Who Do I Trust?

Confronted with so much information, representing all sides of the political spectrum, and with bias ever present, I have been assessing the process by which I synthesize my own views on specific issues. It comes down to the following criteria which I apply to any communication, whether written or spoken:

Reject those statements which employ emotional language.

Individually and collectively we are at a time when we are confronted with very serious issues requiring careful analysis of options and their consequences. Emotional terms which have made their way into our consciousness have little or no value for anyone - decision maker or voter.

What does Bush mean, for example when he speaks of "Victory," or "Failure," in Iraq? What possible utility is achieved when advocates of a continued (or for that matter, expanded) military presence label those who favor a withdrawal, "Surrender Monkeys," or label this strategy one of, "Cut and Run?"

Accuracy and Truthfulness

We entered the war in Vietnam based on a lie - a fabricated attack on U.S. ships, which allegedly took place in the Gulf of Tonkin. Just as then, the original rationale for the Iraq war, offered to Congress and the American citizenry was based upon cascading lies.

The first of the was an alleged immediate threat that Iraq possessed or was soon to possess weapons of mass destruction. When that error became apparent, Iraq was said to be a locus for terrorist organization and recruitment. Whether fantasized or deliberate, this too, was found to be false. Then came the rationale that we were carrying out the occupation to insure democracy. Now, our purpose is said to be one of insuring stability and stopping sectarian violence.

The ISG tells us that, "...there is significant underreporting of violence in Iraq. The standard for recording counterattacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. Personnel doesn't cont. For example, on one day in July, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals." [pp. 93-94, Iraq Study Group Report]

Admittedly, there is much that needs to be kept from public view for reasons of security, but deliberate fabrication of presumably factual information dictates distrust in any future statements made by that source. ("Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.")

Appreciation for Consequences and Probabilities

Any recommended or adopted policy has consequences, some of which are very likely to occur, while others are unintended, unknown, or unlikely. For those who make such decisions, as well as those who report and express opinions about them, there is a duty to make clear the anticipated results as well as the likelihood of their occurrence. Granted the requirement for brevity, and the need for abstraction, there remains the necessity that those being informed of decisions have the opportunity to evaluate the likelihood that various consequences will occur. Those making decisions, and those reporting on them can be evaluated by their understanding and comprehensiveness of disclosure of these consequences.

Consistency with Previous Behavior

The position that an individual takes regarding a particular policy, philosophy, or point of view can be assessed by his/her speech and writings with regard to that, and related positions. While positions will (and should be expected to) change in the light of new data, the shifting of viewpoint or behavior without a full explication of the reasons for such changes, is for me a clear sign that the views of this individual are to be distrusted.

Appeal to Tradition and/or Symbolism

While a knowledge of history can often be useful in predicting the outcome of future events, reliance on tradition (e.g., The intent of writers of the Constitution, biblical prescriptions, etc.) demonstrates a lack of understanding of constant change in the human condition. Reliance on the importance of symbols such as the American flag, "patriotism," or swearing on a bible are all counter productive in insuring the utility of such actions. Reliance on justification of action by reliance on either or both tradition or symbolism represents, to me, a person who is either a fool, or is engaging in self-serving agenda.