Something on my Mind: Fake News 2

In our quest to get the "straight goods" when it comes to news, I suggested last week that a good place to start is through thinking critically. Here's another one:

Dependable sources. There are news and information outlets, then there are news and information outlets. Facebook may or may not have its place (passing along announcements, for one, I suppose). But one should never turn to it for authentic news,. What little I know of Facebook, It is not as a reliable source of news.

Ditto for Wikipedia: It purports to be a source of information, which, in turn, could be the basis for news. But when your foundation (information) is cracked, your structure (news) is faulty. And while we're sat it, there are other sources (both from the far Right and the far Left) that we should avoid at all costs.

Some of Wikipedia definitions I find intriguing, even though I may not agree with them and often find them loopy and unreliable. As intriguing and amusing as they are, I would never consider them dependable sources.

Personally, I use newspaper, radio, and the Internet as my mediums of choice. I use these because that's how I'm wired, Maurice. Even then, I use only select newspaper, radio, and Internet sources. You may use other good sources: blogs, the local coffee shop, or TV. That's fine, so long as they are trustworthy.

The key is to use various sources. Maybe something from the Continent, something from North America; maybe draw from a reliable network, as well as from an independent one.

As committed as I am to the conservative side of life (and that includes my news sources), I like to have an expanded source base for information. And with my Christian outlook, I am also committed to truth in everything, including the news.

So much today is presented as fact when it is rumour or maybe even half fact. We need to be diligent in our search for the facts and present them as such. Opinion masquerading as fact is bad enough; but when said opinion is based on half-facts and unbridled bias, that's reprehensible.

With a different application, it has been said that there is only one thing worse than finding a worm in your apple, and that's half a worm. Application: There is only one thing worse than finding that the news you listen to is completely fake, finding only part of it is. The question begs: Which part is fake, which is not?

So, if I am, in fact, thinking critically, where do I turn to apply my new-found skills? For myself, I have my particular sources from which I pull in all my information. And, to be honest, they tend to be conservative, right-leaning. And within that context, I draw from a nice mix of irreligious and religious, of Canadian, American, and global sources, of individuals and agencies.

I even digest what I can, when I can, from the Left. To carry the metaphor further, even though I can hardly stomach it, I will chew on their perspective. While I will rarely ever agree with the Left, I find it sharpens my thinking process to see their perspective.

I operate on the premise that there is absolute truth, and I measure my sources against that (not the other way around). When I see a variance (different from "variation"), a red flag goes up.

One of life's ironies is that we have never had the news and information opportunities than we have today. We need to be more discerning than ever with what we hear and see. This starts with the news and information diet we're fed on a daily basis. It also include the curriculum in our public schools.

I humbly suggest that you apply these two underlying principles (critical thinking and dependable sources) to your news quest—even to my column. The question is not, Is it popular? The question is, Is it true?

Something on my Mind: Fake News (Part One)

We're reading a lot about so-called fake news these days. And the fake news reports (about them and from them) are coming from once-trusted media, news agencies, the Internet, and people in position of news power.

Said "people" would include politicians and preachers, teachers and tinkerers—all persons of influence. On the one hand, if we can't trust these sorts of people, who can we trust? But on the other hand, is it possible we're trusting these types just a little too much? Have we allowed them to do our investigating and thinking for us?

It's really messy and confusing, because so many of the above sources are intertwined with each other (ie., they get their information from each other, and truth then becomes a vicious circle—like a dog chasing its tail). If you're like me (and that may or may not be a good thing) you will likely want to be sure that your news source is giving you the unadulterated truth.

In other words, make certain they're not lying to you by twisting the facts. Please note that there are two tracks here, namely, news and information. While I am focusing on the fake news aspect, I will comment a little on fake information throughout the next two columns. However, I promise a column dedicated to fake information some other time.

In the meantime, I am going to give you some tips—a free clinic, if you will—on how to discern fake news from true news.

Thinking critically. .This comes first because it is, well, number one on my list. The other tip (in next week's column) is also important, but this is the most important.

Critical thinking of course, is a lost art today. I think I have ranted enough about this troubling trend in our society, mostly among young people. The education system, electronic toys, and a plethora of information out there at the click of a button (which minimizes the need to investigate) are three significant contributors to the lazy mind of the current generation.

"News and information at our fingertips" has often been seen as a positive thing; I suggest otherwise.

Gathering all the facts, thoroughly examining them, then drawing objective conclusions are really the keys here. In other words, we need to re-train our minds to accumulate, assess, and analyze. We all may have a different response to the news if we applied these principles.

My genuine fear is that any generation that is unable (even incapable) of thinking critically will fall for anything, something we're seeing these days. It is alarming beyond words what many are thinking (if thinking at all) about a variety of foundational matters. And now we're seeing these days how these same people make political choices. So you see, critical thinking becomes a much larger issue than simply how they process news.

Critical thinking involves getting the big picture, looking at things from different angles, being objective about history, economics, and law (developing a balanced worldview in how they assess the information). Is it that simple? Not quite, but that's a good start.

Thinking critically goes well beyond analyzing the news. It affects how we gather information on every possibly subject, how we make decisions, how we make significant purchases, how we react with whom we don't see eye-to-eye with, and so on.

The following questions could be applied to any of the above challenges. And in the context of today's column, they could be asked by anyone who wants to get beneath the usual mumbo-jumbo of today's news and everyday rumours:

Do you know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? Between fact and opinion? Are you aware of the great divide between a conservative worldview and a liberal worldview? Is there such a thing an absolute truth or is truth all relative? Is the pursuit of true news (versus fake news) even important?

If you can get a grasp of these questions, and then apply them, I humbly suggest you are well on your way to not being duped by fake news.

Something oin my Mind: pout-side, Looking In

Last week, my column was about love—what it is and what it isn't. And just as there is a lot of confusion about love, there's also a lot of confusion about free speech, human rights, and the democratic way.

I continue to be alarmed, even frightened, as I read of the threats, boycotts , protests, and vandalism on the part of the liberal losers in the USA . At this point of writing, they are abusing their access to free speech, human rights, and the democratic ways in all the wrong ways. And it shows no signs of letting up.

They lost the election, so they're pouting (hence, the heading of this column). Now they are going destroy the system that allows to them all this freedom...to destroy the system. Go figure.

Maybe it's my fading memory, but I don't recall the Right reacting this way when Obama got in—either time. No, the Right didn't waste time, money, motivation, or energy on anarchy.

I have massive issues with lawlessness. Their reaction to the democratic way is pure evil. Is this the way to respond to matters when you don't get your own way—twist and pout? No, plug your nose, suck it up, and get ready for the next election. At least that's what we're doing here in Alberta.'ll

Do this at school and you get suspended; at work, you'll get fired. But somehow there exists this naive notion that this sort of behaviour is acceptable, even good.

While I am no blind supporter of Mr. Trump, I surely appreciate his selection of conservative-leaning cabinet ministers. He may have his quirks, but Trump surely knows how to pick the right men and women. That alone is the sign of a great leader.

There are other telltale signs that he is on the right track. Business is probably the most encouraging. He's got America heading in the right direction when it comes to the military,, its enemies, the economy, plus the environment. Any problem with that?

I've lost count of the jobs (in the thousands now) that are being created through many major businesses who feel they can invest in America. I don't see these as empty promises, you know, giving lip service to a desperate economy. It goes to show you that when strong fiscal principles and leaders come into play, the trickle-down impact is enormous..

Both at a provincial and federal level, Canada could learn much from Trump.

I just read that most of the professional rebels still live at home with mommy and daddy. They have time on their hands, no responsibility, and no positive purpose in life. Don't these losers have jobs to go to every day? Families of their own? How about a conscience?

The other profile is more subtle (subtle, as not out on the street destroying public and private property, but just as evil): the whole spectrum of celebrities. There's a myth out there that once people attain celebrity status, they become insightful and wise .

No matter what you think, Cousin Reggie, just because someone is a Hollywood bimbo doesn't mean he or she has has life smarts. There's more to insight than reading other people's line. Just because one can throw a football doesn't mean he is wise.

I have no issue with peaceful protests. I've done a few myself, especially when the educational bullies are trying to take away parental rights and choice. I've also resisted the pro-death movement, because, unlike them, I believe all lives matter.

But to trash and thrash a business here and a building there, reveals a really sick perspective. They are obviously unaware of how an economy works and how all the pieces must fit together. They don't know the difference between a private opinion and a public context for expressing said opinion.

As frustrated as all rational Albertans are with our present socialist government, there is no place for riots in the streets and the mass destruction of public and private property. Dialogue, co-operation, political alignment and protocol are the order of the day.

And while we're at it, we'll bide our time by expressing ourselves honourably through free speech, human rights, and the democratic way. Pouting and temper tantrums are not the way to respond.

Something on my Mind: Love is in the Air

Don't get your nose in a knot I do know how to spell "air." It's a play on words and it's a tech- nique used by a famous county-wide writer to get his readers' attention. (It got yours, I take it.)

So, welcome to the Valentine's Day edition of this column. If you have taken the time to look at the rest of the paper, you will likely see all sorts of hearts, bows and arrows, and other symbols of "love" scattered throughout its pages.

Valentine's Day is very much like, say, Mother's Day, in that it is one day of the year that is set aside to celebrate a theme or person. I picked Mother's day, but it could be Father's Day, Canada Day, or even Christmas.

In other words, setting a day aside for any of the above causes is great, but they should be acknowledged every day of the year. (Maurice: What I am trying to tell my newspaperland fans is that, for example, Mothers should be honoured every day of the year, the same for Fathers, we should be proud Canadians every day. And have that Christmas-spirit year-round.)

Valentine's Day, then, for those who express themselves in candies, Cupids, and cards, should be celebrated every day, all year long

Of course, that could become a tad expensive. Can you imagine a bouquet of flowers every week? Chocolates every Tuesday? Romantic meals on each and every weekend? (What's that, ka-ching shaped like a pink heart?)

Obviously, there would have to be a significant change in how one's love was expressed, cost being the biggest factor. Maybe a few affectionate words could be enough.

Let's get back to some wordplay. "Love is in the Air," of course, is a title of song. (For twenty dollars, I will show up at your place in my penguin suit and sing it to your beloved...just kidding.)

But, sorry to say, "air" may have a raft of other spellings and meanings Could love be in the "err," as in mistaken love? One might, for example, find that he/she has made a huge mistake in what they thought was love. Maybe it was passing fancy, strong like, or mindless desperation—but not love.

Maybe love is in the "error," in that there is a lot of confusion about what love really is. Too many take their cues about love from Hollywood models and movies, Harlequin romance books, peer pressure, and the Internet, and pay a bitter, bitter price for it for the rest of their lives.

On a positive note, love could be in the "heir," as in the happy outcome that results from true love, and that love is perpetuated into the next generation. Some families express affection in an open, touchy-feely, warm, and sensitive way—and there's not a drop of chocolate in sight. (They would be the type who "celebrate" Valentine's Day year-round.)

Love can also be confused with other types of love. I may love coffee, love sleeping in, love doughnuts, but the objects and expression of my love is not the same for each. And they don't involve a living human. We're wired to express love one way to people, another way to things. And we all need to know the difference.

Please, don't forget "lust." Somehow the sexual, intimate expression is seen as love. Can be, but not necessarily so. We even speak of "making love." Really? Lust and sex are not to be confused with love. How many Friday night objects have become Saturday morning rejects? How many crimes of passion have started out as drives of passion? (Obviously there's a wealth of column fodder here.)

Let me finish off with a quote or two; "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil...bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

That's from the writings of Paul in the Bible, a good source of selfless, enduring love. What a difference it would make if we (and that includes me) would exhibit that sort of love!

Have a good Valentine's Day, however you choose to celebrate it.