Fabrication of Reality in the IRS Hearings

For this post, I'd like to draw your attention to the Bloomberg version of the story of today's Congressional hearing into wrongdoing at the IRS:

At a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Lew declined to answer a question from Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican, about whether he agreed with Lerner’s assertion today that she has “not done anything wrong.” Garrett told Lew it was a “yes or no” question.

“Congressman, it’s not a yes or no,” Lew said. “I’m going to wait to have all the facts.” 

This is the primary psychological tool used by both the left-wing and the right-wing media to subconsciously propel their respective political myths. In this case, the tool is being employed by a member of Congress. Notice that Garrett trying to force an inappropriate "yes or no" answer from a person who doesn't know the answer.

Now that the event has happened, video of the event can be cut to eliminate context. It can be thrown up on FOX as a talking point that "Democrats are playing fast and loose with the facts" and "acting like they've got something to hide. When the light reflected in the mirrors hits the smoke, the holographic image of an actual scandal appears. As far as I can tell from the inquiries, so far, the only scandal is how the GOP are trying to gain from a situation they themselves created.

In order to grasp the whole picture of the IRS non-scandal, I'm gonna have to start waaaaaaaaay back in the dark ages of the 2008 Presidential campaign. It was Barack vs. Hillary. The GOP knew they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency within 8 years of Bush. So they sacrificed their most popular pariah (John McCain) to help consolidate party ideology, and they focused their efforts on the Democratic primaries. GOP leadership were and still are afraid of Hillary. So they and their donors, from whatever nation foreign or domestic, threw hundreds of millions of dollars into squashing Hillary's primary hopes. She surrendered after it became clear her margin was two or three whiskers behind Obama. All that GOP spending gave us candidate Barack Obama.

But that's not the only regretable choice the Republicans made for themselves that cause them to wring their hands today. You see, the FEC decided that the groups spending large amounts of un-traceable cash on political campaigns was a threat to national security, and it was a violation of the clunky McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002. The actual case centered around a basic free speech argument, that the government had no right to block a film, regardless of it being full of distortions about a political candidate and regardless of whether its funding came from Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia.

Yes, it was a thorny case. And Roberts, to his credit, was going to rule on the strict question of whether the hack film about Hillary could be shown publicly. (Of course, the answer is yes.) Justice Kennedy pulled some ju-jitsu and got to write the majority opinion, in which he reached outside of the scope of the case and the question before the court saying, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Now watch closely, because that's another smoke-and-mirrors trick.

Of course we agree with that! The concern inspiring the campaign finance reform law attempt was the subjection of the USA to criminal and/or foreign influence due to a lack of reasonable campaign finance regulations. But the question in before the Court was simply, "Should Citizens United be allowed to air NWO propaganda films?" And the majority, reasonably and somewhat thankfully, said yes. *sigh*

So now money equals speech, and if you don't have enough money, you don't get to speak. Funny how a brilliant guy Kennedy could only think that one halfway through. I surmise a few large, untraceable monetary gifts to a few friends on the sly might make up Kennedy's other half....

When the Supreme Court ruling was handed down in 2010, Obama had been in office for two years. He was basically tasked with administrative overhaul of the IRS to accommodate yet another kink in the system's bureaucracy. You have to remember that people who accept bureaucracy in order to work in it run like machines. They have habits. They are only semi-aware of their surroundings. When you change the machinery of that bureaucracy, they still run on their old habits, which is where this "scandal" started and most likely ended, according to the Treasury Department's report. The elimination of regulations by the Supreme Court caused a backlog of requests for tax-exempt status, so the bureaucrats ran triage and moved the most overtly political applications to the back of the line.

For the GOP to suggest that this entire situation was intentionally created by the President they themselves pushed into power is a ridiculous political game. If only enough Americans are too busy with the struggle of everyday life to be unable to read up on this story, maybe the GOP can get away with peeing on the public's leg while telling us it's raining. It's too bad the Democrats don't go for the jugular and pull the false face off these machinations more frequently. It's not difficult.

But at least the GOP are huffing and puffing and making themseles look a little less stupid than they did with their empty-handed Benghazi scandal inquiry. The only news from that side of the Republican brain is that the Representatives who got most indignant about the murder of an ambassador also made sure to avoid accepting responsibility for paying for embassy security. The Democrats have introduced yet another embassy security funding bill into the Senate, but I'm willing to bet that the GOP have enough control of the media to let it die in the House again.

I've gotta say the style of Lois Lerner is admirable. She should just come forth with answers to all the silly questions these new Republicans want to parade in front of the American public. In this day and age, it is admirable to see a lifelong bureaurcat standing up and exercising her Constitutional right not to go along with horse manure.

In the meantime, all you GOPers, I know there are those of you frustrated with a party that no longer represents your traditional values. Hang in there, but just know there's more internecine strife a-comin'. I know how much it rubs conservatives to defecate in their own nest, but that's the only way left to win the party back. I can't tell you how many of my Republican friends have been saying "we need a third party" but it's close to the number of times I hear them say "hello".

Toronto Mayor Whips Up A Crackstorm

So on my break today I see that Toronto's mayor is accused of smoking crack.

And?

Your point would be?

This one's simple: stay out of the guy's private life. If he's "in possession of" and that's a legal issue, well then the evidence shouldn't be free and running around in private hands. It should be in police custody, not up on the information market for $100k, right? That's more than the operating budget of quite a few community newspapers in upstate New York.

And if there's no video or no lawbreaking, there's no legal problem. That's the point where the news butts out. Job over. It's personal life, not news, at that point. A news enterprise may not harass any average individual. So why am I wasting my time talking about a non-news event for a politician I've never heard about before today?

Because this story has to do with the ethics of personal privacy. Canadian society is slightly different from American society, but we have our shades based on geography just like Canadians do. Both our nations largely descend from the English legal system, though both our nations have places where a substantial French minority thrive. We both have many of the same immigrants, and even similar ratios of African-Americans in our populations due to runaway slaves crossing the border into freedom.

The Canadian legal system treats different legal elements slightly differently, however. Prostitution is legal under some conditions in some places, while police are given broad interpretive powers when they detect a person in public in possession of marijuana. As far as crack goes, I must admit I don't hang out with all that many Canadian crack smokers, so I can't report on how the Canadian police or legal system treat the issue. But if I ever do, I'll get the word to all you here via an update.

So back to the IVth Amendment situation, which I know has no direct bearing in Canada; however, maintain in mind that the rights mentioned in the first eight Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other [right]s retained by the people." Yes, I added the word in brackets so it would make sense contextually; but what I am saying is no surprise to students of law.

Point being, we have these rights as human beings regardless of our legal system. Our legal systems are bound by their own constitutions to preserve the rights of their citizens to different degrees and with different limits, but this changes not the fact that individuals have these rights regardless of the government's opinion. This is the purpose behind the IXth Amendment. Its importance in today's times should not be underestimated.

So I'm saying it bluntly: Rob Ford has the right to smoke as much crack as he wants to, regardless of his government. In the US, he'd be so protected by his IVth Amendment rights. But if it's something that's illegal, and he's working in that government, then he's gotta lotta 'splainin' to do. Maybe he should have worked to legalise crack and then smoked it. Of course in the US, crack is specifically illegal just about everywhere, IVth Amendment aside for reasons of interstate commerce and domestic tranquility.

But if on the other hand, if Canadians frown on crack smoking but largely don't persecute it - imagine that the good Mayor was smoking marijuana or tobacco - would the public reaction be different? But again, if these things are personal moral choices, not public choices, why is this in the news? Please respect the guy's IVth Amendment rights (or their Canadian counterparts) or at least tell us what he's done to lose those rights or endanger them in any way. That would be newsworthy.

So I have to ask why are the AP and FOX News both failing to explain the context of the situation in their article? Is it excusable as a "short"? I had to go over to Reuters for the context. Apparently Ford has gotten himself in trouble for corruption, then won an appeal so he could close out his term. Maybe he's just in depression and smoking his way out of it with one of the more dangerous drugs out there. If we're trusting in his right to privacy, maybe he's got family and friends that can stage an intervention. Still, it's not newsworthy at this stage except for the offer of the video sale.

Funny thing about that $100k: neither Gawker or the Toronto Star wanted to shell out the $100k on their own, and this from guys who claim to have sold crack to the mayor. Sounds like a dangerous game those sugarmen play. Hmm, I wonder where they would invest their money once Gawker gives it to them....

So anyways, good on the Toronto Star for saying no, and shame on Gawker's Crackstarter campaign for its support of the Canadian crack trade. I'll give a goshdarn when any of these so-called news sources reports whether crack possession, crack purchase, or crack inhalation are considered felonies in the jurisdiction where the infraction allegedly occurred.

Context, please.

P.S. The Gawker campaign site now claims it needs $200k. Maybe Reuters, FOX, and the AP can get together with Gawker and figure out what-the-shucks is going on with that number. Or maybe Gawker's gonna get cut in on an extra 15 kilos of the primo.

Uganda Shuts Down a Newspaper

Yesterday's news from Uganda is a perfect example of a few hundred PtF points, and if this was the old radio show, you can imagine we'd be talkin' it up as our leading story. With my luck, we'd have a couple people from Uganda on board to talk about life in their home country.

In any event, freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment in the USA. Traditionally, the freedom of the press meant the press could write anything they want without fear of government retribution. Over time, that has somehow evolved into the right to report on anything they want, and this extended right is being used primarily by legions of papparazzi to assault various celebrities in the LA and NYC areas. But I digress from Uganda.

Uganda also has a constitutionally-enshrined freedom of the press. Unlike the USA, Uganda doesn't have much of a tradition of upholding press freedoms. In fact, the constitution of Uganda was only adoped in 1995, but was based largely on the American constitution. But if we want to get a good understanding of the state of Uganda's international relations, we have to rewind and do a historical recap. Only then will this story of a government violating its citizens' press freedoms make full sense.

If you already know Ugandan history, skip to the next set of dashes.
-----

After World War II, European nations started to divest themselves of their colonial holdings. In East Africa, the British release of its colonies was largely spurred on by attempts to balance the wartime checkbook. Efforts at setting up post-colonial governments (around the world) were hampered by:
1) religious groups
2) socialist/communist groups
3) ethnic groups

In different nations, these different influences undermined colonial powers' attempts to establish control over the fledgling governments. The British ideal was to hand temporal and administrative power over to the local nobility. But democracy kept asserting itself.

In Uganda, the focal point for this history lesson has to be Idi Amin. Do yourself a favour and read the overview of his Wikipedia article and the rest of what I write will make sense. The local socialist movement had managed to secure its independence from Britain and spent the better part of the 1960s trying to rebuild the country. However, the local nobility had already trained with the British military and was itself an extension of British power in Uganda.

The human rights being protected by the state was only part of the issue the military nobility took with the socialists. The other part was the socialists' deconstructing of social privilege at the legislative and administrative levels. In more rural districts, there was a sense of corruption from city power centers. So while President Milton Obote went to a meeting in Singapore, Idi Amin claimed power, and held it throughout the '70s.

Amin used brutality rather than respect to instill domestic tranquility and enforce his régime. This turned off Britain and the western allies, so guess who stepped in to fill the funding gap? (Please tell me you guessed the USSR.) It started with Libya, if I recall correctly, and Ghaddafi brought the budding dictator out of the circle of right-wing murderous dictators and into the circle of left-wing murderous dictators. The shift was also brought about by his erratic mental state, which deterioriated with time. In short, Western powers were increasingly embarassed to be seen talking with him.

A Western-backed military coalition consisting primarily of Tanzanian troops reinforced by armed and trained Ugandan refugees invaded Uganda and took out Idi Amin's régime in 1979, and Milton Obote came back to power. But the military nobility continued to see itself as the lawful regime, and retreated into a loose network of guerilla organisations in the North. After four years, the Obote government attempted to quell the uprising through military means, bringing international condemnation of his régime. Obote was deposed in 1985, but his replacement only lasted 6 months before he himself was replaced by Yoweri Museveni, who remains "president" to this day.

The Ugandans drafted a new constitution in 1995. The constitution's primary change was to centralise more executive authority with the president. Of course, since the president is a president-for-life and he is well-connected to the military, it's difficult for us Westerners to see such a constitutional change as more democratic.

Two years ago, the Parliament attempted to pass legislation that would have made homosexuality punishable by death. The international furor over the bill has exposed the relationship between the Ugandan régime and fundamentalist Christians in America, and led to some half-mumbled apologies from right-wing leaders in the USA. It is understandable that the American right wing leadership want to keep their thumb on Uganda, as the relatively small nation has been of strategic importance in regional politics ever since Britain relinquished its claim to the region. But it is really sad to see American money today flowing into the hands of a régime that resorts to physical intimidation and threats against life purportedly in the name of Jesus.
-----

From this mostly turbulent history, you can understand why Uganda's press freedoms are not as solid as America's. It's not that the people of Uganda aren't interested in their own freedom. But how much you want to bet the only reason more than half their nation even knows it's happening is because of the internet presence of global media?

Press freedoms aren't just about respecting individual rights. It's also about a government's image: not making itself look foolish, brutal, and helpless. At some point, the powers in charge of Uganda need to accept that they can't stop every single news report they don't like. They need to realise that stepping on the face of their media is the first step in reverting to a darker period of history. At some point, those in power in Uganda need to realise they will waste more time and money and lose global support by pursuing heavy-handed security initiatives.

Ironically enough, the Obama administration is facing heat for its beat-down of the Associated Press. All the above points apply to Obama, and hopefully he and Museveni are watching one another to learn. If a spy leaks something to the media, go and find him. Just don't shake down the media to get your answer, because that's just a really crummy way to operate.

The larger picture here is not necessarily that the USA and Uganda are operating in a simliar fashion from a similar mentality that fears freedom. (It's an important point but lines of correlation are a separate discussion.) Indeed, the American influence in Uganda is heavy. Uganda's violent past will keep poking into the nation's affairs, and Ugandans will have to continue the struggle for self-control. The larger picture is that the world wants to see a stable, democratic Uganda.

A stable Uganda is needed to help her neighbours keep peace. Simmering racial tensions currently threaten to bubble over the border of every neighbouring nation except Tanzania. Rwanda has been mostly in self-control since its brutal holocaust in the 1990s. The Congo is still swarming with rebel guerillas who like to hide out in Uganda from time to time. To the east, Kenyan leaders are doing their best to contain ethnic strife as competing leaders learn how to cooperate in government management in the wake of the highly-controversial elections in 2007, the grand union of 2008, and the new constitution of 2013. To the north lies South Sudan, a nation not even two years old and still embroiled in conflict with the north, not to mention internal power struggles and more warlords from the Congo taking advantage of the lack of central authority in rural areas.

If any of these powder kegs were to blow, it will require a stable Ugandan government to keep the region at ease. If Ugandans have to question the good intentions of their leaders, any one of those regional conflicts could open up and suck in Uganda.

At some point, we all hope Museveni will recognise that in an internet-connected gobal reality, the Daily Monitor is seen around the world as an extension of the people of Uganda. Anything done to the Daily Monitor is understood globally as an affront to the people of Uganda, even if done with the best of intentions. In this small world we live in, an event as small as a beat-down on a newspaper can put the drop on Museveni's rule the same way the Tanzanian invasion failed Idi Amin and the same way crushing the northern guerillas tanked Milton Obote in the 1980s. Certainly, global perception of the beat-down is where global allies start to decide to choke off "financial support", and then things get slowly worse. I don't think the people of Uganda want that, and I'm pretty sure neither does Museveni.

My message to Museveni: Never focus fire on your own people, focus on fighting the rebels. Don't repeat the past, learn from it. May the people of Uganda find peace.

Assault Weapons vs Health Care

Several weeks ago, the Democratic Party political machine was ramping up for Round 2 of its quest for an assault weapon ban in Congress. I remember Round 1, which was around Christmas/New Year's, in the immediate wake of the Newtown tragedy.
After looking at the manner in which the Obama Administration's political campaign was organised (rather efficiently, might I add), I was struck by the outrage from the left. Many of my friends are in the Democratic Party, and urge me to join from time to time. Quite a few of these individuals own firearms and were generally in agreement with the party line

As well-organised as the campaign was, action didn't follow through within a week, it became old news and was forgotten. After washing us for two weeks in gun control propaganda, the corporate media had new boring stories to dangle in front of our noses for 8 hours at a time, and the public obliged by putting the debate back on the shelf. But I didn't, and neither did my friends in the Democratic Party.

You see, there are millions of firearm owners who are registered Democrats. They aren't even a small minority. In general, they view the question of assault weapons as a serious question of liberty vs. safety. Some tend toward one side or the other of that question, but all are in agreement that there is a basic right to bear firearms protected by the Second Amendment. Their opinions tend to drift slightly over the years, but this basic agreement on a natural right never deviates.

I put together some of their thoughts on the assault weapons ban MSM story Round 1 and realised that in organising a political campaign to prevent future Newtowns, the Democratic Party had omitted several of its long-term policy planks:
1) National healthcare
2) Mental healthcare parity
3) Comprehensive health coverage for all former service members
4) A ban on private prisons
5) Reduction of student:teacher ratios in public education

The first two are slam-dunks. As clunky and difficult as the new federal healthcare legislation may be, it has accomplished the first two, which will go a long way toward reducing the likelihood of future Newtowns. So why not talk it up every day of the week? It's like watching Jason Kidd taking a layup in the early part of Game 5, finishing by getting nervous and bobbling the ball. You know the guy can do way better even though he didn't score a single shot in the tournament. As a friend said, "But hey, he's still on the court."

While the shooter at Newtown wasn't a returning veteran, there is a serious problem with not ensuring that veterans are left untreated. Some may wish to remain untreated. There is no reason that our veterans cannot have a standard of healthcare above and beyond what senators receive. This will also reduce violence in our nation.

The ban on private prisons will help reduce corruption. Americas prisons are a breeding ground for criminals, where the weak are winnowed out at the strong are molded into theives, kidnappers, and murderers for every one of the most notorious gangs in the USA, and that's not counting the foreign gangs that recruit out of our private prisons. Some of the facilities maintained by private contractors are reminiscent of the horrors of the 1930s-1970s ethnic cleansing operations by governments, and it is an absolute shame that we permit it and enourage it on American soil. What's even worse is that we all pay for it out of our tax money.

Finally, mental disorder is preceded by social disorder. An individual mind takes impressions from the world around itself. Often public schooling is the first social order a child sees. If one teacher is expected to deal with 30 five-year-old children at once, how many of those child-to-child interactions are monitored? The gang mentality sets in immediately and power plays are made, frequently without the teacher noticing and being able to advise both parties on their weaknesses and faults. Class sizes larger than 12 are breeding grounds for mental disease and should be considered a public health risk. We could double the number of teachers in our nation instantly through federal expenditure, and it wouldn't cost nearly as much as one year we spent in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The shooters we see are generally children who have gone through some kind of abuse, often at school, and suffer the trauma thereof. Some individuals who have been so abused take the quiet way out and commit suicide. The abuse can be emotional or physical and often sexual. This happens in our military, too. While lawmakers talk about tough anti-bullying laws, how about some serious prevention measures? How about some serious funding?

But most importantly, why aren't the above issues at the center of the progressive battle against gun violence? Why is the focus on an assault weapons ban? Here you have five well-made arrows, two of which have already hit their targets and should be hallmarks of the Obama administration. Instead, the Democrats choose another arrow made of lead and wonder why it can't reach the target. Is ignoring your greatest success your best political strategy? Or is it just that Obama's advisors are so scared of GOP misinformation that they don't want to mention the word "ObamaCare"?

My advice to Obama: Shake it off and talk up your successes more frequently.

Democrats have to realise that the centrists of this country take the Second Amendment the way I take the First. There are many centrists in the Democratic Party that they just won over from the GOP trashing its own these past 16 years. Don't lose them in a fight over assault weapons. Win them over by appealing to their humanity and their decency. Keep them on your side for a generation or two, if you can.

Fighting this battle ain't worth it, especially if Democrats want to stay in the White House beyond 2017.

-----

Then I read this piece by Joe Klein. I'm still a bit steamed at him for calling the centrist position "disgraceful". Joe, if you ever stumble on this, just know that even though I don't own any guns, I do take offence at America's traditional political philosophy being called "disgraceful". Just sayin'.

Now, about them votes in 2016. Are we going to let CNN, MSN, the AP, and others tell we the people what our Constitution and Amendments say regarding freedom and liberty? Or are we going to continue to allow the Supreme Court to continue to equate money with liberty, as in the ruling on Citizens United vs. FEC?

If we want to defend the liberty of gays and lesbians to live unmolested with their chosen life partner and to have that union consecrated by the states they live in, we need to stand up for all liberties at once. If we want to defend the rights of an African-American buying food at a grocery store, we need to stand up for liberty, not just that individual person. If we want to defend our liberty as individual citizens in this great republic to stand up and be heard by our representatives, as enshrined in the First Amendment, we need to stand up for all liberty. And if we're going to make the point that corporate money in elections erodes and limits individual liberty, we have to stand up as one, united for all liberty. Period.

If you're liberal and reading this and say to yourself "but what about the children of Newtown?", then your answer is that the causes of Newtown were not firearms. The causes were people.

Until we are interested in taking care of people and offering healing unconditionally, we will have broken people running around breaking more people. Let's be a nation of people that take care of one another. Only when every one of us can tune out the mainstream media buzz and tune in the suffering, then will we reach out to put a stop it.

Reach into your progressive back pocket and pull out the old humanist values. They still have meaning and they still work. And they still appeal to a majority of Americans.

Greetings & Salutations

Welcome to Pleading the First.

Before posting anything else, I wanted to set the tone for this blog to echo that of the radio show on WICB for which I once worked. Fear not: There will be no Brittney Spears or Jimmy Fallon here! Celebrity personal lives are irrelevant 99.42% of the time. I'm also trying to be on my best "we have no 5-second delay" behaviour, so ideally we're all mature enough to leave the four-letter words at the door and take the 5 seconds you need to find a far more witty substitute.

International news is a key ingredient of this production, as international media messaging is a reflection of internal political pressures within nations which are in turn reflections of pressures on those nations from the outside, occasionally in the form of US military or espionage. You don't need to know much about history to start picking up on these cues.

Another key ingredient is the talking points of the major parties. Once you know the talking points, you can ignore them and pick out the rest of the message from what's left. The tone of delivery, the urgency of "getting it out", the inability to rationally answer questions from an interviewer. There are many more signs to pick up on, some of which are verbal. As you get used to talking points, you start to be able to see them coming before you read them. Everybody with a press office uses them, even the White House.

Who am I? Gosh, I wish I could tell you in 50 words or less. I have done a lot of things, and I do a lot less than I used to. I've been a writer, a musician, a vegetable-picker, a bean-bagger, a cook, a delivery boy, a dish-washer, an intern, an office boy, a gardener, a construction worker, an accountant, a block-cutter, a lover, a dreamer, a business owner, a defendant, an interrogator, a socialist, a libertarian, a pantheist, an atheist, a pagan, a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a scientist, an engineer, a representative, a protestor, an oppressor, a voice, an ear. I wish I could tell you that I was good at any of them, but I've had mixed success in places.

I have gotten compliments on my writing before, and I've been thinking about starting a blog for a long time. A lot of people continue to share their life stories with me. I know there are things all of us can do to work for a peaceful future in which every person's needs are met. Pretty much every day for the last month has been at least one news story I've read that deserved deconstruction. So the fire under my fanny is now lit, again.

The world today is at war. There are famines, strikes, ethnic cleansing, police actions, fracturous civil wars, tense calms before many brooding storms, espionage, intimidation, murders and house arrest of journalists and politicians, corruption, weapons of mass destruction all around us. We make them with our unconscious money and unconscious thoughts. Today's commercial media are designed to keep the wealth flowing toward the war while keeping our minds in ignorance of the war.

Even the cable news channels and especially talk radio shows are designed for ignorance rather than information. That is why they mock up pharmaceutical advertising to sound like news stories in the newscast. This is why over 50% of commercial newscasts in any nation are fluff. If entire TV networks are dedicated to celebrity news, we get duped into giving up our money to the war machine while we tune out the war.

Consider this blog f1rst and foremost to be about tuning in....