Misinformation

If you are reading this, you more than likely have a Facebook account or a Twitter account. Both are very useful tools for sharing information. Unfortunately, both are also very useful for spreading misinformation.

Occasionally, this misinformation can lead to instanced of localized hysteria. You've seen it. One friend posts some story they saw on someone else's wall and like a cancer, before too long, 10 of your friends have posted the same thing. Even if the story is debunked in the first comment, people will still post and comment as if it were true.

Social media is an increasingly powerful tool we have at our disposal, but it must be used responsibly. Sharing "bananas cure cancer" and "Abe Vigoda has died(for the 30th time)" without checking the facts, which are almost always readily available, makes you look bad, lose credibility and can sometimes cause more serious problems. It takes very little effort to determine the veracity of something you see on social media.

Don't you think if one third of Americans had indeed been "infected with cancer" from the polio vaccination, it would be a huge news story? If bananas were found to cure cancer, don't you think someone besides that guy you dated in high school would have the information? If Ted Cruz had announced he was running for President, don't you think his own social media pages and website would have information about it? Instead, they actually have detailed denials on the subject, right there, for anyone who cares to look for the facts.

When you post something on social media, without any comments regarding your position on the matter, what you are actually saying is, "I believe this to be true". When you speak to someone, face to face, it can be assumed that what you are saying is what you believe. Posts online are no different. You have the freedom to post or say whatever you desire to say(with limited exceptions). You also have a responsibility to not pass on misinformation. If you fail to act responibly, you may reap the negative rewards that go along with that, and you deserve to as well.

Sadly, most people won't learn the lesson they need to learn. Why not? Because there will be a line of people behind them eagerly waiting to pass on the misinformation. How can we stop this? You have to be someone who is willing to stand up and confront this garbage. You are more than able. Willing is the key.

I think most people will stand up for the truth if put in a position to do so. If the truth involves your reputation or that of your family, it is easy, right? If it is a truth that might affect you in a major way, financially for instance, it isn't hard to stand up for it. What if it were a truth that could affect the very heart of information technology?

People, en masse, tend to believe everything they see on news sources. Major news media has proven this over and over. More and more, television news is being replaced by online sources. It won't be too many years before the balance has completely shifted toward the internet. It already has for some demographics. If we can't trust what we read, what we read will become nothing but a tool for those who would have us to believe what they want to. This would be a disaster. I don't see the current state of information dissemination being too far removed from this reality. The ONLY way to combat this, short of some sort of horrible legislation that would ultimately do more harm than good, is for the common citizen to speak up every time they see garbage being spread.

You will be held up to be a trouble-maker. You will hear the arguments that the person spreading the lies are "well-intentioned", good people. You will hear that you are an agitator. You will lose friends. You will be flooded with garbage. You will have all the tools that those who spread misinformation have at their disposal thrown at you. For this reason, you must stand up to it.

It may seem like a small, innocuous thing to say something when you see some stupid internet meme being spread. In reality, it is a huge responsibility to do so. The truth is the truth. Whether we are talking about Abe Vigoda's health, the cure for cancer, or the coming of Jesus Christ, the truth is the truth! There are no shades of grey. Truth is a black and white issue. Stand up for it, no matter how small of a truth it seems to be.

Truth is worth preserving and if we don't do that, what do we have left? You can answer this question for yourself, If you don't stand up for truth, aren't you just as guilty as the one spreading the lie?

Happy Birthday

Ronald Reagan was born February 6, 1911. There is no shortage of information about his life, his work or his political career that can be found all over the place. On this, his birthday, I wanted to share some quotes that really point to who he was and what he believed.

"A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill."

This portion of the speech he gave when he announced his candidacy for President in 1979 emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility in such a beautiful way. He spoke of the "city on a hill" often, but in this instance, he makes it clear, that it isn't just going to build itself. It is going to take the hard work and dedication of a nation of individuals who rely on and indeed, uphold these principles.

He emphasized the need for personal accountability for many years, as he did when speaking as Governor of California in 1968:

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

Not only are people responsible for themselves, but he added the following in a different speech:

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

He held that people should be responsible, period.

He also had a great sense of humor, which occasionally was used to try to get him into trouble. Here are a few quotes that showed us that he actually enjoyed life and didn't take himself too seriously when he didn't have to.

Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.

I never drink coffee at lunch. I find it keeps me awake for the afternoon.

Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.

No matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.

He firmly believed in the value of human life, as can be drawn from the following:

I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.

We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone.

If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.

I could go on and on because he said so much worth repeating. He spoke often about his faith in God. He spoke often of his love for his family, especially that of Nancy. He gave us so many choice words on the value of conservative ideals. He spoke often of governments true role and the value that we should place on the ideals and words of the founders. He was a true nature lover and spoke about the joy he derived from the outdoors and the ways we should responsibly protect it.

One of my favorite quotes of his is short, but so valuable, especially in the politically correct world we live in today. He simply said, "Don't be afraid to see what you see". Eight simple words that say so much. He saw what he saw and he lived his life to embrace the good and reject the bad.

I miss you Mr. President. Happy Birthday.

How Do You Stomach This Stuff

I was recently asked, "How do you stomach this stuff?". This was after a comment on the Bill O'Rielly interview with Obama. "This stuff" refers to all of the political and current event stories dealing with our country that we are absolutely flooded with.

We are being fed stuff every day, from everybody who has something they want us to swallow. We have three basic choices; We can eagerly swallow it, we can hold our nose and reluctantly swallow it or we can push it back across the table and refuse to swallow it.

The third option is my answer to the question. I don't swallow it. You have to be vigilant. How can you be vigilant if you don't examine everything that is placed in front of you. We are asked to believe all kinds of garbage by everyone, from the president, congress, media, friends and so on. If you can't discern what is truth and what is agenda-driven fiction, you are going to swallow some bad stuff.

Lies come at you in many forms. Skewed numbers, bad data, flawed studies, twisted words, misinformation and bald-faced lies. You have to be able to see things for what they are. You have to be able to dig into things and find the truth. You have to be able to see past this stuff. If you just swallow it, willingly or unwillingly, you are not merely going with the flow. You are helping to create the current.

The question I pose is this. How can you NOT stomach it? How can you idly sit by and not speak up? If you believe in this country, if you believe in what the founders put together in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you need to be prepared to prove it. I'm not suggesting you have to be a constitutional scholar or an expert debater, but you need to at least, understand some basic things and be willing to expose lies when you see them.

The premise and the driving theme of this blog is that we have rights and freedoms granted to us and we have to be responsible in the way we live in order to maintain these liberties. There is an insidious ideology that has been creeping and gaining steam for the last 100 years or more called progressivism. It is called by many names including liberalism and statism. We are living in a time when it is no longer creeping, it is standing tall and declaring itself as the only way. It is willing to knock anyone to the ground who disagrees. There have been generations blinded by this. We have two choices, close our eyes or do everything we can to open the eyes of others.

How can I stomach this stuff? Because I don't believe I have a valid option.

The Age of Responsibility

I recently discovered that until my child is 7 years old, he may not be left in the car by himself. Unless, of course, someone at least 12 years old is there with him, or unless there is nothing to harm him present. Also, if I take my keys with me...  Or, maybe not. The law is not very specific on just exactly what all of this means. It is fairly specific on how I can be punished and how the allocation of funds from my fine would happen... Well, you and your lawyer can read it here for yourself, Kaitlyn's Law. 

I'm not here to debate the merits of this law, I just use this as one example. How can an adult be deemed not responsible enough to determine the safety of their own child in any given situation where he might leave the child for a moment, but a 12 year old is, by law, deemed responsible enough to handle the situation in his absence? What makes 12 years of age the magic number of responsibility? I contend, nothing. It is a purely arbitrary number decided upon because, well, some number had to be decided upon. Also, what makes a 6 year old child unable to care for himself in a way that a 7 year old child all of a sudden can? Do most children, at 7 years old become to heavy for the average would-be abductor? Is a 7 year old more likely to be able to discern the need to roll down the window if it becomes too hot all of a sudden? Maybe. Is a 7 year old more more apt to behave himself outside the presence of an adult than a 6 year old? This all depends on the situation, the child, the parent and probably unforeseen outside influences as well. You could just have well made the magic age 7 or 9 or 15. It is purely arbitrary. If not, why then is a 7 year old able to be left alone, but not able to oversee another, younger child. For the record, the impetus of this bill was a six month old child that died from heat after being left in a car alone. I get it... For the record, I believe an adult should behave in a responsible manner that puts the safety of his children above the need to "just run in and get a quick mocha".

Another example of age based responsibility is the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution. That gave 18 year old people the right to vote. Apparently, a lot of 18-20 year old people were protesting a lot in and around 1971. You may have heard about this... The amendment of the Voting Rights Act by Nixon and a couple of court cases, one which reached the Supreme Court in the name of Oregon v Mitchell, would precede the 26th Amendment in 1971, an amendment which still has not been ratified by 8 states. 

If this law were based on the responsibility of the potential voter and not just protests and the need to "feel like we are doing the right thing" it probably would not be law. I know that you can serve in our military and do some pretty amazing things as an 18 year old. I also know that as a 50 year old, you can be wholly irresponsible in practically everything you do. So again, I ask, what makes this age the age of responsibility in this realm?  President Nixon, who may or may not have shown a great deal of responsibility in his time as president, had this to say about it:

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill it in his own life.

I'm not sure I agree with everything he said there or even that it has any bearing on the ability of the young generation to vote responsibly, but there it is. In recent years, I contend that the dumbing down of the American voter has hit the youthful especially hard. They have most definitely been targeted as a vast audience, ripe for the picking. I kind of doubt that Congress, Nixon or the Supreme court of 1971 ever envisioned the need to "Rock the Vote". I'm not saying young people are dumb, I'm saying the concept of voting responsibly has been largely pushed to the side and they are unfortunate pawns in this game. 

One final example of age based responsibility in our laws has to do with the age at which a person is determined to be an adult fit to consume alcohol. That age at which it becomes legal to purchase it for one's self was set by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. Anyone under 21 may not do so, legally or the state will suffer the consequence of the federal government withholding funds, thus, they comply. But, only 15 states ban the consumption of alcohol by minors, the remaining either have no ban at all or require family member "supervision" or have location restrictions. 

Yes, I understand what prohibition caused. Yes, I understand that adults are basically free do do as they please. Yes, I understand that there are other laws that govern other aspects of what you may or may not do while under the influence. I also understand that roughly 30% of all vehicle crash related deaths are associated with drunk drivers.

There are a whole bunch of disturbing statistics on the M.A.D.D. website. One references 17 million people who have admitted to driving drunk. I suspect the number that have not admitted to it is probably at least triple that. Another states that the rate of drunk driving is highest in the 21-25 year old range. 21, the age at which it has been determined by law that one is responsible enough to purchase alcohol. 21, the age at which most people prove themselves to be completely irresponsible when it comes to alcohol. 

Is there a solution to this? Education and the self-imposed level of responsibility it takes not to do something stupid. Alcohol is a strange demon. The most responsible person in the world can become the exact opposite with about a 0.05 blood alcohol content. Probably less for most people. 

What do these three examples have in common? Not much on the surface, just an observation about the  varying ages of responsibility. One thing that is a constant, though, it is up to the individual to BE responsible. Without that, all kinds of things can go wrong. Things that can affect your life, the lives of your children, the lives of your fellow Americans. Responsibility is not determined by age, it is determined by maturity. We have some very responsible, mature young people in this country and we have some bery immature, irresponsible older people in this country. You can't choose your age, but you can choose how to behave. Be responsible. Teach your kids to be responsible. Encourage your friends to be responsible. Behave in a manner that demonstrates to others the power of responsibility.

Our liberty is being taken away in many ways. Don't let the failure to act responsibly be the catalyst for more of them to be taken away.

The Employee Handbook

Unless you are one of the lifetime welfare recipients in the country, chances are you either have a job or have had a job at some point in your life. Most employers have a set of guidelines that dictate how employees have to behave and how they have to perform while at work. This can include anything from how to dress, to what language they can use, production quotas, grooming standards, behavior models and any number of other things that are designed to maximize the benefit of the company and in lots of cases, the safety of the employees. 

Often, these guidelines are in the form of an employee handbook. I have seen these come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them as small as a few pages stapled together, some of them professionally bound books of hundreds of pages. Typically, employees will have to sign a letter acknowledging that they have read, understand and agree to abide by the principles set forth within. Failure to do so can be met with discipline or even termination. Company also have agreements where employees can be prosecuted or even sued for breaking certain rules. 

Everyone from McDonalds to Fortune 500 companies feature some form of employee handbooks. When a company hires an employee, it is no small thing for them. It often involves quite an investment of time and money. They expect the employee to step in and do the job they were hired to do and often put a lot of money into the process of making sure they are equipped to do so. When an employees fails to live up to his end of the bargain it can cost him his job and it can cost the company a great deal, from money, to time lost, to production lost or could make customer service suffer leading to loss of business. It is no small thing. Companies have the potential to be so adversely affected by this that it can lead to business failure in extreme cases. There is a reason that companies put so much effort into the crafting of these handbooks.

To a business owner, the vitality, growth and survival of the company is of immense importance. A company's survival and ability to thrive can also affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of other people. There was an essay written years ago called I, Pencil, by Leonard Read which describes among other economic ideas, the fact that the creation of an object as simple as a pencil involves the work, brainpower and capital of thousands of people. The catastrophic breakdown of any of the parts of such a system could negatively impact the entire process and send ten of thousands of people in search of another job. That may seem extreme, but the reality is, most businesses are just one such failure away from extinction. 

What if there were such a business that could negatively affect the entire population in such a way? If the failure of this business could send the country into financial and social upheaval, shouldn't we all be concerned about its functionality? Of course we should. If its failure could send you to the poorhouse and put you in the city block long lines to obtain potatoes or toilet paper, you should be concerned. Concern is but a fraction of what you should be, you should take a vital interest. The same way that a small business owner takes a vital interest in the daily functions of his company. There is such a business, if you haven't guessed it by now, the federal government. It shouldn't be such a business, but here we are, it is what it is. 

It be nice, if we, the people, as "owners" of this business could at the least expect the employees to operate by a code of conduct, an employee handbook. We should be able to hold our employees accountable for their performance, conduct and anything else that influences the way they perform the job we have hired them to do. This should apply to everyone from entry level employees of the myriad of agencies all the way up to the President of the United Stated. They should be contractually obligated to perform in the manner laid out in such a handbook. If they fail to uphold their end of the contract, they should be dealt with in such a way as is most beneficial to the company. We, as owners, should be able to set these terms. It should be laid out in as simple, yet the most all-inclusive way possible.  

Mark Levin has a new book called the Liberty Amendments. In it he lays out how we, the people, through Article V of the Constitution can make amendments through a process on state levels. Congress will never make amendments that would curtail their power. The days of such men in office has passed, long passed. We cannot count on them to police themselves any longer. We need to be able to set the rules and enforce them. This "employee handbook" is my proposal to reign in the power hungry employees who have taken over the business and now dictate to the owners. 

The time has come for us to take our country back.

California Gun Grabbing

Two recent stories that caught my attention should send chills down your spine. The first talks about a recent session inside the Public Safety Committee of the California State Legislature. In that meeting, a total of six bills were advanced out of committee. All six bills are gun-grabbing measures advanced by the usual suspects in war on the second amendment. As part of the process, the committee heard testimony from both sides of the argument. One exchange featured Leland Yee, state senator and Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California. During this exchange, Paderes called Yee out and corrected the fallacy that because of some "loophole" in a previous gun ban, there were now illegal guns on the street. Yee confronted Paderes and let his anger over being called out over his misrepresentations be known. You can read the story for yourself here, Inside the Committee. You can also watch just the video exchange between Yee and Paredes.

If Yee put half as much energy into getting criminals off of the streets as he does into creating new criminals out of law-abiding citizens, he might actually do some good for the state. His misguided progressive vision of Californian Utopia prevents him from doing anything that actually advances the cause of freedom and upholds our constitutional rights. 

What troubles me, among many things, is illustrated by Yee every time he speaks on the subject. He has no idea what he is talking about. He ignores facts, makes up his own version of reality and uses this erroneous information to demolish the constitution which he is paid to and swore to uphold. He and his ilk are absolutely relentless in the pursuit of this end. Why do people continue to vote for people like Yee? I believe that there is a large chunk of society, that is otherwise smart enough to see the truth, that don't necessarily believe what these people say, but they want for it to be true. If they desire a thing to be true hard enough, maybe it will magically transform into truth. I don't know about you, but I don't like my liberties being decided by fairy tales. 

Another story highlights the recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles Community College board of trustees to ban all firearms on all nine of its campuses. This effectively put an end to gun safety courses that had been taught here for the past six years. These courses were co-sponsered by the National Rifle Association and taught by Gerry Koehler, an  NRA certified pistol instructor who is also certified by the California Dept of Justice for Handgun Safety training[1]. Koehler asked for an exception to use plastic toy guns in the classes, but they are specifically banned as well. No word on whether he could use Pop Tarts or not. The resolution goes so far as to ban use of the word "gun" in campus literature. That should make you feel safe. 

The lunacy of this is far reaching. Board of Trustees Vice President Scott Svonkin had some very interesting things to say regarding this decision. Among them, this:

“I believe that the NRA’s goal is to promote gun ownership, and that guns lead to deaths,” he said. “So, not having the NRA teach classes, not having the NRA classes on our campuses, is a good thing. I’m much happier with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department protecting our students and our staff and our faculty than having some random person who took a three-hour class and thinks that they’re Dirty Harry.”

The implication that the NRA's goal is the cause of death by gun violence is pathetic. No one on that side of this debate ever seems to take into account personal responsibility. It is always the fault of the gun or an organization or something other that the person perpetrating the crime. 

He is also happier with law enforcement protecting his campus. How happy was he when John Zawhari killed three people on campus before police could respond and kill him? This was after killing his father and brother then setting the house on fire. The same John Zawhari who several years earlier had threatened students and been found to have bomb-making materials in his possession. That infraction cost him the ability to own a firearm for 5 years. The killings took place seven years later. Maybe Leland Yee should think about a law where someone so demented should be locked away instead of counseled for a bit and then set free to do what he ultimately did. 

Svonkin didn't mention how well he thought law enforcement protected his students, he just took the opportunity to equate students taking a gun safety course to legally armed citizens who could have protected themselves and others and possibly saved lives in that incident. Oh, but they couldn't have done that, right? Because they are just "Dirty Harrys". No, because that campus was already a "gun free zone" at the time of the rampage. That rampage was part of the reason they widened the "gun free zone" to all nine campuses. Great plan, allowing a killer to come unchallenged onto the campus and take three lives worked so well, that they have extended the plan to create the same scenario in eight other places ripe with defenseless targets. It boggles the mind...

Koehler is the only one who had anything sensible to say regarding this:

“Don’t expect the police or the government to protect you. YOU are the only one that can protect you and your family. Learn how to do it right. Learn how to do it safely.”

Why should you not expect them to protect you? Isn't that their job, to serve and protect? Not according to the supreme court, who spoke to the matter in Castle Rock v Gonzalez in 2005. Its not just an opinion of some NRA approved Dirty Harry, it's the law. 

This is what I find scary. The law says, you are responsible for your own safety, yet the lawmakers are increasingly saying you are not responsible enough to defend yourself and are systematically taking your means to do so out of your hands. We can only hope that Sam Paderes and those like-minded individuals will ride this wave all the way to the supreme court and once there that the supreme court will uphold our second amendment rights as they have in the Heller decision. 

Is hope enough? Don't rely on it. Don't rely on others to speak up for your rights. Don't become dependent on someone who is not responsible for your safety and freedom. You are responsible. Be so. 

Trust

Trust me. We've all heard those words. We all have someone we trust, unconditionally. If they say they will do something, you can absolutely count on it. We've all had our trust taken for granted as well. Someone that we thought trustworthy let us down at a most inopportune time. It hurts. It is not so hard to build up trust, but it is extremely difficult to rebuild trust once broken. It's like bailing water out of a leaking boat using a bucket filled with holes. The only way to repair trust is to be trustworthy once again. Generally speaking, there is no way to rebuild it if it is broken a second time. The old adage, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" comes to mind. 

What is trust? It has been defined as the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something;Confident expectation of something.

The question has been asked, repeatedly, do you trust the government. It was first asked, at least in a scientific poll back in November, 1958, during Eisenhower's second term as President. At that point, it was about 73% positive trust. It is currently(and I think optimistically) at 26% positive trust. What happened? With little exception, one being the Reagan era, the other being the post 9-11 patriotic surge in general sentiment, the rate of trust has hovered right around 30%. This graph appears in a Pew Research study on the subject[1]

What happened is that we have been inundated with so-called leaders that have shown themselves time and again to be untrustworthy. Moral character has not been a prevalent trait in our leaders for a long time. We have had scandal after scandal, abuse of power piled on top of itself, self-serving, liberty stealing individuals have dominated the national stage, and as such, public trust has plummeted. Is this a surprise? It shouldn't be. The government is not working that "fool me once/twice" game on us anymore, they are working the "fool me as many times as you can and dare me to do anything about it" game, and they have it down to a science.

Our founding fathers knew that our government's ability to defend and protect our liberty was dependent upon men of character being trusted with the task. They said so often. They knew, as wise men before them knew, that power corrupts. They argued about it, they debated the solutions and they wrote mechanisms into our constitution to battle such corruption. The problem we face, however, is that the corrupt have corrupted the process and found ways to ignore and supersede the protections. 

Alexander Hamilton, in January of 1790, said: 

States, like individuals, who observe their engagements, are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct.

Fifteen years earlier, Samuel Adams said:

Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.

Notice who he charged with keeping an eye on these scoundrels? You and I. We are responsible. While 26% of us seem to think they are trustworthy, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, 74% of us believe otherwise. It would be interesting to know the motivations behind those feelings of distrust. I suspect some of us "just feel" it. We need to be vigilant and stay on top of what is going on in Washington to the best of our abilities. We need to know how they have broken our trust. We need to share those reasons with others. We need to be careful though, we need research our facts so that when we are confronted, we can be sure about what we are saying. The danger of doing otherwise, is that we, ourselves, can become untrustworthy. For the sake of liberty, we need to be trustworthy. 

There is a reason for the motto, "In God We Trust". He is the only one worthy...