The Art of #FakeNews

The Art of #FakeNews


Here is a true Da Vinci. A USA Today article, written by Jared Goyette, a writer for Public Radio International.  Click the link below to read it:

• It’s now clear that most of the Syrian refugees coming to the United States are women and children

The moustache on this Mona Lisa is the fact that what is purported to being "now clear" is not clear at all. The first hint of something amiss is that the author does not give a link to the data that supports his claims. There is a reason for this as will be seen below.

Later in the article, it is hinted that the whole thing comes out of a phone call with folks running the Obama Administration’s US Citizenship and Immigration Service. (USCIS) Sure enough, a poke around their website yields a transcript of the telephone call that took place on August 5^th, 2016, 3 days before the publication of the article.

During the presidential campaign at this time, Donald Trump and his team were raising questions about the vetting of Syrian refugees.  It appears this phone call was hastily arranged to provide a refutation of Trump’s claims. A few writers were invited to this phone call, the purpose being to provide a data source for the refutations.

Because, as it turns out, hard data WAS available.  As a matter of fact, it is the job of USCIS to provide an annual report on immigration demographics, coinciding with the Federal Fiscal Year.  However, this year, no report was to be published.  For some strange reason, it is missing.  The fiscal year ended on September 30, 2016, and now, at the end of January 2017, there is still no report to be found.

During this phone call, Anne Richard of USCIS read a few scant statistics from the hard data.  Callers were asking questions and she would respond “…we should be able to get that for you, just a minute, wait…”  as if the data was coming in on radio waves from some alien planet, scrambled by the background radiation at the rim of the cosmic sphere.

The articles author, Jared Goyette,  was one of the invited writers and he asks some questions that Richard could not answer during the recorded conversation, indicating she would follow up after participants had disconnected. Then, a short time later, this curious exchange takes place, quoted verbatim as fair use:

Coordinator:   Our next question comes from (Esa Gomez) with ABC News. Your line is open.

(Esa Gomez):   I was wondering out of the 8,000 of the admitted refugees how many of them were children?

Anne Richard:  I should - we should have that number for you. Seventy eight percent were women and children and the number of children we’ll have to get you but let’s see  - nearly - let’s see, 4,576 were under 18 - just a little under half female and roughly half male of the children.

(Esa Gomez):    Is that of the children or women and children?

Anne Richard:  So the first number I gave you the 78% were women and children. And then the second that’s 78% out of 8,000. And then the number of children is - or under 18 year olds (sic) is 4,576 and they’re roughly half and half men and - girls and boys rather.

(Esa Gomez):   Oh okay, thank you.

Please do make a note of Anne Richard’s Freudian Slip, ("men and girls").

Esa Gomez asked a relatively simple question:  How many children were included in the number of Syrian Refugees admitted to the USA so far in the fiscal year?  The total admitted was ‘estimated’ at 8000 although clearly Anne Richard was reading from hard data to get the quite specific count of 4,576 children.  What was the true number admitted? USCIS folks were repeating ‘we are talking about 8000…’ but why this special grouping?  Wasit really exactly 8000?  Were there more than that?  Why not just release the data?  Well, we know why.  The purpose of this phone call was to manipulate the numbers in order to refute Trump.

Note that Anne Richard did not directly answer Esa Gomez question.  She gave this strange answer:  78% were women and children.  And then, she tuned in her space radio for help from above and miraculously it came through, an exact number: 4,576. The puzzled Esa Gomez asked for clarification but then the transmission apparently broke up and the clarification only confused things further.  Esa Gomez's brain imploded and she gave up.

Why was the agency eager to give out this 78% number? And to repeat it as 78% of 8000, almost like 78% is almost 8000 all by itself?  Is she trying to imply that only 22% were men? We know the answer now; the Obama administration has always been counting on the hope that the American public has been subjected to sufficient brain degradation by the dumbing down of the American educational system over the past decade. In other words, they think everyone is, to put it kindly, mentally adrift, and treats them as if they are.

Let’s take Anne Richard’s number at face value and have a hard look.  In the table that follows, the top section is hard data that can support her claims, if indeed we are only talking about 8000 total Syrian Refugees.  We have to estimate these numbers because the real data is missing.  Nobody closer than 14.5 billion light years away seems to know where it is. I have marked her figures in red:

Gender	Category	Age Group	Count	Percentage
male	adult men	18 or 0ver	1760	22.00%
male	older kids	15 to 17	2271	28.39%
male	young kids	0 to 14	123	1.54%
female	young kids	0 to 14	161	2.01%
female	older kids	15 to 17	2021	25.26%
female	adult women	18 or over	1664	20.80%
		Total	8000	100.00%
all genders	adults	18 or 0ver	3424	42.80%
all genders	older kids	15 to 17	4292	53.65%
all genders	young kids	0 to 14	284	3.55%
all genders	all kids	0 to 17	4576	57.20%
male	all	0 +	4154	51.93%
female	all	0 +	3846	48.08%
male	all kids	0 to 17	2394	29.93%
female	all kids	0 to 17	2182	27.28%
all	all kids	0 to 17	4576	57.20%
all	adults	18 or over	3424	42.80%
ration of female kids	to all kids	0 to 17		47.68%
ration of male kids	to all kids	0 to 17		52.32%
adult women + all kids			6240	78.00%
adult men + all kids			6336	79.20%
male	adult + older kids	military	4031	50.39%

The blue figures are the ones most germane to this discussion, but Anne Richards would not speak to those.  I believe this is a fair interpretation.  You are welcome to come up with one of your own as long as it supports Anne Richard’s figures.  In all events, your extrapolation would not be far removed from mine. I have faithfully kept true to her 78% women and children claim, although it implies that the percentage of men and children come in at 79.2 % (!) In other words, she gave the data in a manner that implied only 22% of the refugees were males when in truth, there were more males than females admitted.

This is the signature of the never-ending stream of #FakeNews coming out of the Obama Administration and its cohorts, the main stream media, that ultimately cost Hillary her virtual lock on the election.  She might consider filing a lawsuit against the entire lot of them.

So, as it turns out, 52% of the admitted refugees are male, 48% female.  And as Anne says, the number of male and female children breaks roughly in half.  Quite roughly.

The table concludes with an extrapolation of data that was concerning the American public leading up to the election:  How many military aged males were being admitted by the Obama Administration in their hurried effort during the latter half of 2016?

Indeed, what is the TRUE number?  We have given Anne Richards the benefit of the doubt here, but given her blatant attempt to mislead, she has perhaps, for this matter, abandoned appeals to kindness.  Let us take another hard look at this data, and extend it out to meet the projected goal of 13,000 Syrian refugees.  I have used the same data above, adding in the required number of males that bring the total to 13,000 and remain true to her one fact, 4,576 children:

Gender	Category	Age Group	Count	Percentage
male	adult men	18 or 0ver	6760	52.00%
male	older kids	15 to 17	2271	17.47%
male	young kids	0 to 14	123	0.95%
female	young kids	0 to 14	161	1.24%
female	older kids	15 to 17	2021	15.55%
female	adult women	18 or over	1664	12.80%
		Total	13000	100.00%
all genders	adults	18 or 0ver	8424	64.80%
all genders	older kids	15 to 17	4292	33.02%
all genders	young kids	0 to 14	284	2.18%
all genders	all kids	0 to 17	4576	35.20%
male	all	0 +	9154	70.42%
female	all	0 +	3846	29.58%
male	all kids	0 to 17	2394	18.42%
female	all kids	0 to 17	2182	16.78%
all	all kids	0 to 17	4576	35.20%
all	adults	18 or over	8424	64.80%
ration of female kids	to all kids	0 to 17		47.68%
ration of male kids	to all kids	0 to 17		52.32%
adult women + all kids			6240	48.00%
adult men + all kids			11336	87.20%
male	adult + older kids	military age	9031	69.47%

70 percent military aged males, 30 percent female.  An army of 9,000 men.  When we take Somalia and other hastily admitted regions into consideration, this size of Islam’s army jumps alarmingly above 50,000 men. This roughly coincides with the 70+% military male experience currently crushing the European Union, where Islam is running amok, raping and killing at will.

Granted, this second table of data is estimated as a worst case scenario, but absent the real data how can we know? Which is the truth?  It is here in this second table above, or somewhere in between. In any case, it is one of the reason’s that Donald Trump is President of the United States of America. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)can resolve the question completely by publishing the data.

The Cause of Existence

The Cause of Existence

The cause of existence can be determined by analyzing the truth value of the following two propositions:

1:   The existence of nothing is impossible.
2:   The existence of nothing is possible.

Analysis of Proposition 1:

If the existence of nothing is impossible, then existence is eternal, there being no alternative. While we can say that therefore existence is caused by nothing, it may instead be true that it is the threat of the existence of nothing that causes existence. This can be postulated as a physical law and explored for predictive qualities. For now, we are left with two possibilities:

1.1:   Existence is caused by nothing.
1.2:   Existence is caused by the threat of the existence of nothing.

Analysis of Proposition 2: 

If the existence of nothing is possible, we must analyze two further possibilities:

2.1:   The existence of nothing has not occurred in the past.
2.2:   The existence of nothing has occurred in the past.

Analysis of propositions 2.1 and 2.2:

• If the existence of nothing is possible but has not occurred in the past, then we are saying it is possible for it to occur in the future.
• In order for this to happen, existence would have to change to a form that forces the existence of nothing.
• We observe that after billions of years this has not occurred.
• If it is nevertheless possible, then we must assume that a sufficient amount of time is required for it to occur.
• However this scenario specifies that it has not occurred in the past and thus existence would be eternal in the past.
• We cannot postulate a span of time in the future that is greater than the span of time in the eternal past.
• Therefore if it is true that the existence of nothing is possible, then the span of time in the past is sufficient for it to have occurred at least once.
• Therefore, if the existence of nothing is possible then it has occurred at least once in the past.
• Proposition 2.1 is thus seen to be a false proposition.
• Because we observe existence, we must conclude in this scenario that existence has been caused by a prior existence of nothing, there being no alternative.

Summary:

Thus, we have emerged with three possibilities in regard to the cause of existence:

1.   Existence is caused by nothing.
2.   Existence is caused by the existence of nothing.
3.   Existence is caused by the threat of the existence of nothing.

In all scenarios we have a complete and sufficient explanation for existence.

Rational –isms, in the World of Peace

In the continuation of a series of enlightening exchanges from Reza Aslan and Sam Harris, two of the most important, clear-thinking intellectuals of the day, Reza has weighed in with a new article on Salon.com entitled: Sam Harris and “New Atheists” aren’t new, aren’t even atheists. In this article, Reza misrepresents the views of Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. Assuming the reader is on his toes, he can look past this common religion/atheism debate tactic and find some value in the articles recitation of a history of anti-theism.  I believe the dialogue is enhanced by differentiating concepts of rational theism, rational atheism, and rational anti-theism.

Rational anti-theism is not in opposition to religious belief. It is in opposition to:

1. The consideration of any concept of any religion in the formulation of the just laws in a world of peace. 
2. The delivery of an uninvited religious message to any man, woman, or child. 
3. The delivery of an invited religious message that is not accompanied by a good faith presentation of evidence supporting the concepts of religion in the message. 
4. The repeated delivery of an invited religious message that is accompanied by evidence that has been previously rejected as insufficient by the one inviting the religious message. 

The world of peace welcomes any person to discover, formulate, possess and believe whatever religion one wishes. There is no disturbance of the peace if such person keeps his religion to himself. If a theist wishes to convey a religious message, accompanied by a good faith presentation of evidence, he can announce that he will speak on a religious matter with anybody who invites the delivery of such messages. He can then wait for an invitation to convey these messages. He will find many eager to invite such messages and he will no doubt encounter exhilarating debate on the merits of the evidence. If you have a religions message, with some evidence for its validity, you are invited to post it in the comments below and I will respond. There are an infinite number of possible non-evidenced gods and I just do not have the time to consider a random, non-evidenced guess. This is rational atheism.

With such simple, rational rules we can maintain the world of peace. Absent such rules, religions can be identified as opposed to the world of peace. A group of like minded religious individuals who insist that others adhere to religious beliefs can be identified as a conspiracy against the world of peace. As such they are restrained and reeducated in the world of peace.

In the world of peace, rational theism, rational atheism and rational anti-theism will all recognize the infinite number of possible non-evidenced gods as well as the real or imaginary states of consciousness that lead people into or out of the various -isms during the course of their lives. If one of the infinite possible gods actually does exist, and if the rational world of peace is anathema to such a being, and if such being has physical powers to prevent the rational world of peace from existing, then we can expect an appearance soon from such a being as we build the world of peace. This is irrational theism, requiring the malevolent gods of scripture who, at the end of the day, are only interested in the eternal sounds of worship and wailing.

We can take the opposite view instead. We can say that if one of the infinite number of possible gods actually exists, that such a god, having created the possibility for free-thinking people to build a world of peace, would be welcoming and indeed patiently waiting for us to complete the noble task. After all, this is the god we see, if indeed such god exists: a benevolent god that trusts the affairs of man to man, that demonstrates enough faith in man to warrant the continued entrusting of children to man. Such a god is not required to do this, but makes the decision to do this. From the evidence of simple observations such as these we know that the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah are in contradiction to the truth. This finding applies also to their associated writings and to similar writings of other world religions. The angry malevolent gods of these religions, the killers of children, the stoners of women, the beaters of wives, the burners of hell, they have never existed. This is rational theism.

Our ancestors had no concept of rational theism. To be fair to them, they were only just evolved to consciousness from fight-or-flight driven animals. They heard thunder, it sounded like an angry being, and they witnessed the strike of lightning and concluded it was the act of such a being. And from what appeared to them to be the angry character of nature, they developed their stories of angry gods. They wondered what it is they should do to appease the gods and as their religions developed, they merged with other systems of philosophies in trying to answer the moral question "How should I live my life?"

While we might still disagree on the answer to that question, we do agree we should be living in the world of peace that affords the free-ranging discussions that can lead to the answer. (The small number opposed to a world of peace will be identified as in a temporary state of irrational behavior, similar to that of a toddler testing the bounds of behavior, and they will be restrained and reeducated.)

Let us begin to keep our –isms rational and let us keep them private and be ready to discuss them with respect when invited, and let us build a world of peace, and rejoin the moral discussions in an epoch free from the anguish of the irrational –isms that are not yet disarmed and restrained today.