"Catholics for Trump" is an Oxymoron

In the 2016 presidential election, a good number of Catholics voted for Donald Trump. If we are to believe the mostly anecdotal reporting, they did so for a wide range of reasons, but the consensus seems to be their vote was based on economic reasons more so than religious ones. If the vote had anything to do with religion, it was the anti-abortion issue. (Yes Virginia, there are some people who vote for a political leader based on one issue.) Now that the country has had three years to observe Trump as president, some of his Catholics supporters have become disillusioned and are experiencing "buyer's regret."

Given that erosion of support, this week Donald Trump announced he will be holding one of his staged rallies in Milwaukee, Wisconson, on Thursday, March 19 at which time he will inaugurate a "Catholics for Trump" organization. On the other hand, he has declared his intention to skip the annual St. Patrick's Day bipartisan luncheon with House and Senate lawmakers, because according to the White House he doesn't like Nancy Pelosi, who happens to be a Catholic. (Some think he is afraid of her.)

The idea of a "Catholics for Trump" organization seems a bit far-fetched considering that Donald's father, Fred, in addition to his other prejudices and questionable sympathies, disliked Catholics. But we must remember we are talking about Donald Trump. Why would we expect consistency?


However, the basic question is, do Catholic values and Trump's values (or lack thereof) coincide? The obvious answer is that both Catholics and Trump are pro-life -- recently that is. In an interview in 1999, Trump emphatically declared, "I am pro-choice in every respect." But then he joined the GOP "revolution" to embrace a pro-life stance because it was "politically smart." (Not a surprising flip-flop for a man who was a Republican, became a Democrat in 2001, and relapsed into the Republican fold in 2009.)

Catholics have to ask themselves whether Donald Trump's policies are truly pro-life.

For starters, although a few states, some with Republican governors and legislatures, for reasons of ensuring justice, are placing the death penalty on the back burner.  Mr. Trump and William Barr, however, want to restart federal executions after a sixteen-year hiatus. The Catholic Church's pro-life stance has a long history of opposing the death penalty.

Secondly, Catholics must consider the pro-life implications of the Trump administration's attempt to cut funding for the food stamp program (SNAPS). and to emasculate the EPA. Life requires an adequate amount of nutrition, potable water, and clean air. Anything less is not pro-life.

Contrary to what he said when campaigning, Trump is now attempting to cut funding for Social Security and Medicare -- programs for the elderly and sick who invested a portion of their income in these programs all their working lives. Asking these people to pay for a large tax cut for the wealthy does not seem to coincide with the teachings of the man from Nazareth.

Other than the issue of abortion,  do Catholic values and those of Trump align?

Do Catholics agree with Trump's immigration policy? Is separating mothers and fathers from their children and placing innocent children in chain-link cages a policy based on New Testament ideology? I think not.

The racist rhetoric of Mr. Trump and his enabling comments about White Supremacists should give Catholics second thoughts. The social justice position of the Catholic Church is at odds with racism in any form.

A list of Trump's misogynistic behavior and remarks is seemingly endless; and although the Catholic Church has not had a great history in this regard, the Church teaches Catholics to respect and honor women. Do Catholics want to be seen as approving Trump's disrespect of women?

Due to the COVID-9 pandemic, the rally in Milwaukee has been canceled, as should the idea that an irreligious Trump represents Catholic values.

Catholics, of course, have the right to support Trump or any other political candidate, but their choice should not be associated with their religion.   And by that same token, bishops and priests should not be politicizing Catholic pulpits to support or attack a candidate.

As Americans, we need to keep government and politics out of churches, and religion out of the halls of government. and politics.

The Abuse of Scripture

Modern conservative Christians use the words of St. Paul to justify the subjugation of women; fundamentalists remind us that Leviticus tells us that homosexuality is "an abomination;" evangelicals point to the Quran as justifying murder, and this list could go on and on, all because readers of scripture insist on taking the text literally.

And to make matters worse, rather than looking at the whole cloth, these literalists, both fundamentalists and liberals, cherrypick the various scriptures to find that one nugget that supports their belief.

On top of that, they ignore those texts which everyone realizes cannot be taken literally. In Matthew, we are told: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away." Obviously, Jesus is not advocating the mutilation of our bodies as a punishment for sin. Most readers realize Jesus is symbolically telling us to avoid temptation.

As with the authors of the Old Testament, Jesus and his audience were Semites and were comfortable with the use of symbolic language, even when it included exaggeration. Why is it that today we can't see the whole picture instead of parsing each verse in isolation? It's as if we fear vagueness and are unwilling to accept contradictions -- incest is wrong, but our forebearers, Adam and Eve's children, had sex with each other.

Although most of us understand that the parables are not reporting real events, but are being used as a vehicle to make a point, we insist on reading the other parts of the Bible as factual history rather than embracing the poetic contradictions and mystery of the Semitic authors.

In a recent book, The Lost Art of Scripture, a British theologian and former nun, Karen Armstrong, writes, "Too many believers and nonbelievers alike now read these sacred texts in a doggedly literal manner that is quite different from the more inventive and mystical approach of premodern spirituality. Because its creation myths do not concur with recent scientific discoveries, militant atheists have condemned the Bible as a pack of lies, while Christian fundamentalists have developed a 'Creation Science' claiming the Book of Genesis is scientifically sound....Not surprisingly, all this has given Scripture a bad name."

Since Scripture, even the New Testament, has its origins in an oral tradition passed from one generation to the next, we must know that we can't attach too much meaning to an individual word or sentence. I retell some of the stories my grandfather recounted, stories retold by my father. I can assure you both my father and I have embellished and reworked the details.  The overall gist of the story is accurate, but it probably does not satisfy the standards of a modern historian.

Armstrong says, "A work of art, be it a novel, a poem, or a Scripture, must be read according to the laws of its genre." I recently watched and enjoyed a movie entitled The Irishman. Although the movie made frequent references to various conspiracy theories, I did not come away believing that those things were true. I knew I was watching a movie and did not expect documentary accuracy. What I did come away with was the story of an old, conflicted man looking back at his life and attempting to make some sense of it. When I read Scripture, I am not looking for historical or scientific facts. I can find those things using Google.

Scripture may help one arrive at some sort of truth, but it is not historical or scientific truth.

The literal interpretation of Scripture is an abuse of Scripture.


In the interest of full disclosure: As is probably abundantly clear, I am neither a biblical scholar nor a theologian, but one not need be to approach, appreciate, and benefit from Scripture.

Trumpster: "Don't like the man, like what he has done." Really?

You probably have heard many Trump supporters justify their support for this man by saying they don't really like him, but they support the things he has done for their country-- notice, it's always "their country" or "my country.' but not "our country." They say things like: "He's not like me. I will never behave like him, but I am pleased with what he is doing for my country."

Nazi Slogan

Unfortunately, my friends, this sounds very much like what the Germans said about Hitler, They were willing to overlook Hitler's authoritarianism because they liked what he was doing--making Germany great again. They were willing to overlook his overthrow of the rule of law, because, after their defeat in WWI, Hitler's nationalist policies made them feel that "Deutschland uber Alles" was a good idea and that the "Final Solution" was part of making Germany great again.

And in Trump's case, his supporters like what he has done even though they don't want to be associated with his lack of morality.

Okay, so they like what he has done. Let's see, what has he done.

One of the most obvious things he has done is to divide our country as it has not been since the Civil War. Our enemies, particularly Russia, have been trying to accomplish this goal for years, and Trump accomplished it in a relatively short period of time.

In addition, he has in a few short years destroyed our country's reputation around the world. After he has unilaterally broken treaties and withdrawn from pacts and agreements, other countries no longer trust us. The American handshake has lost its credibility. His reluctance to fully accept NATO has some of our oldest allies wondering whether they can count on the United States.

Are these the Trump accomplishments that his supporters are so proud of?

Or perhaps they like his flirtation with the White Supremacists and the fact that racists now feel enabled by his rhetoric and behavior. Let's hope that is not what they like.

One of the things Trump has done that history will not forget is that he instituted policies that discriminate on the basis of religion. His Muslim ban goes contrary to our history and national character. Again, let's hope his supporters are not in favor of his religious discrimination.

And then there is what Trump has done on our southern border.  Separating children from their parents and incarcerating them is not something we should be proud of. How many lives have been irreparably damaged as a result? We can but hope his supporters are not considering these policies a positive.

Another thing. Trump was impeached because he withheld military assistance to Ukraine in order to encourage interference in our 2020 elections. Strangely, even the GOP senators who acquitted him admitted that he was guilty.

At this point, Trump supporters are saying "But, but what about the economy? Our economy is doing so well. The Stock Market is at record highs. Unemployment is low. All is well."

All is well if you are wealthy because you were given a large permanent tax cut and the stock market is doing well. If you are in the middle class, you received a temporary and modest tax cut. If you are poor, you have, in this economy, very limited opportunities to improve your situation and you are losing the promised "safety net."

And looking at the bigger picture, we find Trump's economic policies have caused our national debt to mushroom. Candidate Trump promised to eliminate the nation's debt in eight years. But in reality, his policies will add $9.1 trillion during that time. The debt would increase to $29 trillion according to Trump's own budget estimates. Our country's debt exceeds our Gross Domestic Product. Now Trump tells us not to worry because we will just print more money. That's his economic policy? That indeed is worrisome.

Trump's tariff war with China has had several unfortunate results for our country. In the first place, China now buys significant amounts of agricultural products from Russia and South America instead of from our farmers. Secondly, as a result of Trump's tariff policies, our government is paying American farmers welfare checks to compensate them for the lost trade -- another hit on the budget.

Manufacturing Recession

In addition, manufacturing and good-paying manufacturing jobs are in decline. According to the NYT, manufacturing is in a recession, and although the unemployment rate is low, those who have manufacturing jobs, still find it difficult to get a meaningful raise.

And since Trump took office the number of people living in poverty has increased, as has the number of working poor. A significant number of Americans don't feel he is making America great. Many of the working poor have to hold down two jobs to stay above water.

So, when someone tells me they don't like Trump as a person, but they like what he has done, I fear they have been drinking the Kool-aide purchased at a Trump rally, You drink that stuff and your brain goes to mush.

Best 2019 Novels Read

Since friends usually share some of the same interests, I often ask my friends what good novels have they read recently. And, in turn, they want to know what I am reading and/or recommending. As this year comes to a close, my friend, Buck,  asked me to name my top ten personal favorites for the year (2019).

Buck and anyone else who cares, I settled on these novels. I am not sure exactly when these novels were published, but they are ones that I read this year. If forced to defend the order in which I have listed them, I would not be able. It's just my gut instinct.*

1. Where the Crawdads Sing by Dalia Owens. This was an NYT's bestseller, deservedly so. You will not be disappointed. My nomination for the best of 2019.

2.  The Paragon Hotel by Lindsay Faye. You may want to read a previous blog (3/2/19) with the title, "The Paragon Hotel: Nobody's Home."

3.  The Nickel Boys by Colson Whitehead. I enjoyed this one even more than his previous, The Underground Railroad.

4. The Testaments by Margaret Atwood.** This is a sequel to her popular dystopian bestseller, A Handmaid's Tale. You may want to refer to a previous blog((/28/19) entitled  The Testaments: Atwood Reveals the Future of Gilead.

5. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak. Although this novel has been around for some time, I just read it this year. The story is narrated by Death, the collector of souls, who tells the story of a girl coming of age during World War II in Europe.

6. A Better Man by Louise Penny. The fans of Inspector Gamache will not want to miss this one. Although each of these novels stands alone, newbies might want to start at the beginning of the Gamache saga.

7. The Huntress: A Novel by Kate Quinn. An English journalist and a Russian female bomber pilot search for "The Huntress," a Nazi war criminal. An interesting look at Russian women pilots in WW II.

8. Unto Us a Son Is Given by Donna Leon. This is the latest of Donna Leone's series about the doleful Comissario Guido Brunetti of the Venice Police Department. And of course, Venice has a starring role.

9. The Alice Network by Kate Quinn. A historical novel of two women and two timelines. In 1914 the one is recruited by the Alice Network -- a real female spy network that operated in France during WWI. The other is an American socialite searching for her cousin in 1947.

10. Lethal White by "Robert Galbraith" (J. R. Rowlings). The fourth in a series featuring private investigator, Cormoran Strike, and his partner, Robin Ellacott. A young man with a history of mental illness claims to have witnessed a murder some years before, and Coromoran can't let it go.

In creating this list, I gave consideration to recent works of Linda Costillo, John Grisham, Greg Iles, Laura Lippman, Leanne Moriarity, and John Sanford. Although I did not include them in the "top 10," I enjoyed reading their recent works and would definitely recommend their latest.




* I do, however, have some vague criteria. I like: 1) characters, good, bad, or ugly,  whom I consider original; 2) a captivating story that makes me keep reading when I know I should be doing something else; 3) a distinct writing style; 4) content that forces me to think, perhaps in new ways; 5) realistic, but also clever, dialogue.

** A co-winner of the 2019 Booker Prize for Fiction.

The World According to Trump

Apparently, we all tend to view the world from our own perspective and often try to make reality conform to that perspective.

And then, there's Donald Trump. He has created an "alternative" universe for himself and his cult.

In Trump's world:

"I am the Chosen One."
The Christian Crusades were Europe's proudest moment.
Hitler's Mein Kampf was the acme of civilization.
Russia is our friend.
The United States Constitution is obsolete.

The Eight Beatitudes are fake Christianity.
Jesus was blond with blue eyes and spoke English.
Mexicans are "animals" and "bad hombres."
The First Amendment was a colossal mistake.
Bone spurs come and go as needed.

Greenland is for sale.
Paris is part of Germany
Belgium is a beautiful city.
The state of Colorado borders Mexico.
Minneapolis is one of the fifty states.
"I am a stable genius."
"I slept with Princess Diana."

Weather maps enhanced with a sharpie are convincing,
We should rid ourselves of hurricanes by nuking them.
Climate change is a hoax.
Scientists are a threat to our country.
Puerto Ricans are not Americans.

Friends are disposable once they've served their purpose.
Treaties and International agreements are made to be broken.
Our allies are expendable.
Gold Star parents* are whiny and pathetic.
The Nineteenth Amendment --Women's Suffrage -- a really bad idea.

Fox News is a real news organization,
Bribery and extortion are the "American Way."
Charitable foundations are a good way to pay legal bills.
There is one god and only one god -- money.
Bankruptcy is the consummate way to avoid paying your bills.

Homelessness started two years ago.
Ivanka created 14 million jobs last year.
We and Turkey have a great relationship with the Kurds.
Windmills cause cancer.
NATO is passe'.

"People are flushing their toilets 10 times, 15 times.." ??? In Trump's world?
"...laws allow a baby to be born from his or her womb in the 9th month. It is wrong."
George Washington seized the airports.
Forest fires can be prevented by raking the forest floor.
There is too much "negative press covfefe."
(I'm tired.)

As you know, I could keep going with this list of Trump's augmented reality, but frankly, dear reader, you deserve a break from this nonsense. Also, I am confident that you could add many more examples of Trump's delusional reality.

Notice I have not included cases of outright lies--statement diametrically opposed to the facts. The Washington Post has done a good job keeping a tally of those lies.

Unfortunately, all of this nonsense is emanating from the President of the United States. Not only has he lowered the bar for all future presidents, but he has also ruined the credibility of the United States of America. What ally will be willing to trust us? Ask the Kurds.

*Parents of a child who served in the Armed Forces and was killed in battle.

Humorless and Friendless

When my friend, Buck, and I had lunch together at Nick's Diner, the conversation took an unfortunate turn and we ended up discussing our current president. Since Buck is a conservative Republican and I am a progressive Democrat, we have had many political arguments over the years; but since 2016 we have agreed more often than not. We both are appalled and embarrassed that Donald J. Trump is the president of this great country.

Buck is fond of reminding anyone who listens that Trump is not a true conservative as many Republican conservative columnists have made clear. Our waitress, Salina, approached the table as Buck was complaining about the trillions of dollars Trump was adding to the deficit.

"May I tempt you gentleman to a dessert?" she asked.

This, of course, was a perfect set-up for Buck. "As you can clearly see, there is only one gentleman at this table and it is not that radical sitting across from me."

Salina turned to me, "It's my pleasure, I always wanted to meet a radical. I'm not interested in gentlemen." I gave Buck a thumbs-up, and he snorted in his iced-tea.

After we asked for our checks, we were back to Trump, and I asked, "Policy aside, why do you dislike the guy so much?"

"As a bard once said, let me count the ways." A pause. "First, I can't abide a man with no sense of humor. The man can't begin to comprehend, let alone appreciate, humor. He refuses to attend the Washington Press Corps Roast because he doesn't get it.  The idea of honoring someone by making jokes about him is beyond Trump's comprehension. Have you ever heard him say something humorous? And of course, satire is too complicated for him. He thinks he's being humorous when he tweets that so-and-so is 'a bitch.'  That's it; name-calling is his version of humor."

"I'll not point out that earlier you did a bit of name-calling.  But I understand your point about a sense of humor. I can't help but recall that was a criticism of Hitler.  That aside, I sense you have other issues with Donald?"

"We don't have enough time for me to list all of his personal character flaws,  but there is another factor that is a real red flag and that is that he has no friends. Everybody has friends, you say? Well, name one true friend of Donald Trump. People, of course, say they are his friends because that is to their benefit, but when push comes to shove, they know he will throw them under the bus and move on. A person that repeatedly does that has no friends. Trump has no friends. Even people with conflicting ideas become friends. Take Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia.  But Trump has no friends, not even people who agree with him."

"What," I ask, "about Vladimir Putin? Trump claims they're friends and he seems to repeatedly make decisions that ultimately help Russia and Putin.",

"They're not friends. Neither is capable of friendship. In Trump's case, it's all about money and fame.  In Putin's case, it's all about power and his ability to manipulate Trump. That's not friendship. A puppeteer and his puppet are not friends."

As we were walking to our cars, it occurred to me that DonaldTrump accomplished what I had never envisioned: Buck and I are in agreement on a political issue.

They vs. He or She

How do you feel about the following sentence? "Somebody left their briefcase in the restroom." Some of us will feel sorry for the poor cretin who lost his or her briefcase; others of us will feel no sympathy for the poor devil but will fixate on the fact that the author used a plural pronoun, their, to refer back to the singular antecedent, "somebody." For shame! How can "they" or its forms, them, their, and themselves, be a pronoun for a single person? An abomination! Sister Pius should rap your knuckles with a ruler for such an abuse of the English language.

So, what's a person to do? The purists, I presume, would want the sentence to read: "Somebody left his or her briefcase in the restroom." That is downright awkward, my friend. Not to mention the germs that briefcase has been exposed to.

The problem is the English language does not have a gender-neutral singular pronoun. That is why so many of us use the plural pronoun, they, as a gender-neutral substitute.

Which is better? A. Ask each of the children what they want for a snack. B. Ask each of the children what she or he wants for a snack."*

To the consternation of the grammar purists, choice A  is becoming the accepted norm. The Washington Post in its 2015 style guide recognized the use of they as an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun. In 2016 the American Dialect Society chose this particular use of they as the "word of the year."And as the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary points out, this usage has been around since the 1300s. In 1881 our quite proper Emily Dickinson was availing herself of this usage.

On the other hand, The stodgy Modern Language Association is somewhat reluctant to give its imprimatur. And as you would suspect, "The Gray Lady" (NYT) is ambivalent about such usage. Its style guide permits the usage if the individual so desires, but warns about the dangers of using it too frequently.

The bottom line is this usage has been around since the 1300s and is not going away. The purists need to move on to another battle. This one has been lost. And, like Farhad Manjoo,  writing in the NYT observes, not only does this usage solve a problem, it is "inclusive and flexible." 

Of course, everybody is entitled to their (her or his) own opinion.

* Farhad Monjoo in the NYT writes that the phrase, "he or she," is the "clunkiest phrase ever concocted by small-minded grammarians."

The Testaments - Atwood Reveals Gilead's Future

I know you haven't asked, but it is my opinion that some iconic novels should never have sequels. Just a few examples are The Great Gatsby, 1984, Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, and To Kill a Mockingbird  (the attempted sequel proves my point).

Thus it was with a great deal of skepticism that I began reading Margaret Atwood's sequel to The Handmaid's Tale.

From  the TV Series

As with the dystopian original, the sequel, The Testaments, is set in Gilead,  a totalitarian theocracy that has replaced the United States of America. Although fifteen years have passed, the Republic of Gilead has survived, only more corrupt than ever. Women are still treated as "two-legged wombs," a distorted form of Christian fundamentalism is used to justify discrimination and the elimination of human rights. The abusive, totalitarian Republic of Gilead demonstrates the dangers of not maintaining a wall of separation between religion and government. For example, Gilead uses religion and a redacted bible to eliminate nonwhites and so-called unbelievers (Jews, Catholics, and anyone who does not adhere to their extreme dogmas).

The Testaments, unlike the original, tends to be a spy thriller, which in the hands of a storyteller like Margaret Atwood captures the reader's attention and does not let go. The "testaments" in the sequel are those of Agnes Jemima, a Commander's adopted daughter; Nicole, a sixteen-year-old in Canada under a different name; and Aunt Lydia, the most powerful woman in Gilead. The three characters tell their stories from their own particular point of view with the result that the reader slowly becomes aware of the total story.

Agnes grew up in Gilead and wants and prays to be a true believer, but the abusive behavior of the leaders force her to question her faith. At one point she writes: "Still I wanted to believe; indeed, I longed to; and, in the end, how much of belief comes from longing."

Nicole, a sixteen-year-old refugee from Gilead and living in Canada under a different name slowly becomes aware of her true identity; and, after the murders of her step-parents agrees to infiltrate Gilead and bring back damning evidence of Gilead's corruption.

Aunt Lydia, recognized as a "founder" of Gilead leads a double life as an enforcer of the extreme doctrine and a resistance fighter hoping to bring about the collapse of Gilead.

Although Atwood does not dwell on the inhumane, abusive crimes of Gilead or make predictions, the attitudes and temperament of that society have a frightening resemblance to the post-2016 cultural changes taking place in this country. And, perhaps, that accounts for the success of Hulu's TV version of "The Handmaid's Tale," now in season three.

Unlike some other dystopian novels, Atwood makes a point of not including anything "that had not already happened" at some time in history. One can readily recall theocracies engaging the same inhumane techniques as we find in Gilead. And to her credit, she does not create new technologies. She uses nothing that is "not already available."

In short, Atwood has created a solid stand-alone sequel that recounts the story of three women whose "testaments" challenge a cruel regime that tries to silence and denigrate women.

Tennis Has a Problem - Medical Time-outs

Now that the US Open tennis tournament is in full swing and "Coco Mania" is a thing,  many casual observers are watching some or many televised matches, and I suspect some are wondering about the so-called "medical time-out."

Maria Sharapova in a medical time-out

As far as I can determine, this phenomenon is unique to tennis. The usual scenario is that a player indicates to the umpire that a trainer/doctor is needed. When the trainer/doctor arrives he attempts to evaluate the player's physical problem. Many times, I suspect, the problem is mental or emotional. This evaluation process can take as long as the trainer/doctor chooses. It is only after the evaluation is declared complete that the umpire starts to time the treatment--presumably three minutes. And eventually, the match resumes.

This process, I am convinced is absurd and unfair.*

In what other sport, individual or team, is an injured player allowed to stop the action, receive medical treatment and then return? When Tiger Woods broke a bone in his leg, he had to continue to play in a debilitating condition or withdraw from the tournament. A boxer cannot delay a bout because of shoulder pain. A triathlete cannot request a time-out to receive treatment for the blisters on her feet.

In team sports, an injured athlete has to continue to play or be immediately replaced by a substitute. Of course, in the case of baseball, the pace of play is so slow that fans would not even notice a medical time-out.

The most obvious problem with tennis' medical break is that it can be used by a player to break an opponent's momentum. Without mentioning names, there are some players who are notorious for this. When their opponent starts to make a run and turn the match around, the player calls for a trainer/doctor, and complains of a vague injury or is simply seeking a massage with lidocaine. The result is a five to fifteen-minute break which interrupts the match while the opponent who had the momentum has to sit and wait. Gamesmanship such as this should not be allowed.

If a player can't continue to play in the allotted time, that player should forfeit gracefully. If the so-called injury does not preclude playing, the player should be back on the court in the allotted time.

On the other hand, since some matches, especially men's matches, can last four or more hours, players should be allowed to take a bathroom break between sets.

* Although my qualifications to suggest this may be challenged, I am a fan, a player, and a former USTA official, referee, and tournament director.

Age of Information is also Age of Disinformation

We are living in the age of information. Never before have people all over the world had access to so much information. Today we, unlike our ancestors, do not have to travel to the great universities, libraries, and museums of the world to access arcane and obscure information. We just "google it." The world of information is a few computer clicks away. What a great time to be alive.

Data appears to be the gold standard these days. As just one example, data drives sports whether professional or junior varsity. NFL players consult their laptops on the sidelines. MLB, always a data greedy sport, uses almost instant data to analyze every aspect of the game. Back in the day, managers would shift their infields based on a hunch. Today infield shifts are much more prevalent because the manager possesses precise and up-to-date data on each opposing player.

Watching a professional golf tournament on TV is frequently like being in a physics classroom. In addition to the data golfers often referred to ( distances, speed of greens, number of birdies on a particular hole), today's TV viewers know the angle of impact, clubhead speed, trajectory, and distance traveled. All of this almost immediately after the swing.

Unfortunately, the same technology that provides all of this instant information is also being used to spread disinformation.

Back in the day, we would receive detailed information from newspapers which appeared on our doorsteps once a day. We would receive more up-to-date, albeit brief summaries on the radio, and then in the evening, we were able to watch a fifteen-minute TV account of the world and national news. These news sources were held to a standard of truth and fairness. Readers, listeners, and viewers could be reasonably certain of the facts reported. (Of course, even in those days, the question of what to report or not to report was a concern.)

False on so many levels, but repeated by many.

Today, almost anyone with a computer can publish whatever information they choose, and therein lies the problem. Anyone can fabricate a story and throw it out into cyberspace and there will be some who believe it, no matter how absurd because it plays to their fears and reinforces their prejudices. In the 2016 presidential election, fanciful, undocumented stories were everywhere on the internet, and many readers/viewers believed them and reposted them on Facebook or Twitter.


And then there are the bots--algorithms designed to send out millions of misleading or false stories. Most recently, Russian bots bombarded US internet users with seemingly scientific information about the evils of the MMR vaccinations. The resulting confusion prevented parents from vaccinating their children, and then the US experienced an unnecessary number of cases of measles.

On the one hand, the Age of Information is the best of worlds in that it allows everyone a voice and makes unlimited amounts of information available to all. The great democratizer. On the other hand, it is the worst of worlds in that it allows almost anyone to spread lies or recruit suicide bombers.

So what's a person to do in this new age?

The rules of navigating this new arena are quite obvious, but a bit cumbersome.

Check the source. If the source of an anti-vax article is an institution that no one has ever heard of, it's probably bogus, but one can always use independent fact-checking sites. The top fact-checking sites are FactCheck.org, Politifact.com, FactChecker.com (Washinton Post), Snopes.com. Images as well can be misleading, and TinEye.com will trace the origin of a particular photograph.

Depend on established news organizations whose reputations depend on getting the story right the first time. NPR, ABC, CBS, or NBC are run by real journalists who get the story corroborated by several sources before publishing it.

Triangulate. If the story is from an unfamiliar source, check to find it in the New York Times, The Hill*, Politico, Axios or other mainstream sources. If you have three respected sources agreeing, the fundamentals of the story are most likely accurate.

Facebook etc. channel information to you based on what you read and send to friends. Therefore one should view items from sources other than those catering to your point of view. You will then be exposed to uncomfortable information with the result that you have to give the issue some serious thought.

Share judiciously. If a news item seems sensational or extreme, don't share it; it's probably not true. Recall those people who shared the false article about Pope Francis endorsing Trump in 2016. You don't want to be one of those people.

Another challenge of the Information Age is that it threatens our privacy. In order to participate in the advantages of the internet, we have to expose some of our personal information. Fortunately, governments are beginning to demand that internet companies protect our private information.

The Information Age is upon us whether we like it or not. Ignoring it is not an option. We can embrace it and demand that it "do no evil,' and respect our privacy. Not easy, but necessary.






* The Hill, a conservative news organization, has a tendency to report and perpetuate conspiracy theories.