Julian Assange claimed that “a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta” and that Russia did not provide him with information, according to President-elect Trump’s tweet earlier today.
Good job, Sir! You’ve referenced someone who is reported to be a contributor to a state run Russian news network.
Good gawd! Well, what to say about this? The Trump statement “I’m like a smart guy” that surfaced weeks ago in a Fox News report is a good starting point, I suppose. Let me just say that the whole wording of that statement gave me pause at the time, but we’ll save a discussion about semantic and syntactic rules for another day.
Whether Mr. Trump is smart or not should not be confused with whether he is educated enough or not to make informed decisions. Mr. Trump graduated from an Ivy League school, so at a bare minimum I expect that he be able to adequately evaluate sources and determine when something is evidence based and when it is conjecture.
Once again, I feel ashamed of what we (educators) have allowed to rise to the top. That’s not an indictment of educators per se; rather education should include a system wherein administrators understand that true education does not happen in a customer service oriented framework. The result of viewing students as customers is that we end up with people who cannot think logically or in depth about anything because educators are encouraged to keep students happy, meaning that students’ psychological well-being is the primary focus of good education-please!
Here’s a thought: why don’t we challenge our future leaders to think things through by pointing out when the thinking is simply not up to par?
I hope to goodness that this tweet by Mr. Trump was not the totality of what he expressed recently in terms of what he knows that other people do not know regarding the hacking issue. Somehow, though, I fear that this particular tweet was our promise for the Tuesday or Wednesday revealing of that much anticipated information. If this insider information was all that was awaiting me, it is more disappointing than I anticipated, quite frankly.
Mr. Trump, not all sources are good sources. Sources and claims should be eagerly evaluated, and that evaluation should include weighing sources against other sources and deciding when sources are overwhelmingly supported by other sources or overwhelmingly refuted by other sources. One source of personal testimony by someone reported to work for a news network with loyalist based ties to Putin should not outweigh multiple sources that refute that testimony.
Sir, I sincerely hope that you are like at least smarter than this tweet suggests.