This Blog Is Fake News

Not really, but language is our primary way to communicate.  “This statement is false,” is a classic example of recursive writing.  Sometimes I enjoy annoying, contradictory statements; these conundrums are good exercise for our understanding of language, our value judgements and our unchallenged intellectual sides.  Fake news is fiction dressed up in the trappings of fact.  Those who are fooled operate on faulty assumptions.  Snopes may not be enough to save us.

How important is what we believe?  We make choices every day based on information from others. For long stretches of our history, Americans expected, and demanded professional journalism; we challenged the news with research of our own; we relied on professional information gatherers and presenters; we cherished objectivity.  Walter Cronkite is the example that comes to mind.  He and his news team did not editorialize; they presented the facts they could verify plainly; even when the news was painful, such as the Kennedy assassination, he held his emotions in check, almost.

As the era of journalism fades in our collective awareness, we stumble into an epoch of opinion; the 24-hour news age Ted Turner invented is voracious; anything to fill the hours.  The demand grew for titillating, shocking, insidious, intentional, or just stupid, public lying; I guess there was not enough honest scandal, hyperbole, deception, libel, and defamation.

Now we find completely fabricated articles, meant to harm specific people or raise undue alarm among us. Free speech, or libel?  First Amendment rights, or vicious cowardice?  It seems we are reaping what we have sown.   We have become victims of our society’s lax attitude towards rigor and honor.  We have grown lazy and unwilling to check the things presented to us.

Frankly, I am glad.  Not for the bad things that follow such propaganda, but for the possible reawakening of doubt, curiosity, and inquiry.  Of all the innovations of the 20th century, the internet connection of millions of individuals is the most important, because it reveals and magnifies our human nature and limits. Our naivete allowed us to be fooled by sources we trusted. At last, we know we must check the sources and validity of our vast ocean of daily information.

Humans are suspicious by nature; evolution has left this trait engraved in our genes.  But we can be lulled into gullibility, and we have been.  The opinions of writers and editors may vary all along the spectrum of belief; perspectives may open many windows of human experience; but some grounded facts must be present to sort and distort.  Fake news is just written lies and gossip without honest attribution.

Millions of Americans Install Russian “Spyware” on PC’s

Update 7/2/17: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article159342929.html

In the 21st century, anyone in America, without awareness and knowledge of computers, is as vulnerable as a “babe in the woods.”  The information age has vaulted into predominance of American’s attention without the benefit of requisite education, warnings, and orientation.  And this extends to all the people who, together, run our government.

Unfortunately, computers have become easy to use too quickly, and recklessly; it is like giving a hammer to a baby.  Americans can send and receive emails, visit on Skype, download free “stuff,” shop til their fingers or credit cards give out, bare their most intimate and inane secrets and weaknesses, seek love, watch videos, etc.

Americans are as ignorant about “hacking,” as they are about “fracking.”  “Hacking” sounds like chopping away at something like wood, or meat.  The concepts of computer hacking are not too different, except computer hackers are trying to log in to computer networks by trying to identify an administrative  user account; otherwise they test countless combinations of usernames and passwords.  They are burglars trying to steal valuable information, such as Ms Clinton-related emails, or damage, or hijack your system for ransom.  They look for anyone who has access to everything interesting and “hack” their account.

Hackers count on users being careless and simple in choosing their log in credentials. Sometimes users use their home computers or laptops to connect to their work computers. That means a “hacker” can find out how to connect to other network computers through your computer using your credentials.

How do they get into your system?  Through the internet, mostly through email links or attachments, otherwise they use multiple login attempts.  Sometimes, seemingly innocent emails or downloads can install software that gives a hacker the keys to everything on your computer, including your identity information, accounts, and financial information.

So, we take steps to protect ourselves with anti-virus, and anti-malware programs.  These programs learn and have access to every intimate detail about your computer and its connections to the internet.  They are supposed to detect, deter, and destroy any harmful files that come your way.  But wait; what if this software is turned against you?

How asleep at the switch, clueless, and careless can we be?  Millions of Americans have blithely installed Russian software on our own computers, supposedly, to protect us from malicious intrusions, and we are surprised when we are violated?  Really?  This software holds the keys to access everything on any computer that uses it, and any computer that connects to it or its networks.

We could have, should have looked beyond the advertising, (even ads on public radio,) and no cost downloads to the company that offers it; but we have not.  Even if you uninstalled the software, did it really remove every trace of itself?  Or, could it have left some tiny, hidden, latent elements designed to give itself a “back door” to your computer?  How would you know?

Anti-virus and anti-malware software is supposed to guard our computers from harm; it has access to everything on our computers and everything from other computers that communicate with; email, surfing, contacts, documents, programs, firewalls, passwords, yes, everything.  It is supposed to identify and neutralize threats from people and programs that seek to ransom, destroy, and steal our most valuable, sensitive information.  How carefully have we researched the sources of the programs and data we have on our computers?

Did you know that Kaspersky Labs, renowned for its anti-virus/malware powers, is owned by Russians and headquartered in Moscow?  Check out this link.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_Lab

I wonder, how many Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens have Kaspersky software on their computers?  I wonder how many other programs we might have downloaded that could be secret agents for our enemies?

 

Sour Grapes Over Electoral College? – Congress Is Designed Exactly Like It.

Our form of government is a democratic republic.  Each state selects people to represent them in the federal government.  Why is our Congress designed like it is? Balance of power? Diversity of points of view? Love of chaos?

Representing 50 sovereign states, a few protectorates, and Washington DC, we have 435 Representatives, each representing districts based on population; which of these jurisdictions is ready to succumb to the others?  We have 100 Senators, each representing ½ of one state. No state has an advantage in the Senate.  How would the smallest states feel about surrendering their rights to bigger states?

Each state has a specific limited number of electoral votes, regardless of the percentage of voters who voted in that state.

Why did the designers of our constitution do this?  In designing the democratic republic of the United States of America, they were wary of a strict national democracy.   It seems that the original states, (as do the current states) varied significantly, in population; those smaller states did not want the most populous states to dominate them just because they had more people.  The smaller states wanted a federal “equalizer” to protect them from bullies.  Did the founding fathers fail in this judgement?  A look at the political map of the world yields many ways of governing:  dictatorships, juntas, warlords, monarchies, theocracies, oligarchies, communists, many, messy, parliamentary, mishmashes, and zero strict democracies

Where is the successful model to support the current wailing for pure democracy?  If pure democracy is the correct approach, then why not abolish Congress and govern by hourly votes on whatever comes up?  Do we want to preserve state sovereignty in this federation, or do we want to be controlled by the whims and wishes of a moody, misinformed, impulsive public, or the 11 states with the majority of the population?

California 39,144,818
Texas 27,469,114
Florida 20,271,272
New York 19,795,791
Illinois 12,859,995
Pennsylvania 12,802,503
Ohio 11,613,423
Georgia 10,214,860
North Carolina 10,042,802
Michigan 9,922,576
New Jersey 8,958,013

Theoretically, these eleven states have most our population.

California 25,278,803
Texas 17,514,961
Florida 14,601,373
New York 13,693,128
Pennsylvania 9,737,690
Illinois 8,983,758
Ohio 8,753,269
Michigan 7,431,589
North Carolina 7,317,507
Georgia 6,958,725

These 10 states have most eligible voters in the USA

Where would that leave the other 39 – 40 states?  Pretty much at the mercy of 20% of the 50 states.  I think the majority of states would rather not surrender control to the big states.

If the popular vote would determine everything, why have states?  Why not constant referenda on every topic that arose?

Why not play by the rules we have and see what happens?

21st Century Virtual Lynching – Bloodlust Prevails

In 2016, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is moot.  Today, anyone who angers the black community is “dead,” due to the unbridled media, and the overreaching, extremely savage federal laws about “civil rights.” No defendant can survive the excoriation, and crucifixion by the media.  Even if they could, they face the financial impossibility of paying for extended, legal counsel against racist hatred financed by the federal government and black “causes.”

It does not matter if the accused is guilty, the defendant is doomed.  If acquitted by one court, another jurisdiction, another theory of law is employed until the person is strangled and expunged from life.

This is lynching.  What a sad day it is when a person is hounded to moral and social death because protection from double, or even triple jeopardy no longer applies in the USA. “How do I hate thee, let me count the ways.”  The American legal system has become a hydra, growing so many heads of prosecution, persecution, and execution, that no one can survive a racial accusation; so now we sanction rope-less, virtual lynching.

A content-hungry professional media, an uncontrolled social media, an unlimited pool of unscrupulous attorneys and advocates, along with a bottomless well of faceless, racial vitriol produces a cauldron which boils any white police officer action against a black suspect into a festering, puss-filled wound with no remedy but rope-and-tree, execution of the “guilty.”

In most courts, the attorney for anyone accused of murder would be ecstatic with a hung jury mistrial; but not anymore.  Not only will the prosecutor retry the accused, (something that almost never happens in real, non-racial life) but also the accusers will resort to federal suits for violation of civil rights.

What chance does an acquitted police officer have to live again?

 

“From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States.  Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.  The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched.  These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded.  Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched.  That is only 27.3%.  Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes. “

http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroom/lynchingstat.html

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is also regarded as an international human right under the UN‘s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof. Under Anglo-American common law, the accused is always presumed innocent in all types of proceedings; proof is always the burden of the accuser. The same principle is recognized by Islamic law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence