opa-opines.net

Yesterday I received another Internet file with bad claims. This note attacked the current federal administration rather viciously. The letter was claimed to be written by a very distinguished history professor. Because of several errors in the letter that I judged would be avoided by a Professor associated with Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, and the US Navy War College, I decided to investigate. The results are astounding.

First, when asked, the “source” of the letter claims that he did not write the letter. Second, several months ago the letter was circulated around the Internet with the name of a different distinguished scholar who also denied authorship. Third another version of the letter was circulated last fall attributed to a different authority who denies credit. So, the authorship is at least very questionable.

Second, the letter is full of false data. The letter claims, at the time Hitler rose to power: that “Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe.” A real historian might compare the cultures of England, France, Austria and Switzerland with Germany, but never make a broad assertion of German superiority. The letter also claims that “Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious (about Hitler) in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker.” The reaction to Churchill did occur but not for the reasons asserted, and not in the House of Lords because he was not a Lord in the 1930s.

Then the letter attacks the President. For example: “Surely you have
heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense
force stronger than our military for use inside our borders?”   This is an obvious distortion for anyone who bothers to keep up with the news (and in my case actually read the documents produced by our government and its leaders).

Anyway, if the President decided to create a civilian defense force, that would be an actual benefit to anyone thinking that we need to protect our borders and ports from terrorists.  Also  that is not a job for our military (unless one wants to build an multimillion person military).

Why do people invent information and spread it through e-mails? Do they believe the American public is gullible or ignorant? Why do people circulate such trash? Is it from a dislike of the democratic administration? If so, this is not the way to fight. Lies are eventually caught and the person spreading the lies discredited. There is much to argue about without inventing falsehoods. Why not try actually discussing the issues? Is it too much trouble to look at actual data and consider it in an unbiased manner? Or do we simply prefer to let the small minded manipulate us? 

Recently I received a Internet file with a bad claim. The note said that the ACLU filed a lawsuit to try to remove crosses from military headstones. I don’t like many actions by the ACLU, so at first I thought that the assertion was true. With ACLU’s reputation for bad law suits the claim was believable. Then I decided I wanted to read more about the lawsuit.

What I found was that the ACLU did file a lawsuit about military headstones but not for the rumored reasons. It seems that the family of a deceased veteran can request that a symbol of the veterans religious belief be engraved upon the headstone supplied by the government. Problem is that there are a limited number of choices: The Christian Cross, the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim Crescent, but not the Wicca Pentacle. The families of several diseased veterans asked the ACLU to file a suit for religious discrimination. The ACLU won.

The note being passed around the Internet suggests that the ACLU is trying to eliminate crosses from headstones and probably outlawing prayer in the military. What could possibly lead someone to make this erroneous claim?

The action of such false rumor mongers dampens my faith in material on the Internet. There are many reputable sites that provide unbiased information. And, of course, there are some sites that contain opinions geared to a certain point of view. Most of the biased sites, in the past, seemed to report true data and then interpret that data to suit their point of view. Advocating a point of view is acceptable to me as long as the site admits their political or religious preference. But to spread false data, I believe, can be damaging to our society.

I do not know who started the false rumor about the ACLU, but I believe they sere misguided. The ACLU does enough on their own, we don’t need lies to criticize them.

A recent article in Newsweek led me to wonder, when does choice become control? The article concerned a newly developed process whereby a woman can have her eggs harvested and frozen for latter use. What interested me was the rationale for the procedure: it expands a woman’s control over her body. That comment was followed by an explanation that currently women, who previously had to choose between a successful career and a family, now “could have it all”.What I question is when does choice become control, and is having the choice or option of controlling one’s body necessarily a good thing?

 

Where do we draw the line concerning choice? Many unanswered legal and ethical concerns often follow having a choice. If we aren’t careful, science presents options before society has considered either law or ethics. One example is the medical breakthroughs that allow a hospital to keep a human body alive long after the heart and/or brain cease to function independently. Who decides the outcome?

 

So, I present several current dilemma and ask for comment. For each, should we have a choice, and who should have the power to decide?

Right to die -

1. If person is a vegetable with no hope of recovery.

2. If a person is viable but has a terminal disease that cannot be healed but can be treated. The patient can live longer while being treated (blood cancer, for example). Consider the implications if the patient must continually suffer.

3. If s person is old, alone, depressed, and in frequent distress.

Right to life -

1. If the person is a hardened criminal who has killed several people.

2. If the person is disabled and has no means of earning a living.

3. If the person is a single mother without means of financial support.

Right to independence and emancipation

1. If the person is a battered wife with children

2. If the person is a teenager who disagrees with parents beliefs

3. If the person is an underage combat soldier returning from battle

There are numerous such “choices”. Should we, as a society, determine such questions?

 

 

 

 

Recently an article in the NYT explained that a company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), had been created to simplify the selling of mortgages between banks. The process was so streamlined that mortgaged property was no longer registered with county clerks. The process was streamlined to avoid tracing the banks who held and sold the mortgages. The process ignored the mortgagee, the poor fool who was required to pay and would be unable to ever renegotiate the loan*.

We have, for most of our history, registered property ownership with the local government. This procedure protected all parties involved, the seller who lost liability based upon the property, the buyer who could be assured ownership of the property, and the local government who could base taxes upon landownership.

MERS violates the rights of everyone except the huge bank trading in mortgages. I disagree with the New York Times. This process maybe controversial, but it only appears “legal”. How can MERS be legal if it is based upon a law or ruling that violates the rights of two thirds of the legal participants in the transaction? The huge banks are attempting to scam the American people.

I believe, along with most Americans, that one should be responsible for their own actions. The banks contrived this plot, so they, and not the homeowner, should suffer the consequences. Our government must stand up and announce that if the legal title has been manipulated by the banks and MERS, they must lose all claim to the property.

* Excerpts from NYT article.   “Although the average person has never heard of it, MERS — short for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems — holds 60 million mortgages on American homes, through a legal maneuver that has saved banks more than $1 billion over the last decade but made life maddeningly difficult for some troubled homeowners”.

Created by lenders seeking to save millions of dollars on paperwork and public recording fees

every time a loan changes hands, MERS is a confidential

computer registry for trading mortgage loans. From an office in the Washington suburbs, it played an integral, if unsung, role in the proliferation of mortgage-backed securities that fueled the housing boom. But with the collapse of the housing market, the name of MERS has been popping up on foreclosure notices and on court dockets across the country, raising many questions about the way this controversial but legal process obscures the tortuous paths of mortgage ownership.