We're in the midst of a crisis of conflict and incivility in national discourse. Conservatives get all their information from Fox News and radio talk show hosts. Liberals get their information from NPR, network TV, Huffington Post, MSNBC, etc. Passions are stirred up as ideological positions harden. Why?
I think a big part of the answer is gullibility, believing what you want to believe, failing to question, and responding to emotional instead of rational appeals.
You can see it in the tidal wave of misleading, viral e-mails -- which people believe because they want to believe them and which people disseminate because they're gullible. Why gullible? Is it lack of education, lack of intelligence, predilection to emotionalism, loyalty to their political tribe? I can't say, but I think that these e-mails do enormous damage because so many people are so quick to accept them at face value.
And all of these misleading e-mails that I've seen over the past few years have come from conservatives. I haven't seen one written from a liberal perspective, let alone a liberal-leaning one that gave incorrect "facts" to back up its outrage. Why is it that some conservatives are driven to create these outrageous messages, and others are so quick to pass them along without checking their facts? Where is respect for the truth? What are they really afraid of?
This morning I received from a conservative friend I rarely hear from the e-mail at the bottom of this post, which enumerated a lot of specific criticisms of Congress. As I do with anything that's supposed to make me incensed, I checked it out with Snopes.com and found that most of the "facts" it reported were lies or exaggerations. I wonder if anyone else on the distribution list bothered to do any checking whatsoever.
I responded to my friend, pointing out the errors and challenging him to send a correction to everyone he had forwarded the e-mail to. I'd suggest you do the same. Something has to stop the madness.
Dick Frantzreb
Here's the e-mail:
Unexplainable, Inexcusable
I challenge you to read this and NOT have the will to pass it on to your 20+ or more.
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.
Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?
35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
This is an idea that we should address.
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.
If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .."
You are one of my 20+
Now, what are you going to do about it? Read and delete, or work for reform
To find out the truth of all these assertions, click on this link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The San Francisco Symphony Chorus
Back on May 8, my good friend Harry and his wife, Jo, invited my wife and me to join them to take in a performance by the San Francisco Symphony of Mahler's Symphony No. 2 in C Minor. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I've never heard the SF Symphony before, nor even been in Davies Symphony Hall, their magnificent home. It was a treat, just to see the venue.
I went into the experience with a little prejudice, thinking I didn't particularly like Mahler, but the concert changed all that. Under the direction of Maestro Michael Tilson Thomas, the orchestra played brilliantly, with power, precision, sensitivity, and nuance that had to be appreciated by all. I counted a little more than 100 instrumentalists in the program, but it seemed there were more. In the end, their work earned a standing ovation and loud cheers from the full house.
There was also a chorus of more than 120, though their part didn't come until toward the end of the piece. Scanning their names in the program, I thought I recognized one, and looking up, I thought I picked out a friend from the Mastersingers USA men's chorus that I have participated in since 1996.
I sent him an e-mail to confirm that it was he, and he responded by giving me some interesting insights into what it's like to be part of the San Francisco Symphony Chorus. The program explained that the Chorus is made up of 30 professional and 112 volunteer singers. Here's some elaboration that my friend provided:
"It was a remarkable performance, one where 'everything came together.' We only did the Mahler 2 twice this year .. it's a 'warm up' for the summer European tour, when the Symphony will be doing it (but not the chorus, they will pick up local choruses). We did it four times last year. It was good on Saturday, but Sunday was special. As we were about to sing for the first time, the previous 70 minutes of remarkable music was synthesized into a single focused message -- 'Up to this point, it's been magic ... don't blow it now!' The orchestra is so extraordinary. Hats off to them. We just try to be as good. I am in my seventh year with them. It's been a thrill, including our performances of the Mahler 8 a couple of seasons ago; the live recording of those performances won three Grammy awards last year.
"Re-auditions are this week and next. We will sing in quartets (SATB) for half an hour with Ragnar [the Chorus Director], with two prepared pieces (or parts of pieces) and a sight singing exercise to do. Then, three weeks hence, the letter arrives. They are all thin. Either you are back in or you are not. If you are back in (and most returning singers make it), the letter lists what your commitment is for the coming year. Next year the group is doing Mahler 3 (women only), Brahms Requiem, Verdi Requiem, Handel's Messiah, a Holiday set, something by Debussy (ballet?), 'American Mavericks' (including Bates' 'Mass Transmission'), Barbary Coast (music from the American West of the late 19th early 20th centuries -- who knew?), and Beethoven 9. The volunteer singers sign up for as many as they want to do, and if you get back in, they tell what you are doing, and then you sign a contract with them. There are about 120 volunteers and 30 paid singers, who are amazing! Different pieces require different numbers of singers, ranging from 60 (the paid singers plus 30 volunteers) to a full deck, like what you saw yesterday."
All I can say is, what a commitment, but what an experience for singers like my friend!
I went into the experience with a little prejudice, thinking I didn't particularly like Mahler, but the concert changed all that. Under the direction of Maestro Michael Tilson Thomas, the orchestra played brilliantly, with power, precision, sensitivity, and nuance that had to be appreciated by all. I counted a little more than 100 instrumentalists in the program, but it seemed there were more. In the end, their work earned a standing ovation and loud cheers from the full house.
There was also a chorus of more than 120, though their part didn't come until toward the end of the piece. Scanning their names in the program, I thought I recognized one, and looking up, I thought I picked out a friend from the Mastersingers USA men's chorus that I have participated in since 1996.
I sent him an e-mail to confirm that it was he, and he responded by giving me some interesting insights into what it's like to be part of the San Francisco Symphony Chorus. The program explained that the Chorus is made up of 30 professional and 112 volunteer singers. Here's some elaboration that my friend provided:
"It was a remarkable performance, one where 'everything came together.' We only did the Mahler 2 twice this year .. it's a 'warm up' for the summer European tour, when the Symphony will be doing it (but not the chorus, they will pick up local choruses). We did it four times last year. It was good on Saturday, but Sunday was special. As we were about to sing for the first time, the previous 70 minutes of remarkable music was synthesized into a single focused message -- 'Up to this point, it's been magic ... don't blow it now!' The orchestra is so extraordinary. Hats off to them. We just try to be as good. I am in my seventh year with them. It's been a thrill, including our performances of the Mahler 8 a couple of seasons ago; the live recording of those performances won three Grammy awards last year.
"Re-auditions are this week and next. We will sing in quartets (SATB) for half an hour with Ragnar [the Chorus Director], with two prepared pieces (or parts of pieces) and a sight singing exercise to do. Then, three weeks hence, the letter arrives. They are all thin. Either you are back in or you are not. If you are back in (and most returning singers make it), the letter lists what your commitment is for the coming year. Next year the group is doing Mahler 3 (women only), Brahms Requiem, Verdi Requiem, Handel's Messiah, a Holiday set, something by Debussy (ballet?), 'American Mavericks' (including Bates' 'Mass Transmission'), Barbary Coast (music from the American West of the late 19th early 20th centuries -- who knew?), and Beethoven 9. The volunteer singers sign up for as many as they want to do, and if you get back in, they tell what you are doing, and then you sign a contract with them. There are about 120 volunteers and 30 paid singers, who are amazing! Different pieces require different numbers of singers, ranging from 60 (the paid singers plus 30 volunteers) to a full deck, like what you saw yesterday."
All I can say is, what a commitment, but what an experience for singers like my friend!
Monday, May 9, 2011
Fair Game
I saw a movie on DVD several nights ago, and it blew me away. First, some background.
Surely your remember back in July of 2003 when Valerie Plame was identified as a CIA agent in a newspaper column by Robert Novak. As we later learned, he was given the information by Richard Armitage of the State Department. The suspicion is that Armitage was acting at the direction of Scooter Libby, who was then on Vice President Dick Cheney's staff. Early in 2007 Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, though not of the more serious crime of disclosing the identity of an undercover agent. George W. Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence a few months after his conviction. Though presidential advisor Karl Rove and Cheney himself were suspected of playing a part in the disclosing of Plame's CIA connection, none of them have been formally charged.
Why would they take such an action against an agent of the U.S. government? Revenge. Plame's husband is Joseph Wilson, a retired U.S. ambassador. Because of his knowledge of central Africa, Wilson was sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from that country. It would be evidence of Saddam's determination to develop weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Wilson found no such evidence. Despite Wilson's findings, George W. Bush declared as part of his State of the Union Address in January 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This so upset Wilson that he wrote an "op-ed" piece for The New York Times entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa" on July 6, 2003. This was after the start of the war in Iraq in March of that year and "Mission Accomplished" on May 1. By undercutting the rationale for the war, many people believe that Wilson enraged the White House, leading to the retaliation against his wife, Valerie Plame.
Even though all these events dominated the news in 2003-2007, I did not follow them closely. Yet I was aware that a movie of the events, Fair Game, had come out in November of 2010, and I knew I wanted to see it. When I viewed it several nights ago, I found it to be an excellent, compelling piece, brilliantly acted by Naomi Watts and Sean Penn, who played Plame and Wilson, respectively. Still, I found myself wondering how accurate it all might be.
Just before ejecting the DVD, I decided to check the "Special Features," and there was the option of enabling commentary by the real Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. I listened to a little of it and quickly realized how significant it was. So I watched the entire movie again with their commentary. It was simply fascinating to hear them confirm the accuracy of the various details. A skeptic might argue their credibility, but I don't believe there would be many skeptics left after hearing them comment on the details of this movie for an hour and a half. It was simply one of the most engaging movie-watching experiences I have ever had.
Surely your remember back in July of 2003 when Valerie Plame was identified as a CIA agent in a newspaper column by Robert Novak. As we later learned, he was given the information by Richard Armitage of the State Department. The suspicion is that Armitage was acting at the direction of Scooter Libby, who was then on Vice President Dick Cheney's staff. Early in 2007 Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, though not of the more serious crime of disclosing the identity of an undercover agent. George W. Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence a few months after his conviction. Though presidential advisor Karl Rove and Cheney himself were suspected of playing a part in the disclosing of Plame's CIA connection, none of them have been formally charged.
Why would they take such an action against an agent of the U.S. government? Revenge. Plame's husband is Joseph Wilson, a retired U.S. ambassador. Because of his knowledge of central Africa, Wilson was sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from that country. It would be evidence of Saddam's determination to develop weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Wilson found no such evidence. Despite Wilson's findings, George W. Bush declared as part of his State of the Union Address in January 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This so upset Wilson that he wrote an "op-ed" piece for The New York Times entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa" on July 6, 2003. This was after the start of the war in Iraq in March of that year and "Mission Accomplished" on May 1. By undercutting the rationale for the war, many people believe that Wilson enraged the White House, leading to the retaliation against his wife, Valerie Plame.
Even though all these events dominated the news in 2003-2007, I did not follow them closely. Yet I was aware that a movie of the events, Fair Game, had come out in November of 2010, and I knew I wanted to see it. When I viewed it several nights ago, I found it to be an excellent, compelling piece, brilliantly acted by Naomi Watts and Sean Penn, who played Plame and Wilson, respectively. Still, I found myself wondering how accurate it all might be.
Just before ejecting the DVD, I decided to check the "Special Features," and there was the option of enabling commentary by the real Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. I listened to a little of it and quickly realized how significant it was. So I watched the entire movie again with their commentary. It was simply fascinating to hear them confirm the accuracy of the various details. A skeptic might argue their credibility, but I don't believe there would be many skeptics left after hearing them comment on the details of this movie for an hour and a half. It was simply one of the most engaging movie-watching experiences I have ever had.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Another Viral E-mail
(Two days after I wrote the following, the Washington Post published its own critique of this e-mail at the following link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/judges_letter_on_health_care.html.)
My wife received the following e-mail from a well-meaning friend today:
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS:
ObamaCare Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB3200
THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls,TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious.
Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59.
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls, Texas
All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.
*************************************************
This arrived with multi-colored highlighting, and I reluctantly decided to draw up a response for my wife's friend -- but I bet she doesn't send it to the person who sent her the e-mail in the first place.
* * *
First of all, this e-mail is nearly a year old. It refers to a bill, more properly designated as H.R. 3200 that was not passed. The bill that was passed is H.R. 3962 or H.R. 4872, as finally amended and sent to the President for signature. Many of the sections cited below, which misinterpret H.R. 3200 anyway, are not in the final law: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
You can see how misleading this e-mail is, even about H.R. 3200, if you’ll check what the non-partisan PolitiFacts website said about H.R. 3200. The link is: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/. Or check FactCheck.org (from the Annenberg Public Policy Center): http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/.
As for the existing law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf):
So in the final analysis, there is little in this breathless e-mail that was true at the time it was sent, and virtually nothing in it is true now (1/19/11). But did any of the hundreds or thousands of people who forwarded it care? It fit their prejudiced opinions, and that was enough.
Health insurance reform may be found to be unconstitutional in the courts, and Congress may change it or even repeal it. But this critique, for all that it was attributed to a judge, does not point any real weaknesses that may presently exist in the law. It is just lies and inadvertent or intentional misunderstanding. And gullible people will unfortunately continue to be duped by it.
My wife received the following e-mail from a well-meaning friend today:
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS:
ObamaCare Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB3200
THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls,TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious.
Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59.
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
- Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
- Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
- Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
- Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
- Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
- Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.
- Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
- Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
- Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls, Texas
All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.
*************************************************
This arrived with multi-colored highlighting, and I reluctantly decided to draw up a response for my wife's friend -- but I bet she doesn't send it to the person who sent her the e-mail in the first place.
* * *
First of all, this e-mail is nearly a year old. It refers to a bill, more properly designated as H.R. 3200 that was not passed. The bill that was passed is H.R. 3962 or H.R. 4872, as finally amended and sent to the President for signature. Many of the sections cited below, which misinterpret H.R. 3200 anyway, are not in the final law: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
You can see how misleading this e-mail is, even about H.R. 3200, if you’ll check what the non-partisan PolitiFacts website said about H.R. 3200. The link is: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/. Or check FactCheck.org (from the Annenberg Public Policy Center): http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/.
As for the existing law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf):
- - Illegal immigrants are excluded from the rights and protections of the new law: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-illegal-immigrants.
- - A search of the actual text of the law (see above link to the Government Printing Office) shows no mention of individual bank accounts or electronic funds transfers from individual bank accounts.
- - The new health care law subsidizes the cost of health care for small employers (business and non-profit): http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/22/smallbusiness/health_reform_small_business/index.htm. There are no special provisions in the law that apply only to labor unions or their retirees. ACORN no longer exists.
- - The suggestion that “Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees,” could not apply to the new health care law because it includes no public option (in which the federal government pays for services). Under the new law, it is the insurance companies, not the government, who decide what physicians are paid, and they are paid, not according to their specialty, but according to the services they provide. If this comment is aimed at the new law’s changes in Medicare (where the government does pay physicians), those reimbursement rates have been established and updated for 45 years, and are based, again, on specific services performed. And they don’t affect all doctors – only those who take Medicare patients. And although doctors, like all Americans, have different views about the new health care law, the American Medical Assn. supported the law, and you can get a realistic view of the law’s impact on doctors from the AMA’s booklet, “What Health Reform Means to Physicians and Patients”: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/399/hsr-booklet.pdf.
- - Sec. 3138 of the Act says that costs of cancer hospitals can be compared to those of other hospitals treating cancer patients, and their reimbursements reduced if there is a discrepancy. The intent is to treat hospitals fairly. And there is nothing to say that any reduction in reimbursements to cancer hospitals should be based on the age of patients or that cancer hospitals are required to ration their care in any way.
- - Sec. 6001 of the Act limits hospital expansion, but only for hospitals owned (or invested in) by physicians who are referring so many of their Medicare patients as to require expansion of the hospital beyond its existing capacity. It’s a way of limiting certain physicians’ ability to make money by referring patients to their own hospitals. The section does not apply to all hospitals across the board.
- - No version of health care reform ever mandated advance care (end-of-life) planning or advance directives. Early on, there was a provision to allow reimbursement to physicians when patients chose to have end-of-life discussions with their doctor, but that was removed from the bill. H.R. 3962 had this wording: “Sec. 240. Nothing in this section shall be construed (1) to require an individual to complete an advance directive or a physician’s order for life sustaining treatment or other end-of-life planning document; (2) to require an individual to consent to restrictions on the amount, duration, or scope of medical benefits otherwise covered under a qualified health benefits plan; or (3) to promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.” The final text of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contains no wording at all about advance care (end-of-life) planning or advance directives.
So in the final analysis, there is little in this breathless e-mail that was true at the time it was sent, and virtually nothing in it is true now (1/19/11). But did any of the hundreds or thousands of people who forwarded it care? It fit their prejudiced opinions, and that was enough.
Health insurance reform may be found to be unconstitutional in the courts, and Congress may change it or even repeal it. But this critique, for all that it was attributed to a judge, does not point any real weaknesses that may presently exist in the law. It is just lies and inadvertent or intentional misunderstanding. And gullible people will unfortunately continue to be duped by it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Capital Punishment
I would like to describe a journey. It began with one of my law school classes: Criminal Law 101. We started with the reasons for criminal penalties, and there are only five: protection of society, deterrence, reformation, restitution, and retribution. I didn’t think much about the implications of these reasons until around November of 1997 when I chanced to see an episode of ABC Television’s newsmagazine, “20/20,” which featured a prison interview of Karla Faye Tucker, who was facing execution in Texas within several months for two murders she had committed in 1984. What was compelling about her case was not that she would be the first woman executed since 1984 (and the first in Texas since 1863) – it was that she had so thoroughly reformed.
Because of a dysfunctional home life, she was involved in drugs and sex by the age of 12 and prostitution shortly thereafter. She was briefly married at 16 and hung out with motorcycle gangs in her early 20s. When she was 23 and after a weekend of drug use, she and her current boyfriend went to the apartment of an ex-boyfriend with theft on their minds. Finding him with his new girlfriend, violence ensued with the other couple being killed, in part by a pickaxe. Karla Faye Tucker confessed defiantly to all of this at her trial, and the horrified jury condemned her to death.
Before her trial was even over, she began to reevaluate her life and turn to God. A church with a prison ministry took her under its wing, guiding her reformation. She eventually married the pastor of the church, and ministered to other female prisoners. When I saw her and heard her speak after 14 years of this transformation, I was stunned. I remembered thinking to myself, “Why, this is a righteous woman.”
I was appalled at the idea that in a matter of months this person, who had been so completely regenerated, would be put to death. If any case cried out for clemency –commutation to a life sentence at the very least – surely this was it.
After brooding about this issue for weeks, I drafted a letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (see link to my letter below). I got no response, so I sent a personal letter to then Texas Governor George W. Bush. I got a form response, saying that he was committed to implementing Texas laws and had no leeway to act independently. Meanwhile the Board had voted against commutation. However, the case was gaining awareness on the part of the public and opinion was building for leniency. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in January, 1998 and captured the public’s attention. Karla Faye Tucker was executed on February 3.
These events ignited my passionate opposition to the death penalty. Fundamentally, my reasoning is this. Take the five reasons for criminal sanctions – protection of society, deterrence, reformation, restitution and retribution – and weigh them against the practice of execution. Incarceration certainly does as good a job of protecting society as putting someone to death. OK, how about deterrence? Doesn’t the prospect of being put to death for his deed make a criminal think twice about taking the life of another? Unfortunately, the answer is “no.” Many studies have shown that the possibility of execution does not deter would-be murderers. (See this link.) Reformation? If this were truly valued in our penal system, someone like Karl Faye Tucker would have been spared. Restitution is not a factor since nothing can bring back the person who was murdered. So what’s left? Retribution, or as it’s more commonly known: revenge.
When you get down to it, the only reason for executing criminals is revenge, either standing in the place of the victim’s relatives and effecting, by proxy, their thirst for blood – or acting on behalf of society’s outrage at the heinousness of the crime.
The proponents of death call for “justice,” but is this anything more than a modern version of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”? As other wits have said, follow this rule, and soon the whole world will be blind and toothless. What is “justice” more than a self-righteous expression of the thought: “I have played by the rules. You haven’t, therefore you must pay.” Pay why? Is it perhaps payment as compensation for the righteous person’s self-restraint?
I don’t see how a Christian, especially one who claims to be “pro-life,” can uphold the death penalty. What, indeed, would Jesus do? He certainly taught forbearance instead of revenge. He healed the severed ear of the servant of the high priest. He rejected the ways of the world and asked God to forgive those who crucified him. How can we, then, allow ourselves to be so overwhelmed by evil that we feel we must exterminate it? Jesus’ path was clearly to overcome evil with good, to love until the hate and hurt is overcome.
The worst part of the Christian’s advocacy of the death penalty – something that amounts to a sin in itself – is depriving the criminal of the opportunity for reformation and regeneration. Isn’t this (learning to do good) what we’re here for, what God wants us to do? There are countless examples of people who have used their incarceration to reexamine their lives and find the opportunity to be and do good while in prison. And there are many examples of such people being executed after prison has essentially accomplished its highest goal of reformation. That is what was so horrific about the case of Karla Faye Tucker. It’s like executing the butterfly for the sins of the caterpillar.
Most of us (thankfully) are repulsed by the idea of executing children. But at what age does a person no longer deserve this protection – 21, 18, 16, 14? Is it really a question of age at all? Psychologists say that teenagers often lack the capacity for restraint or for evaluating the consequences of their actions. Does attaining a certain age prove that one has acquired that ability? I, and I’ll bet you, too, have known people who didn’t “grow up” or achieve a decent degree of wisdom and humanity until their 20s, 30s or even later.
That brings up the question of the mentally deficient. Most of us wouldn’t countenance execution of an insane person or a person with the mental age of a child. Maybe there is no hope for improvement of such people, but the murderer who lacks self-restraint, or ignores the consequences of his action is similarly mentally deficient. But most such people have the ability to “grow up,” to see the error of their ways and change. Why can’t we give the “caterpillar,” the opportunity to become a “butterfly”? Isn’t doing so an imperative for a Christian?
One of the most frightening prospects that the death penalty holds for anyone with a conscience is this: what if we execute an innocent person? Scores of death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence over the past two decades. But what was it that put them on death row in the first place? Answer: a faulty judicial system. We want desperately to believe that our system of justice is just. But it relies on a contest between prosecutor and defense attorney that is often unequal . Prosecutors have been known to withhold evidence; defense attorneys have often been overworked or simply incompetent. Opponents of the death penalty (30% of the population according to a June 2010 Rasmussen poll) are systematically excluded from juries. (What can you say about those who are left in the jury pool?) Judges, typically elected to their posts, sometimes bring their prejudices with them. Appellate courts are designed to catch only mistakes of law, not fact. Governors, who have the power to commute death sentences, almost never do so because they are political animals who are less concerned with mercy than they are with the public opinion that will help them get reelected. (Given the current public opinion climate, no politician could ever be elected governor of a state if they were opposed to, or even had doubts about the death penalty.)
Earlier this year I read a book titled, The Autobiography of an Execution by David R. Dow (2010, Twelve – Hachett Book Group, 271 pages). The author is a Texas lawyer who has represented over 100 death-row inmates over the past 20 years. In this book, he describes in detail his handling of one case, the details of which he disguises. His client was ultimately executed. He observes (pp. 254-255): “Of the hundred or more deathrow inmates I’ve represented, there are seven, including Quaker [the subject of the book], I believe to be innocent. They get sentenced to death because they have incompetent or underpaid trial lawyers, and because human beings make mistakes. They get executed because my colleagues and I can’t find a way to stop it. Quaker won’t be the last.”
Here is another telling point that Dow makes (pp. 115-116): “Almost all my clients should have been taken out of their homes when they were children. They weren’t. Nobody had any interest in them until, as a result of nobody’s having any interest in them, they became menaces, at which point society did become interested, if only to kill them.”
That brings me to my letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. (Click here to see the text.) As I said above, it wasn’t answered, but I did get an answer to a similar letter to Governor George W. Bush. (Click here to see the text.)
Another quotation from Dow’s book explains my experience with these communications (pp. 219-220): “Our death-penalty regime depends for its functionality on moral cowardice. In Texas, the most gutless of all is the governor. If he wanted authority to decide for himself whether a convicted murderer should be spared, the legislature would give it to him in a heart-beat, but he doesn’t. He hides behind the jury, and behind the courts, and most of all, behind the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board consists of seven feckless people who gave him a lot of money. The governor appoints them to six-year terms, and they do what they think he wants them to. If the Board recommends that an inmate be spared, the governor can go along with that recommendation or not, but if the Board votes against the inmate, then the governor’s hands are tied. Governors, like George W. Bush and Ann Richards, want the Board to turn the inmate down, and, through back channels, they let their cronies know that. Later, they stand outside the governor’s mansion and shrug their shoulders and say that the inmate received a fair trial, that it was reviewed by the courts, that his appeal for clemency was turned down by the Board, and that there is nothing they can do. Then they head off to dinner at the Four Seasons and talk about bearing the weight of permitting someone to die. Is there any phrase in the English lexicon more immoral than There was nothing I could do?”
If you and I repudiate the death penalty, there’s a benefit for us, as well as for the condemned. Condoning the death penalty requires us to sacrifice some of our humanity in order to willingly and systematically snuff out the life of another. It is contrary to our nature and hurts us in a lasting way. For one small example, see the article “Former Warden ‘Haunted’ by Executions: Death Penalty Scars Prison Staff, he says” (at this link).
As support for the death penalty slowly erodes in this country, an organization at the forefront of reform is the Death Penalty Information Center. If you’ve read this far, I strongly urge you to sample their work at www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.
Because of a dysfunctional home life, she was involved in drugs and sex by the age of 12 and prostitution shortly thereafter. She was briefly married at 16 and hung out with motorcycle gangs in her early 20s. When she was 23 and after a weekend of drug use, she and her current boyfriend went to the apartment of an ex-boyfriend with theft on their minds. Finding him with his new girlfriend, violence ensued with the other couple being killed, in part by a pickaxe. Karla Faye Tucker confessed defiantly to all of this at her trial, and the horrified jury condemned her to death.
Before her trial was even over, she began to reevaluate her life and turn to God. A church with a prison ministry took her under its wing, guiding her reformation. She eventually married the pastor of the church, and ministered to other female prisoners. When I saw her and heard her speak after 14 years of this transformation, I was stunned. I remembered thinking to myself, “Why, this is a righteous woman.”
I was appalled at the idea that in a matter of months this person, who had been so completely regenerated, would be put to death. If any case cried out for clemency –commutation to a life sentence at the very least – surely this was it.
After brooding about this issue for weeks, I drafted a letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (see link to my letter below). I got no response, so I sent a personal letter to then Texas Governor George W. Bush. I got a form response, saying that he was committed to implementing Texas laws and had no leeway to act independently. Meanwhile the Board had voted against commutation. However, the case was gaining awareness on the part of the public and opinion was building for leniency. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in January, 1998 and captured the public’s attention. Karla Faye Tucker was executed on February 3.
These events ignited my passionate opposition to the death penalty. Fundamentally, my reasoning is this. Take the five reasons for criminal sanctions – protection of society, deterrence, reformation, restitution and retribution – and weigh them against the practice of execution. Incarceration certainly does as good a job of protecting society as putting someone to death. OK, how about deterrence? Doesn’t the prospect of being put to death for his deed make a criminal think twice about taking the life of another? Unfortunately, the answer is “no.” Many studies have shown that the possibility of execution does not deter would-be murderers. (See this link.) Reformation? If this were truly valued in our penal system, someone like Karl Faye Tucker would have been spared. Restitution is not a factor since nothing can bring back the person who was murdered. So what’s left? Retribution, or as it’s more commonly known: revenge.
When you get down to it, the only reason for executing criminals is revenge, either standing in the place of the victim’s relatives and effecting, by proxy, their thirst for blood – or acting on behalf of society’s outrage at the heinousness of the crime.
The proponents of death call for “justice,” but is this anything more than a modern version of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”? As other wits have said, follow this rule, and soon the whole world will be blind and toothless. What is “justice” more than a self-righteous expression of the thought: “I have played by the rules. You haven’t, therefore you must pay.” Pay why? Is it perhaps payment as compensation for the righteous person’s self-restraint?
I don’t see how a Christian, especially one who claims to be “pro-life,” can uphold the death penalty. What, indeed, would Jesus do? He certainly taught forbearance instead of revenge. He healed the severed ear of the servant of the high priest. He rejected the ways of the world and asked God to forgive those who crucified him. How can we, then, allow ourselves to be so overwhelmed by evil that we feel we must exterminate it? Jesus’ path was clearly to overcome evil with good, to love until the hate and hurt is overcome.
The worst part of the Christian’s advocacy of the death penalty – something that amounts to a sin in itself – is depriving the criminal of the opportunity for reformation and regeneration. Isn’t this (learning to do good) what we’re here for, what God wants us to do? There are countless examples of people who have used their incarceration to reexamine their lives and find the opportunity to be and do good while in prison. And there are many examples of such people being executed after prison has essentially accomplished its highest goal of reformation. That is what was so horrific about the case of Karla Faye Tucker. It’s like executing the butterfly for the sins of the caterpillar.
Most of us (thankfully) are repulsed by the idea of executing children. But at what age does a person no longer deserve this protection – 21, 18, 16, 14? Is it really a question of age at all? Psychologists say that teenagers often lack the capacity for restraint or for evaluating the consequences of their actions. Does attaining a certain age prove that one has acquired that ability? I, and I’ll bet you, too, have known people who didn’t “grow up” or achieve a decent degree of wisdom and humanity until their 20s, 30s or even later.
That brings up the question of the mentally deficient. Most of us wouldn’t countenance execution of an insane person or a person with the mental age of a child. Maybe there is no hope for improvement of such people, but the murderer who lacks self-restraint, or ignores the consequences of his action is similarly mentally deficient. But most such people have the ability to “grow up,” to see the error of their ways and change. Why can’t we give the “caterpillar,” the opportunity to become a “butterfly”? Isn’t doing so an imperative for a Christian?
One of the most frightening prospects that the death penalty holds for anyone with a conscience is this: what if we execute an innocent person? Scores of death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence over the past two decades. But what was it that put them on death row in the first place? Answer: a faulty judicial system. We want desperately to believe that our system of justice is just. But it relies on a contest between prosecutor and defense attorney that is often unequal . Prosecutors have been known to withhold evidence; defense attorneys have often been overworked or simply incompetent. Opponents of the death penalty (30% of the population according to a June 2010 Rasmussen poll) are systematically excluded from juries. (What can you say about those who are left in the jury pool?) Judges, typically elected to their posts, sometimes bring their prejudices with them. Appellate courts are designed to catch only mistakes of law, not fact. Governors, who have the power to commute death sentences, almost never do so because they are political animals who are less concerned with mercy than they are with the public opinion that will help them get reelected. (Given the current public opinion climate, no politician could ever be elected governor of a state if they were opposed to, or even had doubts about the death penalty.)
Earlier this year I read a book titled, The Autobiography of an Execution by David R. Dow (2010, Twelve – Hachett Book Group, 271 pages). The author is a Texas lawyer who has represented over 100 death-row inmates over the past 20 years. In this book, he describes in detail his handling of one case, the details of which he disguises. His client was ultimately executed. He observes (pp. 254-255): “Of the hundred or more deathrow inmates I’ve represented, there are seven, including Quaker [the subject of the book], I believe to be innocent. They get sentenced to death because they have incompetent or underpaid trial lawyers, and because human beings make mistakes. They get executed because my colleagues and I can’t find a way to stop it. Quaker won’t be the last.”
Here is another telling point that Dow makes (pp. 115-116): “Almost all my clients should have been taken out of their homes when they were children. They weren’t. Nobody had any interest in them until, as a result of nobody’s having any interest in them, they became menaces, at which point society did become interested, if only to kill them.”
That brings me to my letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. (Click here to see the text.) As I said above, it wasn’t answered, but I did get an answer to a similar letter to Governor George W. Bush. (Click here to see the text.)
Another quotation from Dow’s book explains my experience with these communications (pp. 219-220): “Our death-penalty regime depends for its functionality on moral cowardice. In Texas, the most gutless of all is the governor. If he wanted authority to decide for himself whether a convicted murderer should be spared, the legislature would give it to him in a heart-beat, but he doesn’t. He hides behind the jury, and behind the courts, and most of all, behind the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board consists of seven feckless people who gave him a lot of money. The governor appoints them to six-year terms, and they do what they think he wants them to. If the Board recommends that an inmate be spared, the governor can go along with that recommendation or not, but if the Board votes against the inmate, then the governor’s hands are tied. Governors, like George W. Bush and Ann Richards, want the Board to turn the inmate down, and, through back channels, they let their cronies know that. Later, they stand outside the governor’s mansion and shrug their shoulders and say that the inmate received a fair trial, that it was reviewed by the courts, that his appeal for clemency was turned down by the Board, and that there is nothing they can do. Then they head off to dinner at the Four Seasons and talk about bearing the weight of permitting someone to die. Is there any phrase in the English lexicon more immoral than There was nothing I could do?”
If you and I repudiate the death penalty, there’s a benefit for us, as well as for the condemned. Condoning the death penalty requires us to sacrifice some of our humanity in order to willingly and systematically snuff out the life of another. It is contrary to our nature and hurts us in a lasting way. For one small example, see the article “Former Warden ‘Haunted’ by Executions: Death Penalty Scars Prison Staff, he says” (at this link).
As support for the death penalty slowly erodes in this country, an organization at the forefront of reform is the Death Penalty Information Center. If you’ve read this far, I strongly urge you to sample their work at www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Hands-Free Cellphone Calls
I heard on the news yesterday about the latest "zero tolerance" day. Local law enforcement issued nearly 600 citations to people for using hand-held cell phones while they drive. I might have been at risk myself until about 6 weeks ago when I found my answer to hands-free cell phone use.
I read an article in PC Magazine extolling the Jabra Cruiser, so I decided to get it. It had a suggested retail price of $100, but I quickly found online sites offering it for about $75. I eventually purchased one for a "buy it now" deal on eBay for about $45 (plus $8 for shipping). It was delivered in a few days shrink-wrapped.
I've been using it now for more than a month, and it fits my requirements perfectly. It charges via a USB connection so I charge it from my computer in a couple of hours, or use the accompanying charger that plugs into my car's power outlet. After my first charge, I "paired" it with my iPhone, a process that I found to be quite easy. (It can actually pair with two phones.)
Once the device is set up, you attach it to your visor and turn it on. A synthesized voice confirms that it has established the connection with your phone, which can be anywhere on your person or in the car. Then when a call comes it, you press the top of the Jabra Cruiser to answer. I find the sound quality to be excellent while I'm driving, and the tiny microphone in the device works like a champ -- no complaints from those I've talked with.
When I initiate a call (dialing on my phone), the Jabra Cruiser siezes the call as soon as the dialing is done. Pressing the top of the device terminates the call.
But wait...there's more! You can push a button on the side of the device and transfer the voice of the person you're talking to onto a channel of your FM radio. And if your phone plays music, the Jabra Cruiser can play your phone's music through its speaker -- or the car's FM radio. If your phone has the capability, you can also dial by voice, reject calls, redial, mute a call, and handle third-party calls.
One of the features I like best is the long-lasting battery. I don't talk a lot in the car, and I have gone weeks between charges. (The ads say you can get up to 10 hours of talk time and 13 days of stand-by time.) One feature that helps this is that the Jabra Cruiser turns itself off if your cell phone is out of its range (30 feet) for more than 10 minutes.
I just checked, and Amazon.com is selling the Jabra Cruiser for $48. Stores on eBay are offering it for as little as $35, not counting shipping charges. For hands-free phone conversations in the car, this little device is the perfect answer for me. Maybe it will be for you, too.
I read an article in PC Magazine extolling the Jabra Cruiser, so I decided to get it. It had a suggested retail price of $100, but I quickly found online sites offering it for about $75. I eventually purchased one for a "buy it now" deal on eBay for about $45 (plus $8 for shipping). It was delivered in a few days shrink-wrapped.
I've been using it now for more than a month, and it fits my requirements perfectly. It charges via a USB connection so I charge it from my computer in a couple of hours, or use the accompanying charger that plugs into my car's power outlet. After my first charge, I "paired" it with my iPhone, a process that I found to be quite easy. (It can actually pair with two phones.)
Once the device is set up, you attach it to your visor and turn it on. A synthesized voice confirms that it has established the connection with your phone, which can be anywhere on your person or in the car. Then when a call comes it, you press the top of the Jabra Cruiser to answer. I find the sound quality to be excellent while I'm driving, and the tiny microphone in the device works like a champ -- no complaints from those I've talked with.
When I initiate a call (dialing on my phone), the Jabra Cruiser siezes the call as soon as the dialing is done. Pressing the top of the device terminates the call.
But wait...there's more! You can push a button on the side of the device and transfer the voice of the person you're talking to onto a channel of your FM radio. And if your phone plays music, the Jabra Cruiser can play your phone's music through its speaker -- or the car's FM radio. If your phone has the capability, you can also dial by voice, reject calls, redial, mute a call, and handle third-party calls.
One of the features I like best is the long-lasting battery. I don't talk a lot in the car, and I have gone weeks between charges. (The ads say you can get up to 10 hours of talk time and 13 days of stand-by time.) One feature that helps this is that the Jabra Cruiser turns itself off if your cell phone is out of its range (30 feet) for more than 10 minutes.
I just checked, and Amazon.com is selling the Jabra Cruiser for $48. Stores on eBay are offering it for as little as $35, not counting shipping charges. For hands-free phone conversations in the car, this little device is the perfect answer for me. Maybe it will be for you, too.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Snopes.com
Let’s face it, there’s a lot of misinformation floating around the Internet. Where does one turn to sift the fact from the fiction? For years, I have relied on Snopes.com as an impartial authority on urban legends, e-mail hoaxes, etc.
But now I’ve had a couple of experiences where my conservative friends have sent me alarming e-mail reports, which I’ve checked on Snopes.com, found to be false – and then they’ve come back to me with more e-mails that Snopes.com isn’t to be trusted because it has liberal leanings.
The latest e-mail alarm stated that Obama had redecorated the Oval Office, removing its patriotic red, white and blue décor – and replacing it with “with middle eastern wallpaper, drapes, and décor.” I checked out this report on Snopes.com and found that it was false. As Snopes.com pointed out, the picture that supposedly proved the redecorating of the Oval Office was of the East Room in the White House. And all you have to do is check the website whitehousemuseum.org to see that red, white and blue was not the color scheme of the Oval Office under any president of the last 70 years, except perhaps John F. Kennedy. I sent the Snopes.com link to this friend.
But instead of acknowledging the error of the e-mail she had sent me, my friend sent me another e-mail copying an attack on Snopes.com. I’ll reproduce that below (with commentary), but before I do, consider that Snopes.com is widely respected as an honest source of information, as witness recent articles by:
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/technology/personaltech/15pogue-email.html?_r=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html
The National Review(!)
http://old.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200407210830.asp
Reader’s Digest
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/rumor-detectives-true-story-or-online-hoax/article122216.html
Congress.org (“…a nonpartisan news and information Web site devoted to encouraging civic participation. Our mission is to provide information about public policy issues of the day and tips on effective advocacy so that citizens can make their voices heard.”)
http://www.congress.org/news/2009/11/30/six_tips_from_snopescom_on_ emails
FactCheck.org (“…A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.”)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
And TruthOrFiction.com (a competing urban legends research site)
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm
Sure, it takes only a few minutes of research to find plenty of websites that vilify Snopes.com -- but who are they? What are their credentials? What is their history? And are they any less prejudiced than they claim Snopes.com to be?
But in the final analysis, who is on your side doesn’t matter. Snopes.com documents their findings – naming names, giving website address, citations for articles, etc. If you don’t believe them, check their sources.
Here’s how the people at Snopes.com answer this key question, “How do I know that the information you’ve presented is accurate?” “We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.”
The e-mail I’ll reproduce below attacks Snopes.com on the grounds that the people behind the site are liberal. What if they are? (They’re not; see the online articles cited above.) Does that mean that their facts can’t be checked? Is no information acceptable unless it comes from people who agree with you politically and confirms your strongly held opinions?
Enough. Here’s the e-mail, with my comments in bold.
(received via e-mail 8/5/10; typos left uncorrected)
Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. (Snopes says they get their funding from advertising and occasional small contributions. What is your evidence of an additional, undisclosed source?) The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. (Any proof of a connection between this organization and Snopes?) The Democratic Alliance has been reported (by whom?) to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.
For the past few years (www.snopes.com) has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. (What if there were no one “behind” it? How could you prove the absence of a sinister backer?) It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. (They’ve been at it since 1995. Does experience count? Is special training required to make phone calls, do Internet research and tell truth from falsehood? Would you really trust a team of lawyers?)
The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. (No one’s perfect, but is what follows below the only evidence that they’ve been proven wrong?) Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. (Criticisms by whom? And over what issues?)
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville (Mandeville is in Louisiana, and your firm is where?) hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. (No one disputes that the sign went down. Did Bud Gregg just change his feelings about Obama?) I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. (This is nothing more than “he said, she said.” Who could Gregg have contacted at this gigantic firm who could say with assurance that Snopes.com had never contacted anyone there?)Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' (their report doesn’t use words like these) on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned (By whom? Where is the evidence?) the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. (But of course, conservatives don’t have a “purpose agenda” to discredit anything liberal.) There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock? (Who are these people, and what is their reasoning?)
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact 'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. (Not bad advice.) Plus, you can always search a subject and do the research yourself.
I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! (If you could give one example, it would be helpful, so people could check and draw their own conclusions.) I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.
I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal (“Flaming” shows a bit of bias. Do you mean someone other than the Mikkelsons? Can you name a name?) and this man is in the tank for Obama. (Do you mean that anyone who supports Obama is inherently untrustworthy?) There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. (Got any examples? Do you automatically believe everything you see on video? Have you heard of the recent Dept. of Agriculture fiasco created by blogger Andrew Breitbart and falsely accusing Shirley Sherrod?) So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever (Really? Ever?) for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore. (Who do you trust?)
A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me about Snopes.com. A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research (Is all this the fruit of your “research”?) to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. (What convinced you? Do you think your simple assertion is convincing me?) Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.
Thank you,
Alan Strong
Alan Strong CEO/Chairman
Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.
4400 Coldwater Canyon Ave.
Suite 200 Studio City, CA. 91604-5039
Me again. This is nothing more than a rant, with minimal evidence. There is certainly nothing here to conclusively discredit Snopes.com. In fact, there are numerous versions of this “letter” floating around the Internet. One is at this website: http://thehuffingtonriposte.blogspot.com/2010/05/snopes-exposed.html#ixzz0osKwmKIs. And you can check this link to see what Snopes.com itself says about the Bud Gregg issue: http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/chicken.asp.
It’s easy to spread lies via e-mail; it’s not so easy to check them out. Read critically, look for facts, check them out, look for prejudice, be wise. Most of these alarming e-mails are sent out by liars who are trying to manipulate the gullible. Of course, they want to try to discredit the truth-tellers. Are you committed to believing the liars just because they’re telling you what you want to hear?
But now I’ve had a couple of experiences where my conservative friends have sent me alarming e-mail reports, which I’ve checked on Snopes.com, found to be false – and then they’ve come back to me with more e-mails that Snopes.com isn’t to be trusted because it has liberal leanings.
The latest e-mail alarm stated that Obama had redecorated the Oval Office, removing its patriotic red, white and blue décor – and replacing it with “with middle eastern wallpaper, drapes, and décor.” I checked out this report on Snopes.com and found that it was false. As Snopes.com pointed out, the picture that supposedly proved the redecorating of the Oval Office was of the East Room in the White House. And all you have to do is check the website whitehousemuseum.org to see that red, white and blue was not the color scheme of the Oval Office under any president of the last 70 years, except perhaps John F. Kennedy. I sent the Snopes.com link to this friend.
But instead of acknowledging the error of the e-mail she had sent me, my friend sent me another e-mail copying an attack on Snopes.com. I’ll reproduce that below (with commentary), but before I do, consider that Snopes.com is widely respected as an honest source of information, as witness recent articles by:
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/technology/personaltech/15pogue-email.html?_r=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html
The National Review(!)
http://old.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200407210830.asp
Reader’s Digest
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/rumor-detectives-true-story-or-online-hoax/article122216.html
Congress.org (“…a nonpartisan news and information Web site devoted to encouraging civic participation. Our mission is to provide information about public policy issues of the day and tips on effective advocacy so that citizens can make their voices heard.”)
http://www.congress.org/news/2009/11/30/six_tips_from_snopescom_on_ emails
FactCheck.org (“…A project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.”)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
And TruthOrFiction.com (a competing urban legends research site)
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm
Sure, it takes only a few minutes of research to find plenty of websites that vilify Snopes.com -- but who are they? What are their credentials? What is their history? And are they any less prejudiced than they claim Snopes.com to be?
But in the final analysis, who is on your side doesn’t matter. Snopes.com documents their findings – naming names, giving website address, citations for articles, etc. If you don’t believe them, check their sources.
Here’s how the people at Snopes.com answer this key question, “How do I know that the information you’ve presented is accurate?” “We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic. Unlike the plethora of anonymous individuals who create and send the unsigned, unsourced e-mail messages that are forwarded all over the Internet, we show our work. The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.”
The e-mail I’ll reproduce below attacks Snopes.com on the grounds that the people behind the site are liberal. What if they are? (They’re not; see the online articles cited above.) Does that mean that their facts can’t be checked? Is no information acceptable unless it comes from people who agree with you politically and confirms your strongly held opinions?
Enough. Here’s the e-mail, with my comments in bold.
(received via e-mail 8/5/10; typos left uncorrected)
Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. (Snopes says they get their funding from advertising and occasional small contributions. What is your evidence of an additional, undisclosed source?) The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing these views. (Any proof of a connection between this organization and Snopes?) The Democratic Alliance has been reported (by whom?) to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.
For the past few years (www.snopes.com) has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. (What if there were no one “behind” it? How could you prove the absence of a sinister backer?) It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. (They’ve been at it since 1995. Does experience count? Is special training required to make phone calls, do Internet research and tell truth from falsehood? Would you really trust a team of lawyers?)
The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. (No one’s perfect, but is what follows below the only evidence that they’ve been proven wrong?) Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. (Criticisms by whom? And over what issues?)
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville (Mandeville is in Louisiana, and your firm is where?) hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. (No one disputes that the sign went down. Did Bud Gregg just change his feelings about Obama?) I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. (This is nothing more than “he said, she said.” Who could Gregg have contacted at this gigantic firm who could say with assurance that Snopes.com had never contacted anyone there?)Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' (their report doesn’t use words like these) on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!
Then it has been learned (By whom? Where is the evidence?) the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. (But of course, conservatives don’t have a “purpose agenda” to discredit anything liberal.) There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock? (Who are these people, and what is their reasoning?)
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact 'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. (Not bad advice.) Plus, you can always search a subject and do the research yourself.
I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! (If you could give one example, it would be helpful, so people could check and draw their own conclusions.) I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.
I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal (“Flaming” shows a bit of bias. Do you mean someone other than the Mikkelsons? Can you name a name?) and this man is in the tank for Obama. (Do you mean that anyone who supports Obama is inherently untrustworthy?) There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. (Got any examples? Do you automatically believe everything you see on video? Have you heard of the recent Dept. of Agriculture fiasco created by blogger Andrew Breitbart and falsely accusing Shirley Sherrod?) So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever (Really? Ever?) for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore. (Who do you trust?)
A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me about Snopes.com. A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research (Is all this the fruit of your “research”?) to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. (What convinced you? Do you think your simple assertion is convincing me?) Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.
Thank you,
Alan Strong
Alan Strong CEO/Chairman
Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.
4400 Coldwater Canyon Ave.
Suite 200 Studio City, CA. 91604-5039
Me again. This is nothing more than a rant, with minimal evidence. There is certainly nothing here to conclusively discredit Snopes.com. In fact, there are numerous versions of this “letter” floating around the Internet. One is at this website: http://thehuffingtonriposte.blogspot.com/2010/05/snopes-exposed.html#ixzz0osKwmKIs. And you can check this link to see what Snopes.com itself says about the Bud Gregg issue: http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/chicken.asp.
It’s easy to spread lies via e-mail; it’s not so easy to check them out. Read critically, look for facts, check them out, look for prejudice, be wise. Most of these alarming e-mails are sent out by liars who are trying to manipulate the gullible. Of course, they want to try to discredit the truth-tellers. Are you committed to believing the liars just because they’re telling you what you want to hear?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)