||| FROM DAVID KOBRIN |||
The “Three P’s” are a basic method for distinguishing something that’s true — that is actually happening — from something that is “fake” news, or an unsubstantiated internet rumor that’s gone viral.
I’ll use a personal household example to illustrate how the “Three P’s” method works.
When we first moved to Orcas Island we discovered that we shared our house with mice. We decided to pull the welcome mat. Since mice and other rodents can leave a scent trail, we were advised to check regularly, especially during the winter months. We consulted a “pest control” company and followed their advice.
How do I know that the mice haven’t returned?
It’s “Possible” that we again have mice in the crawl space and the boiler room. Mice (and other rodents) are present on the island; neighbors have had rodent problems; and mice naturally look for warmer places to live during the winter.
Is it “Probable”?
It wouldn’t be a big surprise if rodents returned. New generations might pick up the scent trail and follow the same path. I’m not sure it’s probable, however. But to say it’s “probable” goes further than “not surprising”. Probable suggests that it’s not only Possible, but it’s likely that they’ve returned.
Is it “Proven”?
We cleaned the crawl space and the boiler room of mice fourteen years ago when we moved to Orcas. Since then I’ve been checking, every month or so during the winter months. (It’s fairly easy to see the signs, even when no rodents are visible.) As of the most recent inspection, I can say that there are no signs of nesting or infestation. It’s “Proven” through trained (by the pest control company) on-site inspection that, as of my last check, we are not now sharing our house with colonies of mice.
Here’s the second example.
What would be your conclusions if you applied the three “P’s” method to the question of whether the 2020 election was stolen, in broad daylight, from the actual winner of the popular vote and the electoral college vote, President Donald Trump?
In your opinion, is such a conspiracy “possible”?
Is it “probable”?
And most important of all, separating reality from what is possible, or even probable, is it “proven”? And if so, how?
Looking closely and seriously at the differences among proven, probable, and possible is a way each of us can be honest with ourselves, and with others.
A fable to conclude:
A little boy asks his mommy after dinner if he can have some more ice cream. It was so good! His mother says, he could, except there isn’t any more ice cream in the house. What are you saying, the little boy asks? We always have ice cream. Daddy loves ice cream! I love ice cream. We always have ice cream. Mommy, why are you punishing me? I’ve been a very good boy since after lunch? His mother repeats, there isn’t any more ice cream in the house. We finished the last for dinner. The little boy says, that’s impossible. It’s never happened before. There was plenty of ice cream ten minutes ago when we had dessert! His mom says, go look in the freezer for yourself.
There’s a gap between believing something, however surely and firmly, and knowing factually that it is true and proven.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
And yet another way is to require evidence for the claims of electoral fraud, which dozens of judges did, some of them even Trump appointees. As scientists often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Nothing was provided, not even serious evidence, and the cases were thrown out of court, even by the Supreme Court.
End of argument.
Is it possible that the DNC stole the election from Bernie Sanders? Is it probable? Was it proven? Did anybody care?
Is it possible vacation rentals negatively have over-time negatively affected the housing rental market? is it possible” is it probable? Do they care?
To answer your first question, Michael, it is possible. But as I said above, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It applies on both sides of the aisle.
I’ve always wondered about the claims that the DNC “stole” anything from Bernie Sanders. He’s not even a Democrat so I wonder how he decided to run in the Democratic primary. In any event, the majority of Democratic primary voters made pretty clear that they weren’t interested.
Yeah… you really had to be paying attention in order to see the discrepancies by the DNC in the lead-up to the primaries in 016, and 020)… I mean, Donna Brazille getting caught giving Hillary the questions before the debates, money intended to be distributed to the Bernie campaign (yes, he ran on the democrat ticket), and before it was over it seemed like half the DNC staff had been admonished, or outright fired… only to go back to their cushy jobs in government, or civilian think tanks.
There has never been a lack of evidence of the short-comings of the DNC in any of the past few elections… you just had to look and listen. Most democrats can only go as far as the fact that the republicans look worse. That’s a low bar from which to set any standard. We deserve better.
I like how Chris Hedges sums it up in a Truthout article he wrote just after Bernie folded in 016–
“Sanders’ capitulation in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the rigging of the nomination process was political and moral cowardice. He missed his historical moment, one that should have seen him denounce a corrupt, corporate-dominated party elite and walk away to build a third-party candidacy.
Those who support Sanders’ capitulation, including his high-priced establishment consultants, will argue that politics is about compromise and the practical. This is true. But playing politics in a system that is not democratic is about becoming part of the charade. We need to overthrow this system, not placate it.
Gautney calls the system broken, but it works exactly as it is designed to work. The Democratic Party elites have been refining the mechanisms and exclusionary rules since the presidential election, along with purging the party of progressives, to ensure that an insurgent candidate like Sanders will never get close to the nomination.
The final recommendations submitted by the commission said nothing about the chief source of corruption that grips the Democratic Party—corporate and billionaire money. It didn’t mention campaign finance reform. Any attempt at reform is meaningless until corporations and billionaires stop bankrolling the party.
The Democratic Party is neither democratic nor in any real sense a political party. It is a corporate mirage. The members of its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props in a choreographed party convention. Voters have zero influence on party politics.
The Democratic Party is as much to blame for Trump as the Republicans. It is a full partner in the perpetuation of our political system of legalized bribery, along with the deindustrialization of the country, austerity programs, social inequality, mass incarceration and the assault on basic civil liberties. It deregulates Wall Street. It prosecutes the endless and futile wars that are draining the federal budget. We must mount independent political movements and form our own parties to sweep the Democratic and Republican elites aside or be complicit in cementing into place a corporate tyranny. Sanders won’t help us. He has made that clear. We must do it without him.”
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/et-tu-bernie-3/