Fact Or Alternative Fact?

       Okay, I talked about the EPA under President Trump the other day. Well now word has it that all science, studies and data of the EPA must first be reviewed by political appointees before releasing to the public. This can only mean that such science will be looked at to determine whether or not any alternative facts can be substituted for actual facts.
       I don't mean to be picky, but facts are, in fact, facts. And no amount of alternating can change that fact. You can claim one audience is larger than another, but the facts remain the facts. Even if you can convince large numbers of people that you are correct, the fact remains that you are not, in fact, correct, if you think a smaller crowd is larger than a larger crowd.
       I will admit, however, that sometimes political facts are actually alternative facts. That doesn't mean that political facts are true and honest, it only means they may be expedient. By that I mean that if a politician is claiming that his crowd is larger than his opponent's crowd, when in fact, his is smaller, he may still claim it and no foul is committed. It should be considered a foul, but it isn't.
       That's why politicians lie so often. They do it because they can. It has become expected of politicians. Of course some politicians make an art form of it. Some even call it alternative facts when confronted with the true facts. Then those such politicians demand their confronters yield to their interpretation of the facts. It's called Trumpism. Trumpism is a personality flaw to which some insecure politicians are drawn to.
       But to go so far as to try to erase actual scientific facts by having political appointees review and edit them to fit your own set of inaccurate presumptions without any basis in fact is inexcusable. In fact it borders on the dangerous. History proves that to ignore history dooms us to repeat its worst misadventures.