Save the relativity for physics.

       I've been debating getting back into writing and something today set me on a track.  For future reference, when anyone sees this, today is the day after a man, with no prior history and no indication of this sort of thing happening (so far, anyway) opened fire from a 32nd story window of a casino-hotel in Las Vegas and sprayed automatic weapon fire into a crowd attending a concert.  Then, because the day needed to be somehow worse, "Tom Petty Found Unresponsive".  He may, or may not currently be dead, depending on which news report has it right, but he is at least brain dead, and that is a fine hair to split.  (topic of a future post)

       At any rate, I had read a conversation on Facebook where one person was lamenting the death of Tom Petty, and another was railing against them for complaining about the death of one person, just because he was famous, when so many others had died.  I started a response, then decided it was too long to ever be read on that format.  So I took it here.  That's only half true.  My first thought was: "Because F--K you, that's how," poet laureate that I am.  But then I started the longer post.  If you know that person, or even someone else who said something similar, please show this to them.

       If I mention that people in India are starving, and you respond that people in Ethiopia have it worse; that doesn't mean that the people in India suddenly have food.

       If I say that there is a drought in Brazil, and you respond that it's worse in South Africa; that doesn't mean is started raining in Brazil.

       In physics everything is relative.  Jupiter is large, but not compared to most of the exoplanets we've discovered.  Those comparisons have meaning.  When assigning a value to the impact death has on your life, any such attempts are trite and sophomoric.

       -4 is more negative than -2.  That does not make -2 a positive integer. 

       59 people dying is more than 1 musician.  But that doesn't mean we'll be going to a Tom Petty concert next year.

How to spot fake news.

       I was certain, that by this point, the internet would be awash in posts on how to spot fake news.  I have seen few such pieces, and those have been rather biased themselves.  So here I present a basic primer on how to spot fake news.  Or, for the slightly more educated: how to determine if a given news story is biased or manipulative.  I will start with the highest quality, and least biased type of news, and wade my way into the sewer from there.

       News that does not present a side: You have seen this type of reporting.  Most likely as the police blotter in a local newspaper.  It reads like a simple rundown of facts, because that is what it is.  Even many weather reports do not follow this style any longer.  It is boring, and doesn't drive ratings.  This type of reporting shows only what happened, when, and to whom.  It makes no supposition as to the "why".  Stories that present only some of the facts do not fit here.

       News that presents every side equally, and without bias: This is the rarest of all birds.  I don't recall seeing it at all in my adult life.  Many stories that seem to equally represent more than one side actually do not.  If they have a quote from one side, damning the other, and no response, a quote from one side presented as a statement of fact, but offset by quotes, or a small mention of a countervailing viewpoint buried near, but not at the end of the story: they do not fall into this category.

       News that flagrantly presents only one side of a story:  I count this as non-manipulative because they make their intentions clear at the outset.  Stories that are presented as news, but are actually opinion pieces, (Looking at you Yahoo!) do not fall into this category.

       Anything above this point is not "Fake News".   Anything below it is.  Pay attention to which type of reporting you actually witness.  I'll bet everything above seems foreign and strange.  But everything below seems quite familiar.  Put on your chest waders.  The manure truck is unloading...

       News that presents one side in a way that looks neutral: This is the second most frequently seen type of story.  An agenda is bolstered either by presenting a quote from someone as a statement of truth, the testimony of an unqualified "expert" (Thunderwood College for example), or by not giving equal representation.

       News that presents one side as "good" and the other "bad": This can be anything from: softening the coverage of riots led by Antifa ans BLM, showing one side as educated and the other as rubes, or presenting one side as being affiliated with an undesirable societal element.

       News that over-reports sensational topics: "If it bleeds, it leads" has long been the newsroom standard.  But that simple ratings -boosting mentality, fed by our love of dirty laundry, can mislead the public.  The best example that exists is the public perception that we are living in a very violent period in history, both domestically and globally, When quite the opposite is true.  Crime in general, and violent crime in particular, have both been trending downward for decades.  But you would never know that, reading or watching the news.  This is the most common type of story.

       News that presents the findings of a study or survey: This includes both the stories centered on a media-conducted survey showing what a "majority" believe, and stories where the media is reporting on a correctly conducted study, that is either by ignorance or design, presented in a false way.  In the first instance there are questions like: "Do you support violent felons being imprisoned?" which is presented as "The majority of Americans support tougher gun laws."  (section titled: "Misleading Polls").  In the second instance this would include almost every scientific finding reported on in the last three decades.  This may not be their fault.

       News that is actually an opinion piece: Depending on presentation, this may, or may not be obvious.      

       News with a single, unreliable source: Always presented as factual, and the source is always presented as beyond reproach.  But always found out, sometimes months later, to be false.

       Non-News:  "Trending on Twitter" stories, celebrity gossip, stories reporting the findings or reactions of; UFO "experts", Bigfoot "researchers" and any headline that ends in a question mark.  If such a story were true, the headline would be a statement, not a question.

       Every Blog Ever Written: Even this one.

The Magnetic Pendulum

I hate politics. Generally, when people say that it is because they do not want to espouse a particular set of opinions that may upset the person they are saying it to. In this instance, however, I am saying it because I am disgusted by the way politics has wormed its way into most aspects of everyday life. As a kid, I actually aspired to be a politician. Civics and government were and are fascinating to me and the thought of public service in the name of furthering the great experiment that is the American Republic, seemed like a laudable goal. Obviously, the idea of engaging in politics now is abhorrent to me and it is mostly because of the magnetic pendulum.

Bear with me. Although I hate politics, I love a good metaphor. As I was perusing the news of the day and trying desperately to avoid any mention of politics, I came across an article about local police arresting a vandal that shattered a few car windows. The comments section of the article (I know, why am I reading a comment section on the internet.) quickly devolved into armed camps of pro and anti-police sentiment, Trump bashing, Black Lives Matter supporters and detractors and, conspiracy theorists. Keep in mind that this is a kid, who is not African-American, breaking windows and getting caught. There is nothing here to get worked up about, unless you happen to own a car with a broken window or are this kid’s parents.

This quick trip through ignorance gave me an idea about a way of looking at the new, super polarized American political dynamic. I give you the Magnetic Pendulum.

OK, I did not invent this idea, however I am taking credit for applying it to American politics. The actual Idea is from an experiment done in the 1960s involving an oscillator and a magnet suspended from a pendulum. (Here is a diagram that I got from Kidzsearch, which is about at my level of scientific knowledge).

The idea is that the pendulum will swing further from side to side depending on the amount of energy that the electromagnet gets. I know, what does this have to do with politics? Well Imagine the pendulum is the state of American politics and the electromagnet at the bottom of the platform is rhetoric, social media, regular media, blogs (like this one) talk shows and political caterwauling. The more energy (Extreme political views and rhetoric) that you use to power the electromagnet, the further the pendulum swings to the left or right.

So what causes the pendulum to swing? Obviously the forces of gravity and electromagnetism cannot be blamed for political misunderstandings and extremism, so we have to look at another reason why the pendulum goes from left to right. I do not believe that there is that much difference between what the average American liberal and conservative feels is best for the country. I believe both sides want to do what is best for their fellow man (With some exceptions of course, I am from Illinois, I know a lot about corruption.)

If you think about it, the American Left looks out for the people as a whole and tries to do what is best for the body of the populace, The American right defends the liberties of the individual and defends them from the tyranny of the masses and the government. These two opposing viewpoints should be able to get along even if they disagree on some issues. The average person has both of these viewpoints in their personal, political spectrum.

So what the heck is happening?

I believe this problem exists because people do not like to be told they are wrong. I like to call this the “Oh yeah, I’ll show you principle.” The more that political discussion breaks down into labelling and name calling, the more power we give to the pendulum.

Here is a breakdown of a standard internet political discussion…

Liberal: “We should provide a social service to help people do something”

Conservative: “We shouldn’t make people spend their money to solve other people’s problems.”

Liberal: ”You are Hitler”

Conservative: “Hitler was a socialist, so you are Hitler.”

Liberal: “9/11 was an inside job!”

Conservative: “Obama is a Muslim!”

Ok, so that is hyperbole meant to be ridiculous, but it illustrates a point. The internet allows people to anonymously spout garbage that shame would never let them say in public. However, the media and to a lesser degree politicians, have discovered that frothing at the mouth allows you to attract more hits to your website and fuels your popularity, which in turn, allows you to get better ratings and stay or win elections.

When was the last time we saw this headline?

“Senator offers measured and reasonable solution to a problem after discussing it with the people involved and his opponents.” 

I am sure this still happens, but that headline or news crawl isn’t going to sell adds to beer and pharmaceutical companies. Also that Senator isn’t going to attract hits to his or her website or Super Pac money to his coffers. He or she isn’t “energizing his base”, he or she is just trying to solve a problem, which is their job. That Senator is probably going to do two things, Give up on their idea of solving problems and give in to demagoguery to stay in power. They will justify this backsliding by saying “I have to stay in power to do good things for my constituents,” which of course becomes harder and harder to do as they power the pendulum.

The more elected officials participate in this name calling and rhetoric, the more they disenfranchise the average voter. We then get elections being won by hard liners and people who are good at whipping up anti-the-other-guy sentiment.

This problem also effects political parties themselves. The parties get more and more extreme and the force the average voter to either stop identifying with a party or conform to the new dynamic of hatred and name-calling.

So what can we do? I believe, as a voter, we need to not look for the loudest guy in the room but rather the person with the best idea. We can push for term limits and campaign finance reforms and we can take a second to think about what the other person is saying before we condemn them and shout at them to tell them how right we are.

Then again, I hate politics so what do I know?

Who decides constituionality?

I am not addressing the ongoing idiocy of the Illinois legislature.  No deep thinking or soul-searching is required to see that they are all voting against the wishes of their constituency.

A Judge (note the title) in South Florida (note the place) ruled that the legislature's revision to the "Stand your ground" law was not constitutional, because the legislature doesn't have the authority to make and alter laws.

The story being referenced is here:
(http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/miami-judge-new-stand-your-ground-law-unconstitutional-n779436)

First some detail.

1.  The revised law stated that prosecutors must provide clear and compelling evidence that someone was not defending themselves, before they could bring charges against them.  That is, it clarified that the burden of proof is on the state. You know, the same legal principle that applies to all criminal charges.

2.  We have judges who make decisions about constitutionality.  They are called "Justices".

3.  Despite certain media outlet claims, Zimmerman's attorneys did not use the "Stand your ground" law in his defense.  They didn't need to.

4.The constitution of the state of Florida, like all states, follows the federal version fairly closely.  Specifically that the different branches of government have separated powers.  In short, the executive can veto, the legislative passes laws, and the judiciary enforces and interprets those laws.

        4a.  Judges enforce.  Justices interpret and rule on constitutionality.

5.  The judge ruled that the Florida Supreme court should have adjusted the law, not the legislature.

        5a.  That is not in their authority.


So in this case: an unqualified judge (not a justice, who by the way, rule as a team) gave a ruling he has no legal authority to, was one hundred percent wrong in the decision, (the legislature makes laws, all the supreme court can do as approve, reject, and interpret) and was trying to "legislate from the bench".

This is literally the reason we have a separation of powers.

Happy Independence Day.