Trust Issues

A thing of interest for all those who have to pay taxes - which, is almost everyone - so pay attention!

 Over the past few weeks, alarming and urgent scams have been taking place. Posing as IRS agents, scammers have been frightening taxpayers with news that their taxes were not paid and a warrant is out for their arrest. Elderly people have been specifically targeted, but the scammers are not planning on missing anyone they can dupe. A CPA, David Menard, of New Hampshire was contacted by them earlier in the week. "If they had any idea how the IRS worked, they would never have called me." he stated.

 However, most people do not have the benefit of knowing taxes and tax laws that well. They may question the idea, and get pulled in through the urgency. One such man, "...was told go to a local Walmart and wire nearly $2,000 via MoneyGram. The man was apparently so distraught that on his way to Walmart he crashed his car. Then he left the scene of the accident to send the payment because he was so afraid of the scammer’s threats of legal action, the senator’s office said." (The Washington Post, Rodney Brooks)

 The IRS likewise, reminds people through many news outlets to be on guard. The IRS does not operate like that. If you need to send them money, they don't tell you to transfer it through a Walmart ATM. A few suspects of this scam were arrested in late May, however, the IRS warned that this is a bigger operation than just a couple people. We must still be on guard. Yet, we can also have confidence that the IRS is not taking their stolen identity lightly.

Sources:
 USA Today; http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/05/24/five-arrested-irs-impersonation-scam/84874934/

The Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/05/30/irs-impersonation-scam-targeting-seniors-still-strong-but-finally-some-arrests/

The Christian Science Monitor; http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2016/0525/Five-arrested-in-36.5-million-IRS-impersonation-scam

CNN Money; http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/25/news/irs-impersonators-scam/

Nebraska City News Press; http://www.ncnewspress.com/article/20160531/NEWS/160539989

A Laughing Matter

 A laughable occurrence spread over the Internet a few weeks ago. Candice Payne, a mom from Houston TX, with an undeniable love for Star Wars, shared her fun with a few of her Facebook friends. Little expecting the video to go viral in a matter of 24 hours. What is so attractive about this video? Simply put, it's the laughter. Take a look.

 True, hearty, joyous laughter.

As this video and Payne's fame spread like wildfire, the news media rushed to- well, they couldn't say be the first because one of the surprising twists in our news today is social media is beating news media to information. And this is just one demonstration. Often, the fastest way to get your news is by checking your social media, now. Similar to how it used to be easier to get your news word-of-mouth in past centuries, than pay for and read from a newspaper, that may already be outdated. Interestingly, good news is big news again, instead of no news.

 Just days after her Internet famedom began, Payne was scooped up by source after news source, piqued by her instantaneous fame, for interviews and further videos. One, shows Kohl's presenting Payne with gift cards and Star Wars toys galore, in thanks for all the free advertising she brought them.  But, in not a few of the interviews, she pointed out the true reason for her happiness that caught the country's eye. "The mom of two...said there's more to the woman than a mask, and her laughter comes from deep within – from her faith in Jesus Christ." (The Christian Examiner) She had the chance to share joy, to share her faith with many. In that conclusion, she found her real reward.

 But, why is it that we are so drawn to the laughter? Besides all of the health benefits laughter supposedly has, why? Quite honestly, we live in a sad world. People are hurting all around us. A little laughter is a blessing, just to smile for a bit. Mrs. Payne gave thousands of people a little glimpse and moment of joy. That is a treasure, for sure.


Sources:

The Christian Examiner; http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/breaking-the-story-behind-the-laughing-woman-in-the-star-wars-chewbacca-mask/50729.htm

The Christian Examiner; http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/kohls-rewards-chewbacca-mask-woman-with-gift-cards-and-tons-of-star-wars-toys/50731.htm

Buzz Feed; https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/candace-payne-chewbacca-interview?utm_term=.myO7WmBXV0#.ytdOlBxwMV

The Daily Dot; http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/chewbacca-mom-visits-facebook/

What is this thing called...Government?

  A tragedy is staring us down today, we have lost our grip on a vital part of our world: what is the true purpose of U.S. government anymore? But, backing up farther, why is government such an important part of our world? Why has it become something we all should care about?

  Foremostly, look at this issue in light of all the people it affects. Who is under government, here in America? Everyone. Nationally and personally, everyone faces the results and lives in the midst of the type of government we have. Our society and culture swiftly shapes to either what we believe about government, or what we let others believe about it for us. Does that make sense? We either come to an understanding about what we believe, and find where to go from there, or we let other people decide what we should believe, and they choose where we move from there.

  Only once we have this under our belts, knowing what we believe and, therefore, where we stand, can we move forward. Finally, the moral, social, political and economical issues that need answering and fixing can be addressed. Yet, until we know where we stand, we will never know what we are fighting for. Firm beliefs are half the battle.

  I would guess almost everybody has heard of what other people think about this issue. We know many of the opinions. We’ve seen, or even been in the arguments. And, due to that, we remain distant from the issue, because, quite simply, it’s confusing and controversial.

  Thankfully, two categories seem to emerge from the governmental brawl. Generally put, they are less or more government. That is, the government either acts as a limited power, purely to protect citizens, or as a broader power that defines and enforces the conduct of its citizens.

Let me demonstrate:

   Beginning with our very own Constitution, this governmental establishment is rather narrow. It gives us a military, head of military and a federal law-making system regulated by the states through representation. This establishment also allows citizens vast freedoms compared to the rest of the nations. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “...We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” and it remains clear that the Constitution was written to follow-up with those thoughts. It lands in the first category, being purely meant to protect the people under it.

  An even older form of government presented in the Bible, has the support of some of our fellow citizens as the true role of government. It established laws on how to worship, what to wear, what to eat, when and how to do business, how to get married, etc. It was established to protect its citizens, true. But it mainly focuses on moulding people’s conduct. The government presented in the Old Testament of the Bible falls in the second category; larger government.

 That could be labeled an aging document however, so let’s consider more modern ideas. Richard Ebeling, president of the Foundation of Economic Education, discussed a more recent view on American government, “...Modern American liberals, [Michael Medved ] explained, are all about government solving problems of “victimhood” and alleviating the effects of...private-sector oppression of the poor and the weak. They wish to use the power of government to redistribute wealth from the rich to the...needy and deserving. They want to use the regulatory power of the state to assure certain ‘ethically desirable’ patterns of employment and to divert business from producing things without ‘real’ social value.” This is an example of the second category: government is given a broad duty of shaping its citizens’ behavior.

  From the more conservative standpoint, Republican New Hampshire Rep. Josh Moore explained, “...Simply...the role of government is to protect the God-given rights of every individual. When Thomas Jefferson first drafted the Declaration of Independence, he enumerated those rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then those rights are to be protected by our government, bound by the Constitution.” When interviewed on this same subject, Tracy Menard, a stay-at-home mom, stated her belief on the role of government was along these same lines. However, she saw that neither small nor large government is good or bad. She pointed out, either form of government is placed in the hands of fallible humans, so either way can become corrupted.

  This raises to the forefront the primary issue, again. It must be determined in our minds, where we stand on this. We cannot fight corruption. We cannot preserve freedom. We cannot wade through these muddied waters without making a decision.

So, what should you do?

   You have to choose. Simply and honestly put, you have to decide what you believe. Otherwise, someone else will do it for you, then they will tell you what to do, how to act, who to be, what battles to fight. Yet, we were by no means made to be mindless creatures like that.

   This is your challenge, then. Decide where and on what you stand. Then, fight for that belief. Fight for what you know to be noble, wise, right and true. Preserving our culture, society, families, in short the world, revolves around our vigilance and endurance. 

So, now, what is the role of government, to you?


Sources:

The US Constitution
The Federalist Papers
The New Hampshire Constitution
Ebeling, Richard. 2007; https://fee.org/articles/freedom-and-the-role-of-government/
Palmer, Stephen. Unknown date; http://stephendpalmer.com/proper-role-government/
Benson, Ezra Taft. 1968; http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/benson.htm
Benson, Ezra Taft. 1968. (audio version); http://www.properroleofgovernment.com/
Lipford, Jody W. and Jerry Slice. 2007; http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2085
The Bible

To Write...Or Not to Write?

So, what is writing to you?

Why, wha-what do you mean? 

I mean, what does writing mean to you? I know you love it. But, why?

   Where do I even begin?.....Profoundly, elegantly, uniquely, writing holds the key to this world that few other actions can ever do. It defines. It communicates. It penetrates. It teaches. It stabs. It hurts. It heals. Writing is using words as your weapon. It must be treated wisely, carefully, and used only for good. It can change the world. Writing so completely holds the world together, that we can not live for even a few minutes without using something attached to it.

 The written word, gives us something with which we do an amazing feat called "reading". How much do you read? If you do school? Well, it's a given that you read then. If you clean a house? You have to read the labels on cleaning bottles and instructions for equipment you use. If you have to buy or grow food? Of course! More labels, seed packets, ingredients, tools all have to be read to understand what they are. If you have to fix a car? More reading. If you have to vote? There is a lot of reading ahead of you. If you have to tell many people about something important? Whether through a speech, or research, or blogging, etc. you and others just had to read. And reading can only happen if writing has come first. Writing is invaluable in every way to every part of our world.

 Now, what I just wrote is my opinion. You may like writing, but not think it's quite that important. You may hate writing and think we should all go back to just talking when we need something. You could also love writing so much more than I do that it boggles everyone's minds! These are all opinions. These are all types of bias. Every person that has ever existed has such a thing as a bias. It is a part of us we can never truly avoid. We can and should, sometimes, work to be impartial. We should always try to see all the sides of an issue before we decide where to stand. We should pursue being balanced and, often, more moderate in our words and actions, at times. 

 However, there remains a time when we must pick a side. We have to chose where we are going to stand. We have to decide what we are going to fight for and what we are going to fight against. And that, is where people differ. That is were we find that true impartiality is impossible for us. Everyone, to some degree is biased. It is far from bad. It is just the truth. And the truth will set us free. 

Check, Check, and Fact Check Again

 Do you ever find yourself reading something and thinking, "Well, that was very simple."? I'm going to guess not. We expect things to be simpler. We are wired to find short-cuts, to find the simple way that everything works. So, when we read, or write, or look at everything around us we do not instantly expect it to be chaotic or the thousand shades of gray that it is, we expect it to be a bit clear and calm, at least. We expect it to be simple, and we start to take simple for granted.

  Not so strangely, then, I came to the subject of news, journalism, and media with the impression that it was simpler. Not simplest, mind you, but still simpler. It's not. There is truly so much more to dig up here in what I'm about to share. The "rough draft of history" will always be in need of updating. Yet, more importantly, it will always be in need of checking and re-checking.

  The CIA's Mysterious Role in the Arrest of Nelson Mandela seemed like a rather interesting article for a history nerd such as myself, and it isn't anything short of that. Rumors have circled for decades that the CIA may have had a hand in the arrest and 27 years Nelson Mandela spent in prison. Due to his election as president after being released from prison, his efforts in the anti-apartheid movement, as well as his awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize, there is much concern surrounding these rumors. An ex-CIA agent did come out at one time, stating he had a role passing information along about Mandela, leading to his arrest. However, both the ex-CIA agent and Nelson Mandela have passed away now, and Mr. Mandela had no concerns with the idea that the CIA may have helped put him in jail. So, why should we still be concerned about this issue?

 Well, my first idea to find an answer to that question, was to learn more about the article's author,
The Washington Post journalist, Adam Taylor. The one in question, is a reporter of foreign affairs for The Washington Post who originally lived in London, England. Interestingly, he has gained some internet defamation, due to his reporting. A blogger, named Mike Cernovich has accused Adam Taylor of copying unreliable European government sources in his writing. So, I had to go do research on this man as well, to see if he was a source to be trusted. My first queue that he perhaps wasn't reliable was the fact that The Washington Post has not given any attention to these claims, (as far as I can find). It is not clear whether Cernovich works for or is accountable to any journalistic company, trustworthy or not. He is a lawyer, which is the most he will state. By his own writing with it's harsh, unprofessional, and evidently opinioned words, it appears Cernovich is rather a trouble maker than a good source. Otherwise, I found Adam Taylor to be a trustworthy.

  Next, still trying to answer the question, "Why this issue?", I decided to do a background check on the Washington Post itself. The more I did that, the more I realized how tiny a background check it was, but, it should still be said. First off, I must simply state: business in America isn't just big, it's huge! Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, as of fall 2013. He also owns Amazon.com and many other media outputs through his company, Graham Holdings Company. On a little (but not so very little, honestly) sidenote, Jeff Bezos's net worth is more than 60 billion. Independently of it's billionaire owner, The Washington Post has been know historically as a more left-leaning media output, which has endorsed Republican candidates and right-wing actions at times, too though. But, it has been noted over the years that other media sources either help push The Washington Post either to the left or right, but still mainly the middle, to keep business going.

 Due to the fact that we are looking at decades worth of rumors, and likely the CIA, it makes total sense that this issue is difficult to resolve. I think Mr. Mandela himself realized this issue may never be completely clarified, and did not even look at it as an problem worth his attention. So, maybe it's not worth ours either? Well, not exactly. History is always being discovered, rediscovered, rewritten, and rechecked. It is important to push to clear it up do the best of our abilities. And, more or less, which I lean to more, we may trust The Washington Post in it's reporting to us the new developments in uncovering history's secrets. Yet, always, so long as we are wary. Do not let names, or fallacies, or opinions blind you. Use the clever mind God has bestowed on each of us, to rightly determine the right from the wrong. Continue to be vigilant. Prudence and vigilance are some of the first steps in changing you and, inevitably, the world for God's glory.

Resources:

The Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/adam-taylor

The Atlantic Journal-Constitution; http://www.ajc.com/

The Sunday Times; http://www.thetimes.co.uk/?sunday

The Wall Street Journal; http://www.wsj.com/

Crime and Federalism; http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2014/02/adam-taylor-of-the-washington-post-caught-plagaziring-government-propaganda-site.html

Forbes; http://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/

An Experiment in Logos

  

  Ah! How I do love logic! The deadly, forgotten little dagger of the wise, used in any battle which they find themselves amidst. Not to say that I think I am wise, but knowing yourself to be a fool is the first step in that direction.

 For most of my life I have relished finding fallacies and correcting even the littlest illogical arguments and happenings. In all truthfulness, I think anyone who knows me, hates me to this. So, I find it rather hard to pick just one instance of dealing with fallacies.

  Bandwagon fallacies seem to be the type that I see most easily, hate most, and have most stories about avoiding. One such tale happened last spring, when I was being passionately encouraged to join a youth political organization. For several weeks I received excited emails from a friend and an acquaintance, urging me to join this organization to "take back the government and culture" was the repeated phrase.

 Do not get me wrong, I am passionate about changing the direction that our government and culture are heading. And I know for a fact, that it all starts with each of us, individually and personally, but something didn't quite sit right with me about the email writers' pushy approach. I felt inclined to join because of the urgency and the appearance that many people I knew and respected were also joining or already part of the organization. In retrospect, it seems that there was a bit of false dilemma going on in these emails, as well. I slowly began to believe that there were just two options: join or have no part in changing the culture as a young person.

  Several wise influences came to my aid as I processed the dilemma. Another friend, a sibling, and most effectively, my mom listened and prudently directed my attention to the errors I was stumbling through. Over the course of two hours, my mom and I pondered everything I had gathered from the emails, looking at all the different ways I could still be effective to our government and culture with or without joining the organization. And, at last, she lead me to discover what had kept me so uneasy about jumping into this. Almost everything that compelled me to consider this was the belief that my friends loved and were doing it. In reality? Simply doing something because everyone else, or all your friends are doing it, is never the wisest path.  It is plainly and simply a fallacy; something young people, aspiring journalists, and, in short, anyone can fall for, so be wary! Be prudent! And do not forget to use that little, yet all important tool called logic!

Yet more Symptoms: Part 2

So, what should we do?

  When we overcriminalize, we suddenly have incarcerated masses to deal with, whether it be rehabilitating, feeding, housing, or having on parole. Someone must be paying for that. The answer? Taxpayers.

  Finally though, the incarcerated masses are released. It’s all better right? Not at all. Now, with such an untrustworthy background, there is little opportunity for them to find work. The formerly incarcerated will find it easiest to return to what they have done before.

  In short, our whole society is suffering in this issue, we must find a remedy. But what everyone else has done isn’t helping us get anywhere, so, again, what should we do?

   We need to realize the root of our problem is not overcriminalization. It is not the “tough on crime laws”. It is not the massive passage of more of those laws. It is not the passage of time, or the growing fear in our nation. It is not because of any of the plain or obvious surface reasons. It has everything to do with the problem with everything in our country and government. It is called morals.

We are not a moral or righteous people anymore.

  There was once a Book, claiming what is good and right, denouncing what is evil and immoral. Back in the pages of history, the United State of America was founded by men and women who saw that the moment we threw away that Book and the Author, our government and country start to crumble. Now, we are in that moment. This Union cannot function as it was established to, unless we are a body of people who stand with morals.

And that is how we fix this.

  It all comes from the heart. We have moved away from God and living as He has shown as good, and until we move back towards Him, in our hearts and behavior, there is no hope for our nation. Christians must infiltrate our society, culture, and government because we are the ones who see this crippling disease and know the One who can heal it. The Church is vital in changing our criminal justice system, just as it is vital to changing our society and government back to a nation of free men and women.

   We can certainly work to stop the vast amounts of new laws that are putting people in prison left and right. We can definitely push for our Congress to start repealing laws, which is something that they seem to have forgotten was allowed. We should clarify the lines between civil and criminal law and re-evaluate our laws to have them align with the definition. We should certainly do what we can to move our country away from this criminalization epidemic. Yet, we will not go anywhere until we address the fact that our hearts and beliefs must change. First in us, as Christians. Then, through us, and with God’s help, into all our nation, and all the world. If we run this direction, we will watch or country heal and grow great again, because we will finally acknowledge Who ultimately must have the authority in our government, criminal justice system, society and lives.

  When we return to the great Lawgiver, we will know and see true freedom again. Let us begin now. We must begin now. We are our country’s remaining hope.

Sources:
Population Reference Bureau; http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx

The Washington Post;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/

The Sentencing Project; http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1987&id=107

The Wall Street Journal; http://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-rubin-and-nicholas-turner-the-steep-cost-of-americas-high-incarceration-rate-1419543410

The Heritage Foundation; http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/04/overcriminalization-an-explosion-of-federal-criminal-law

Right on Crime; http://rightoncrime.com/category/priority-issues/overcriminalization/

Diffen; http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law

CBSNews; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/

Yet more Symptoms: Part 1

What is wrong with our country? Why is it that, no matter where we try to divert our attention in our government, there is something more to discourage us? In our elections, in our legislature, in our legal system, it lays in whatever path we go towards. ~ This is a TeenPact assignment I wanted to share with you. The issues we see throughout our government are grave, however, it is far more essential for us to realize that the fault lies in us, the Church. We have failed to fight for and preserve our nation and fellow citizens as we aught. The failure lies in us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There used to be a process in our criminal justice system that went as follows:

  One person commits a misdemeanor; he accidently uses and destroys another person’s property, for example. The other person finds out about his destroyed property and demands payment for it. If taken to court, this is called a civil case. The arbitrator must give compensation for what damage he has caused because he has violated a civil law.

  Another person commits a misdemeanor; he knowingly harms another person and flees the scene, for example. If caught, the harmed person can bring this case to court, where the lawbreaker will receive a punishment for his actions. This is a criminal case and laws that make this a crime are named criminal laws.

  The lines may seem rather blurred when trying to see the true difference between these two law types, so here are the major clarifications. Violations of a civil law are instances of negligence, misuse, or misconduct. Violations of a criminal law are, rather, instances of large cases like murder, and also burglary, or assault. In other words, there are two ways justice is dealt out, either by punishment or by retribution. And one important factor to remember, is that criminal cases are the only ones that land someone in prison.

  Alright, so don’t we still have these two types of laws and cases? What is the problem? Why should I be concerned?

  Yes, but the trouble is, our country progressively sees only one type of person when a law is broken: the criminal. Our government has and continues moving to only one side of the spectrum. We are finding vast amounts of criminal laws, where morality, discretion, and, if necessary, civil laws once stood. What I am leading to, is that we have a terrible case of overcriminalization here in America.

  Hold on, now that’s a big word. What and why on earth are you trying to use that word? Simply because it means that we and our legislators have begun to view almost all instances of broken laws as prison worthy, and began legislating it as such. Overcriminalization is that increasing trend to putting more people behind bars than is necessary.

Really? That seems strange. Why would we start making more things a crime?

   Interestingly, most of the countries of the world began making more issues a crime in the past 40+ years. In the 1970’s there began a spike in incarcerations and laws nicknamed, getting “tough on crime” laws. They were a worldwide movement, mind you, but the US took it much further than everyone else. And, strangely, we have never gone back.

   We stand as 1/20 of the world population with 1/4 of the world inmates. No matter how many surveys are done, our country remains the greatest incarcerator on the face of this planet, and no one seems to deny it. “Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population. … Not only does the current overpopulated, underfunded system hurt those incarcerated, it also digs deeper into the pockets of taxpaying Americans.” Sen. Rand Paul once said, while Hillary Clinton states, “It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.”

   It’s obvious both Republicans and Democrats see there is a problem, but they don’t seem to know what to do about it. We still have the best criminal laws of all the nations in the world. Other countries incarceration rates are going up too, so is there really a problem?

   To begin with, let’s mention the thing that our whole government is so deeply concerned for: children, children in the United States. Did you know 1 in every 100 of them have a parent with a prison record, or currently in prison for that matter? But that’s not a big deal, right?

   Next, our Congress continues passing criminalizing laws at the rate of one per week. They have been doing it for decades. Everyone sees there is an issue, yet “...From 2000 through 2007, Congress enacted 452 new criminal offenses.” (Overcriminalization: An Explosion of Federal Criminal Law) We could do something to petition or protest against these law passages, but the truth is we don’t have the knowledge or time to gain all the knowledge we need to request a change.

   Strangely, the US sends all the convicted criminals to prison. Where other countries send their mentally unstable and drug offenders to institutions, our criminal justice system doesn’t do that. Does that protect us from more unknown dangers, or does it simply compound the overcriminalization issue?

The unemployment rates of former prisoners stands so great, the Labor Department does not even record them. So, returning to crime looks like the best way to survive for many ex-convicts. It’s only logical that they would return to the way they know, even though the whole process of punishment was meant to discourage and change their views on committing crimes.

  More than half of those formerly in incarcerated will return within a few years. Almost 80% will return to crime. It’s called recidivism. Think about that from a criminal’s point of view. It’s almost a guarantee that you will be back in prison before five years is up. So, why even try to change?

  Also, if these rates only continue to climb over the decades, it only seems logical to conclude that whatever measures are being taken now to rehabilitate, discourage, or stop these massive incarcerations has not been very effective at all. What needs to change? Why do we keep doing this?

   Here festers yet another wound to our civil government. Messy, controversial, powerful, even massive, our criminal justice system and the faults found in it are starting to look irreconcilable. Like the rest of our government, it looms as a black hole that most citizens of our country run from, or the most discouraged ones just sit and wait until it swallows them up. There are many things that we are immensely grateful for in our criminal justice system and the protection it provides for us, but honestly, when we look closely, it’s just as frightening and foreboding as the direction we feel all the rest of our government and country is heading.

So, what should we do?

Freedom of speech!...or, maybe not?

  I don't know what to say. The truth is, history proves that whatever freedom of speech is, we have never had an easy time defining it. When is it right to share something because it is true? And when do you withhold something because it is...something else...personal feelings, offensive, slander, hysteria, or would cause some of these things?

  The US, Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota of 1931, was such a issue where multiple people of the state of Minnesota claimed that a newspaper, The Saturday Press, was publishing libel about public officials of the state. The Minnesota state court upheld this, saying that The Saturday Press must stop printing such "defamatory and scandalous" articles. (Case Briefs) However, some saw this court order as contrary to the freedom of speech, and brought the case to the Supreme Court. In their review, the Supreme Court stated that the Minnesota court order was a "previous.." or "prior constraint" on the newspaper's publication, it was, therefore, unconstitutional in light of the First and Fourteenth amendments. (Notable First Amendment Court Cases)

   This "prior constraint" or prior restraint is "Government prohibition of speech in advance of publication." (Prior Restraint) Can you imagine what would happen if this was allowed? Historically, people understood that freedom of speech meant no government entanglement at any level, but this case, if decided otherwise could have lead to a greatly censored and different press and media than what we know. Basically, government would have an opening to change what we hear, see, and know about; we would be ignorant about things, not because we don't have time for it, but because we aren't allowed to know. Eventually, we would look like the countries around us, where the government has almost no checks from the civilians.

   Following this case, there have been instances where the government thought it would be best to keep information from the public to keep them from hysteria. Should they do that? Presidents F. D. Roosevelt and Truman both kept the atomic bomb a secret from the public for more than a year. Was that in the people's best interest, or was it restricting freedom of speech? Again, what is the definition of our freedom of speech?

    Quite frankly, we will probably never have a clear, well-written, or word-for-word definition. But, that is the way a freedom works. If we let it alone, or let it go, we will see it morph into whatever our superiors(or self-allowed superiors, as is the case with our government) want it to be. Yet, when we remain vigilant to see that we are free to share what is true as well as gracious. And we rebuke those who would abuse it by slander, trying to scare others, silencing opposition, etc. When we do this, having such a clear definition will not be necessary, we will know what is right without governmental instruction, and we will have real freedom of speech.

Works Cited:

Near v. Minnesota. Case Briefs. website; http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/freedom-of-speech-how-government-restricts-speech-modes-of-abridgment-and-standards-of-review/near-v-minnesota-3/

Prior Restraint. The free dictionary.com, website;
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint

Notable First Amendment Court Cases. American Library Association. website;
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/courtcases#fes

Spoiler Alert!

This just...We need this everyday. Remember, in all our chaotic lives, bored moments, lonely thoughts, happy days, weary toil, there is something much grander happening. God is winning the war for our hearts and souls! He is fighting in an through us to bring us Home, to Himself! He is glorifying Himself in hearts and lives such as ours! If this doesn't invigorate us to fight on, what will? 

Code Living

  Who wants to listen to someone who changes his or her mind for every whim? How can we trust people who say one thing and do something else? Is there any way to believe someone when we don't know what they believe and watch them stand up for it?  The answers are no one. We can't. And no.

 We all tend to want to live without rules, or at least outside of them in some way. But how can we ever really live this way? To wander with no moral compass, no thought to rules, laws, ethics, or God whatsoever only leaves us lost. Just because that is the way we are prone to be, has no bearing on the fact that we cannot and should not live that way, because it is so far from what God has desired for us. We are supposed to be law-abiding people. Strange? It is sort of surprising, I'll admit. Yet, it's the only thing that makes sense in light of what happens to us, our families, our countries, our cultures when we undermine laws, morals, and rules.

  Every journalist must also have guidelines and rules to hold himself accountable to, otherwise, how can he be trusted? How do you really believe, respect, rely on someone who doesn't have a standard they follow? How do you know what that standard is?

 If you are in the business of sharing truth with others, you are making yourself accountable to your audience that you will tell the truth. If you claim to tell the truth, you are claiming to be honest, trustworthy, ethical. So you must clarify how you will and must be ethical. Write a code.

  No. I don't mean something cryptic. Establish a code of ethics for yourself, and share it with your audience. This will help them keep you accountable. This will help them trust you. This will help you learn and become more reliable. And, as a journalist, shouldn't that be our aim? To grow in knowledge and truthfulness in every step of the way?

 This journalist - or at least aspiring one - therefore puts forward my own code of ethics:

Code of ethics 

1.    No stealing ~ Mainly, do not take credit for another's work. It is rather simple, do not take or claim anything that does not belong to you.
2.    No lying ~ This has to do with having others believe someone else's work is your own. However, it also extends to altering images, quotes, etc. to make it appear different than the original intent or event. Basically, do not be deceptive in any of the work you do.
3.    Be respectful of other people ~ Be gracious and thoughtful of others' feelings and rights. Share the truth, yet with grace. Be aware and concerned for your sources as well as your audience.
4.    Be honest and comprehensive ~ Do not present opinions without clarifying that they are such. Give more than one side of an issue to be objective and acknowledge the fact that everyone is biased in some way. Write in a way that will not be confusing to your audience, or will be least confusing.
5.   Always be truthful ~ This applies to every point already listed, but it should always be reiterated. Journalists must first and fore-mostly tell the truth. They must avoid situations that will cause people to question their integrity. They must show respect to all, but be very careful and clear when they show favoritism to any. 

   I did use some of the guidelines from https://nppa.org/code_of_ethics and http://www.journalismdegree.com/ethics/, as well as ideas from the course. They are not especially obvious though, and no quotes were used.

Wisdom from the past...

What more needs to be said? 

Ethics = Morals = God

   There is no doubt in most persons' minds that ethics and morals are complementary to each other. Something in our minds pushes us to feel guilty when we steal or lie, then we have to convince ourselves it was fine or seek restitution for what we did. This is called conscience: having morals, for some strange reason, embedded in our minds and hearts. We can easily ignore them. Yet that is what creates all of the evil, misery, and confusion in our world, throwing away what we know is right. Throwing away truth. And, I must add my own bias, throwing away the Giver of truth: God.

   If morals, conscience, ethics seem to live buried in each of us, then it follows that we all must need to follow them in some way, we simply choose not to do so. And in continually choosing to ignore morals, it becomes harder and harder to know what is truly ethical and how to be that way. We become confused when we are presented with dilemmas such as telling the truth to a friend's parent and our parents when the friend has done something wrong. Keeping the secret for the friend would preserve your relationship for a while, but undoubtedly both would begin to lose trust in each other. If someone is willing to lie for you, who's to say they aren't going to lie to you. Both friends would have violated their consciences. They did not really treat others the way they want to be treated. They are being unethical. The only ethical way to go about this dilemma is to be willing to lose a friend in order to do what's moral and right. You must tell you friend's parents and your own.


   It is not only in personal ways that we must live ethically and morally. We must all live and work treating others the way we would want to be treated. Journalism is no exception. Respecting other persons and their requests in your reporting, being objective by presenting others with both sides of an issue, giving others the credit they are due, and most essentially, reporting truthfully are all examples of being ethical. In what? Journalism.


   Truly there is no major gap in the ethical and moral guidelines that journalists must follow and other people should follow. Those guidelines listed apply to everyone, really. However, when you are in the business of informing the world about the truth, it is profoundly important. A journalist's job is to be ethical, to be a truth pro-claimer. It is no easy or flippant task. Yet, it is deeply rewarding.


  I used the guidelines from this site to help me see the ways journalist are to be ethical: http://www.journalismdegree.com/ethics/ . In order to give credit where it is due, the author's name is only listed as Jason.

"If you can..."

During public speaking class, I memorized and recited this poem. Having these challenges in your head changes so much of the way you live, talk, and behave. I still go back to this knowledge and wonder how anyone can be mature, but each of us must keep trying anyways. Through Christ, we can most certainly strive to be men and women. Not children as the world strives to be, but mature men and women of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All the world's our page.

  No matter what type of news outlet you give me, I will find something I like about it. I love being informed. I love learning truth, even when it pierces. Wanting to know about what is around me, the people around me, it is immensely important. Why is it that I'm so fascinated by it? Is it simply an American thing? Could it be that, perhaps, I am a journalist at heart? I pray so.

 As it turns out, one of the most fundamental forms of news is my favorite. Newspapers have provided outlets for the journalists and inlets for a hungry world for centuries. That is, so long are literate. They provided both the first national, international, and local means for staying informed. Though they began with much confusion between their opinion, bias, and facts, newspapers still provided much more trustworthy news than word-of-mouth, often. And, journalists continue to comb and refine their papers to make them slowly, but steadily more honest and intriguing.

 Magazines, journals and such are at once distinct and similar to newspapers in many ways. They provide a similar type of news, meaning you have to read to know what's going on, and they are not produced as frequent as radio and TV broadcasts or Internet news. However, magazines are something with more depth and sometimes more entertainment than their predecessors, newspapers. Magazines and journals are also rather like books, they are written to be something to read over again, which makes them unique from every other sort of journalism.

  With electricity, many doors opened for discovery, invention, and even journalism as radio finally made an entrance. Radio news is obviously different from all written forms of news because you see and read nothing, the whole idea depends on the effectiveness of the broadcaster or journalist's voice and vocal portrayal of the news. This is not really a new or distant idea though. Word-of-mouth honestly was the first form of being informed and radio simply expands and works to make credible this form of news. Basically, radio goes back to where all of our news outlets started. 

 Television news has to be my least favorite way to stay informed. While it provides visual, audio, and sometimes reading for the viewer, it does not allow the same viewer to have much choice in what they have to see. For those who like to slowly process what they have just been exposed to, it also doesn't allow for that. In short, TV has combined many of the older news forms to give the world a quick overview of events, people, etc. It is helpful, true. I simply prefer the old-fashioned way.

 Lastly is the grand finale of all journalism and news, the Internet...At least for now ;). All of the the benefits and negativeness of all of the news forms we have ever had are now up-loaded online for everyone to pick over and decide what they want. Blogs and websites dump even more information, whether credible or not, into the news stream. Now every one's confused! Their is much room to be mislead by all of this information, their is much reason to be wary and do you're research and analyzing.  But, despite all, Internet news is probably the most useful and helpful news form in all history. Journalism is growing, and hopefully truthfulness too, through this world-wide display of the news.

   Finally, all the world's our page. Anyone and everyone can read from it. So be certain to be sharing the truth from your page, where ever and however it may be.

What about TV journalism?

   How do I keep ending up interested in the left-leaning news reporting? Oh, wait....It's right leaning this time! I promise, I'm not trying to be an instigator, it's just intriguing to hear both sides. At the same time, it is frustrating to hear both sides. They are clever, both the right and left understand that we like the controversial, strange, or flashy news. As some have said "Good news is no news." So they give us what we like. But in the midst of that, we are quietly pushed to think what they think, or see a very different picture than the real one.

 Truthfully, CBSN news presents what they choose to present rather honestly, making sure there are at least two opinions of a story in their broadcast. They may not be forthright with those opinions, but looking carefully, you can tell they are present. Over an hour of their news program I was informed on numerous types of news: weather, political, economic/stocks, entertainment, disaster. But what one showed the bias of the reporters and the CBSN news station, do you think? If you thought political, you're correct.

 You see, things like the weather, sports, business, entertainment, we generate our own opinions about each of those things, and they are important to us in our daily lives to some degree. But politics stands apart. It has it's foundation in what we believe and how we live. Our opinions about who should run our country and how they should do it, that extends to our beliefs on what is moral. Basically, it extends deep into our hearts and minds. That's why politics becomes such a battle-ground. We're supporting what we believe in, whether we see it that way or not.

 All that to say, the hour of news I viewed was plastered with discussion about Donald Trump's boycott of the last Republican GOP debate before the primaries. Repeatedly, as they discussed why he would skip the debate and whether it would effect him in the presidential race, the news reporters showed negative leaning clips of Trump and shows mocking him. Statements such as, "There has not been the scrutiny for Donald Trump as the front-runner as the front-runner has historically had." Or simply using negative words to talk about his boycott, "I am very confident if he[Trump] was five points lower he wouldn't be bailing."

 Between this onslaught of Trump news, the reporters talked about the Democratic race, giving a good portion of the time to a Bernie Sanders supporter. In fact, they did so well presenting Hillary, Sanders, and the other candidates that I had to do some research to check on whether they are liberal or not. It seems the overall view is that they are right-leaning, plus they allow Republican advertisements for Rubio, Cruz, and others, but they don't seem to like Mr. Trump in the least.

 Sadly, it is understandable that they would make fun of Trump. He can be laughable and ridiculous , that is my bias at least, and I get why they would use Trump to get people's attention.  However, that is by no means the way journalism should be. It is the kind of business that is protected by our Constitution to promote the truth, not ridicule or serve as entertainment primarily. We may have more news now, but I don't know if I can honestly say it's as fair and truthful as we like to think. Keep on your guard. There is much to learn, hear, and see, but there is also ways to be mislead in all our learning.

Radio News Today

  In all honesty, I don't know what to say. As I listened to this broadcast, I thought it sounded founded and credible. Mara Liasson seemed to present both sides of the issue briefly and factually. Yet, as I dug deeper, I found something that seemed deceptively simple and honest was only a front for a common story.

  Mara Liasson reported on the latest Republican GOP debate in a broadcast by NPR Media on January 15, 2016. She listed a few of the issues presented to the candidates on the platform, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Bush, and Kasich. Catching an otherwise bored audience, she drew attention to the scuffle, or rather "the brawl" as NPR put it, between Trump and Cruz. While Mrs. Liasson later pointed, that "...The spotlight remained on Trump and Senator Cruz...".

  Searching for background about her, the news station, and the debate she reported on, I found it interesting that Mara Liasson is more Left-leaning in her opinions. This also goes for NPR. But surprisingly, they reported on a Republican debate. This made it clear that I needed to find other opinions about this issue to see if she was as credible and unbiased as she seemed. A long story short, I only ran into more bias wherever I looked, so I watched the Republican GOP debate myself. Surprisingly, but sort of sadly, I watched the debate run almost smoothly. Each candidate received questions and chances to speak on important issues applying to our country, and though it is obvious they are each competitive and dislike each other (to a degree), they generally held to the rules of the debate.

 I suppose I shouldn't have been this shocked about this stretched version of the story, but the truth remains that we should not trust everything we hear, or watch, or are told. Be informed, wise, thorough people. If possible, look at things first hand to generate your own views. As much as our news and news reporters project themselves as only giving the facts, it is only honest to admit that we still like the exciting, unique news from them. This leaves our informers an open door to stretch the truth to make it interesting or pertaining to certain people groups. And we must realize that everyone is biased to a degree. The only way to truly understand and learn from the news is by looking at it from a variety of opinions, and thinking critically about them. It takes more effort, more time, more work, yes. But, an informed and educated people is what we must strive to be, nonetheless.

  Simply challenge, even the things you think or know are truth. You will find it either flawed and shaky, or you will find what you believe founded and something to stand even taller upon. Analyzing things for truth is never a wasted effort.

Here is the link for the radio broadcast by NPR.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=463146182&m=463146183&live=1

A Letter to Popular Science

Dear Popular Science,
   I recently read your article on the Iceman of the Alps and found it engaging and well-written. Discovering so much about our history from the remains of some one's stomach is fascinating. Or at least I find it facsinating. And being able to trace the patterns of human travel around the globe, simply by a virus, makes my mind race with all the other possibilities this discovery could mean for the future of uncovering history. Previously, I had not heard about the Iceman, so the small background on him is appreciated.

 It seemed that this article lacked varying viewpoints, though. Do other opinions exist among the scientists working on this project such as, Is this inhumane? Did this virus come from some other location? Or, is there dispute surrounding the origin of the Iceman? Science and history both have large margins of error, where it is often uncommon to find something that we can hold up and say it is undeniably truth and fact. The way this article is written, it appears that everything stated is fact, when there may very well be doubt surrounding him. This goes for the heritage of both the Iceman and the virus H. pylori, too. They are both assumed to be evolved to their present state. Evolution is just a theory, an opinion, held by some, and it seems hard to believe that there are not other scientists and historians, even working on this project, who voice differing opinions about how this virus and Iceman came to be.

 I understand that including other opinions and ideas leads to a greater workload. Not to mention there are probably so many of them that it would be nearly impossible to ever entertain all those ideas. Also, I understand that everyone, in their own way, has bias, no matter how hard they try to be impartial. Still, presenting both sides of the story is vital in the news. News is there to inform us and challenge us to think. And in the end it's alright if it doesn't give us all the answers, we now must think for ourselves. That's a blessing, not a curse.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
              Elizabeth Menard

Are the Newspapers Still in Business?

  Over the past decades it has become evident that the business for newspapers, especially local ones, is dwindling away, as TV, online, and radio news becomes more popular. Small, free papers are rather uncommon, and it seems almost old-fashioned to see a newspaper sitting on some one's coffee table anymore. It appears the glory days of the newspaper are over.

 However, others disagree with the idea that "The sky is falling and newspapers are always dying." Some large newspapers are still doing well for themselves, like The Wall Street Journal that is watching it's subscription numbers climb, and with it, their revenue. Caroline Little, NAA president and CEO, states that "Our industry’s business model has changed dramatically in the past half-dozen years. In 2007, 80% of newspaper media revenue was generated from advertising. In 2013, less than half of total revenue (46%) was from advertising in the daily and Sunday print newspaper."

 So if newspapers' historic way of earning money is decreasing, what fills the gap? Well, firstly, advertising still accounts for half of the newspaper businesses revenue, which remains a large portion, even though it's lessened. Classifieds, with smaller businesses or individuals selling or trading products, pay for much off smaller, local newspapers. And there are also personal ads which are requests for services, or sometimes products, almost the opposite of classifieds. Still, the greatest filler of the gap for newspapers that are now depending less on advertising is subscriptions. "What is...true is that the public’s thirst for news keeps rising." Caroline Little reminds us.

 Deborah Waltenburg in a way, agrees with this statement, but realizes it goes further than just wanting news."While advertisements, subscriptions and inserts bring in revenue, newspapers only make money because they offer something that readers want: worthwhile content." No matter how much or how little newspapers make from advertising, classifieds, personal ads, subscriptions, etc. their greatest profit will be from sharing honest, important, and interesting news. News remains the biggest money-maker for newspapers. Isn't that the way it should be?

A Definition of News: What is News?

 Well, in most people's minds, news is simply information. It educates them about the world they live in, and how to respond to it. But isn't that an immensely broad definition? Can't that lead to confusion, especially when you are a journalist, about what you should actually be listening to or sharing? Whatever news is, it's definition needs to be narrowed down.

  The origin of the word news sheds some light on this definition. It stems from English, French, Latin words, such as new, novelty, and new things. Basically, news is spreading the word about new things, events, ideas, discoveries, etc. to everyone. News is really new information, not just information period.

 "News reports don't change the world. Only facts change it, and those have already happened when we get the news." Friedrich Durrenmatt, a Swiss author wrote. This further shows what news is, or at least should be. We are hounded, continually, on all sides with pointless nonsense, which is simply gossip most of the time. But there must be a stark difference between that and news. News must proclaim facts and truth to the world, not be the "...industrialization of gossip." (Andrew Marr) News should never stoop to dabble in that kind of communication. Unfortunately, we still need some reforms in this area. We have plenty of new information, but it is not always the case in news and journalism that it is factual, truthful information.

  It may yet be a broad definition, but news is clearly and simply, new information about facts which the world -which we- should know. It is what you hear, or watch, or learn from friends and family, or read that informs you. "Well, news is anything that's interesting, that relates to what's happening in the world, what's happening in areas of the culture that would be of interest to your audience."
Kurt Loder, an American journalist, put it. It is something that challenges you to think, too. News must spread knowledge, honesty, prudence, and truth wherever it goes. In other words, if we are sharing news, and not burdening people with gossip or nonsense, then we are sharing truth, everyday, to the best of our knowledge. That is a powerful gift to give! So be gracious, but do not be silent!

Words of history....