I’d like to take a deep breath today and move away from discussions of masks, and vaccines, and CRT, and capital markets and reflect for a moment about how we asses data. When I was on the USS Virginia in 1976 we were the platform for the development of the Navy Tactical Data System and the weapons systems that it supported. This is the parent system that is today on every Navy ship, Air Force AWACS and Army Command and Control Centers. On our ship we were the first to be able to track 120 weapons coming into our area of operations and at the same time assign and deploy solutions and weapons to intercept those threats.
And that was just the beginning of what we could do. When our ship took some R&R in New York Harbor several scientists and biochemists came on board for some “cross pollination”. After watching a demonstration of our ability to handle many tactical threats at the same time, and assign multiple different fire control solutions to those threats, one of the scientists asked the great question—How do you know what is real? The captain of the ship then replied—”That is the problem” When you have “too much information” knowing what is real and assigning priorities becomes an essential skill. It requires discernment.
Discernment in the secular sense is defined as the ability to judge well. We are bombarded by all sides from media, mainstream and social, to educators and politicians with information that much of the time is conflicting, and when viewed months later is just flat out wrong—FAKE NEWS. Several weeks ago, I listened to a sermon from Mother Angelica. She is now deceased, but for those over 50 years of age they may remember her Sunday evening TV and radio shows. In the sermon that I listened to she talked about “discernment”. She said that the process often times of assessing information takes a front seat to the most important step of discernment and that is assessing the validity and veracity of the transmitter of the information.
If one is getting conflicting theological information from two apologists which one do you believe? The answer is to first examine the track record of the people giving advice. Have their recommendations proven to be historically correct and have they stood the test of time? Have they ever been able to go against the grain and make a courageous position against the conventional wisdom? How have they conducted their own personal lives? First assess the messenger then assess the message.
So think about the validity of information that has been disseminated the past 5 years about President Trump. Was any of it true? Who was disseminating that information—Jake Tapper, Wolf Blitzer and 100 other “experts” that were all wrong. How often were they ever right? Today when they report about the economy or global warming, or critical race theory or the riots in the street why based on their track record should anybody believe them? When Betsy Russell reports about Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests from the Lt. Governor’s task force could there be privacy issues involved about individuals testifying who are concerned about retaliation from employers, government agencies or universities? Does Betsy have a track record for reporting information to further a political narrative or for reporting the whole story? Did she report contra positions regarding the N-95 mask efficacy, but the lack of protection from all other masks during the pandemic?
Did she select her own “experts” and not report on credible ideas of local and national experts that refuted the actions recommended by the Governor’s Task force that resulted in “Emergency Orders”? When reporters—not just Betsy, but all reporters continually report just one side of a story are they reporting or editorializing? I am sure they will tell you that they are unbiased or that they try to be unbiased, but when we have an expert in our community whom is a Double Boarded Pathologist and virologist and she gives that person only an occasional note, then one has to wonder. I supported and still support Dr. Hahn’s role in advising our Governor, but people like Dr. Ryan Cole who had impeccable academic credentials should have received wider coverage. Nationally people like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Marty Makaray, Dr. Scott Atlas, and the signers of The Greater Barrington Project should have been front and center in the media coverage precisely because they were offering non-conventual contra opinions.
Think about the stories where the world was going to come to an end—Y2K, worldwide pandemics times 3 -Flue and Ebola, and then Covid 19. Global warming every year and Florida is still standing. In fact they are still building beach front homes and estates in Florida—think investors, and developers, and homeowners are worried about sea levels rising? For that matter do you think Barbara Streisand is worried about her California Beach front home falling into the Pacific Ocean? Or what about the over 100 private jets that flew into Sun Valley last week to listen to speeches from the likes of Bill Gates about global warming and CO2 consumption. Maybe we can also learn about what reporters don’t report. These are all great stories that need to be followed up on, but if they were, they would show themselves and everyone else how often they have been wrong!
What is real? MAGA “Fight Like Hell”
One reply on “What is Real?”
Thank you for the article it as ties in nicely with the issues being addressed & the personalities involved while trying to sort out who is who in the arena. I especially valued ”That is the problem” When you have “too much information” knowing what is real and assigning priorities becomes an essential skill. It requires discernment.” Just finished speaking with a friend who reminded me that if a bill/mandate goes against the Constitution then the promoter of it is suspect. What you both have stated is easily understandable and thank you for the reminder about critical thinking.