Power from Clint McCance

I'm going to assume that everyone knows the story of Clint McCance by now, so I won't waste time discussing the particulars of the Facebook posting or the recent rash of bullying in general. I'm going to discuss what happened as information became available.

Tuesday--The Advocate posts a screenshot and a story about McCance's post in an online article. By the time the article becomes widely known, McCance's facebook has been privatized rendering it impossible for the public to read his post and decide whether or not the post was real or not.

Many people begin demanding his immediate dismissal, whether through firing or resignation. What's most telling about people's response is that at this point, he was only alleged to have made these comments. Few suggested resignation in the instance that the comments proved true. At this point, people had formed an opinion and did not wish to listen to an alternative explanation.

Wednesday--Facebook lights up with people posting status updates indicating how angry they are at McCance. The internet is littered with commentary and blog-articles discussing the issue; however, at this point, all articles eventually link back to, paraphrase, and copy the Advocate article. No new information has been gathered; just what was mentioned in the Advocate article. Still, the only proof that anything happened exists in the Advocate article. If the Advocate had misreported then much ado had been made about nothing.

Many facebook users urge mass phone calling, emailing, and demonstrations at Midland School District. Emails to the Superintendent are encouraged. Emails to the other School Board members are encouraged.

But here's the part that scares me: Personal information relating to McCance are published online. Not just his work phone and business listing. In a few instances, I noticed that home address, home phone, and wife & children's names were published. My question: what purpose would the publication of this information serve? The only answer is that people who are not fans of McCance wanted to encourage harassment of McCance on his private property and time.

This is inappropriate in any context regardless of what crime or malfeasance a person has committed.

As disappointed as I was to hear that a human being actually vocalized their hatred toward a particular segment of the population, I was equally disappointed in people's response to this hatred.

I realize that Jesus was a fan of righteous anger, but I think that in today's modern era, anger is an inappropriate response to someone else's action.

I try, in all things that I do, to react out of calmness, rationality and love...not out of hatred or fear. I hope that my friends and people that are not fans of McCance come to this realization and forgive themselves for allowing to be caught up in a hysteria.

When you allow yourself to be affected by someone else's words, you have just given that person power over you. The last person I would want to give someone power to is someone like Clint McCance

Truth and OpiNION

I'm sure others have done more scholarly pursuits on the realms of "What is Truth?" but today I'm simply going to draw distinctions between a series of variations on Facts and Opinions.

Fact: In its simplest incarnation, a Fact (capital 'F') is an observance of something real. I always like to use the example, "George Washington was White." It's pretty dead-on accurate. You can get into a tizzy about whether or not White and Black accurately describe someone's ethnicity, or into demagoguery by espousing the point of view that race should not be observable and that you're only propagating bigotry by reducing someone to the color of their skin, but let's be honest. GW was White.

In more complicated incarnations, a fact can be a little more difficult to ascertain. A more modern, relevant example of this would be the statement, "Cigarette smoke is not detrimental to your health." Is this a fact? Yes. What kind of fact? A False Fact. False Facts are observable statements that are typically relevant to a time-period. Fifty years ago, it was thought that cigarette smoke was not detrimental to someone's health. Our ability to observe it as such was not possible. A thousand years ago, the "Earth is Flat" was a Fact. Over time, our ability to observe real instances improves, so some Facts become false. They still remain, however, Facts, in an abstract sense because they are easily provable (or disprovable).

Opinion: Opinions, in essence, are a subjective interpretation of a Fact or set of Facts that can neither be proved or disproved. Personal values, experiences and future goals are huge factors in the formation of opinions. True Opinions cannot really be 'wrong', though sometimes anecdotal evidence can severely skew someone's perception of a Fact(s).

If True Opinions cannot be 'wrong' can an opinion ever be 'not right'? Yes. If an opinion is based upon False Facts, then it is not really an Opinion. It is a False Opinion. "George Washington was the greatest astronaut ever," besides being non-sequitur has no basis in reality. It's not a real Opinion. "I bet GW would have been a great astronaut," however, is a completely valid Opinion because one would assume that the statement would be based upon Facts relating to GW's ability to command a crew, leadership abilities, love of country, etc.

So, let's look at a very recent political issue and see if it passes Fact/Opinion rationality:

e.g.: The recent Healthcare Reform Bill passed by Congress is bad for America.

The keyword that demonstrates this as 'opinion' is the word 'bad,' which by nature is a subjective interpretation. To determine the validity of this statement as an Opinion or a False-Opinion, one would need to delve into what elements someone chose to form that opinion. Some Facts that would make this a True Opinion:

1) The US Gov has never attempted a social program of this magnitude before.

2) The US Gov has never had an individual mandate of any private product before.

3) Subsidizing Doctor's educations would increase supply of Doctors; thus, driving down the cost of medical services.

4) Healthcare is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution.

The above four Facts, which are observable (though, since the third is an extension of an economic argument, there is the potential of it later being proved a false fact) would lead someone to a valid Opinion that "Healthcare is bad for America."

If this opinion was based on facts such as the following:

1) The Healthcare Reform Bill is going to raise individual income taxes by 3,000%.

2) The HRB is going to round up Seniors in front of a Death Panel and euthanise them.

3) The HRB was signed into law by a President who was born in Kenya; thus, it is invalid.

4) The majority of Americans don't want healthcare legislated by the government.

If the above opinion was based upon any of the previous four 'facts' then it is a False Opinion and should be discounted.

Thesis: While Opinions can never truly be 'wrong', it is possible for an opinion to never have existed in the first place, if it never had a Fact to grow on.