The Head in the Sand Party has just announced its latest nomination for the obscure “Stultus Est Sicut Stultus Facit” (Stupid is as Stupid Does) Award. It’s rumored to have been suggested by the slogan’s creator, philosopher Forrest Gump, and endorsed by the Flat Earth Society. The winner is Superstition University, and its school of critical thinking and logic analysis, for the remarkable teaching and counsel it has given to the Congressional Committee’s questioning of Trump’s ex-fixer and attorney, Michael Cohen. An additional letter of commendation has been submitted for subpoenas issued by Rep. Nadler – which do not include reliable witnesses who were involved in, or created the dossier, that led to the investigation of President Trump. Where are the people who submitted the FISA warrant?
The investigating Demo(c)rats, who historically prided themselves on practicing and employing scientific methodology in their advocacies, have fallen victim to operant conditioning as described by behaviorist B.F. Skinner. His study of rats using his famous Skinner box may provide some illumination. An example of his experiments would be (while in the box) every time the rat turned to the left, it would be given a food pellet. In no time at all, the rat would be turning in circles to the left. When the rewards were withheld the turning behavior would shortly extinguish. Germane to this case is when the pellets were being given to the rats randomly. If by chance the rat was turning left when given the pellet, the subject might begin to turn in circles to the left. More commonly, the rats would begin to engage in bizarre repetitive behaviors in hopes of obtaining more of the coveted pellets.
This type of operant conditioning is known as random reinforcement. The rat would keep turning, as long as it occasionally gets the reward. The relevant factor is that when the rewards stopped altogether, they would continue the behavior, seemingly indefinitely, rather than stopping it quickly as in the example of always getting a reward for the desired behavior. Skinner suggested that this is how superstitions are established and seemingly never go away. Common examples are superstitions about walking under a ladder or seeing a black cat. Athletes are famous for their superstitious behavior, like not shaving during a winning streak, or not washing and changing their socks. Oh yes, and the Demo(c)rats’ obsession with investigating President Donald Trump which has gone on for more than two years with no credible evidence on Trump-Russian collusion presented to date.
The problem for the Democrats, and evidently several top officials in the FBI, was finding themselves in an extreme state of cognitive dissonance. There was no doubt in their minds that Hillary Clinton was going to win the Presidency, and that a boorish Washington and political outsider named Donald Trump did not have a chance of rising to the highest office in the land. After the electoral votes were counted, Donald Trump was declared our next president, while a devastated Hillary Clinton and her supporters were searching for who or what should be blamed. They became the Charlie Browns of politics. Remember his often-used line “How can we lose when we’re so sincere?”
Then the solution to this mental conflict came to them like a gift from the Gods. Donald Trump had to be in collusion with the Russians. It’s the only explanation. Members of the FBI began an investigation. The unsupported Clinton opposition research dossier was presented to the FISA courts to allow spying on American citizens associated with Trump. The slightest allegation presented without evidence became proof. Allegations alone reinforced the superstition that has dominated the thinking of Democrats. They engaged in the presumption of guilt by suspicion, supported by random unsupported hints of collusion. The superstition of Trump colluding with the Russians received one random reinforcement after another. Superstition has morphed into an act of faith. That faith has resulted in the rejection of any exculpatory witnesses or evidence. Questioning of Michael Cohen was restricted. They put faith in a witness who is a serial liar and unable to keep his stories straight. They pressured him to violate attorney-client privilege. Now they are moving to the politics of personal destruction by going after anyone associated with the President. The only winners will be the legions of attorneys. Cah-ching!
True scientific method and legal investigations, to have credibility, must approach things quite differently. They do not begin with a conclusion. They begin with an extensive look at the evidence. All the evidence. Some may support the hypothesis, others may not. In a legal case, the prosecution is required to give any exculpatory evidence they find to the defense. Turns out that the Demo(c)crats pre-interviewed Cohen for over 12 hours without allowing Republican participation. After looking at the data (evidence) you may then come up with the hypothesis. E.g. I think Michael Cohen is a liar. Then you test for it. E.g. Mr. Cohen testified under oath before Congress that he was not interested in having a position with the Trump administration.
You then find an interview where he stated that he was looking forward to having a position in the administration. Therefore, you can state that Michael Cohen is a liar. Typically, you then submit your hypothesis to peer review for confirmation. After testing for other examples that Michael Cohen is a liar and the hypothesis is confirmed, only then can you safely say that Mr. Cohen is a liar.
So, I am going to give it a try.
After hearing years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s press conferences, I suspect that Rep. Nancy Pelosi often lies. She recently stated that the freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar is not anti-Semitic. I have found many examples of Rep. Omar making statements that most Americans would consider anti-Semitic. Therefore, I conclude that Speaker Pelosi lies during her press conferences. I understand that other politicians may also lie. Saying that others do or do not does not add to or take away from my hypothesis. That said, I submit my hypothesis that Speaker Pelosi lies during her press conferences, out for peer review. Please send your responses to the “Head in the Sand Party” and remember “Stultus Est Sicut Stultus Facit.”
Have a nice day!