Issue 126 Ethics of the Press July 23, 2013

You have probably noticed that most news programs and print media side with one side of politics or another. These so called reporters can no longer be considered as reporters due to their biases. Thankfully some have the moral aptitude to call them selves’ reporters to ensure that people know that they are giving opinion based on fact, not 100% fact with their own personal analysis. But what standards must a reporter follow to be truly ethical in reporting of fact. Let's review below.

They must be Historians: Yes that is correct, they must act like historians. They must collect information, put it into a time line of events, and then serve it up to the public. A reporter does not alter the facts of the information they collected, they just regurgitate it for their readers. Un-edited data is essential for people to have facts and then form their own opinions of the subject matter, whether it is health care to a murder trial.

Opinion is separate: Opinions of such reporters are allowed, but they are not commentators. When a reporter gives opinion it is only given with key words such as "I think that....", "from my perspective...." etc to show that it is separate. Others provide that opinion in the opinion column of the news paper or segment of a news report. Commentators on the other hand give opinion throughout an article or show which distinguishes them from reporters.

They don't give up sources: A reporter’s source is their life blood. Sources are people who provide information (inside information) about what goes on in a government, a group, a religious organization or anything in between. If the source is found, that person may suffer prosecution, expulsion or in some places death, thus at all costs a reporter keeps their source secret.

They don't hold back: When it comes to asking questions, a reporter does not hold back. They ask the hard questions to find the answers that they seek. If the person they are questioning does not answer the question, they ask it in several different ways to try and pry the answer from the person they are asking questions of. Sometimes they will ask the same question in a different way just to look for inconsistencies in the answer, as they cannot just accept a strait answer from the person.

They are respectful: A reporter, even when they are ambushing some one for an interview is respectful. They do not run up to a person and start berating them with questions, as they introduce themselves first and the news program they are representing. From there the interview begins (some times unwillingly) with questions asked in a polite and respectful tone. If the question is personal, then it is explained so as to not elicit a negative response that the reporter does not mean any offense when asking the question and it may be repeated several times for emphasis. Then the question is asked while providing context as much as possible without jeopardizing the reporters or the news paper/news outlet they represent, especially as they may want to have additional interviews with their subject.

Subjects may run away: While a reporter may give chase, the person being interviewed may end the interview at any time they wish. It is up to the reporter to decide if they should press their luck or not in an interview and if they can get away with a few more questions (even if those questions are uncomfortable).

Conclusion: As you know, I am a commentator on my blog. I give opinion based on fact and sometimes the analysis and opinion of others to see a situation from as many angles as possible. My particular blog is modeled after the Drudge report where information is taken from as many places as possible to show what I think is important or interesting. So I am not a reporter, especially as I am reliant on other media like "The Economist" or "Fox News" for information. From there I judge the information being given and check to see if that source/information is worth including whilst risking my reputation of giving opinion based on those facts. Ethics are essential to being a trusted name, as without ethics what good am I as a news source.

Issue 125 Sequester Idiots July 22, 2013

Well, the sequester has begun to hurt people in the United States. However, not in the way people might think, and all of it done in the name of politics. Let's have at it.

The Cuts: Rather than cut excessive spending and overlapping programs, the government has cut the pay of the members of the National Guard. They took an entire day off their weekly work schedule which amounts to at least a $1,000 pay cut. Mean while the Pentagon has failed every audit it has ever had. But instead of cutting bad programs, they give furlough to Pentagon workers. Some of these workers play crucial rolls in the national defense, but instead of cutting party budgets, they cut them.

Excessive spending: We have already heard of parties being thrown by the office of management and budget, but have you heard what other agencies have done. The IRS makes mini movies that could have been made in someone’s basement for a few hundred dollars, but they spend over $50,000. A Pentagon conference hires a party planner that cost $75,000 to hire. Over the course of 10 years, the IRS alone has spent almost 2 billion. They have knockoffs of Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, while others have line dancing classes and expensive clowns. Thousands down the drain that could be better spent on cracking down on tax cheats, investigating terrorists, or even just fixing broken programs.

Cuts to come: Listen well, there are more obnoxious cuts coming down the line and they will not be pretty. Some agencies may purposely delay payments like social security, and others may shut down loved programs like Tours of the White House (which by the way does not cost a single penny, because they are done by volunteers). The reason is because these departments and agencies want this all to hurt. They want to be seen as victims by the American people so that the sequester can be stopped and they can continue getting their pork budgets. Do not feel sorry for the government bureaucracy as they are in fact evolving into an all powerful blob with more power and control than Congress and the President put together. Why is that so? This is due Congress and the President differing to the government workers to write the more detailed aspects of laws (regulations). As these government agencies have so much control, they can purposely make a regulation that is terrible to make both the Congress and the President look bad politically and ruin their political careers. In other words, the so called "G-men" now have control.

Conclusion: Our government is de-evolving into a false republic slowly but surely. This is due to politicians not wanting to take responsibility for their own failings and thus the "G-men" becoming much more powerful each and every day. If you think about it, the IRS did not go after the Tea Party Groups because of politics (they did not even need that motivation), but because the Tea Party wants smaller government and that means getting rid of parts of the government bureaucracy. They are anti thesis to each other as the government wants to expand exponentially. But here is your motivation to make government smaller, bigger government equals more taxes, and even if you try passing it all onto the so called rich, they are going to tax you too, or at the very least make it so costly to live in the United States everyone will become a member of the working poor.

Issue 124 Legal Corruption: Voting 2 July 19, 2013

Many of you are familiar with the concept of an absentee ballot. It allows someone to vote in an election despite that person not being able to vote on the day of an election. You fill out a form, sometimes a few months in advance, and then submit your vote. One problem, this is another form of legal corruption.

Why it is corruption?: The reason that absentee ballots are a form of corruption is based on how and when they can be submitted. With them being sent in so early it becomes easy to add additional absentee ballots later on, because they can be submitted up to a certain day. This means, based on an absentee ballot count, these public officials have in fact calculated the outcome of an election and thus know the winner and the loser. As such they have additional absentee ballots ready and waiting to be filled out to give a boost to their losing candidate. Also, some absentee ballots are conveniently "found" in "storage rooms" which are later used to pervert the integrity of the vote. In essence, the entire concept of a democratic election fails due to corruption.

Immoral votes: Absentee ballots are also in a sense immoral. They have a person vote prior to hearing out both candidates. People really don't know who a candidate truly is until right before the day of election, so how can they make truly informed vote weeks prior. While some places may let people change their absentee ballot vote, the hurdles to do so and the possibility that their previous vote may suddenly reappear for their original vote are always in play.

What should be done: Only one solution can eliminate this problem that has plagued U.S. elections since the absentee ballot was first invented. The solution is to eliminate the absentee ballot altogether. Some of you may be saying that I am denying a persons right to vote based on this solution. However, a person who chooses not to be around to vote on the day of an election has voluntarily given up their right to vote in that election. I am not denying anything, for they are denying the privilege of voting to themselves. It must be understood that elections are unto themselves a privilege to participate in, and that absentee ballots are a human invention that were actually designed to sway an election in the first place. Basically they where designed to boost a candidates chances of winning by letting voters vote as early as possible especially when they cannot show up on the day of an election (as intended). But they still violate the integrity of the vote, irrespective of the corruption involved. So by getting rid of this modern flaw in the system of elections we restore at least some integrity to the electoral system.

Conclusion: We as Americans have always claimed the moral high ground, but we ourselves at the political level have become hypocrites. With the system as corrupt as it is, we cannot afford our elections to become rigged any further than they already have. The vote should be on a single day and only that day per year. All votes are counted thoroughly to prevent any chances of error. Once counted it should be as simple as announcing the winner. But in today's politics, it is far from simple. So we have to get back to that simplicity that affords integrity, with the winner of an election winning on merit, not some absentee ballots conveniently found in a back room.

Issue 123 Legal Corruption: Voting July 18, 2013

There is a form of legal corruption that prevents turn out on election days. We are not talking about Presidential elections, but all other elections that occur in the United States.

How they do it: What happens is that they have an election or a vote on a day other than a general election. So say there is a school budget vote, but they want to prevent turnout so the budget passes. Thus, they hold it separate from all other elections and votes that may be going on. In other words, if there is a sanitation budget vote and a vote for a seat in the local legislature, each will be held on a different day so as to prevent high voter turnout.

Why small numbers equal victory: It's simple really, only those motivated to vote will show up. People who want to vote or want their candidate or budget to pass will come and vote to ensure victory. Meanwhile everyone else is busy with their lives trying to make a living. These same people may not even know that a school budget vote is going on because they don't have kids, but will know about the local legislatures vote and show up to vote for that one. If they were held on the same day, then the person would have a chance to vote on that issue, but they are not. Thus, the people never actually have a chance to exercise their freedom of choice in certain votes due to them being uninformed.

Current elections: In the United States, the highest voter turn out is during a Presidential election. You can expect almost everyone to come out and vote on that day (the first Tuesday in November). However, the political primaries prior to it are almost anemic. Only a few people (at least from my experience) bother showing up to vote in the primaries which decides who the candidates for President or other political office will be. I tend to think of that as a problem as the people who win the primaries end up being one of the two possible winners in an election, including that of the President of the United States. I find it hard to fathom how my fellow Americans do not see such a vote as important (though I can't vote in any primary in New York State for I do not belong to any political party). Ladies and gentleman of the world, the United States has a problem.

A solution?!: What needs to happen is that these votes need to happen on certain days in the year that is both convenient and has all of the votes together. This means school budget votes, elections for sanitation commissioners, and even Presidential votes should happen on the same day. It would actually need a constitutional amendment, but the vote for a President should be moved to the second Saturday in November as Saturday is more convenient for the voting populace to come and vote. All votes, with the exception of primary and special elections would happen on this one day each and every year. This will insure the highest turn out possible for an election or vote.

As to primary and special elections, they should be held as late as possible to ensure candidates are vetted by debates and such. So my recommendation is that such an election or vote should occur on the last Saturday in July. Why the last Saturday of July? Simple, if all the primaries are held on the same day more people will come out to vote. I have worked as a poll inspector on two occasions in primaries, one for Republicans and Democrats during the contest between Obama and Romney and the other a primary for Independents. 21 people showed up for the Republican and Democrat primary, while only 3 showed up for the Independents primary. Special elections may garner more, but I have yet to work one myself, but I was paid $180 to work from 6 am to 10 pm to sit and do almost nothing all day. Holding them together, or in some cases in combination with special budget votes or even general budget votes and elections will increase turnout and actually make those elections count for something other than a select group of ideologues.

Conclusion: We need a change (unfortunately) in our election system. Many Americans just don't want to find time to vote as they either can't get off work, or are too tired to even bother. America has lost the idea of how valuable a vote is. Sure when working as a poll inspector I was working a small section of the voting establishment, but the numbers that come out each year on how many people come to vote is frightful in my opinion with less than 75% coming out to vote. Should it not be 100% as every vote affects us financially let alone our general lively hood? Increasing turnout can help to solve this issue, but more change is required. Can we fix the system and make things right?

Issue 122 Election Sabotage July 17, 2013

With the current Supreme Court ruling on the Voting rights act (see Issue 120 for details and reaction) I thought it best to show what some of the voting rights act seeks to protect against and punish. Let's begin.

Grand Father Clauses: This is an old method of abuse that requires a person to show proof that their grand father was a lawful citizen. However, many people especially Black Americans could not prove that because for a long time, their grandparents were slaves, and thus were not considered citizens. Such tests were also used to prevent immigrants and certain groups of whites along with people of other races colors and creeds from voting. It was a control mechanism to ensure only the interests of the residents of a particular area are represented.

Rigged voting: In this case, the people who are counting the votes add or subtract votes to insure that their candidate wins an election. It is mostly seen in totalitarian States like Iran today, but still does happen in America on occasion in certain voting districts (done by both Republicans and Democrats).

Moving the time and place: A time tested and proven way to manipulate the vote, the times and places for an election are purposely only given to one side while the other side is given the wrong information. Just by moving the polling place or giving the wrong day can obviously affect turnout of an election and guarantee a victory for the candidate.

Literacy Tests: A simple method of preventing people from voting, the test aims to use the basic English language (in the case of the U.S.) to make it almost impossible to pass for people with less than a high school education. This prevents the poor, and people who lack any form of proper education like immigrants from being able to vote.

Intimidation: The easiest form of voter manipulation is intimidation. Back in the late 60s Whites, Blacks and others were threatened that if their candidate did not win that they would be lynched. Similar happens today with threats of violence being the most easily seen. However, if the intimidation is coming from government such as with the recent IRS scandal targeting Tea Party, Libertarian and Pro-Israel groups, then it is harder to stop.

Conclusion: These are simple ploys used by both people and government to manipulate voting to ensure the success of their candidate’s victory. From there it is really up to the government to actually enforce the law.

Issue 121 voter ID's July 16, 2013

Is it racist to ask for an ID at the Voting booth? Is it racist to ask someone to actually have an ID to vote at all? Well some think so. So let’s go over why.

The Corruption Crowd: One group that is against voter ID's are people who want to ensure certain people and groups can vote multiple times for the same candidate. They also want it so people who are not citizens of this country can vote for their candidate as well. The Corruption crowd manipulates voters and twists messages to make their candidate appear better than they really are and gives favors toward the non-citizens in the candidates name. While the candidate may not have anything to do with this, these non-citizens are being pushed and in some cases paid off to vote for that candidate. Groups and individuals like this are, from my perspective, go against any law requiring people to learn English for it makes it easier to manipulate a person when they do not speak the native language. Also, preventing voter ID's allows some individuals to vote more than once, or even pose as Adolf Hitler or Mickey Mouse to vote for their candidate of choice. It is also why some dead people seem to come back from the dead to vote on occasion.

The One world Crowd: This group does not believe in national boarders. For them, living in a country for a set period of time means you automatically become a citizen and thus should be allowed to vote. A group like this is an amalgam of libertarians who want open boarders, and people who want a world government. The members may not always agree, but they want the right to vote to go undaunted no matter where someone lives.

Anti-Totalitarian group: Anti-Totalitarians fear a fascist or even a marxist regime. Any perception of a police officer asking for your papers to identify yourself reeks of abuse by government to them. So they oppose any form of national identification that they fear will lead to any form of police state. Just for reference, this group is bi-partisan as people on both sides see it in this manner.

Is it racist crowd: The final group sees any need to present an ID at a voting booth as racist. They remember the days when blacks and people of other races, colors and creeds where not permitted to vote based on law. So any infringement that could prevent their voting is seen as a possible injustice. However, this is all based on if the group or groups are singled out so as to prevent them from being able to obtain an ID, which in turn prevents them from voting.

Conclusion: As I am sure you will all agree, the corruption crowd and the one world crowd cause problems for the rest of us as they allow for the corruption of the vote. Mean while the anti-totalitarian group and the "is it racist crowd" must be assured that it will not come to a police state or a return to the days of fear. A national ID is a good idea that can be used to aid everyone depending on how it is used and what functions are added to the card itself. But most of all, it prevents a lot of corruption. As such I am in favor of the card so long as it is given to everyone at no cost to prevent racism and that it is only asked for when your identity needs to be known, not when the government demands.

Issue 120 Voting Rights Act July 15, 2013

Did you know that the Supreme Court overturned Section 8 of the Voting Rights act? The voting rights act was put together to protect all Americans from abuses with respect to being denied their right to vote. So any change or perceived change is going to be met with fear. But what exactly did the Supreme Court do to change the law. Read on to find out.

What is Section 8: Section 8 deals with States and territories of the United States that have traditionally been abusive toward black voters in the United States. These States include Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Alaska, etc, along with some specific counties in certain States. Section 8 contained a formula which determined if such places would be subject to federal jurisdiction when they wanted to change their voting laws. In short, these places needed to ask the federal government if they could change any laws with regards to voting, with the federal government deciding when it will no longer be required to administrate over these States and counties.

What happened: Just recently the Supreme Court ruled that the current version of Section 8 was invalid. It was a decision made in a 5 to 4 vote with the swing vote belonging to Justice Kennedy siding with the conservative faction of the Supreme Court. Therefore under court order the States no longer have to abide by Section 8's standards. This makes every State in the entire U.S. equal with respect to autonomy to making and enforcing their own voting laws. However, there is a catch. The Court also said that the Congress must update the formula in Section 8 to meet with the current treatment of racial and ethnic minorities of the current century. As such the Supreme Court rather than legislate from the bench told in an off handed way that congress if they feel a need to, can update and change Section 8. So Section 8 is still there on the books, but cannot be enforced in its current form.

What’s ahead: It is highly possible that Congress will update section 8, but I personally doubt that Republicans will allow it to happen under President Obama's watch. They, I feel, don't want any law that can potentially have the Democrats being able to control the laws on voting in traditionally Republican leaning areas of the country. So Republicans may wait and see who is President by the next election.

As to the issue of possible racism at the voting booth. This also seems like a very unlikely scenario. Our country has thankfully evolved from a nation of hypocrites and bigots to a more tolerant nation (though that is so long as we as human beings keep finding new targets to character assassination). So the possibility that black Americans and other people of different colors other than white will feel any form of voter manipulation or intimidation by government is from my perspective very unlikely.

Conclusion: We now enter a game of wait and see. Will congress update the law? Are the last vestiges of racial discrimination in the voting booth going to rear its ugly head? Only time will tell. Though I think we are going to be just fine without Section 8.