good thinkers oppose your belief?
• Which side has the best evidence and the best arguments?

In real life we can't always be sure we know the truth. In cases like that you don't have to be paralyzed.

• Can you at least explain why a particular belief is beneficial to you?
• Makes you're life better?
• Makes society better?

If you can answer these questions in the affirmative then it is OK to keep right on believing something you can't prove. Just don't pretend your belief is based on facts and logic, admit that it is based on your faith and your values rather than some kind of proof.

Whatever else you do, keep thinking and keep learning!

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***
[This looks like a great book about critical thinking. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here at Anything Smart.]
[If you want to support Anything Smart just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. Anything Smart will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Good Cops and Bad Cops - Bad Georgia Cops Assault a Man in Public

What do we do when two police officers beat a man right out in public, in broad daylight, with no excuse?

Unfortunately, that's what we are going to have to find out in Gwinnett County, Georgia.

This barbaric incident occurred about 4:00 PM on Wednesday 12 April 2017 when Sergeant Michael Bongiovanni pulled over 21 year old Demetrius Hollins in Lawrenceville, just outside Atlanta.

According to the sources below Hollis was pulled over for a broken taillight and a missing license plate.

What should have been a simple, and non-violent, stop quickly spiraled out of control.

Bongiovanni ended up arresting Hollis and according to one of the sources below Hollis was tasered multiple times in the course of that arrest.

Master Police Officer Robert McDonald showed up to "help" his supervisor Bongiovanni and a witness got him on video running up to Hollis and stomping or kicking his head while the young man lay handcuffed on the ground.

To give credit to the Gwinnett County Police Department this video led to the firing of McDonald less than 24 hours after the incident.

Then a second video showed up and revealed what had happened a little earlier: Hollis came out of his car, with both hands in the air, and Bongiovanni punched him in the face!

Bongiovanni had never mentioned this punch in his report, and had claimed Hollis resisted arrest, so he was fired for lying.

The department quickly issued a statement: "We are fortunate that this second video was found and we were able to move swiftly to terminate a supervisor who lied and stepped outside of his training and state law."

The statement also says that the video: "...shows the man getting out of the car with both hands up. As he stands with his hands up, [Sergeant] Michael Bongiovanni strikes the man in the face."

Police Chief Butch Ayers added: "...there is literally no excuse for behavior like this" and "...that punch was unreasonable and unnecessary."

The department has now launched criminal investigations on both McDonald and Bongiovanni - and good for them! - that's exactly what they should do!

Bad cops cause pain and suffering and they need to be punished for that. Hollis described his encounter as "the scariest moment of my life."

Hollis's lawyer said "We want them to have to stand before a Gwinnett County judge in a courtroom full of Gwinnett County citizens, with their legs shackled and their hands cuffed behind their back."

There are so many good cops risking their lives to protect us. When we find bad cops like McDonald and Bongiovanni they need to be punished and made into examples.

This link has video of the attack:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-officials-dismiss-89-cases-linked-fired-officers/story?id=46819260

The video is also available here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-georgia-cop-canned-after-violence-caught-on-video-during-arrest/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/us/georgia-gwinnett-county-officers-fired-video-trnd/index.html

http://theinsidekorea.com/2017/04/16/georgia-cop-fired-for-stomping-handcuffed-black-man-in-the/

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***
[This is the original Good Cops and Bad Cops book. Check it out.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***