The recent revelation in the National Intelligence Estimate that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 has had some interesting effects. The obvious conclusion is that our information was wrong, so we need to stop the saber-rattling and re-evaluate our policy. Duhhh. But Dubya says "... the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion ..."
I listened to the Democratic debate on NPR. The candidates took turns sound-biting each other. "You said this, you said that." A logical response would be "I said that based on the information I had at the time, and the information was wrong". But no, everyone says "what you think I said is not what I actually meant. In spite of having bad information, I've been right about Iran all along." I'm paraphrasing, but I am not making this up.
I'm coining a new word: "back-spinning", spinning a new interpretation of an earlier statement in the light of new information.
I'll give another example of back-spinning: Day-Age Creationism. This is less topical, so maybe we can be more objective about it. Genesis is full of phrases like "and the evening and the morning were the first day". For three thousand years, Biblical scholars thought "day" meant "24 hours". It was not until AFTER science established that the earth was more than 6,000 years old that creationists advanced the theory that "day" really meant "age", an indefinite time period. How convenient. In other words, when Moses wrote "day", he really meant "age". In spite of not having the slightest clue about astronomy or geology, Moses was right all along!
4 comments:
Dan,
I hate to break it to you, but religion is probably more incendiary than politics.
Back-spinning is a great term. It could be defined as Defense Against The Black Marks of one's own history when given 30 seconds to defend one's reaction to information spewed by bald-faced liars.
We need some of those stock dictionary phrases for politicians to use as retorts rather than "You are wrong and I am right!"
It is very much the lawyers' question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
How about, "I am nonplussed by your lack of memory of the historical context of that vote. And by the way, what was the result of your Altsheime's test?"
CET
Another possible question: They have been wrong so often before, why would we embrace this new assertion without question? Because it asserts what we want to be true?
ttb,
i am confused by your response. Perhaps I wasn't clear about my thought and so confused you. I also spelled Altzheimers incorrectly, daggumit.
I think we need to simplify this template even further to avoid confusion and get a clear statement of what to expect from our elected officials in addition to personal aggrandizement, greed and level of foolishness. Of course, it must be applicable to either or any party.
So a politician attacked by a statement such as "You and your party have been wrong/lied so often in the past that I am forced by logical extrapolation to dismiss/take with a shaker of salt anything you say now,"
would respond, "Because that is the way we want it to be!"
I don't think that pins it down enough because they wouldn't admit that.
My local House member called me and invited me, at random, to step into the middle of a conference call. I was not the first choice as obviously someone else had hung up and I was dialed. Mr. Miller was on the phone and folks were asking him questions and making suggestions. I have been to several of his in-person town hall meetings (once at my Senior Exercise class) and it basically made his opinions known as if he were an entertainer. But on the phone it was more of a conversation.
What I think I would do if I ran for office would be to set up a systematic polling of all the voters in my district and ask them questions and then vote on issues the way the majority wanted me to. If I disagreed with them, I would refrain from voting and engage them in a conversation to persuade them to my position or to have them persuade me to theirs.
I really believe that when given the facts (the truth) the majority of people usually make good choices.
The biggest problem in our society is lying.
I would like a handheld lie detector.
CET- the Boomer Biddy who forgot her password, again.
CET, Clearly we have a miscommunication: I was referring to the history of NIEs being often wrong, and/or failing to notice developing events such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the overthrow of the Shaw of Iran, and the like.
Therefor I beleive that the latest estimate that Iran ceased developing nuclear weapons in 2004 (and apparently that it has not resumed same) should not be automaticly accepted by those of us who dearly wish it to be true.
The change in NIE opinion might be quite correct, and all the old opinions wrong. But it is also the case that the old ones might be correct, and the new one wrong. It could be that Iranian disinformation has been effective. Wanting one or the other to be true does not make it so.
One aspect of the new NIE which seems little remarked upon: It still claims that Iran WAS working on nuclear weapons. Iran has always denied that.
One might also conclude (perhaps incorrectly, of course)from the current NEI that, given the timing, Iran stopped because they were feeling the pressure of the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Certainly our friend in Libya ceased his deveopment of WMD because of that. He said so. Then again, if I was a mullah, I might redouble my efforts, and let on that I'd quit.
Post a Comment