How to keep lies from destroying the American Republic

Whines!  Groans!  Cheers! Jeers!  Wringing of hands and dire warnings abound...all over the internet, with particular targeting of "Social Media."  THAT is a misnomer, if I ever saw one...it is NOT social and it is NOT civil.  Social media isn't even truthful, except seemingly by accident.  Not many "thinking" people disagree as to the falsehoods that abound on the internet.

The same complaint(s) are becoming rampant regarding the media, with particular attention on what is euphemistically called the "news" media.  The term "fake news" appears everywhere, both truthfully and falsely applied so often as to make the label ineffective as either a warning or a label (truth in anything, including advertising and public relations, is a rarity).

Politicians and their supporters (does that end up labeling over 90% of our population?) add to the lack of candor, having expanded their falsehoods from campaign promises to include actions and positions actually taken while holding office.

So...is this unacceptable?  If so, to who (or is it "to whom,"...I never did get that right)?  Is there any desire...a heartfelt desire...to change this and return to a more truthful existence for all of us?

It would be nice to believe that such a desire exists.  But...how?  Here are a few ideas to consider...and feel free to think up additional and (hopefully) even more effective ways to accomplish the goal.

First, the so-called "news" media have to be forced to tell the truth and/or label their lies as lies.

Second, internet posting of any kind has to be able to be tracked to the person or organization that is commenting.

Third, all media (including that labeled as "news") has to be made legally responsible for falsehoods.  It is time to, in the interest of Justice, to eliminate the qualification or claim of "absence of malice."  If a person in private life can be legally made responsible for libel and/or slander, so should the "news," whether it be broadcast or print.

Is there any real reason why our people, our country, our government cannot pass laws that require all comments, all stories, all reports be attributed to real people and real organizations so they can be held accountable?  Is there any reason why anyone should be free to repeat slander or libel just by quoting another person?  That should be unlawful unless the person or organization repeating the story has independently verified it with attribution...not anonymously.

Why shouldn't a person that defames another be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind anonymity of the internet?  Require that identification of those posting be available, so that there can be confrontation, both personal and legal.  I see comments on "social" media and in stories that, if the commenter were made public and had to repeat the comments face to fact, would never say the things that they have posted or written.

As I grew up, I was advised to live my life, and speak and write, as if everything I did and said could appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow; think and consider before speaking or writing or acting.  So many today thing there are no such things as consequences.  Or, if there are, that someone ELSE will suffer them.  It is time to stop that thinking.  Time for the chickens to come home to roost...

If the voters demand this and insist that the internet providers not be allowed to censure but that all who use the internet be identifiable and legally liable for comments and statements, we can again enforce a degree of civility.  But...we have to want to accomplish that and take action to demand that.  Will you?

Is "Sony" just the tip of a very dangerous Iceberg?

For a very small, backward, albeit nuclear, country like North Korea to be able to attack the computer capability of a large Corporation in the United States and create enough fear that a scheduled release of a film frowned upon by North Korea was cancelled is, depending on where you stand or work, insulting, inconvenient, threatening, damaging and/or cyber terrorism, vandalism or warfare (chose any combination).

And now we are beginning to see articles touting the cyber-warfare capabilities of the United States that might be used to respond to any attacks on the country.   This is comforting...I think!

But it is also disturbing from another point of view.  The premise seems to be that if some entity attacks the U.S. in cyberspace, we have the capability to attack and destroy the attacker.  Now, as a person who is likely to be one of the citizens whose internet and computer capabilities will be damaged or destroyed, the fact that the entity causing my cyber destruction is being obliterated doesn't really solve my problem or satisfy my dilemma.

I would be much happier to learn that in addition to our country's retributive capability, it could protect me from being harmed in the first place...and our business and utility infrastructure as well.  I don't hear that...not even consideration of the desire to do that.

Not only does that absence of assurance give me pause, but it has been years since I heard anyone mention the need to be capable of defending against EMP devices.  These devices can "fry" electronics, virtually rendering all utilities, communications, and transportation inoperative until the electronic heart of the controls are replaced...an event likely to take many months.  The idea of planes dropping out of the sky, cars losing control, trains stopping, all not to move again for months is not desirable.  The concept of gas, electric and water supplies being rendered inoperative would be dangerous to our health.

Once every great while, I hear some person in government mention that this needs attention, but then the voice fades and I have never seen any report that suggests that we are even working assiduously to protect us from this kind of threat, much less that we are protected now.

Maybe...just maybe...someone ought to make sure that somebody...anybody...works on this stuff?

Sports and Domestic Violence

It used to be that when one's transgressions reached the stage of being prosecuted by the authorities, the result of that process was deemed to be the extent of punishment.  Some went to jail, and when they got out, there were a variety of ways for that person to earn his or her way back into the work force and into society at large.

Should the transgression not reach the level of prosecution by authorities...or whatever the disposition by the courts...the matter was deemed over with and done.  For the most part, a transgression did not trigger a doomsday scenario.

Apparently those days are gone forever.  Mind you, I am in favor of the strictest possible punishment and treatment that will deter and prevent violence in any situation.  Domestic violence is abhorrent.  And I would think that random violence in society among and between those who do not know each other is equally abhorrent.  Although one would not know that by current standards.  A person who gets in a bar fight with a stranger, may be fined, or even get probation and go right back to work with little public notice.  The exceptions are Politicians and Athletes...providing they are men.  Women get a pass.  Not sure why...but they do.

In the NFL now, you lose you ability to earn a living in your chosen profession if you are accused of Domestic Violence.   If you are convicted of Domestic Violence, you lose that ability permanently...or for so long as to amount to permanent, given the short productive period for an athlete.  The Legal punishment now is simply a preliminary element.  Is that right?  Should there be a discussion about that.  If there are children and an ongoing family existence, is removing the earning power helpful to the family?  Does that make sense?  Does keeping a person from gainful employment teach anyone anything?  Progressives and Liberals for years have been preaching about the fallacy of revenge, arguing for rehabilitation and counseling...but in this case they now preach of revenge.   Should this switch and the motivation for it be open for discussion?  Because I have heard nothing along that line...and whatever the outcome it would seem appropriate to think and talk it through to understand the logic.  Because the current logic escapes me and I would like to hear it laid out fully.

And...I would suggest that if the logic is there to support this extended punishment and behavioral level for participation in sports, that it be extended to fans also.  It seems only fair...especially given the behavior of some fans at all sorts of sporting events.  Perhaps one should not be able to buy a ticket to a sporting event unless they can show that they are free from DWI or any alcohol related charges or conviction, of any arrests or convictions for any sort of violence (Domestic or otherwise).  And if they are buying multiple tickets, that the same information should be put forth for whoever is going to be sitting in those additional seats.

Fair is fair.  Equal is equal.  What is good for the Goose should certainly be good for the Gander.

Let us have this discussion...

I Truly don't Understand

I used to think that America's biggest problems came in the political arena.

Perhaps that was incorrect.  I have been avoiding the news for quite a time now, because it was just so disturbing and disquieting.  The political events in this country just seem beyond control, and I was just not ready to even consider the reports of every day events.  After all...the news is always bad.  No one ever makes money reporting good news.

But...I cannot understand how Americans have allowed their lives to deteriorate to the degree that nightly news reports suggest is becoming the norm.

Child molestation is apparently now being "punished" by probation or less than one year sentences.  There was a time when such a crime would require the death penalty with approbation from all.  Those with criminal records that show a consistent lack of honor for a civil life when suffering invited injury or death by law enforcement are eulogized by demonstrators, some of the most vocal of which are clearly interested more in defying law of any sort rather than any individual injustice.

Colleges refuse to allow movies or discussions about abortion criticisms, but refuse to allow the showing of a movie documenting "honor" killings by Muslims and other domestic violence practiced by Muslim extremists.  Charter Schools in NY that provide true opportunity to disadvantaged students are closed by the NYC Mayor arguably elected by that same electorate.

HUD is a vehicle to bring the wrath of the Federal Government on property owners who operate in good faith on the basis of just one complaint, with absolutely no showing of a balanced view of counter claims, thereby threatening fiscal disaster to individuals and HOAs across the country.

Ever try to get the government's help on anything?  Unless you claimed minority status, did you ever get any satisfaction?  The odds are great that you would answer "no."  Why is that?  We live with the belief that the government exists to serve us, right?  But it turns out that our belief is an illusion.  Our government's actions would appear to prove that it serves their own officials, both elected and appointed, and those who can pay them (with votes or money...or both).  So we are being governed by a dictatorship by committee...and we are powerless to defend ourselves.

I have this feeling that when I die, it will be by natural causes...whether that is true, or really by government action or neglect I do not know, but I know what I suspect...