Denying Logic

If the whole of the scientific community told you to stand outside at a specific time, on a specific day, for a specific duration, to witness an incredibly rare astrological event, would you do it? What if they told you that you needed a special pair of glasses to view it fully, would you buy them? Or short of that, would you construct a silly contraption made of a cereal box? Would you be one of the thousands that traveled to a specific spot to get the best view, often spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to do so?

If any of the answers were yes, would you then believe a similar group of scientists if they told you the globe needed to reduce carbon emissions to ensure the planet is inhabitable for the human race?

Just asking...

Check Your Conspiracy, Liberals

Conspiracy theories, I've written about them to some level in previous posts, but things have quickly shifted since then. For a while now, I've watched as the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories reshape the political landscape. Quite simply, topics that were once largely esoteric and decided by dull policy debate are now clouded by partisanship and largely hyperbolic rhetoric.

I sat through eight years of this, but it truly began to take shape in 2010 when further right of center politicians capitalized on the messages of doom and gloom; getting elected to roles within our government at both the state and federal levels. However, the events between now and then are far too extensive to cover here.

Taking us to today, we have a President that ran a campaign that appealed to a lot of voters. I do not wish to diminish the concerns of the frustrated and disenfranchised. It is not a simple matter to analyze the reason of why voters chose Trump at the macro level. This does not change the fact, however, that a large part of his success was fueled by hyperbole, lies, and conspiracy theories (e.g. birther, thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11, 42% unemployment rate, blacks commit 81% of white murders, illegals commit more crimes than citizens, all unfavorable polls are rigged, 30 millions illegals in America. And these false statements were candidate Trump, not President Trump)

Trump did not create a lot of these conspiracy theories, but he sure as hell capitalized on them. He continued the notion that the burden of proof is quite literally on every single other person to prove the absurd claim incorrect. So often I'll hear "prove him wrong". No, I'm sorry, if someone tries to sell me a chocolate bar, but it looks and smells like bullshit, you'd better believe I'm going to expect the salesman to prove otherwise before I buy it.

Now you may notice, this was directed at liberals. I want to address this head on before it gets worse. The amount of direct hypocrisy that is going on since the election, on both sides, is staggering. For eight years of Obama we had right wing talking heads that spewed unverified bullshit that people ate up because it fit their preconceived bias. To me, bullshit is bullshit, I don't care if the bull was liberal or conservative.

More specifically, this concerns the Trump-Russia connection. Many liberals are foaming at the mouth, just impatiently waiting for the bombshell to drop, theorizing outcomes, and readying the noose. Do I find it strange so many connections keep popping up? Yes. Do I find it suspicious that Trump and Co. keep deflecting on the subject. Yes. But none of this is proof.

While I understand that the court of public opinion requires less evidence, and why I acknowledge my own bias, I try damn hard not to jump to conclusions. And as I have written about before, I try to have some faith in our institutions despite their flaws. Forgive the obvious quote, but Socrates famously stated "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing". The lack of self doubt that exists in the political climate is so frustrating.

Let me be a little more specific about the hypocrisy to which I speak, because they are so direct it's almost strange (and yes, they go both ways). Trump and associates are under investigation by the FBI and House Intelligence committee for possible ties to Russia and their election interference. Similarly Clinton was also under FBI investigation for which conservatives wanted Clinton in prison, but many liberals are just as quick to want to hang Trump even though the investigation has not concluded and they have not personally seen any of the intelligence. Michael Flynn requested immunity. Various Clinton staffers were granted immunity, both Flynn himself and Trump indicated that implied guilt, which it does not, but many liberals want to use that as evidence of guilt against him.

Is it possible, once all of the dust settles, that it is proven the Trump team colluded with the Russian government to sway the election results though various methods. Yes, I think we can say that is within the realm of possibility. But it also possible that the FBI and House committee will reach their conclusions and find no sufficient evidence of collusion. What will liberals do then, accuse these institutions of the same corruption as we saw from conservatives when they cleared Clinton? If so, that's a conspiracy I could not even begin to unpack. FBI and intelligence committees that are so corrupt they're playing both sides of the aisle?

Am always, am I saying conspiracies do not happen and corruption does not exist? Of course not. But the question again becomes do we have enough faith in our institutions to let them do their job, even if it may be in a flawed manner? If the answer is no, then we have a much larger problem than who is in the Whitehouse.

We continue to have a President that pushes conspiracy theories while offering no evidence, following a pattern of using anecdotal or circumstantial evidence out of context to "prove" the point after the fact (e.g. Nunes "briefing" the President of evidence he got from the Whitehouse that do not even remotely prove the wiretapping claim or Susan Rice requesting intelligence as National Security Advisor on intelligence that was not targeting the Trump campaign). This is infuriating. My hope is that Liberals do not become so desperate to take Trump down that they further disenfranchise his supporters with speculation they cannot prove.

There is plenty of proven nonsense regarding Trump to address without getting bogged down on that which we do not really have control. Trump's hyperbole simply cannot be combated with further hyperbole. Those opposed to Trump on any issue or at any level should focus their efforts on things within their control, it's going to take hard work, but as always, this is our county.

The Election is Rigged? If You Say So…

I wanted to speak (as briefly as possible) about the upcoming election, looking at a troubling and widespread claim, election rigging. First off, this will not be a post aimed at favoring one candidate over another, I hope the tightening that is taking place in the polls will be evidence enough of this fact. This is rather a hope to, again, encourage people to maintain faith in the system until there’s actual evidence to not.

The thought that this election has been rigged has come to full blown conspiracy. This seems to have been broken into a few segments that I will list below.

1. The media is rigged: this is not a new complaint, and I will not be spending significant time on this section.
2. The system is rigged: This has included all federal government agencies favoring one candidate over the other. Again, I do not intend to tackle this subject at length either; it’s far too broad a topi
3. The election itself is rigged: that polls are rigged, votes are being changed, that voters for a certain candidate are voting multiple times etc., this is where I will aim my focus.

On the first two, I’m going to simplify the hell out of my thoughts. I will say that, for a multitude of reasons I believe there is an inherent liberal bias within the majority of the mainstream media. I do not believe, however, that it is to the extent that has been publicized over the last decade or so by various sources.

In regards to the system being rigged, I wouldn’t even know how to respond. The system is made of people, millions of them. If we’re just talking about government employees, there are conservative and liberal members of the government.  Proving the system is not rigged is proving a negative, which is virtually impossible. As I mentioned at more length in my last post, conspiracies take a small, very intelligent, and well controlled group of people to pull off successfully. I’ll leave it at that.

In regards to the election itself being rigged, this is a rather dangerous conspiracy theory, and I want to combat it as much as I can before Election Day. First off, Donald Trump has been claiming for weeks that the election is rigged, before main-in ballots were sent, before early voting, and before the vast majority of Americans even submitted their vote. These claims began around his massive slide in the polls, but now that the polls have begun to even out, he seems to be singing a different tune.

Let us take a look at those polls. There are dozens of polling agencies, many of them independent polling agencies that conduct numerous polls outside of presidential elections. Gallup, for example, has been conducting scientific polling for over 80 years, since 1935. They are a company, and their reputation is everything. Where is the logic in them skewing presidential polls so they get a democrat in office for four years? Not only that, but significantly favorable polls will make people LESS inclined to go out and vote on Election Day. If they feel the race is over, why wait in line for three hours to vote?

Also, look at another factor, the historical accuracy of these polls. Polls are not perfect, which explains the margin of error; however look at Sabato’s Crystal Ball. He and his researchers have a 98% accuracy rating in predicting United States elections. This is simply one example, however if you look at the historical accuracy of polling, it proves very useful if the polls and studies are scientifically sound.

These points alone will not convince the majority of his supporters that the election is not rigged. The problem is to prove the election is not rigged, is proving a negative, and quite simply impossible. No, one cannot personally verify the accuracy of every voting machine, one cannot personally count every vote cast, and this is exactly why faith in the election system is so important.

Is our system perfect and foolproof? One could look at every election in modern US history and point to imperfections. There are already reports of erroneous voting machines changing certain people’s votes, but as is pointed out, these instances are very rare and have happened in every election in modern history. One could also look to this study.

Conspiracy theories largely work on anecdotal evidence (statistically rare or insignificant instances used as evidence of widespread and systemic problems) and leading questions. I refuse to accept evidence on a massive scale unless it’s statistically significant, so let me turn to combating questions with questions.

The premise is the big bad Clinton or Democratic machine is actively rigging the election, that she even rigged the Primaries against Bernie Sanders (as evidenced in the DNC wikileaks emails). Alright, let’s assume these are possibilities. Why, in the hell, did she not activate her big bad machine in 2008 when she lost in the primaries to Obama (both in popular vote and delegates)? Why, in the hell, did the democrats not activate their big bad machine in 2010 when the elderly electorate came out in droves to vote the democrats out of Congress in mass.

And to the point about Clinton and the Dems rigging the 2016 Primaries, there is no evidence of that. Here’s the problem with the wikileak emails, the DNC is as private organization, as is the RNC, if they favor a candidate that may be evidence of corruption within that organization, but it’s not voter fraud, and it’s not the same as rigging an election. If you do not like that system, you should work to change it, but not in the middle of a Primary.

Now, Election Day is rapidly approaching, and signs point to a close race. I am not telling you for whom to vote, I’m just reminding you that faith in our election system is much more important than who we decide to put in office for four years. If proof of widespread voter fraud comes fourth on Election Day or soon after, we will certainly have a major problem on our hands; however until that time comes, it is critical not to flip the Monopoly board before the game is over. Something is not rigged just because one man perceives it to be so. Keep thinking for yourselves.

Politics of Perception: How Our Views can be More Damaging than Reality

I’ve tried to write this for what feels like a million times in a million different ways. I had too many thoughts to sort out, too many goals I told myself I could accomplish. In the end, I landed on one major issue. I’ll start by stating it plainly: the biggest problem that America faces today is a perception problem. Obviously that seems like an absurd statement, but that is what I intend to prove. The basic reason perception is such an issue is it has immobilized us. The perception problem by itself cannot really harm us. People are entitled to believe what they want and feel how they choose. The root problem, however, is the perception of anger and fear. It has created a culture of distrust of our own government and our own fellow Americans. This is truly at the highest levels I have seen in my lifetime, I would argue and will argue that the state of this country is simply not nearly as bad as many of believe and we have all been told. I’m going to attempt to keep this as free from bias as possible, which will not be completely possible, but I will attempt to simply focus on facts and my own analytical observations.

One thing I cannot deny is a deep division among our population, but who is to blame for that? Do we really want to blame one person? One president? One congress? Many aspects make up this nation, and our government is only a portion of that. Are we not supposed to be a nation that believes in personal responsibility? To that end, can we blame one presidential candidate or another for that division, for what we believe in our hearts and minds?

I would, instead, think it critical to look to our society and what has changed within it. The reasons for the increased division are incredibly complex, and that is largely the problem. Many feel so frustrated in trying to find a solution that they may turn to the simple answer, even when the simple answer doesn’t truly provide a solution. What I would look to more specifically is the change in how we conduct our political discourse, not just our elected officials, but every one of us.

First of all, there was never a time in this history of this country where division did not exist, where we did not have incredibly complex issues with no perfect solutions. However, what we have in 2016 as opposed to other times in our history are 24-hour news cycles, alternative media, social media, streaming videos, high speed internet, political talking heads in the hundreds.

I believe one could write a novel on how these factors have shaped and changed not only our nation, but the entire world. We have the entire wealth of human knowledge at our fingertips, the vast problem is that within that knowledge, are the largest levels of misinformation the world has ever seen.  It’s the (now) old adage: “I saw it on the internet, so it must be true”. This is a sad side effect from one of the greatest tools ever seen by both this nation and the world. Fringe politics used to be exactly that, on the fringe. There were no means of mass communication for such odd and unconventional political beliefs. And on the surface, it seems like a great thing that everyone had such powerful means to communicate ideas; however the way it has been shaped has been tragic. What has come forth is not a shared forum for thoughts, facts, opinions and beliefs, but rather the validating and mainstreaming of conspiracy theories. There was a time when people understood that conspiracies do exist in the world, however they are rare, and take a small, well controlled group of people to run successfully. Now, we live in a world where there is an answer to any event or story that does not specifically fit within your political belief system, that the powers that be either created the story, or the government rigged the system to benefit the political candidate you dislike, or that the facts themselves somehow contain some kind of bias.

I’ll say again, conspiracies exist, they happen at multiple levels and in multiple ways. The problem, however, is that conspiracy theories have absolutely no burden of proof. People are so convinced of an absolute culture of conspiracy that they have a total distrust of any source of information that does not support their preconceived notions. Confirmation bias has become so strong that the political discourse, that is critical for advancement in a society, has broken down at every level. The problem is that even though this is a country whose population has endless shared values of loving our friends and families, wanting good schools for our children, wanting safety and security in our daily lives, etc. is that so many among us are more concerned whether a person will be voting R or D in the next election.

One of the biggest contributors to politics of the fringe and conspiracies is the 24 hour news cycles and all of their offshoots. I cannot stress this enough, the political news that is being watched, read, commented on, and debated is not news, it is infotainment. I will evidence this by pointing out one simple fact, productive policy discussion is boring as hell. Don’t believe me? Look at the ratings of CSPAN vs Fox News. Almost no one would watch five hours of 24 hour news cycles a day if it was not entertaining, it’s the simple truth. I will be blunt in this statement; it is exciting to be angry and fearful. Are these the emotions or reactions we would actively choose for ourselves? Likely not, and yet here we are, accepting these emotions daily. It’s not all that dissimilar to any other program we watch, there is generally a protagonist and an antagonist, and boy does the antagonist make us angry. Or maybe we’re watching The Bachelorette, and boy do we hate the obvious jerks on the show, but don’t we just love to hate them? The problem is, this is the real world, it’s not black and white, and the solutions take more than an hour or two and a hero with a sexy hero to solve. The problem is Harrison Ford is not the president. The problem is that liberals want what is best for this nation, but so do conservatives, and either side (half of this entire nation) claiming the other is purposefully and systematically attempting to destroy all we hold dear weakens us all.

Maybe we watch this infotainment because we feel it’s our patriotic duty or maybe we do it because we feel we are being informed and derive a certain sense of satisfaction from that fact. Regardless, at the end of the day what we are viewing is not news, but specifically designed bias confirmation to keep us afraid, because fear sells better than sex. The proof is plain to see, profits from Fox in the last quarter alone were at $1.2 billion dollars.

To this point, I have given a lot of generalized observations, but few specifics. I will now cover a few hot button issues where many perceive either unprecedented failure or unprecedented success, when they reality generally lies somewhere more in the middle. Every single one of these topics could be discussed at considerable length, but I will attempt to keep them brief.

POTUS

I do not intend to cover many specifics of the President of the United States (POTUS) for the last eight years, or the eight preceding, but rather the change in perception. We all know the president was never designed to be a king, he or she or even their administration on the whole was never meant be solely responsible for national security, health care, energy, foreign policy, crime, education, race relations, social issues, infrastructure, or the dozens of other issues and realities we face. If it is not the expectation for the POTUS to ensure all of these aspects run smoothly, how can we then blame any one individual for the current state of each and every one of these segments of our society?

I am certainly not implying the president does not carry a heavy burden of responsibility, but societies shift constantly for countless reasons, it is important to think critically. I’ve said for many years the presidential powers have become too expansive, beginning decades ago, but perception has changed so drastically that any executive order written is an affront to the constitution, that virtually any move is a nefarious action, even if there’s long standing precedent of similar actions.  Getting specific, Obama has issued 242 executive orders as of June 2016, fewer than any two-term president other than Ulysses S. Grant (see “The number of executive orders by every U.S. president” http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/). Now maybe some might say it’s not the number, but rather what is in those orders. I would counter that with asking for some faith in the checks and balances built within our government, primarily in this case the Supreme Court. They have, for example, already put a stop to Obama’s immigration efforts (see http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/supreme-court-deadlocks-thwarting-obamas-immigration-actions-224720). Whether or not one may agree with their decision, what is important is to know that measures are in place for executive overreach.  

To cover every perceived view or conspiracy related to the current administration would take an entirely separate post, so I will return to generalities. A president cannot be both feckless and an evil dictator, cannot be both lethargic and malicious, cannot be both an apathetic Christian and a radical Muslim, and cannot be both the best President in the history of the United State and the worst. I have heard the current President described in all of those phrases and terms over the last eight years. This alone should demonstrate the significant perception gap to which I speak.

There are 350 million people within this nation, people of different colors, creeds, religion, sexual orientation, gender identities, priorities, hope, dreams, goals, careers, monetary status, and social status. Despite all these differences, it is our share values that unite us. We love our families, friends, and God. We contribute to society in small, yet critical ways.  We all make the whole of this country, and most by in large are good people.

Now, more than ever, it is time we remember we do not elect a king, remember that the whole of a country is the sum of its parts. It’s time we be personally responsible for our own actions, and work as hard as we can to improve the areas we feel are corrupt, damaged, or broken. I am not, however, willing to admit that we cannot fix all the problems we face, if we face them together.

Immigration

There is a perception that illegal immigration is destroying this country and violently criminal illegal immigrants are roaming our streets looking for their next victims. First off, I doubt there are many that would wish millions would enter this country illegally, however most support immigration reform and a path to citizenship (see “More Republicans Favor Path to Citizenship Than Wall” http://www.gallup.com/poll/193817/republicans-favor-path-citizenship-wall.aspx).

What has been pointed out simply, is that illegal immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than American citizens (see “The Mythical Connection Between Immigrants and Crime” http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798). Certainly this does not imply that these individuals are not inherently committing the crime of entering the United States illegally, it simply dispels part of the dystopian hellscape painted for us by one particular presidential candidate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj-XOJsHKsE), again going back to the perception issues when the reality is far more complex and requires intelligent debate on how best to proceed.

To address the perception that the current administration has let the floodgates to open, allowing an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants into the United States, the facts simply do not support this hyperbole (see 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ ) .

Another point that is important to address, is mass deportations. Aside from the massive cost to enact such a plan, illegal immigrants currently make up about 5% of the American workforce. To remove such a significant portion of the American workforce would create notable negative economic shifts (see “Trump's Deportation Plan 'Prohibitively Expensive'” http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2015/09/14/trumps-plan-to-round-up-and-deport-11-million-immigrants-within-24-months-prohibitively-expensive/#59520dc2b1ea)

Regarding the refugee crisis and general terrorism, please see another post if you would like my thoughts on that subject (see “A Non-Bleeding-heart Case for Syrian Refugees” http://moderatedispatch.blogspot.com/2016/09/this-is-something-i-wrote-shortly-after.html#links)  To recap, attacks from domestic radical Islamic terrorists are still statistically and incredibly rare in this country, and foreign radical Islamic terrorist attacks are virtually nonexistent.

PC Culture

What is PC culture? I reject the idea entirely, because what is politically incorrect to one can easily be correct to another. Such things can be debated, and should, with civility. The real issue is over sensitivity. I see it equally between conservatives and liberals; they simply are sensitive about different topics

From what I can tell, liberals go overboard with so called "bleeding hearts", and conservatives go overboard with complaints about "PC Culture". Again, in the days of social media everything is exaggerated. All you need to do is find 5-10 twitter posts and you've got a story. Do you think any rational person cares about Starbuck's Christmas/holiday/winter cups? Do you personally know anyone that was offended by it? I sure don't.

I no longer see it as PC Culture, what I see are social justice warriors fighting battles on both sides. Put a photo of a family with two dads on a girl's magazine? If you find yourself significantly concerned over something like that you're a conservative social justice warrior. Gays exist and we don't need to hide them from children. If you're mad that there happens to be a benign religious symbol on public land, you're a liberal social justice warrior and you need stop looking for reason to be mad and offended. Religion exists and it doesn't need to be hid from anyone.

And for anyone that talks about "slippery slopes", I guarantee nothing you're complaining about is a sign of a larger problem. There's no sharia law in the US, there is no war on Christianity, and most Christians respectfully keep their faith between them, their family, and their God. No matter how many anecdotal stories one reads on their news source of choice.

The issue is that social justice warriors rarely speak for the majority, because people have lives to live. We need to all calm down and try to regain focus on topics that actually matter.

The Economy

This is too extensive a topic to cover and grade the current state of the economy. Obviously there are countless measures (GDP, unemployment, home ownership rates, consumer confidence, stock market, etc). Rather than try to analyze and grade the complexities of the current US Economy, I will again go back to issue of perception.

Do we, as asked before, ever want one person or administration exclusively responsible for our economy? I support the free market system, as it is the best we have and gives citizens the most opportunities for success. However, we need to dispel the idea that it is a perfect system and that the only way a free market system can fail is through government intervention.  

The economy is no longer simply made up of the 350 million individuals and the incredibly complex economic systems we have in place, we also now compete in the global market. In the current presidential race many will say we need to refocus our efforts to our own nation’s goals. While I agree with that position in theory, the simple fact is that if we do not compete in the global economy, it will weaken our own economy. If we impose tariffs on trade partners, that will not magically result in outsources jobs returning to the US or piles of cash for our own economy.

If I had all of the answers to past, current, and future economic woes I doubt I would be writing this post, I would more likely be jet skiing off my private island in the Caymans. I am simply hoping to remind everyone that our economy is made up of our population, supply and demand, government regulation, stock market, energy concerns, infrastructure, personal responsibility, social program, education costs, innovation, international trade, tax rates, etc etc etc.

Regarding government spending, there's significant amounts of demonization that takes place, but let me remind everyone that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense spending make up two thirds of our entire spending on average. So if we're serious about budget and national debt concerns, we will be forced within the near future to take a hard look at programs that are incredibly unpopular politically to cut.

Gun Control

I'm always torn on this subject, but what bothers me the most is the view that the mere suggestion of additional gun control measures is an absolute attack on liberty, or that it's a conspiracy level gun grab.

We already accept gun control measures, we accept limits on all constitutional freedom with understanding that it's necessary for public safety. We accept that average citizens cannot own fully automatic weapons, tanks, RPGs, fighter jets, land mines, grenades, etc etc etc. The vast majority of citizens would think it's absurd for an average person to own these weapons, so at a minimum, owners of AR-15, Sig MCX, etc. should at least understand why the average citizen does not think they should own a weapon that can kill fifty people in minutes, even if they do not agree with the removal of said weapon.

America has around 4.5% of the world's population, but about a third of its mass shootings. It is hard to deny the correlation of the number of firearms that exist in this country. And gun sales have only skyrocketed after the NRA's absurd claims that the government was planning on removing all firearms from citizens. It should be noted that after Orlando night club shooting, stock in Smith & Wesson went up 8% and in Ruger up 10% the day following the shooting.

As the President said, if we want to accept that in the name of freedom, so be it, but it's clear that the solution is not "more guns" (again, 4.5% population, about 42% of all privately held firearms in the world), or arming teachers, or removing "gun free zones" or whatever other nonsense the NRA is selling in order to continue the increase in gun sales and their inexplicable influence in Washington.

Personally, I have never been a big supporter of increasing gun regulations, but I simply hope we can reach a point where civil debate on the subject is possible once again.  

Trump (if this section will make you mad, please skip, this is end)

Time to get specific. Let me make one thing clear, I will not be attempting to convince anyone to vote for Hillary Clinton. I will leave my thoughts on her silent except to say there is no one, third party candidate or otherwise, for which I look forward to casting my vote this election. However, I will state unequivocally I believe Trump to be the worst Presidential candidate to run for office in my lifetime, if not in the history of this great nation.

I am unlikely to convince anyone that is prepared to vote for him not to do so, and I could go on at length describing my feelings on the man. I thought I would instead provide a list of facts, not opinions, about Trump (please note I left out anything I thought to be remotely debatable as fact):

• There are 5 living former or current presidents. Trump does not have endorsement from a single one
• Trump mocked a disabled reporter
• Mocked a Vietnam POW
• Said he wanted to loosen libel laws to make it easier to sue reporters
• Trump has filed four company bankruptcies
• He won't release tax returns, first presidential candidate to do so in 30+ years
• Got in a feud with a gold star military family, who's son sacrificed himself saving other
• Promotes a foreign policy that is internationally illegal and are war crimes (torture and killing families of suspected terrorists)
• Promotes a Muslim ban that is most unquestionably unconstitutional
• Claims the NFL sending him a letter asking him to change the debate schedule, NFL denies this claim
• Claims he spoke with a member of the Chicago PD who claimed he could solve the violence and crime within one week, Chicago PD released a statement saying no high ranking members met with Trump
• Said if he wasn't the father of his daughter that perhaps he'd date her
• Claimed to be the only one to able to solve America's issues
• Promoted the wildly unverified claim that Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination
• Claimed Putin wouldn't go onto Ukraine, when he already had
• Current CIA director said he'd refuse torture orders
• CIA director under George W. Bush said he doesn't know how he could vote for Trump
• Michael Morell, who served in the CIA for 33 years, under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W. Bush and Obama said "Donald Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security"
• 50 GOP Security officials issued a statement calling Trump "dangerous" and "would be the most reckless President in American history"
• Hundreds allege Donald Trump failed to pay his bills for contracted work; he has been sued 3500 times.

Despite ALL of this, I will say I do understand wanting to vote for Trump. I do understand there are millions that feel left behind, that feel that another establishment candidate is most certainly not the answer, and that do have the perception that things are getting worse. However, despite these common feelings, I have no doubt he is not the answer. His promises are either unobtainable, wildly costly (both from an economic standpoint and a moral one), or attempting to bring us back to a romanticized view of the past that never really existed on a grand scale.

I will conclude with this, me addressing perception issues does not imply that I do not know we have many problems in this nation, however I will never be convinced they can be solved by a petty, insecure bully, misogynist, grossly unintelligent, dangerously uninformed, hypocritical conspiracy theorist, egotist, and an incomprehensible liar. We will achieve our goals and solve problems by remembering we all want what is best, even when we do not agree on what that is. We will only move forward if it is together, even if that journey is difficult and imperfect.  Again, one man or woman will never define all of us.

Go America. Go Broncos.

A Non-Bleeding-heart Case for Syrian Refugees

(This is something I wrote shortly after the monstrous Paris attacks nearly a year ago. Just being posted now)

Let me start out by saying this; I do not care truly about the Syrian refugees. Maybe that sounds harsh, but I don’t. Oh sure I care about them in the abstract. I abhor what’s happening in the Middle East and what has been happening in that region for decades. However, do we as a species even have the capacity to truly care about those we never met? I suppose the best of us do, but we have dozens of friends and family in our lives that we truly care about. There are almost 7 billion people in this world, to burden ourselves with every single one, I feel, would make life unlivable.

I say this, because I do not personally know anyone who truly cares about these people. Liberals will, of course, jump on the bandwagon to co-opt pain and suffering, in a vain attempt to make themselves look caring, to combat feeling with which they cannot deal, or a combination of both. But how many of them would invite a Syrian family into their home for even a day? That’s a big question, because it is not in our nature to trust anyone we don’t know, regardless of race, religion, or creed.

Conservatives have made their position pretty clear; keep them out because they could be dangerous. Maybe there’s some sympathy, but the message is “America first”. I can understand that, I’m loyal to a fault. I love this country, and do believe I would lay down my life for it if the situation truly presented itself.

However, this is where I will generally part ways with both conservatives and liberals. And though I don’t have all the answers, I truly believe accepting Syrian refugees is the best option in a situation that is completely void of a perfect solution. So herein lies my reasoning.  

To let them in

We've all heard the potential consequences of letting them in... what are the consequences of not? They'll be sent back? What happens then? Many will die, tragic, but the idea is we must worry about our country first. But what are the other consequences? If, their choices are dying or become radicalized, what do you think MANY will pick?

It's a numbers game; ISIS doesn't want us taking them in. They flee the country there's infinitely less chance they can be radicalized. Not to mention, the message and policy of compassion CAN combat radicalization globally. ISIS, also, does want to promote their perception that this is a war between the western world and Islam.

However, maybe even if ISIS is stronger, then we’ll at least be safer at home. I cannot predict the future, anyone who claims to is either a liar or a politician (yes, I know, synonymous). But I would argue that weakening our values, closing ourselves off from the world will have significantly more damaging effects in the long term. The Economist reported the following: 750,000 refugees have been resettled in America since 9/11. Not a one has been arrested on domestic terrorism charges in the United States of America. To me that is staggering, there are limitless reasons this is true, but I do not plan to dive that deep into politics. I did follow up on that statement, and it did need a little clarification. Seth Jones, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, testified to Congress in June 2015: “The threat to the U.S. homeland from refugees has been relatively low. Almost none of the major terrorist plots since 9/11 have involved refugees. Even in those cases where refugees were arrested on terrorism-related charges, years and even decades often transpired between their entry into the United States and their involvement in terrorism. In most instances, a would-be terrorist’s refugee status had little or nothing to do with their radicalization and shift to terrorism.” Ultimately there have been three arrests of refugees arrested on terrorist charges since 9/11 (Two were Iraqi refugees arrested in Bowling Green, Ky., in 2011 on suspicion of plotting to send weapons to insurgents to kill American soldiers abroad. The third is an Uzbek refugee who was arrested in 2013 in Boise, Idaho, accused of conspiring to support a terrorist organization, gathering explosive materials, and plotting to carry out an attack on U.S. soil)

Am I saying there is any possible way we can be 100% certain not a single refugee will be an existing terrorist that slips through the cracks, or that one will radicalize later? I cannot possibly say that, but we need to ask ourselves three questions in response. 1) Is admitting refugees in war torn regions part of American culture and values (and I say it is, we admitted 650,000 refugees in WWII)? 2) Are actions of cowards and evil men worth sacrificing our values? 3) More specifically, if .000004% of these refugees (3/750,000) are truly evil, is that small a fraction worth sacrificing our values?

Current Vetting Process

The process of vetting refugees is already significantly more extensive than virtually any other way to legally enter this country:

• “Apply through the United Nations High Commission of Refugees, which collects documents and performs interviews. Incidentally, less than 1 percent of refugees worldwide end up being recommended for resettlement, but if you’re one of them, you may then be referred to the State Department to begin the vetting process,” 
• “More information is collected, and you’ll be put through security screenings by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security” 
• “If you’re a Syrian refugee, you’ll get an additional layer of screening called the Syria Enhanced Review, which may include a further check by a special part of Homeland Security—the USCIS [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services] fraud detection and national security directorate.” 
• “After the interview process with USCIS officers and you’ll also be fingerprinted so your prints can be run through the biometric databases of the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense” 
• “A health screening” 
• “Refugees are then enrolled in cultural orientation classes—all while your information continues to be checked recurrently against terrorist databases to make sure that no new information comes in that wasn’t caught before”

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-t3GetV_Q

These steps are conducted before the refugees are typically allowed in the US. This process typically takes 18 to 24 months once you’ve been referred to the UN by the United States.

Numbers vs Sensationalism

How long will a thwarted terrorists attack be in the new cycle? An hour, a day at the most? How long will a successfully excited Islamic terrorist attach be in the news? A week? A month? Two? This is just starching the surface of my point. I could not tell you the exact number of terrorist attacks in America since 9/11, that point is much debated, but what is not debatable is that it is still more likely that you are killed by a lightning strike or drowning in your bathtub than a terrorist attack in this country.

Am I saying no action is warranted, am I blind to the potential threat global terrorism produces? Of course not. What I AM pleading for is some perspective. Now I am not one to blame the media, the media is a business, they give their audience what they want to see. So if people cannot see that a great deal of it is sensationalism and exaggeration they can’t really blame anyone but themselves.

What I am saying, is that I personally do not fear death by terrorism any more than I fear my bath tub. That is not coming from spoiled sheltered place. I simply am not swayed by anecdotal stories or fear mongering. I am generally not convinced on any large scale issues until I see the numbers to back it.

Are the Muslims within our own boards that wish us harm? Of course, am I convinced that it is the majority of them because I see a video on youtube, of course not. But more to that point, Muslims in this country are a mere 1% of the population. It is simply a logistically impossibility at this time for Sharia Law to be enacted, or for them to take over the country in an organized capacity.

I’m not here to debate the current cultural status of this country; nor am I here to convince anyone Muslims are decent people one way or another; I am simply sticking with the statistics.  

Christian Nation

This will be difficult for me to address, this is a topic of which I feel is critical to the situation. Let me simply ask this question first, would Christ turn away the Syrians? As Christians we cannot possibly say he would. But here’s the follow up question, should our government be governing by Christian morals? I was taught about the separation of Church and state in basic civics in school. However, it seems in recent past there has been significant debate on whether or not we are currently or were founded as a Christian nation.

I think it means a lot of different things to different people. Few truly want a theocracy; however there have been many who express the opinion that God’s law effectively trumps man’s law. I believe that, but on a personal basis. I do not believe God’s law should directly dictate the laws, policy, and actions we as a nation create and follow. The growing sentiment seems to be to the contrary. But our laws allow divorce, intoxication, premarital sex, coveting, blasphemy, and not giving to the church or charity. I could go on, but I think we see potential complications in enacting laws that forbid such actions in a free nation.

 If we do, however, decide that we want to let scripture run our foreign policy, then we have almost no choice to let refugees in our boarders (see Luke 6:27, Exodus 23:5, etc). Again, can good Christians, believe that Jesus would turn these war torn people away? Would he say the risks are too high? We all know the answer. But therein lies my point, that’s why I believe biblical law should apply to each individual person, because when you start in on a larger scale things become much more complicated than “love your enemy”. I’ll leave this particular subject at that.  

Fear

I’ll finish off with what most drives the debate, fear. There are times when it is an important emotion. It tells us when to flee, when to go on the defensive, or when to leave the bar because really let’s be honest that girl would have been trouble down the road anyway and it’s really better to be warm in bed with a book… alone…. wait where was I? Fear is innate within all of us, and there’s nothing wrong with that, the problem arises when fear takes over logic, reason, good nature, etc.

It is undeniable fear has historically lead to erroneous actions, even when it was rooted in fear of losing something we hold dear. There seems to be a lot of fear coursing through our country these days, and without diverting too much from the main topic, I would very strongly argue a lot of that fear is manufactured. I will do my best not to place blame, because blame is often the ugly step sister of fear.

More specifically, I do believe fear in the wake of cowardice acts is the worst possible reaction. I cannot stress this enough, terrorists in almost all forms use this reaction to fuel their goals. If a terrorist takes out a theater of concert goers, it is undeniably and universally tragic. But they want us to change our lives after for the worse, that is their much larger goal. The breakdown of any countries values makes them weaker in every aspect.

The American Flag: A Quick Lesson

The American Flag is a symbol of the struggles and triumphs of this great nation. I have always had the deepest respect for the flag and have been raised to respect strict adherence to the Flag Code. No I did not make this up, and as with many thing that I respect, I find myself annoyed with the individuals who create a false culture around something that is well established.

The flag is wildly misused by both liberal and conservatives. Extreme liberals, feeling they are protesting, burn it or display it backwards or upside-down. Of course this is improper, but not for the reason conservatives believe. Some conservatives call for banning of flag burning. Idiocy and knee-jerk reactions such as this rarely add to the debate. This brings us to our first lessons (quoting the Flag Code):

United States Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8k. - The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning

This is why, again, both sides are moronic. Protesting liberals believe they're sticking it to the man when in-fact they are just disposing of a flag that probably is still fit for display. And Conservatives want to take away a respectable means of disposal.

Second lesson, a pretty obvious one but I felt it should be noted as I mentioned it earlier:

United States Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8k. - The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

I won't sit here and site the entire Code to you, but I did want to discuss a couple more sections:

United States Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8d. - The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

United States Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8e. The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.

You hear that you misguided “patriots”. You are not showing respect and admiration by displaying the American flag all over your clothes, you are breaking with the proper tradition you claim to admire. As somehow because you have an American flag bandana, shirt, or thong you are better than the people who disagree with you. I would ask respectfully. Stop. Do you honestly think it's proper for something that displays the flag be thrown in a washing machine? Get dirty as you get dirty?

To section 8e (stated above), I say if you are someone who has a dozens of flags around your house, car, or office that proper care is not being taken, and they are being damaged.

Honestly, if you pride yourself as someone who loves this country and constantly finds yourself surrounded by American flags as a symbol of your patriotism, read the entire flag code. I guarantee you've broken more rules than I have listed here. Better get your fire pits ready, you have some authorized flag disposal to get to.

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagcode.htm

Protect IP Act: Who is it Protecting?

The Internet. I personally cannot think of a single friend or family member who doesn't use it, and even those who don't still find their lives affected. It has changed the world in both measurable in immeasurable ways. As such, it comes as no surprise that governments all around the world respond to this ever growing tool as they do most everything else, they want the power of control.

Enter the Protect IP Act, introduced on May 12, 2011 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The main purpose of the proposed bill is said to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods". How long will this debate rage on? Yes, I understand that pirating is an issue, but it has been handled horribly since the inception of the internet. No, lets not spend money researching and investing into technology utilized by Napster, rather let force shutdown and disenfranchise consumers. Those lawsuits the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) brought against consumers were a joke. Ultimately they were attempting to fight an unstoppable technological curve instead of being on the cutting edge. This mistake has cost them dearly, and they still do not see their fault.

I could write an entire paper on the RIAA's failure, but I simply wish to use them as an example of the foolishness of this bill. But the bill's intent is not even the problem, Congress passes worthless bills all the time, the problem will be all the other effects this bill will have on the internet. It may begin with shutting down sites that are clearly intended for piracy, but what about the sites that fall into the gray area? Which in my view, is about 90% of every website out there.

Whatever your political affiliation, if you're reading this, you should be wildly against this bill. A bit cliché, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you read this bill, it is wildly generic and encompassing. For example, what do you think of when you hear the term “Internet Site”? I would imagine the answer is different for just about everyone, however this bill defines it as “the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name”. Forgive my lack of eloquence, but what the hell is that? The problem with bills such as these is that they seek to define and solve problems that the government doesn't really understand.

Obviously this statement is suffixed with “within reason”, but ultimately I believe the responsibility to control and combat piracy of non-physical good should be left up to the copyright owners themselves. Where is this “freemarket” concept we hold so dear? Media companies, especially, have failed to provide incentives to consumers to have them view piracy as the lesser option.

Things might be improving, but it is too slow. The fact that it took so long for sites like Hulu and other legitimate streaming sites to come forth is sad. The RIAA made a grave mistake thinking it could stop the digital age, and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) continues to make that mistake as well. They both have argued that “purchasing a physical CD or DVD simply grants one a license to use the product rather than ownership of the content”. These organizations do not live in the real world. They're demonizing consumers that buy their products legally, not a very good business model.

Internet piracy is and always will be too easy for millions of consumers to stop, government intervention is dangerous and not the answer. It could change the very scope of search engines, entertainment sites, and a wide variety of other institutions that make up the internet that we know. Innovation should be left up to the companies responsible for distribution of the product. Sadly though, it seems the answer of these companies' and organizations' lack of innovation it to funnel money into a bill that could damage an outlet in which they should be thriving.