Does science "get lots of things wrong"?

Donald Trump has asserted that, "Science gets lots of things wrong." Actually, that statement doesn't go nearly far enough. If it's any good at all, science needs to get everything wrong. That's because the scientific method is a method of successive approximations.  It works like this:

1. Observers notice a set of facts. (OBSERVATION)
2. Theorists try to come up with an explanation that covers all observed facts. (THEORY)
3. Scientists versed in the facts use the theory to make predictions that will either support or not support the theory.  (PREDICTION)
4. Several scientists, well-versed in the field but WORKING INDEPENDENTLY, run experiments to see if the predictions hold up in the real world. (EXPERIMENT)
5. Results of the experiments are published for other independent scientists to review, and test for themselves. (PEER REVIEW)
6. Experimental data are then considered as new observations, and the cycle begins anew.

Please note that when we talk about "facts" in science, we are talking about experimental data, NOT about conclusions!  Many, many observations have supported the conclusion that germs cause diseases, for example. The diseases, and the existence of the germs are facts. They can be observed by any reasonably equipped researcher. But the conclusion that the diseases are caused by the germs is a theory, albeit a very well-established one.

Some diseases, such as allergies, are not caused by germs. Does this mean that Germ Theory of Disease is WRONG? No. It just means it is incomplete. Similarly, all scientific theories are incomplete. That's how science works. There's always more to learn. That's the great advantage of science over superstition. Some superstitions may be right, such as the superstition that chicken soup can alleviate common illnesses. Believing that superstition may help you treat your child's cold, but you won't learn anything from it that you didn't already know. Science always gets things at least a little bit wrong, but it leaves room for further investigation. Over the course of many cycles of investigation, we can learn a lot, and get much nearer to the truth than by blindly following popular superstitions.

Better Than Gun Control

I have never owned a gun, nor been a member or any gun lobby, but I can read, write, and do elementary math and Google searches. That’s all it takes to see that there are much better and easier ways to save lives than enacting restrictive gun control laws. Here are three such ways. All would be much more effective than gun control laws, and much easier to pass.

Teenage drivers

A recent report by the National Institute for Mental Health states that the teenage brain does not begin to resemble that of an adult until the early twenties. The part of the brain regulating impulse control and planning ahead is the last to develop. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 2014, the last year for which we have statistics, teenage drivers caused 2643 traffic fatalities, accounting for ten percent of all traffic deaths that year.  Unlike gun ownership, there is no nationally recognized right to drive a car.  Over two thousand deaths could be prevented just by restricting the driving privilege to those over the age of twenty-one.  With one vote, Congress could eliminate over two thousand needless deaths per year.  Unlike gun control legislation, which can take decades to reduce the number of existing firearms, (if it works at all) the effects of national driver licencing restrictions would begin immediately.

Distracted drivers

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 3154 people were killed by distracted drivers in 2014. A simple way to reduce this number would be to make cell-phone use while driving a Federal offense, punishable by forfeiture of cell phone and vehicle, and loss of driving privilege anywhere in the United States for ten years, for the first offense, and by permanent loss of driving privilege, and/or fines, or even imprisonment, for further offenses.  Enforcement costs could be offset by fines, and by auctioning off confiscated cars and phones.

Chronic DWI s

DOT estimates that a fourth of all DWI arrests are repeat offenders.  Since drunk driving accounts for nearly 10,000 deaths per year, getting repeat offenders off the streets could save 2500 lives per year. Studies have shown that harsh penalties alone have little or no effect on chronic DWI offenders. The only way to prevent them from repeating is to physically get them off the streets. Making chronic DWI a Federal offense would go a long way toward accomplishing this, as there is no parole for Federal offenses. Costs of enforcement would not be negligible, but no higher than for enforcing gun control laws.

Saving 8200 lives per year forever

Combining all three approaches could save 8200 lives per year, coincidentally equal to the total number of all firearm murders.  Implementing these laws would cost less than prosecuting firearms violations, would have immediate results, would avoid Constitutional issues, and would not incite objections from super-powerful gun lobbying organizations.

The life-saving potential is even greater than appears from these numbers, compared to gun control laws. No matter how restrictive gun control laws might be, murderers could get around them by using existing guns, or by using some other weapon. Taking drunks, distracted drivers, and teenagers off the road would have no such limits, but could eliminate ALL such deaths, year after year, forever.  Are you listening, Congress?

The most divisive election ever?

Those who claim this election is the most divisive in history just don't know their history. The election of 1860 was so divisive that eleven states seceded from the union, and fought the most deadly war in US history to sustain their secession. A war that dragged on for five years, and killed more Americans than all other wars in US history combined. ONE THIRD of the United States were so unhappy that they preferred WAR to life under that tyrannical president-elect, Abraham Lincoln. Now THAT'S a divisive election!

The South LOST. THE. WAR. It took over a century to recover financially, and some say they never have fully recovered socially. 

Those who are governed by their brains instead of their emotions can learn something from this. Rioting to show your displeasure with the results of the election is not smart. Those of us who protested against the Vietnam war learned this lesson the hard way-- when the National Guard was called in and started gunning us down.  Want to see where your riots will end up?  Look at Aleppo.  The government has a virtually limitless supply of bullets, tanks, bombers, and missiles, but they DO NOT HAVE AN INFINITE SUPPLY OF PATIENCE.  Especially not Donald Trump.

Nearly every government on earth has been forced, one time or another, to declare war on its own citizens. The U.S. government has done so more than once, and has won, every time. There is no reason to suspect that it will not do so again, if necessary, to quell riots. 

That's the choice, America, and it's a stark one: stop the rioting, or expect an army to do it for you. 

Cleaning House

Yeah, I took down some postings. I figured they were no longer relevant, and were not my personal favorites. If they were YOUR favorites, comment on this post and tell me, and I'll restore the ones you are missing.

You Can’t Fight Biology

In medieval China, females were expected to wear pants, while men wore robes. During the same era in medieval Europe, Joan of Arc was executed for wearing pants. Today, in most of the world, both women and men are allowed to wear pants. The defining characteristic of gender expectations, as opposed to physiological sex, is that gender expectations can change.

Throughout history, many have been unhappy with the gender expectations of their culture. Some cultures provide ways for individuals to change their gender. For example, in many Native American tribes, there are biological males who are assigned to the female gender. Such groups can also be found in India and in Africa. Modern Euro-American cultures are beginning to recognize the need for such transexual norms. In the last generation, it has begun to be okay for males to adopt the role of child-rearing and home-making, while females provide financial support, for example.

Along with changes in gender-specific roles, there is now a movement to recognize individuals of one sex as actually belonging to the opposite sex. We are not talking about gender, but about re-defining an individual’s actual, biological sex, by fiat. Some declare that a person can change their mind, and sex, repeatedly. This absurdity depends on the idea that a person’s sex has no foundation in biology or physiology, but is assigned them at birth by the attending physician.

While this may be comforting to those who find their culture’s gender norms unattractive, it has no basis in fact. A person’s sex (not gender) is not assigned by anyone-- it’s an innate characteristic of the individual, from the moment of conception, and is present in every cell of their body. The idea that a person’s “true” sex is determined by their feelings of the moment goes beyond absurdity. We must not discriminate against individuals who believe this. But do not require those who believe in physical reality to accept their wishes as facts.

Cultures have gender norms because they need them. In Japan, mixed nudity is normal, but women are protected from molestation by Japan’s strict taboos against public displays of sexuality and other emotions. In the United States, public display of affection is normal, but mixed nudity is taboo. The norms are opposite, but the function of protecting females is the same.

Gender-specific restrooms have protected women from molestation in America. If they become unisex, some other way must, and will, be found to protect the females using them. It may be harsher than gender-specific bathrooms. Maybe females will carry weapons, and shoot any males they find annoying. This would be a solution far worse than gender-specific bathrooms, but society will protect its females, or will soon be replaced by one that does. You can’t fight biology.

That's outrageous!

There's currently a big furor over the rural Montana judge who gave a convicted child rapist only 60 days in jail, despite the fact that the man, an ex-teacher, was convicted of raping his own daughter, and admitted to doing so many times.  Sounds outrageous, right?  Like most "headline news", the quick news-bite leaves out the "messy stuff" that most real lives are made of, and which actually, IN THIS CASE, make the judge's decision sound much more realistic.  Surprised?  Read on.

Turns out, Montana law requires an absolute minimum 100 year sentence in such cases, with the first 25 years not available for reduction in any of the usual ways: no plea bargains, no parole, no time reduction for good behavior, etc. during the first 25 years.  So, how was the judge able to reduce his sentence so much?

There's a catch.  If a psychosexual evaluation by a qualified sexual offender evaluator concurs that treatment in a local community affords a better opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender, and ultimately a better chance for the protection of the victim and of society, the defendant can petition for such treatment. Which is exactly what happened.

The judge had to consider many factors, including that the victim and her family are dependents of the offender.  So, if he goes to prison, his family, including the victim, loses his support.  So, the judge mandated that the offender live in a different community, be forbidden to ever be in the presence of anyone under 18 without adult supervision, be forbidden to ever own a computer, have internet access, possess pornography, or firearms, for the rest of his life. And FORTY more, similar restrictions.  He is under a thirty year suspended sentence without parole, so if he EVER violates ANY of these restrictions, he's gonna be in prison for the next thirty years, without parole.

The girl's mother, grandmother, AND LAWYER all agree with this outcome, and even the prosecuting attorney has not objected or filed an appeal.  Everyone involved in the case is happy with the result-- except the press, who are having a field day!  And the public, who have launched a campaign to impeach the judge.

This impeachment campaign gets even crazier.  The judge, John McKeon, is due to retire in less than one month! Even a successful impeachment could not remove him from the bench before he retires anyway.  But there is one thing impeachment can do.  It can deprive Judge McKeon of the retirement benefits he has earned by serving for 22 years without a blemish on his record.

There is absolutely no reason for this.  No good reason, that is.  If anyone who is party to the decision does not like it, they can appeal.  That's the legal, democratic way to right a wrong.  No appeals have been filed by anyone who has any business doing so.  Fifty-five thousand readers of the Change.org website have signed the impeachment petition. There are only 7630 people in the whole county!   Obviously, virtually all the petition signers have absolutely no business in the case. The campaign isn't about justice at all. It's about outrage. And vengeance.

People with no knowledge of the case, and no business in it, are out to "get" Judge McKeon, because it will make them feel good.  So far, the Montana state government has shown the good sense to refuse to acknowledge their demands.  More power to them!

The Home of the Brave

There's been a bit of nonsense lately about the supposedly "pro-slavery" fourth verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner".  Here's the verse;

And where are the foes that so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war & the battle's confusion

A home and a Country should leave us no more?

Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.

No refuge could save—the hireling & slave

From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O'er the land of the free & the home of the brave.

Those who use this verse to justify disrespect for the flag and the national anthem are wrong on two counts. They misconstrue the verse, and they incorrectly include it as part of "the national anthem."

The false interpretation is that, because it mentions slaves as foes, this verse (and therefore the entire National Anthem) somehow supports slavery. That's ridiculous! Taken in context of the whole verse, it says quite plainly that the waving flag marks the triumph of free men defending their homes against an army and navy of mercenaries and conscripts-- "hirelings and slaves"-- as were the British army and navy at the time.  The American army and navy, by contrast, had NO mercenaries and NO conscripts. While it is true that slavery was still legal in 1812, and Francis Scott Key was indeed a slave-holder, the plain meaning of the verse is NOT a celebration of slavery.  In fact, the words "hireling and slave" are better understood as insults against the British military, lauding the free men who triumphed over the King's slave army and hired mercenaries. Remember, it was the BRITISH we were fighting!

I am no apologist for slavery. Its historical existence is a horrid stain on the honor of the country I love. I have personally risked my life fighting against those who would enslave us and our friends. But the National Anthem is NOT a pro-slavery song, just because it contains the word, "slave". Those who think so do not understand the plain meaning of the verse.

That verse was originally part of "The Star-Spangled Banner," as penned by Francis Scott Key in 1812. But the song was not adopted as the national anthem until 1931, more than a century later, after slavery was outlawed. The versions in use officially at that time included only the first three verses. The fourth verse, containing the song's sole reference to slavery, has never been used officially as part of our National Anthem, even though it was part of the original lyrics.

Songs change over time. If we must consider the fourth verse as part of our national song, even though we never sing that verse, we should logically so consider ALL verses which have ever been part of the song, INCLUDING the FIFTH VERSE, added during the Civil War, which is specifically ANTI-SLAVERY:

When our land is illum’d with Liberty’s smile,

If a foe from within strike a blow at her glory,

Down, down, with the traitor that dares to defile

The flag of her stars and the page of her story!

By the millions unchain’d who our birthright have gained

We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained!

And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave

While the land of the free is the home of the brave.

A Mexican Wall

Donald Trump has made a wall between the US and Mexico the centerpiece of his Presidential campaign. Will a wall across North America actually stop illegal immigration, or even slow it down?  It’s highly doubtful. Most illegal crossings already occur at legal points of entry. There’s no reason to believe a two thousand mile wall will change that.

Those who are stopped by the wall may simply go around it. The contiguous US has five thousand miles of coast, plus a four thousand mile land border with Canada. Including the Mexican border, that's eleven thousand miles of border and coast to defend, MORE THAN FIVE TIMES the length of Mr. Trump’s wall. Will it end illegal immigration?  Not a chance.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)  Here are a baker's dozen of famous walls in history that didn't work:

The Great Wall of China (didn't stop the Mongol invaders)
Troy (didn't stop the Greeks)
Jericho (didn't stop Joshua)
Jerusalem (conquered five times despite its walls)
The Alps (didn't stop Hannibal's elephants)
Hadrian's Wall (didn't keep the barbarians out of Britain)
The Servian Wall (didn't keep the barbarians out of Rome)
Sacsayhuamán (didn't keep the Spanish out of Cuzco, Peru)
The Maginot Line (didn't keep Hitler out of France)
Hitler's Fortress Europe (didn't stop the D-Day invasion)
The Iron Curtain (didn't stop the fall of Communism)
The Berlin Wall (didn't keep Germany divided)
The Vietnam DMZ (didn't stop the Vietcong).

WALLS DON'T WORK.

Gun Control

Recent postings on the internet have included figures purporting to show that guns are the least major cause of death in the US. They claim that their figures are for “the first half of 2016”, but according to Snopes.com, those figures are actually a projection, based on figures from 2011. The most recent figures I could find were from 2014. Based on those figures, here are the actual US relevant statistics, including the most major causes of death, but not including fetal deaths from abortion, which is a separate issue.

Actual Death Figures (2014)*

Heart disease:                      614,348
Cancer:                              591,699
Smoking-related                  163,700
Other respiratory diseases:    147,101
Unintentional injuries:          136,053
Stroke:                              133,103
Alcohol:                              78,000 (excluding drunk driving)
Suicide:                             42,773 (including gun-related)
Automobile accidents:**         22,752 (excluding drunk driving)
Drunk driving:                       9,967
Murders by firearms***           8,124

* All figures are from US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) except as otherwise noted. CDC reports some deaths in round numbers, such as alcohol- and smoking-related. 2014 is the most recent year for which all figures have been compiled.
** US Department Of Transportation (US DOT). Distracted driver-related auto accident death figures not available for 2014.
*** FBI  All sources agree that suicides account for 60% of all gun-related deaths, though specific figures are not consistent between sources. Alcohol-related firearms death figures not available for any year, but a 2014 research paper by University of Pennsylvania Professor of Epidemiology Charles Branas, Ph.D. states: “Over one-third of firearm injury decedents had acutely consumed alcohol prior to their death; over one-quarter of these decedents had heavily consumed alcohol.” (emphasis added)

Unlike firearms, which have legitimate use in home and self defense, farming, and hunting, alcohol and tobacco have no such legitimate uses, and caused approximately fifty times as many deaths as guns did in 2014, as nearly as can be determined.

If automobile deaths are included (non-alcohol-related), and are balanced by including gun-related and non-gun-related suicides, the figure drops to “only” thirty-five times as many. So programs aimed at reducing alcohol and tobacco and automobile misuse, or promoting alcohol, tobacco, and automobile safety, have the potential to prevent thirty-five to fifty times as many deaths than similar programs aimed at gun users.

Conclusion: those who are concerned about firearms use in crimes causing death would instead do well to re-direct their efforts toward alcohol, tobacco, and automobiles. Even considering all deaths caused by guns, and not just deliberate murders, gun-related deaths are a minute fraction of all preventable deaths in the United States, on the close order of 3%.  Even eliminating every single gun in the USA, if it could be done, and even if the killers did not find another way to kill, could only prevent 1 in 85 deaths at most.

I am not a gun owner, and am not associated with any gun rights organization. But I am a believer in searching out the truth and following it wherever it leads. It’s not the guns that are the problem, it’s the people. Preventing drunks, crazies, and terrorists from gaining access to automobiles, and convincing Americans to treat alcohol, tobacco, and cars with respect, would save many, many more lives than even the most stringent gun control laws could ever hope to accomplish.

The Common-Sense Party

Wonder where "all the real candidates" are? They have joined The Common-Sense Party, which is attracting voters and candidates from both sides of the aisle. Their motto is, "Dignity, Experience, and Integrity", and they appear to mean it. 

They believe that the personal characteristics of a candidate are far more important than the details of any political platform, so they don't have one. They believe you can best judge a candidate's worthiness to govern by their past performance. They believe that working together to govern fairly is far more important than divisive rhetoric.

Their candidates are all experienced politicians of longtime service, great integrity, and dignity.  Presidential candidate is Jeb Bush, a man who is personally experienced in governance and in electioneering, as the longtime governor of Florida. His vice-presidential candidate is Bernie Sanders, a man of such imposing integrity that neither Hilary Clinton nor Donald Trump has been able to accuse him of any malfeasance, and who, despite being the only Socialist in the US Senate, keeps getting re-elected. 

With a line-up like that, they ought to attract voters from all of "middle-America", and support from all the Democrats and Republicans who cannot stomach either Hilary or Trump. Unfortunately, it's certain that they will not win the election. Not because of any failing, but because they do not exist. I just now made them up.

Don't you wish they did exist? They can, you know. Just write them in on your ballot this November.

This political announcement has been endorsed by common sense, and paid for by no one. Common sense does not accept campaign contributions. Do not send money. Just spread the word.

ORLANDO

I've heard the Orlando massacre called "the result of Christian bigotry" or of "home-grown terrorism." Let's get the facts straight: the Orlando massacre was neither. The perpetrator was a self-declared Muslim, NOT a Christian. Those who can't tell the difference between Islam and Christianity have no right to voice opinions about either. Nor was it "home-grown terrorism." The man pledged allegiance to ISIS, which claims to be a country. Last I heard, when you pledge allegiance to another country you forfeit your American citizenship. The man was a TRAITOR, not an American. The massacre was indeed terrorism, but was not based on any American ideology, sanctioned by any American organization, or carried out by anyone who claimed to be American. So what was it? It was terrorism by an evil traitor. It was a TRAGEDY.

Those who would use such a tragedy to advance their own, entirely unrelated agendas, political or religious, or anti-religious, make themselves accessories-after-the-fact, and beneficiaries of terrorism and treason. In my opinion, that makes them terrorists and traitors, too.

Calling a tail a leg

Three news stories neatly show why America is having problems.  Each shows a different version of the same problem: faulty thinking.

The first: Bryce Dejean-Jones was fatally shot while breaking into a Dallas-area apartment. So, what was a famous NBA basketball player just at the brink of success doing breaking into someone's apartment? Well, he'd had a fight with a former girlfriend, and apparently thought he was breaking into her apartment.  Wrong apartment!  Just an honest mistake.  

The news is full of  his former team mates gushing about the tragic loss.  I don't buy it. He got exactly what he deserved.  If he'd busted into the right apartment and got shot, would that have been okay?  Well, no.  But what he actually did was even worse.  A locked door means, "Keep out!"  Only firemen and military commandos on active duty have the right to break into a locked apartment.  Even the police need a search warrant.  Anything else is Breaking and Entering, which is a felony.  This is not rocket science.  Even a famous athlete should be able to figure it out.  Being shot by the victim while while in the act of committing a felony against them is not tragic.  It's justice.

What's tragic is that there are people who think it's okay for a big, strong man to bust into someone's apartment if they have a disagreement with them, just because they can.  That's called, "savagery."

The second news article involves a real savage-- an adult, male gorilla who was dragging around a four year old boy who had crawled into the gorilla exhibit at a zoo.  The zoo's Emergency Team had to shoot the gorilla to save the life of the child.  Predictably, animal rights nuts are calling this "murder" and demanding the arrest of those responsible. Let's get a few things straight.
1.  Murder is the unwarranted killing of one human being by another.  No human was killed; it was an animal.  An intelligent, human-shaped one, but still an animal.  In fact, a wild animal.  The gorilla was not shot in anger, hatred, or for a trophy, but because he was endangering a human child in a zoo.  If it had been a 400 pound man dragging the child around and endangering it's life, and the SWAT team had shot him, it still wouldn't be murder.  The only relevant factor was the danger to the child.
2.  The child was not supposed to be in the gorilla exhibit, but had squeezed into the enclosure, attracted by the gorilla, no doubt.  In doing so, he had acted exactly like a four year old child.  Can't blame him for that!  Must be the parents' fault, right?  Ever taken a small child to the zoo?  Most of the enclosures are there to protect the animals from the people!  Zoo designers go to fantastic lengths to make it impossible for people (including four-year-olds) to get into the cages.  In the hundred year history of the zoo, no one had ever managed it before!  Nope.  

Nobody felt good about killing the gorilla. Nobody is blaming the zoo, or the child.  It was an accident.  But the safety of the child, even a wayward one, trumps all other considerations.

Speaking of Trump, this brings up my third news story.  Donald Trump's Presidential campaign is bankrupt. Financially, not just logically.  He wants the Republican Party to bankroll him from now until the Convention, even though he recently publicly assured the party, "We have money."

If they buy it, this will be the FIFTH time Donald Trump has used bankruptcy to force someone else to pick up the tab for his mismanagement of his ventures.  The other four were business ventures, and some of them are still going through the courts as we write this.

The purpose of our bankruptcy laws is to allow those who inadvertently get in over their heads a chance to pay off their debts as best they can, and have that accepted as "good enough."  They were never intended to give billionaires a free ride by saving them from the consequences of their own poor decisions.  

Misusing laws like this is properly called "cheating."  That's what we call it if a person who is on Welfare "works the system" to make more money than they could expect to get from employment.  That's what we call it when a person uses tax "loopholes" they are not entitled to, in order to reduce their tax burden.  And that's what it should be called when a candidate outflanks the competition by spending all his campaign money months too early, and then expects the RNC to pick up the tab for months of pre-Convention politicking, because he is "the presumptive Republican nominee."

That is properly called CHEATING.  Mr. Trump seems to believe that it's okay if you can get away with it.  Here's the logical flaw.  Getting away with cheating is not the same as "not cheating."  Getting away with lying is not the same as "honesty."  Getting away with racism is not the same as "fairness."  And not being proven wrong is not the same as being right.

All three of these logical flaws all boil down to the same idea: there IS such a thing as objective reality.  Misdirected savagery is not tragic.  It's EVIL.   Killing an animal that is in the act of injuring a child is not "murder".  It's NECESSARY.  Getting away with wrong-doing is not innocence.  It's CHEATING.  Remember the old joke about, "If you call a cow's tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have?"  The answer is, "FOUR, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

Tempest in a Teapot?

Mormon writer and editor Kristine Haglund recently argued in a blog post that BYU should offer Honor Code amnesty in reporting sexual assault — a move sought in a petition signed by tens of thousands of individuals.

“After all, if a male student got shot at Starbucks,” she writes, “nobody would check to see if the cup he was drinking from at the time contained coffee [prohibited by the Honor Code] or hot cocoa.”

This seems reasonable enough, yet an over-riding principle of Western law is that another person’s crimes do not excuse yours. If you were in a car crash caused by another motorist, and you were subsequently discovered to have been driving while impaired, you would still be liable for the DUI, even though you were the victim of the accident.

What no one is saying is that the victim in this rape case has not been charged with any Honor Code violations, but is simply being looked into. Such an investigation should take into account that the accusation was made by a friend of the rapist, and only after the rape was reported. While Honor Code investigations are serious, they are not to be equated with rape. Calling this a “rape culture at BYU” suggests that rape is common or condoned there, neither of which is true.

In the practice of criminal law, minor infractions are often overlooked in the interest of solving a greater crime. The difference between the horrific felony of forcible rape and even a major Honor Code infraction is great enough that extending Honor Code amnesty to anyone reporting a sexual assault should certainly be appropriate, and would do much to dispel the myth of “rape culture”.

Discerning Truth from Lies

When opinions are sharply polarized and each side is sure that they are right, it can be very hard to separate truth from lies. Here are seven red flags to watch out for in the coming months.

NAME-CALLING

When logic and reason are insufficient or lacking, rhetoric often turns into personal attacks. Name-calling is a dead give-away. It can be as obvious as calling your opponent “a pig” or “a wacko.” Or, it may be more subtle. Instead of identifying your oponent by his or her correct title of Senator Smith or Doctor Jones, they may be identified as “Anti-LGBT spokesman George Smith”, or “Anti-gun advocate Judy Jones.” It’s still name-calling.

HIDDEN OPINIONS

The names above have something in common-- they are matters of the writer’s opinion, not facts that can be checked. This distinction is extremely important. If a person claims to be a medical doctor, that can be verified. Calling someone a “spokesman” or an “advocate”, however, is entirely a matter of the writer’s opinion. Who does he speak for? Who elected him spokesman? What is involved in being an “advocate”? We simply do not know, so there is no way to verify the statement. Watch out for opinions masquerading as facts and titles.

LOADED WORDS

Watch out too for words with strong connotations. A recent op-ed piece characterized another writer’s article as a “hoax”. This does not just mean it was incorrect. “Hoax” implies that the first writer was aware of the falsehood, and had something personal to gain by it, without actually calling the other writer a liar.

SPIN

Politicians frequently put bad spin on their opponents, while excusing themselves. For example:
I mis-spoke; he lied.
I missed an opportunity; he refused to do his job.
I was otherwise engaged; he failed to show up.
I made a mistake on my tax return; he cheated on his taxes.
I learned from my mistake; she flip-flopped. And so on.

Examine what both sides say about each other and about themselves, substituting a neutral term for both. This can produce interesting results. You may find that both candidates actually did the very same thing. Such research can be tiresome. An acceptable substitute may be to use a neutral, fact-checking website. Just make sure it really is neutral.

DISRESPECT

In the op-ed piece above, the first writer was a psychiatrist, head of Johns Hopkins University Psychology Department for forty years, and Chief Psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital for thirty years, yet the second writer, who has no medical credentials, never once referred to him as “Doctor.” Surely, one who has risen to the very top of a demanding profession and remained there for three or four decades has earned the right to their title! Such omission can only be construed as deliberate disrespect, perhaps to camouflage the difference in credentials between the two writers.

Similarly, you can often tell the party affiliation of political writers by how they refer to the President. Democrats call him, “President Obama”; Republicans just say, “Obama.” Surely a man who, overcoming tremendous odds, was twice elected President of the United States, deserves to have his title used in formal writing, even if you don’t like him.

NEGATIVE TONE

Those with logical arguments to make, make them, and usually do so calmly. Those who are short on logic stoop to demonization. Watch out for a negative tone. Pointing out your opponent’s errors is one thing, fault-finding and mud-slinging is another. A true statesman can recognize that there is more than one side to every issue, and does not need to demonize their opponent. If someone seems to be running an entirely “negative” campaign, it’s dollars to donuts that their logic account is bankrupt.

PROPAGANDA

Politicians are often accused of using propaganda. Actually, any communication designed to change your opinion is properly called propaganda. There are three main types, classified as white, black, and gray. White propaganda’s  origin is clearly labeled, and it has a clear purpose. Gray propaganda is information of questionable origin or purpose that is never sourced, and whose accuracy is obviously doubtful. Black propaganda pretends to be “failed” white propaganda coming from the other side.

If Donald Trump were to claim that Hillary Clinton is really a transgender man, that would be an example of white propaganda. True or false, you’d know who made the claim, and why.

If a meme were to appear on the Internet claiming that Hillary Clinton is a man, with no source or substantiating details, that would be gray propaganda. There is nothing anywhere to back this up, you would have no way of knowing the source, and the story is highly suspect. But some people would still believe it.

If Trump supporters were to create an organization calling itself, “Hillary for President”, and then used that organization to commend her for her courage in “coming out” as trans, that would be black propaganda. Some might believe that her campaign had sanctioned the message, and that the claim that she was really a man was therefore true, despite its unlikeliness.

Such “black propaganda” is sneaky, and can easily backfire. The creator has to walk a fine line between being too obvious and being too effective-- for the other side. Done well, it can take root, as has “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” An infamous, anti-Semitic forgery urging “Jewish world domination,” it was created by the Tsarist Russian government in 1903, and is still circulating today, despite thorough debunking.

The best way to guard against propaganda is thorough fact-checking. And remember the old saw about how to tell when a politician is lying: Check to see if his lips are moving!

I am a registered Republican, and will not be voting for either Trump or Cruz. I won't vote for a senator who is willing to hold the entire United States hostage financially to get his way, as Cruz did, and who forced us to cut our military budget by 50% while fighting a war on two fronts, no matter who he is running against. (Remember the Sequester?)  Can't you see him threatening to veto every bill until Congress passes the laws he wants? And then DOING IT? Nor will I vote for a bigot who is unwilling to renounce the KKK until his feet are repeatedly held to the fire over it, a rabble-rouser who incites his followers to violence, and who openly espouses torture and the bombing of civilians as an acceptable strategy of war. Both are considered war crimes by every country on earth, except for ISIS and North Korea. Listen to his rhetoric and then ask yourself, "Do I really want this guy's finger on the nuclear button? Not under any circumstances! I greatly fear that either he or Cruz would be the literal end of the United States as a nation.

To be even-handed, I also will not be voting for either Sanders or Clinton. I don't fear that either of them will destroy our country deliberately, but I cannot morally support a candidate who is currently under federal investigation for breaches of security amounting to treason-- breaches so serious that they would land even a sitting President in the slammer for life, at minimum, if convicted. And who was placed under investigation before she became a candidate. Nor can I in good conscience vote for an avowed Socialist who, in the face of a nuclear North Korea, world-wide economic melt-down, ISIS and Boco Haram, global epidemics, and global warming, thinks that all our problems are caused by there being too many greedy, rich Americans! (I read that on his OWN web site!) Who thinks we can get out of our huge financial debt crisis by borrowing and spending even more money that we have no way to repay.

Tough times are coming, people. Be prepared.

Yellow Journalism and the Presidential Race

Actual media headlines:

"Black Man Dies During Arrest By White Cop"     

"Career Crook Dies of Heart Attack Hours After Arrest"  

In the interest of objectivity, both are true, except for the time frame. He died of a heart attack an hour after his arrest.  Both headlines are slightly wrong, but which one will sell more newspapers?   

Then there's the Internet version, completely true:

"Mostly-Black Jury Acquits White Cop in Death of Black Hoodlum".  That one is reassuring, completely true,.. and will never be seen, because when everything is working the way it's supposed to, it's not news.  We heard more on the radio and tv news after a grand jury took less than an hour to decide that the cop had done nothing wrong.  The headline (on NPR!) was (near as I can remember):

"Grand Jury Fails to Indict White Cop in Death of Black Man." 

I couldn't believe it!  While strictly true, that headline strongly implies that the cop SHOULD have been indicted, though all the evidence was to the contrary:

1.  The black man was screaming, "I can't breathe!" ANYONE knows that if you can't breathe, you can't even talk, much less scream.
2.  The coroner testified that the dead man had not been choked.
3.  He died of a heart attack, an hour after his arrest.
4.  He had a bad heart, did not take his medicine, was 200 lbs overweight, and did not exercise.
5.  He had a long history of resisting arrest by feigning medical problems.  That history was known to the arresting officer.
6.  The officer arrested him in a "classic case" arrest.  He did everything exactly right.
7.  The jury was instructed to indict him if there was "any reasonable doubt" that the cop may have been responsible for the death.  It took them less than an hour to conclude that there was not.
8.  A grand jury needs seven votes to indict.  Nine jurors were black.  It was not a racist decision.

This jury did not "FAIL" in any normal sense of the word.  They "SUCCEEDED" in responding to the TRUTH.  If only our public news outlets and political candidates could succeed like that!

We need fewer "reporters" and more "journalists."  Fewer "politicians" and more "statesmen". Especially statesmen. Unfortunately, what we have are politicians. The statesmen have all been eliminated from the presidential race, by a public that pays more attention to the news media than to the truth. Our job as citizens is to be the jury. We must not indict where there is no crime, nor elect where there is no virtue.  Here's the line-up:

1. A demagogue who preaches fear and hate, and violence against any who oppose him, and who has not once in his life been known to do anything nice for anyone unless it also benefited him..

2. A woman who is currently under Federal investigation for breaches of security so serious that they could land her in prison for life, or even on Death Row, and who has failed at every political office she has ever held.

3. The main architect of the Sequester, an ideologue so concerned with Obamacare that he was willing to bring down the entire country to block it, and who forced us to cut our military budget in half while fighting a war on two fronts.

4. A Socialist who voted to raise taxes in the depth of the worst Depression since the 1930s, and who currently, in the face of a nuclear North Korea, ISIS, Global Warming, and global epidemics, thinks all our problems are caused by there being too many rich Americans!

One of them is going to be our next president. Does it matter which?