I have been contemplating fake news lately since it is a sound bite used by nearly every news agency, public forum, politicians, and it seems everyone else.  So what makes fake news?  
Here are my thoughts: 

1.    Fake news is opinion masquerading as facts.  In other words, if it is clearly an opinion, then it is not fake news, news or  anything other than an opinion.

2.  Fake News intersperses facts rather than stating them, facts are viewed as unnecessary clutter.

 3.   Fake news has information that is incomplete especially when the story has been shortened by simply removing any details that are not sensational so that it fit a small space.  I don't include in this category when it the information is not available and will be filled in later.

4.   Fake news is when a spin or bias is intentionally placed on the story to give the reader/viewer a specific viewpoint that is only superficially accurate. Intended to persuade not just inform.

 

 

election 2018

With this recent election, I have been looking at my own viewpoint on what is going on in the  country and how it can be fixed.  I don't see a solution because both sides at least at the national level  (why are there only 2 sides?) are behaving like spoiled children whose parents took away their xbox and it is obviously the others fault, just see how innocent each one looks?.

The first thing I would like to point out is that both prevailing viewpoints of capitalism and communism (or socialism if you would prefer) have the same fallacy - human predisposition for greed.  In purely capitalistic theory  the market balances itself because the supply and demand force the balance (I know overly simplistic).  The capitalist tries to control the supply and therefor the demand so he/she/it can have control (greed in the form of power), as is seen over and over, this  ultimately causes increases in prices lower lower quality and fewer services.  In a communistic (socialistic) society everything is controlled by the masses, with everyone being equal (in theory). The communist exploits the system for personal gain with the justification that he/she/it requires a greater resources for the extra requirements (doesn't this sound exactly like the capitalist?) .

In order for the capitalistic viewpoint of only those who put in the work get the result, it has to be accepted that those who have "bad luck", poor health, or even old age, will necessarily be left out in the cold and will not benefit from the work of others (Sparta anyone?). An alternative (socialist) viewpoint is that everyone is able to contribute, if only given the chance.  This viewpoint requires that everyone has their needs taken care of regardless of their contribution so that those who do not contribute still receive the benefit which can mean less overall resources because more is being take out than is being put in.

Being somewhat interested in history, I have noticed that both theories ultimately fail under their own weight. Look at the stock market crash in 1929, dot com bubble in the 1990s, and the banking financial collapse more recently for capitalistic examples.  Look at the collapse of the the Soviet held Eastern Europe along with the markets in China and East Asia for communistic examples.  (again overly simplistic.)

In both systems, a "ruling elite" emerges that have more than everyone else and justify it by saying that they deserve it because of their special skills, even though it is really as much circumstance as skill that put them where they are.  (middle ages feudal system?)  The common people (I use the term very loosely to mean those are not part the the ruling elite) are exploited by the system and used as the building blocks of the system, only the be stepped on or discarded when inconvenient. 


I have  noticed in the various places I've lived and worked that the majority of people are honest, hard working, and trying to make a living without harming their neighborhood or community.  I think that our elected leaders soon lose sight of that "person on the street" perspective after they are elected and get caught up in the partisan (I looked it up, it means "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person." or "prejudiced in favor of a particular cause". Thank you Google) politics without regard for the good of anything other than the party. 
So what's the solution? I don't know, I am still actively looking.  I just know that between the never ending campaigning, the disintegration of civility, and the prejudices of the current news system, something needs to change for this country to not implode on itself.

Who's raising our children?

In thinking about day care (or mass baby sitting) with a touch of conspiracy,  I realized that the idea of the state raising all the children is almost realized.  Day care providers take the role of surrogate parents in a very real way.

With almost no idealistic push at all, parents no longer have any say over morals, religion, ethics, skills, or any other traditional parenting role, this is being placed on the day care.  In order to stay uncontroversial, day care (and schools) sanitize any mention of specific religion beliefs or anything else that can vary from family to family.  In essence it takes away the individuality created by a warm loving home and replace it with a "safe place" that children spend all day.  Since day care is regulated by the government, it is not much of a stretch to "regulate" specific beliefs and morals, completely removing God.

The part I find most odd is that parents are choosing it, and it is not being forced by governmental decree.  I know of several parents who leave their children half asleep at the day care usually quite early so they will not be late to work.  Then they come to pick up their children 10-14 hours later;  for a preschool child this is almost their entire waking day, leaving the parents time enough to bathe and feed the child before sending them to bed to start over the next day.

I have also heard several mothers comment on how they work full time, are full time mothers, and know all about their children.  I do not find this possible.  My wife spends her day with our children, where I see them at lunch and in the evenings. I consider myself to know my children fairly well, but when we compare notes,  I miss more than I would care to admit.  I am not there for all the little advances like trying a new sound or learning to stand in the crib,  I see it after it has happened.  All of my children started saying da-da-da before ma-ma-ma (I don't know why), and then a short time later drop off the da-da-da.  I miss so much already and I am very thankful that my wife has decided that she wants to be a full time mother first.  It is no wonder that parents do not know their children (or that children do not know anything about their parents).


Another point that I find very scary is the cases in court where the grandparents are the day care and successfully sue for custody.  It is only a small leap to say the day care fulfills all the roles of parents and to take over the guardianship of the children they keep.  The only reason a day care cannot do this right now is financial, easily fixed by increasing a tax subsidy that has been in place for many years.

Who's raising our children?  I can answer for me and my family, but I wonder if the day care workers were asked what the answer would be. 

Perfect Parent

I have often wondered what a good parent is.  It seems that the longer I am a parent, the less I know about how to raise a child, knowing how to raise my own children is a day by day learning experience where the required knowledge and techniques are ever changing.  I have tried following advice given by other parents, with limited success,  every bit of advice has to be tailored to that child. I have given up trying to figure out how to deal with them as teens,  that bridge will be burnt crossed when we get there.

The seemingly best advise comes from perfect parents - that ones that have advice for every possible problem, but having never been a parent....  My wife received a video a while ago called "the happiest baby on the block".  This technique was developed by a pediatrician who does not seem to have his own children.  It basically involved tightly wrapping (not rapping though it might give you just as happy of a baby) or swaddling your baby and then making sure that any verbal noise the baby makes is immediately covered up by "Shooshing" which he calls simulating the sounds of the womb so that the baby is more comfortable.  The babies demonstrating the technique give such dirty looks that it is quite obvious that the baby is not happy, just intimidated into making no sounds.

I guess the way to tell if we've been good parents is if our children let you see our grandchildren and would like to raise them themselves.

activism

A few years ago I was looking for a summer job.  I had just  returned to school and I needed to provide for my family.  I found an ad in the newspaper for an "activism" position.  Being naive, I called the number and went in for an interview. l found out when I got there that it was a group interview, not the best indication.  What I found out about activism disgusted me.

This company operated by going through neighborhoods soliciting money for the cause. The cause would change every year or two with the head honcho deciding what the cause would be, so the worker activists had no say in it.  Each "employee" would be paid a percentage of the money brought in that week with the remainder going first to the higher ranking in the company and the rest to the actual campaign such as advertisements. The funny thing is that they preferred to operate in the poorer neighborhoods because they received the larger haul there. 

The activists are really professional beggars in the guise of a cause.  Most of the workers were more concerned about the money than the cause.  They had no moral or ethical desire for the cause, only the promise of easy money if they sold it well.

Not in My Backyard

Ever notice how people will grab onto an idea - especially environmental where it does not affect them directly.  Take for instance the wolves of Yellowstone, which have been re-introduced to maintain the "natural" balance. Tell the ranchers that have hunted the wolves for generations to protect their livestock and livelihood.  Ideas like this one whether be they good or bad are ultimately decided by people who have no direct or even indirect association with the issue other than they consider it to be a "good cause".  I call it my "Not in My Backyard" theory.

The "Not in My Backyard" theory goes something like this.  We as a people will jump onto any bandwagon so long as it does not affect us, so long as we can feel good about it, hense I support it because it is Not In My Backyard.  It becomes a combination of laying on guilt, salesmanship and any other factor that that can be thrown in for good measure.  The actual value of the cause becomes lost by the wayside.

The best example is the prairie dog.  First what a prairie dog is: it is a rodent (think rat) that lives in large community nests called prairie dog towns.  The reproductive rate is incredible, multiple litters a year, each with multiple pups.  This cute little creature can move into a field practically overnight and make it unusable for anything else.  In fact, if prairie dogs live in a field, it is not safe to have horses or other livestock in the field because of the holes these creatures create.  Also being rodents, they carry diseases that can be passed to people (Black Plague) so it is best not to have a large population close by.   Since the main predators of the prairie dogs also go after livestock like sheep and chickens, farmers have reduced the number of these predators like the badger and fox.  I was rather surprised one day to see a car with a New Jersey license plate in Southern Utah with the occupants appearing to be very interested in the well being of these rodents.  I later found out that the majority of political support (though not financial) for the prevention of removing the prairie dogs are from people who are city dwellers and find the creatures of the great outdoors to be a novelty.  Rather than raising the money to buy the land and maintain it for a prairie dog habitat, they would rather raise the money to buy votes (welcome to activism) and force the farmers and ranchers to abandon their land and livelihood for a creature that to them has no value and should be exterminated.   I wonder how these same people from New Jersey would feel if their houses and places of employment were suddenly condemned and they were forced to give up everything they have on the chance something could be done where they are not even allowed to voice an opinion.

In formulating this theory,  I learned that before something can be a good cause,  it must first pass the "if this were in my backyard, would I still support it?" test. If it doesn't, maybe a better solution should be found.

Common Courtesy

I noticed today when I called Microsoft's automated activation line that I had no problem hanging up mid-action (Yes I call the activation line on a fairly frequent basis).  There is no point saying "please" or "thank you" because it has no effect and really feels funny to try to be courteous to a machine.  It reminded me of all the times I have been frustrated because the phone menu takes me is circles (especially any phone company) and it becomes nearly impossible to actually talk to a person. If I have the patience to wait the extended time (the most I have ever waited is 45 minutes), listening to the "your call is very important to us, please wait for the next available representative",  courtesy becomes forced. Not only does it mean that an unfeeling, unthinking machine is "helping" you, you are placed on hold for extended periods of time without the courtesy of hearing a real breathing person who should be able to understand more than mono-syllable pre-programmed machine who does not care if you are on hold, hang up, or speak rudely to it.  With this I realized that courtesy is becoming a lost art, starting with the phone.