“Innocent Until Proven Guilty” And Other Outdated Concepts in the Internet Age

I just got a call about 30 minutes from my wife about a retraction I made on a website. I will not go into details, as my intent here is not to drudge up sympathy or support for “my side” or to have my “high five” crowd seek out the “other side”. This is due to a few factors:

• I strongly believe any disagreement between two individuals is best handled in private.
• I highly respect the work done by the person who started the firestorm, which was evident in my retraction
• There is a lesson to learn from this incident, even without the particulars
• I am more proactive than reactive in nature
• The only reason to dredge up particulars would be my own vanity, and not an intent to better this world
• Reducing to an attack only lowers the level of the discussion

History

For a bit of history, I recently read an article on the Internet that had some incorrect facts. As there was no way to directly contact the media to get things corrected, I posted a retraction comment. My reasoning was two-fold:

1. I have a strong belief that truth should prevail. This comes partially from my training in journalism (mass communications, with a specialty in film and video (broadcast journalism)) and partially from my belief in a God of truth and justice. We can return to this later.
2. A strong sense of pride in the actions a certain person has taken, which I felt were lessened by the nature of the article.

My retraction note was read tonight by someone who saw it as an attack. And that person posted it on a social media site where I was skewered without one of the individuals writing me personally and asking my intent. Worse, many of the individuals have personally attacked the person I have pride in, which has hurt me intensely. Personally, I would rather use this outlet to skewer them back, but I would rather this be a productive post. Clarification: Most of the truly negative comments have been received via email.

Intent

Intent is an extremely important concept in a court of law. If a person kills someone accidentally, without intent, the sentence, if any, will be lesser. If there was intent to kill, it is more likely there will be a conviction. The charged starts out innocent until proven guilty. And, if proven guilty, a sentence will be passed. If there was intent to kill, the sentence will be harsher than if there was no intent.

While intent can be inferred by actions, it requires a large amount of evidence to prove intent by inference. More likely, it is proven through the actions of the individual on trial.

In the court of public opinion, the best way to determine intent is to ask. Unfortunately, we are often so caught up with loyalties to a specific group (“our side” versus “their side”), we simply don’t ask. And, since it is not a court of law, we have no culpability in the matter. We simply do.

My Side versus Your Side

I see this as one of the most damaging trends in America. Rather than examine reporting at face value, we are more likely to believe or disbelieve based on the news source. Thus, to some, Fox News == Faux News and to others CNN == The Clinton News Network. In reality, each leans, but not nearly as far as the “other side” would have one believe.

What is sad about this is most of us are human beings, not Liberals or Conservatives, Democrats or Republicans. In fact, most of us would think someone who defined themselves solely by labels to be sick, even if we agreed with the viewpoints of the label in question. Think about it. How would you view a person who refused to speak to his own teenage son or daughter because the son or daughter debunked a story on his favorite news channel?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

The my side versus your side often leads to a “guilty until proven innocent” type of viewpoint. Many years ago, I had an individual state I should be arrested and dropped off in Iraq in an insurgent area for voting for Bush. He could not fathom that my vote was focused on factors other than the war and that Kerry had not shown me anything that gave me confidence in his ability to lead this country. He also could not accept I voted the lesser of two evils, based on what I knew at the time. Four years later, I “threw my vote away”, as I could not vote D or R in good conscience.

Please note that my statements above are not derisive to anyone who voted for Kerry in 2004, as I don’t see things through “my side/your side” glasses. It is sad I have to add these types of disclaimers, however, as I think I have stated my point very clearly. I have found, when I don’t, someone assumes that anything not clearly stated must be an attack.

And that is the crux here. So many people read into what is stated rather than actually read what is stated. I am not sure why this is. Perhaps it is that our society is becoming less educated due to political correctness or trying to make sure we don’t damage someone else’s self esteem.

Back to the Issue at Hand

In my retraction, I stated facts. I did not attack the individual who was incorrectly accredited. In fact, I was quite complementary on their accomplishments over the past few years. I hope the individual reads this blog entry, as the individual has ensured I cannot post anything in defense on the social media site. This is probably an oversight, as well, and I do not hold the individual personally culpable, as I doubt the individual personally stopped me from posting.

What was uncharitable in the whole mess was the comments fired back from friends of the individual. Not one took the time to ask me intent prior to stating their comments. If someone had asked me, I would have stated my intent and those now projecting me as the next Hitler would have discovered I meant no ill will on anyone.

I am deeply hurt by this event, as I did what I felt was ethically right. Given the same circumstances, I might have taken a bit more time to craft a note to ensure all disclaimers where in place, but I would have still sent the note. I still have this crazy belief truth matters.

At this time, there are some who are brandishing torches. Unfortunately, they are not just aiming at me, but also at the ones that truthfully should have credit for their accomplishments. Rather than focus solely at me and my actions, even in their wrong assessment of my intent, they are lashing out at others who were not involved.

Final Note

Here is a note I tried to post on the social media page. Unfortunately, I was no longer given permission to post, so I have to do it here (with names and groups in {} to avoid dredging this up to the public awareness:

I wish I had received the same charity and benefit of the doubt that I gave {person} in this matter. I never accused her of anything, as I assumed it was a media mistake.  I just reached out, as I have with many news stories over the past few years, and tried to make sure the truth was told. This comes from my high sense of ethics and my classwork in journalism.

I am deeply hurt at the judge, jury and executioner attitude of so many in this thread. Perhaps determining my intent would have been better before pulling the switch. All it would have taken was a message sent to my account.

If someone would like to send me a personal message telling me your feelings, we can discuss this. If you would rather attack me publically, I want no part in it.

I sat in the living room when the idea bake. I watched as {person1} posted on {site}. I saw the {group} consume time for many, many months. This is not deriding anyone else’s efforts, nor did {person1}ever ask for any fame in this, but my sense of justice won’t allow me to be silent as you bash her and try to take this away from her.

If you want to attack me, that is fine. I would prefer you do it in private, but you are allowed to choose your forum, as we live in a free country. But don’t destroy {person1} for my actions, as that is an unjust action. And, please, take the time to actually read through the entire retraction and see there was no ill intent. I wish I felt the same for some of the comments here. I am deeply hurt.

I am most hurt that not one of you asked me before firing the bullet. I would have at least given that benefit of the doubt to someone posting something about me.

The Point

The point is we have become an uncivil society. Years ago we would have told our neighbor his {something in his yard} was ugly; today we sue him. Years ago we would have asked someone what they meant by a comment; today we fire it off in the social media sites and watch our [friends/followers] high five and execute the other person.

The interesting thing is we don’t feel any remorse because we don’t see the damage done in the wake. If you think about it, it is much like warfare. In the days you had to run someone through with a sword, war was very hard. And, compared to today’s battles, fewer people died. But as the weapons allowed you to kill without seeing the carnage, war became easier. In like manner, telling off your neighbor, face to face, is hard. Sending him a letter is easier. Getting a lawyer to send the letter is even easier. And skewering him on Facebook is even easier.

This is sad, however, as many neighbors might be easier to approach if you asked them why. And, if you heard the reason, you might actually have sympathy and agree. If not, you might get the neighbor to see your side. Instead, today, we choose to be enemies. Very tragic.

I am not sure if anyone in the thread will read this, but I hope they will. I bear no ill will, nor have I ever. And if someone had actually asked my intent prior to firing off nasty comments, perhaps they would have seen my sole focus was truth. Perhaps I could have stated it in the disclaimer language so popular, and sometimes necessary, today? If so, that is my sole crime, not the one I have been convicted of without a trial.

Peace and Grace,
Greg

Twitter: @gbworld

Suncoast Energy (Orlando Airport) gas rip off

We just got back from a trip to Orlando where we witnessed the most extreme form of gas gouging I have ever seen. This is not a short term thing, like most cases, but an ongoing rip off. As there are general technical conferences at Disney every year, this is for my IT buddies.

 

As you come back to the Orlando airport, there are only gas stations on the north side of the airport. The first one you come to is Suncoast Energy. It has no placard announcing gas pricing, which is a danger signal. The price, last friday, was $3.99 per gallon. You see no other gas stations close by, so you pay. But, just 1/2 mile up the road is a 7-11 selling gas for $1.83.

 

My wife went in to question this practice and the guy said "we are the closest to the rental agencies". This is true. It would also make sense if they were charging 25 cents more for convenience, but $2.16 more? 218% more than other gas stations, which are making a profit?

 

Hey, it is America. He is free to rip people off. But I am also free to tell everyone about his practices.

 

Peace and Grace,

Greg

Election Nonsense

I have been reading a lot about the election this year, largely from blogs and forum posts, where the ignorant masses sound off about their beliefs and feelings about the electoral process. Here are some thoughts on elections. Please note that none of this is aimed at a particular candidate or party, just at some ignorant, selfish and/or stupid statements I have heard about the process of electing a candidate.

Every Vote Should Count?

I have recently heard a lot of claptrap about the founding fathers’ intention that every person have a vote and that vote would count. I have yet to find that intention in any documents written by any of the founding fathers. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite.

In the colonies, there were requirements that you had to be a landowner to vote. The negative side of this requirement, of course, is that women were ineligible to vote (a right not acquired until 1920 – 19^th amendment), as were free men of color (right acquired in 1870 – 15^th amendment). The positive side of this requirement, at least in theory, is the voters would have a stake in the game.

It is unrealistic to go back to a system like this, as it would remove rights from a large segment of society. At the time these laws stood in place, it was much easier to get land, often through lottery type systems that still existed well into the 1800s. Today, a large part of the populace do not own any land.

The founding fathers also felt that one should be educated about his choice. The current trend in this country is to attempt to get everyone to vote, regardless of whether they actually understand the issues or the candidates’ stance on the issues. Many of these people are voting based on small amounts of information and perception, often false. And some very intelligent people are supporting the idea of people voting on false perception, as their candidate is elected. In the push to get everyone voting, we are allowing an ignorant electorate to decide the fate of the nation. This goes counter to intent.

I am not stating that we should disenfranchise anyone. I do believe all people have the right to vote and should exercise it. The danger, however, is summed up in this quote from Benjamin Franklin.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Just recently, I saw a forum post where one person felt Stephanopolis’ comments on Good Morning America were racist or at least supporting a racist idea. His quote was "1% of black voters voted for McCain, and it is surprising that he got that many". In answer, another poster stated:

Why is voting for a person that you feel will do the most for you
automatically racist? Given the assumption that a black person will
automatically strive to improve the lot of other black people, then why
not call the decision to vote for that person "altruistic" rather than
"racist"?

I am not concerned right now with the racism angle, but the inherent allusion in the diea that we elect a government that will "do something for us". Do we really want a government that is a mom, babysitter, nursemaid or our big brother. Let that sink in a bit, as you do not get someone who ensures your every "need" without oversight. So much for the ideas JFK expressed in his inaugural address:

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

We know some choose a particular candidate based on perception rather than reality. This concept is encouraged by the politicos on both sides of the aisles, albeit in different ways. It should not, however, be encouraged by logical, thinking adults, just because of the outcome ("My" candidate wins). Benjamin Franklin’s idea was best summed by the Scottish lawyer Alexander Fraser Tytler:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: ‘From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

Electoral College and other topics

This brings us to another topic, the electoral college and the set up of the Congress. In 2000, there was a lot of talk of banning the electoral college. The push was driven by those whose candidate lost the election, despite getting the majority of the popular vote. Why would the founding fathers set up a system like this? Here is another quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

Or perhaps Thomas Jefferson:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

The founding fathers formed a Republic, not a Democracy. The intent was that sovereignty would lie in the states. The electoral college was designed with this in mind, as each state decides a winner. Their winner is added to the winners from the others states and a President is elected. The fear of mob rule was a great reason for the electoral college.

The electoral college has its flaws, of course. As one only needs to get 270 votes to win, it is possible, although currently not probable, to win the Presidential election with only 11 states out of 50: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey and North Carolina. The map looks like this image:

It is for this reason we see more campaigning in the larger states (by population) than smaller states. It is also why one candidate will stop campaigning in states where the polls have slanted heavily against him.

The idea of state sovereignty and push against mob rule do not end with the electoral college either. The Congress is divided into two governing bodies: The House and the Senate. The House is set up based on population, so states with greater populations have more representatives. The Senate, however, is set up to give each state an equal voice, so there are 2 Senators from each state, regardless of the population of the state.

Filibuster Proof

In many articles I have seen lately, there is an air of celebration over the idea that the Democrats might have enough of a majority in both the House and Senate to be filibuster proof. This absolutely appalls me that one feels we need a Congress that is so overwhelmingly to one side that they can act in a partisan manner and shove items down the throats of others who think differently than they do.

What the average American has to know here is the power is not the power to avoid a filibuster, but the power to shut down all debate. With a 60% majority, a party can enact cloture, or close the debate, on a bill. Once enacted, there can be no new amendments to the bill, the debate must end within 30 hours and a specific Senator is limited to 1 hour.

A government is designed to protect its people from outside forces who would do them harm. A government should also guarantee a level playing field by securing certain rights. It is not designed to ensure everyone has a chance to “win” the race just that they have the right to enter the race and, if they persevere, finish it. 

Mandate

Another word rearing its head is the word mandate. I have seen the Obama victory (53% of the popular vote), and the election of a Democratic Congress as a mandate to push all of his ideas through. It was actually stated in one post that Obama should “stick it” to the “wingnuts” and show them “who is boss”.

Normally crazy comments like this should be ignored, especially in light of the evidence, but it is a popular theme, even amongst those who are a bit less radical in their viewpoints. The words are not being stated as strongly, but there is a sense that Obama should use his “mandate” to push through controversial legislation unfettered by the minority. While these ideas may sound appealing, consider the following quotes:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

–Lord Acton (often misquoted as Machiavelli)

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.

– Barry Goldwater

Remember this. While 53% of Americans voted for Obama, another 47% did not. If you currently feel there is a mandate to “stick it” to anyone, consider the following:

It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

– Giordano Bruno

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

– Mark Twain

 

Summary

While I am certainly not for stopping people from exercising their right to vote, I hope, as did the founding fathers, that the electorate will be educated enough to vote in the candidate who is best for the country rather than ignorantly voting based on scare tactic propaganda. I guess you can sum up my position that we should view the right to vote as a responsibility and duty and not a right.

And, while I am not thrilled about the electoral college, I, like the founding fathers, believe that mob rule is the greater of two evils. At least with the electoral college, sans two states, we have each state make a decision and keep some sovereignty at the state level.

I will leave you with a quote I feel adequately sums up the feelings of many in this election:

Democracy is being allowed to vote for the candidate you dislike least. 
~Robert Byrne

Peace and Grace,
Greg

Gas below $2.00 in Nashville

I posted on www.nashvillegasprices.com, a site owned by www.gasbuddy.com, that gas was $1.99 in Nashville. My post was deleted. I posted again. Deleted. I just posted a third time. Let’s see if they are dense enough to delete it again.

 

Tomorrow, I will post pictures of the madness going on at the Highway 100 Kroger (added to this post). Apparently, the other Bellevue Kroger has followed. Let’s see if the morons delete that post, as well.

 

Now, I know $1.99 is hard to believe, since the gas started at $2.49 this morning, but I filled up my tank for less than $30 today. I am happy.

 

Peace and Grace,
Greg

Friend Invites

For all of you clicking and adding me as a friend. I thank you for the complement. But I am a bit picky about whom I add on my blog. Considering some are just adding me to get my visitors, I hope you will forgive me?

 

Peace and Grace,
Greg

Putting blog on Facebook

This is just a blog to show Facebook I own this blog. Fun stuff!

 

Blog Networks

Blog:

Stop Making Sense

Topics:

ASP.NET, C#, Current Events

Join my network

 

Peace and Grace,
Greg

Online friends you have never met (not even online)

I was looking through my "spaces" messages and friend requests today and I noticed there are about 15 friend requests from people I do not know. Now, this might seem normal to some people, but I wonder what is compelling people to want to "be my friend". Did they read an entry on my blog that touched their heart? Or, are they trying to gather online friends, as if it is some contest. Or, is it something else?

 

I am a bit more liberal with linking to people on some sites than others, but I don’t think I have added many Internet "friends" whom I had not at least had an online conversation with. Yet, I have 15 people who have not even commented on this blog who want me to be their online friend.

 

If you are one of these people, please understand that I am not rejecting you. I write this blog to push out ideas, most of them insights in computer programming. It is not an attempt to gather online friends. If you are sincere about wanting me to add you, then let’s at least meet. Drop a comment and let’s converse.

 

There is a part of me that wonders what new scam can be perpetuated by adding someone as a friend. It is too much work, I would think, just to get my personal email, but maybe that is it? I am not sure, but I am not adding these people as friends until I meet them. End of story.

 

Now, if you are one who adds a lot of online friends you have not even met online, and see the wisdom in this practice, please drop a comment. I am open to hearing how this is a good thing.

 

Peace and Grace,
Greg

The Zen of Bus Riding

Since the beginning of this month (September), I have been riding the city bus. The last time I worked downtown, I did the same. This time it is a bit more interesting, as far more people are riding the bus than ever before.

The Bike Riding Philosopher:
One of the most interesting characters I have met thus far is the bike riding philosopher. He rides a different bus than I, which is probably fortunate. His favorite pasttime is ranting about how his parents were rich and he is now lower class, how life is unfair. He likes to talk, to noone in particular, at high volumes. You might have heard him?

The Street Evangelist:
Also, does not ride my bus. He stands on the corner yelling "do you want to be saved today?" While I admire his zeal, I am not certain his ministry is having any effect, unless, of course, the desired effect is people ridiculing him behind his back.

The Physics of Falling Books:
The other day, one of the magnet (high school) students was sitting with her physics in her lap. When the bus took a corner, the book fell to the floor. "Why did that happen?" I responded "centrifugal force and gravity"; hell, I figured she was studying physics. She gave me a very interesting look. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, she was probably considering the coefficient of friction on her lap and its influence on the event. Either that or she did not have a clue. You decide.

The Talker
I am generally less interested in talking to people on the bus, preferring to spend my time reading or working on my laptop. Some people cannot get the clue, so I am polite and engage in conversation. One man, in particular, always desires a conversation.

When he first found out I was a computer programmer, he asked if "I charged to fix computers". I had a sudden dilemna at this juncture: Do I include the f-bomb before "yeah" or not? I told him I was a solutions architect, not a help desk employee. He responded by telling me about the network wiring in his house. Sigh!

Yesterday, this gentleman asked Barry (a member of my church) and I if we were "bushmen"? Other than our tribal warpaint, I had no idea why anyone would ask such a strange question. He then proceeded to feed us the "world according to Michael Moore" (kind of like the World According to Garp, but less filling). When I informed him of some of the problems in his arguments, he side stepped and went on another rant, accompanied by "it’s true, I read it on the Internet". It is a real shame when ideology outweighs thought and the brain could be substituted with tapioca without much damage!

Seeing the conversation was going nowhere, I made a segue into partical physics and big bang cosmology. I figured it would end the conversation quickly and let me get back to my typing. I was wrong; he also read about the big bang on the Internet. I need a good google whack subject to bone up on. ;->