A Skewed Perspective

Murder in Pasco, Washington

Posted on February 14, 2015 by hbreck

Police in Pasco, Washington, executed a man on the street this past Tuesday, February 10^th. I generally don’t like using such inflammatory language, especially given the current climate of relations in urban (and suburban) America between citizens and police forces.

But an execution it was.

35-year-old Antonio Zambrano-Montes, an orchard worker and Mexican national, was confronted by police at an intersection around 5 PM. He was allegedly throwing rocks at cars, and when police arrived on the scene, he started throwing rocks at them, as well. During the confrontation, Mr. Montes continued throwing rocks, even when ordered to stop, and was eventually Tasered. According to police, the Taser had no effect.

It was at this point that the video footage starts. This was occuring at a busy intersection during rush hour, and more than one cell phone camera was trained on the confrontation, recording video. What can be seen on multiple video clips is Montes running across the intersection, with at least three uniformed cops in pursuit. Montes runs alongside a building, turns around with his hands waving, albeit clearly empty, while still moving away from the police. At a distance of maybe 15 feet, multiple shots ring out, and the man falls over. I’m posting a link from Youtube here. It is graphic and does show a man being shot to death. If you don’t want to see it, don’t start the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYzkL0AT_8

The fact that there is video of this slaying should make it easier to bring justice for Montes. Of course, there was video of Eric Garner’s murder. Even that isn’t enough for some prosecutors.

There was absolutely no reason to believe the man was a mortal threat to the armed police. He was obviously unarmed, fleeing, and had clearly ceased throwing rocks. The police had distance on the man, and there were no passerby within any sort of attack range. It’s possible the police “merely” panicked, and didn’t shoot out of aggression and/or anger. But it doesn’t matter. This was murder.

Police in America generally carry sidearms. They frequently have access to shotguns in their vehicles, as well as automatic rifles for certain situations. They also usually carry batons, pepper spray, and electrical weapons such as Tasers. They are trained to use both lethal and non-lethal force. It is largely understood that in certain instances, police may need to fire their guns. And yes, they may have to kill someone. This is not always unreasonable. However, there are many circumstances in which lethal force isn’t necessary, where lives aren’t in danger.

I have worked with police before. I have been in situations where confrontations got physical. I have been in what amounted to fist fights with criminals, while working alongside police. And rarely were guns drawn. Almost always, words were used first. But when words failed, and the suspect was unarmed, the police kept the conflict hand-to-hand. To me, this made sense. The police were trained for that kind of thing. Life must be protected, not threatened. It was always better to grapple, and maybe throw a punch, than to shoot someone.

Many police do their best to avoid pulling their weapons. Most don’t want to take a life. And yet, far too often, events like this occur. Michael Brown was shot last year in Ferguson, Missouri. Eric Garner was choked into a heart attack in New York. In both situations, the police were not convicted of wrongdoing. And yet, something terribly wrong happened. An unarmed man died at the hands of people hired to protect them. And those two incidents were merely the tip of the iceberg.

People being shot to death by police is not something new. It’s actually not something that has gotten worse, statistically. However, 90% of the population now has a high resolution video camera in their pocket at all times, and instant access to the internet. It’s much easier for news of police brutality to spread. It’s easier to shed light on abuse by law enforcement. And that’s a tool we need to take advantage of. We shouldn’t be afraid of police. Cops are supposed to prevent and respond to crime, not carry it out.

This hideous atrocity in Washington is yet one more example of police exceeding the amount of force needed for a given situation. In no way was Montes placing any of the three cops in mortal danger. This has been visually documented by more than one person. He was quickly backing away with empty hands. He was clearly not in his right mind, and going to be a handful, but three on one, with weapons – this was murder. It may not have been malicious. Who knows? An investigation will help. But three armed people with legal authority, shot down an unarmed man in view of dozens, if not hundreds of people. That means something.

This is not going to be a long post with policy prescriptions and suggestions for what to do about the state of American law enforcement. I can’t say for certain if police are too heavily armed, or undertrained, or underpaid, undereducated, or a combination of all of those. I can speculate and pontificate, but many smarter people than myself have been doing that over the last few months. All I want to do now is mention that police in a mid-sized town in Central Washington gunned down Antonio Zambrano-Montes, an unarmed, retreating man. Yes, he had a history of legal issues. Yes, he was definitely causing trouble. Yes, he threw rocks and withstood a Taser shot. And yes, he was still shot when plenty of other options existed. He had a life. Pasco, Washington police ended that life.

Other people will say smarter things about this. At some point, I’ll chime in with my two cents about police tactics in America. But right now, I just want to point out that injustice was done. Again.

Hopefully it leads to positive change. We could use some positive change.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rock-throwing-washington-man-shot-dead-by-police/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/washington-police-shooting_n_6682614.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/bill-maher-slams-cops-who-who-shot-man-running-away-there-is-something-systemic-wrong-here/

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2015/02/city-of-pasco-statement-on-police-shooting/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/video-shows-man-throwing-rocks-gunned-down-by-police-in-hail-of-bullets-while-trying-to-run-away/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/12/1363996/-Pasco-Washington-police-have-killed-more-people-than-police-in-Germany-the-UK-combined#

Posted in Civil Rights, Law Enforcement, Social Justice | Tagged Antonio Montes, civil rights, Eric Garner, excessive force, Ferguson, law enforcement, Michael Brown, Pasco, Police, Social Justice | 1 Comment

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse: Science Denial and Congress

Posted on January 20, 2015 by hbreck

The 2014 midterm elections brought about much change in the United States Congress. The Republican party gained seats in both the House and the Senate, bolstering an already wide majority in the House, while claiming a new majority in the Senate. Reasons for this are myriad, and many people smarter than myself have analyzed the causes ad nauseam.

However, one clear effect of this electoral change is that major Senate committees will be led by Republicans. And that includes committees that will shape Congressional science policy. Throughout the years, the United States Government has helped lead the way in science research and policy. Science, and applications of said science, are vital to not only our understanding of the world, but our survival as well. As we humans rely more and more on technology, we often understand less and less how that technology operates, as well as its effects.

A slight digression: Science actually deals less in “facts” than people realize. A theory is not “less true” than a fact. A theory is an explanation, repeatedly tested, that describes observed phenomena. This means evolution and climate change are “just theories.” So is gravity. And germs. However, people died of the plague for centuries before germ theory was discovered. And mutations continued to occur well before Darwin. Human understanding of science isn’t a prerequisite for its existence. Climate change is a bit different, in that data estimating global temperatures has really only existed for 150 years or so (although estimates of global temperatures can be made going back millennia, and even aeons). That data is quite conclusive. The details of which can be found all over the place, in books, papers, and online. But the basic gist is that 97 to 98 percent of scientists that study climate and related topics agree that the Earth is experiencing significant warming, and that the primary reason is humanity. The only reason anybody has to doubt this anymore is if they’re attempting to prop up a political position.

And that segues nicely to the point of this post. With the new Congress, several key committees are changing leadership. Unfortunately for not just science, but human progress in general, these posts are going to be run by individuals who outright deny science.

Just one week ago, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was named chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. This means, that among other things, Ted Cruz is going to oversee NASA. Now, as far anyone can tell, he should not prove to be a major impediment toward NASA’s primary mission of space exploration. While not emphatic in his support, he has been quoted saying things that should generally comfort supporters of the space program. However, NASA does quite a bit more than launch probes and man the International Space Station. They contribute more than almost any other organization to the study of climate change. NASA has done quite a bit to advance our understanding of global warming. It helps to be the ones who launch most of the satellites.

Problem is, Senator Cruz doesn’t believe global warming exists. In an interview last year, he was quoted, “The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that- that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.”

Senator Cruz is wrong about this. Dead wrong. Hard to say if it’s political pandering, plain ignorance, being a corporate shill, or most likely a combination of the three. But a man who claims that climate change has paused since 1999 is guilty of a dangerous lie. And when he oversees the organization that studies climate change… well, this is pretty scary. Ted Cruz wants Americans to believe that all is well, the Earth is not warming, and if it is, humans aren’t to blame. When pressed about these beliefs, he throws out the tired canard “I’m not a scientist.” No, Ted, you’re not. Maybe you should leave science policy to those who understand how important it is.

Ted Cruz being in charge of the NASA budget is bad enough. But wait, there’s more! Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is going to chair the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, which itself oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA, like NASA, is also incredibly important to the advancement of climate science and policy. And like Ted Cruz and NASA, the new chairman watching over NOAA opposes that part of NOAA’s mission. Rubio also believes that climate change is not a serious threat. In May of last year, he stated, “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” Senator Rubio is not just a climate change denier, however. He also has admitted that he’s unsure that Earth isn’t 6000 years old. When pressed to explain himself, he hemmed and hawed and eventually weaseled out with the “I’m not a scientist” line. Obviously he’s not. But one doesn’t need to be a scientist to know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If he is going to be responsible for much of American science policy, that’s the type of basic information he should know. Marco Rubio, by the way, has received more than a quarter million dollars from the oil and gas industry since 2009, including $32,200 from Koch industries. Clearly his campaigns have been well-rewarded for his willingness to pander to industry and further endanger the future of humanity.

Marco Rubio may be worse than Ted Cruz, when it comes to risking the advance of science. However, there’s another prominent Republican who is even more of a threat. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma is now the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. For those who don’t know much about the new chairman, here’s a quick primer of some of Senator Inhofe’s statements and positions regarding science, particularly global warming:

· In 2003 he stated, “It’s also important to question whether global warming is even a problem for human existence. Thus far no one has seriously demonstrated any scientific proof that increased global temperatures would lead to the catastrophes predicted by alarmists. In fact, it appears that just the opposite is true: that increases in global temperatures may have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives.”

· Inhofe quoted Genesis 8:22 to refute climate change in 2012. Essentially, God wouldn’t let humans damage his creation.

· In 2012, he wrote a book titled, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.”

· He compared an international group of climate scientists to a “Soviet-style trial.”

· He frequently uses scare tactics to warn of impending economic doom should any there be any restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions: “Climate alarmists see an opportunity here to tax the American people,” and “Kyoto and Kyoto-like policies developed here in this body, would cause the greatest harm to the poorest among us.”

· Like Ted Cruz, Inhofe repeated the claim that global warming has stalled for the last 15 years.

So, to summarize, Inhofe doubts global warming is even occurring, but then will argue that it’s actually good if it does. And we shouldn’t worry, because God will protect us. It means so much to him to prevent action on climate change, that he wrote a book on the topic, and warms of economic catastrophe.

James Inhofe, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz are three of the most powerful and influential members of the United States government, and are all able to influence how the United States takes on the challenges of climate change. But they’re not alone. The new Republican Congress includes 131 Representatives (that’s 53% of their House caucus) and 38 Senators (70%!) that have publicly denied the existence of human-caused climate change.

Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois claims “political correctness took over climate science.”

Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, who appears to be Michele Bachmann’s successor for the title of Most Belligerently Stupid Senator (alternative award – Least Likely to Think Before Speaking), has stated that she just doesn’t know either way.

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina simply stated “No,” when asked during a primary debate if climate change was a fact.

And on and on and on…

An excellent ThinkProgress article from January 8 noted that the non-climate deniers in the Senate accepted less than 25% of the per-person donations than the climate deniers, from the coal, oil, and gas industries. In the House, the rational members accepted just 29% of the total funds accepted by the anti-science contingent. This is not a coincidence. Beyond vote pandering, and occasional fundamentalist religious beliefs, the biggest reason why American legislators deny science is because their corporate buyers have paid them to do so. The fossil fuel industry has deep pockets, and is fearful of changes that will bring about its eventual downfall.

This is serious stuff. The Earth is warming. Humans are a major (if not the major) reason for this. Our reliance on fossil fuels, the American obsession with cars, and factory meat production all directly (and indirectly) impact rising global temperatures. A warmer planet means problems for humanity. Stronger storms, harsher droughts, greater extremes in local weather, and of course, rising sea levels. Many of the world’s great cities and a great deal of industry and commerce is based along the shores of the oceans. That type of infrastructure isn’t easy to simply pick up and move. Rising oceans will risk all of these things.

We have the knowledge and the ability to arrest the pace of global warming, if we get moving on it now. Incremental measures aren’t going to cut it. The problem is, those who have the greatest ability to enact policy are the ones who are opposed to it. Greed and ignorance have gripped the United States Congress, and for at least two more years, science policy is going to be largely dictated by the industries that are the cause of our warming planet.

Science isn’t just a hobby for geeks. Science is also more than mere theory and research. Science allows us to understand the world and our impact on it. Science helps us to understand that the Earth is warming rapidly. Science helps us understand that humanity is the primary culprit, and that this is, you know, a bad thing. If the United States government – an institution with the wealth and power to lead the world on almost any issue – is unwilling to utilize the tools of science to combat climate change, then we as a species are going to have a hard time over the next few decades.

For those who care about the future of their only home: Pay attention to the news. Keep an eye on what Congress is doing. Write to your Congressperson. Talk to others. Help to fight the corrupting influence of corporate money in government. And keep educating yourselves and others. Complacency is the enemy here. The stakes are too high to allow ignorant, corrupt ideologues to continue to muck up the world.

Some good information can be found in the following links:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/13/3610709/ted-cruz-marco-rubio-climate-research/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/16/global_warming_new_study_shows_pause_doesn_t_exist.html

http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/updates/dirtydenier-day-3-senator-marco-rubio.html/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/11/19/florida_senator_marco_rubio_the_age_of_the_earth_is_a_great_mystery.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/11/atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_levels_at_all_time_high_for_past_several_million.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/01/13/nasa_trouble_science_denier_ted_cruz_will_oversee_senate_committee_for_oversight.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/08/3608427/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120134/climate-change-denier-james-inhofe-lead-environment-committee

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?s=30

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/our-terrifying-new-congress-meet-5-tea-party-extremists-taking-office-month

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

Posted in Governance, Politics, Science | Tagged awful people, bad policy, climate change, Congress, environment, EPA, global warming, government, greed, ignorance, NASA, NOAA, Republican, republicans, science | 4 Comments

Elected yet Unelectable – Michael Grimm

Posted on December 26, 2014 by hbreck

Michael Grimm

Currently starting his 3rd term in the 11th New York Congressional District

Michael Grimm is a relative newcomer to the national political scene, having been elected to public office for the first time in 2010. As of this writing in late December 2014, Grimm had recently been re-elected to the United States House of Representatives for his third term. Thanks to his relatively short time in the public sphere, Grimm’s dossier is thinner than some of the others profiled in this feature, but he’s made up for a lack of quantity with quality… of a sort. Also, his misdeeds have led to what appears to be a looming resignation, possibly within the next few days.

Let’s get started with the basics… born in 1970, Grimm was raised in Queens to a mostly Italian-American family. He served in the Marine Corps from 1989 to 1991 in active duty, and then as a reservist until 1997. He served in Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield and apparently acquitted himself well. He then worked for the FBI as a clerk for a few years, then was eventually accepted to the FBI Academy in 1995. He became a special agent, and eventually an undercover agent, working to infiltrate organized crime families and disrupt money laundering among stock brokers on Wall Street.

It was during his time with the FBI that his first red flag appears. In 1999, the 29 year old Grimm found himself at a nightclub in Queens. He had an altercation with the estranged husband of a woman he was with, that eventually led to Grimm leaving and returning with a gun. According to multiple eyewitnesses, Grimm spent quite a while screaming and ranting, while repeatedly threatening to kill the estranged husband. He was said to have at one point yelled for all white people in the club to leave, while demanding other patrons to get up against the wall. Grimm repeatedly told everyone nearby that he was an FBI agent, while brandishing his gun and threatening the husband. The entire episode lasted through the evening and into the early morning, and eventually required intervention by moonlighting NYPD officers at the club. The FBI defended Grimm, refused to interview the off-duty police officers, and essentially buried the incident.

After a decade in the Bureau, Grimm resigned, citing stress and long hours. He bounced around the investment and banking world for a year, then founded a restaurant in 2006, a health food establishment called Healthalicious. He also served as CEO of a Texas based biofuel company called Austin Refuel Transport.

In 2010, Grimm decided to run for the US House, representing Staten Island, the only Republican-leaning part of New York City. He received endorsements from Rudy Guiliani and the New York State Conservative Party. He won narrowly over incumbent Michael McMahon in a big Republican year.

He won re-election slighty wider in 2012, and this past fall won by 13% against an immensely incompetent opponent, despite his own mounting legal issues.

So, other than being a hothead 15 years ago, what makes Grimm so unelectable? Abusing his status as a federal cop and threatening a man with a gun is bad, but this was a long time ago.

It turns out that his business dealings in the late 2000s and his campaign in 2010 were not exactly aboveboard.

In August 2012, the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York began an investigation of the financing of his 2010 House campaign. A House Ethics Committee inquiry started a few months later, but was deferred temporarily.

By 2014, the investigation began to pay off. Diana Durand, a friend of Grimm’s from Houston, was found to have contributed more than $10,000 illegally to his 2010 campaign, through the use of straw donors. She eventually plead guilty to the charge. Grimm himself denied having any knowledge of the situation.

In addition, the investigation ended up resulting in the arrest of another friend of Grimm’s, one Ofer Biton, an Israeli citizen who helped with fund raising in 2010. He was caught committing visa fraud.

Around that point, the investigation branched out from mere campaign financing to an in-depth exploration of Grimm’s business dealings. It was discovered that he underreported earnings from his restaurant Healthalicious by more than $900,000 over a four year period. In April 2014, he was formerly indicted on 20 separate charges, including filing false tax returns based on his underreported income, hiring undocumented workers, paying workers under the table, and perjury. Grimm initially denied the bulk of the charges, but eventually plead guilty to withholding his extra income and filing false taxes, as well as a count of perjury.

From an investigation of a few grand worth of excess campaign donations, the validity of Grimm’s entire business career started to unravel. Meanwhile, he showed his class in other areas.

The old hothead in Grimm emerged in January 2014, immediately following the President’s State of the Union address. Michael Scotto, a reporter for NY1, met with Grimm on the balcony of the House rotunda for a quick interview. Toward the end of the interview, Scotto asked Grimm about the then-ongoing investigation into his campaign finance violations. Grimm refused to talk about the issue and started to walk away. Scotto turned to the camera, stating, “Congressman Michael Grimm does not want to talk about some of the allegations concerning his campaign finances … but as you saw he refused to talk about that.”

Hearing this, Grimm stormed back, leaning over the smaller Scotto. With the camera still rolling, they began a very revealing exchange.

Grimm: “Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I’ll throw you off this fucking balcony!”

Scotto: “Why, why, I just wanted to ask you?”

Grimm: “If you ever do that to me again…”

Scotto: “Why, why, it’s a valid question?”

Grimm: “No, no, you’re not man enough, you’re not man enough. I’ll break you in half. Like a boy.”

Yep. A member of the United States House of Representatives, serving more than 720,000 American citizens, threatened to throw a reporter off a balcony on television. While being asked about his own political and personal corruption. Amazingly enough, Grimm initially refused to apologize, and did his best to justify his behavior, although the next day he did release a formal statement of apology.

According to NY1’s political director, Grimm also erupted at Errol Louis – another NY1 reporter – back in 2012, and demanded to “take it outside.” Essentially, Grimm challenged a reporter to street fight.

So, November rolled around, and Grimm had been charged with 20 counts of various illegal business dealings, as well as being filmed physically threatening a reporter, and two different people had been charged with crimes related to his campaign financing. Surely this is proof that he’s completely unfit to serve in Washington. Well, not according to the citizens of Staten Island, who re-elected Grimm by more than 13,000 votes in a projected toss-up district.

As of this writing on December 26, Grimm had just 3 days ago formally plead guilty to tax evasion and officially admitted to illegal hiring and perjury. However, he’s also putting his own party in a difficult spot, as he as refused to resign, and plans on continuing to serve in Congress.

More than likely, he will eventually be formerly censured, and faces up to 30 months in prison. Nobody has ever served a full term from a jail cell before, and he probably won’t be the first, but his current refusal to step down is going to complicate the situation.

Grimm has shown himself to be quick to anger, and is willing to threaten other people’s lives. He has admitted to fraud and corruption, on the order of at least a million dollars. Despite his relative youth, Michael Grimm is most definitely unelectable.

For further information on Michael Grimm, here are a multitude of good resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grimm_%28politician%29

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/congressman-grimm-and-the-night-club

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/04/congressman-michael-grimm-at-the-caribbean-tropics.html

http://www.ny1.com/content/politics/ny1_political_itch/202681/ny1-itch–a-grimm-tale-of-disunion-in-washington

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/grimm-to-plead-guilty-in-healthalicious-case-376159299864

http://m.fbi.gov/#http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2014/united-states-congressman-michael-grimm-pleads-guilty-to-causing-the-filing-of-a-false-and-fraudulent-tax-return

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/12/22/ny-rep-michael-grimm-to-plead-guilty-to-1m-tax-fraud/

Rep. Michael Grimm’s Challenger Weighs In: “A Shameful Abuse of Power”

Republican Congressman Michael Grimm Threatens to Break Reporter in Half

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-michael-grimm-plead-guilty-tax-evasion

http://motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/paul-lepage-michael-grimm-might-actually-win

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-had-the-worst-week-in-washington-rep-michael-grimm-r-ny/2014/05/02/4ce2bcc4-d170-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt/entry/michael-grimm

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/michael-grimm-to-plead-guilty-to-charges-376272963645

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/michael-grimm-113758.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/23/politics/should-grimm-resign/index.html?hpt=po_c2

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/diana-durand-sentenced-for-making-illegal-campaign-contributions-to-michael-grimm-1.9216943

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-rep-michael-grimm-threatens-reporter-asked-fundraising-allegations-article-1.1594857

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547887/Rep-Michael-Grimm-caught-camera-threatening-TV-reporter-asking-campaign-finance-probe-State-Union.html

Posted in Elected yet unelectable, Governance, Law Enforcement, Media, Politics, Series | Tagged anger, campaign finance, corruption, Elected yet unelectable, FBI, fraud, Healthalicious, indictment, Michael Grimm, Mike Scotto, New York, perjury, Republican Party, republicans, Staten Island, threats, violence | Leave a comment

Fun with fake news!

Posted on December 22, 2014 by hbreck

Misinformation and social media

For more than a decade now, the internet has been the fastest and most efficient way to acquire news and information. And within the internet, social media is often the fastest way to disseminate this information. Depending on one’s social circles, one person can spread information to thousands (or more!) of people in just minutes. There’s actually quite a bit of power here, the power to shape the views of others.

Of course, people are busy. They see headlines pop up in their newsfeed, and frequently that’s all they see. Many won’t actually read a full article, or do more than skim it. But even those quick flashes of information make an impact.

We live in a world where information of all sorts is plentiful. It’s easy to know what’s going on the world. We can find news slanted to our personal biases, we can find news that makes an attempt at impartiality, we can find news that bends itself into banality in order to appear objective (cough, CNN, cough). And this is all great. But it’s also fraught with peril. It’s often difficult to discern what’s real and what isn’t. Because we have the power to share information and spread the word of important (and not so important) events, we have a responsibility to spreading facts and truth.

I’m sure people reading this may scoff. “Pssh… why should I have to worry about facts? I’m not a journalist! Who cares who reads what?” If that’s your attitude, then this isn’t for you. You probably don’t care how accurate information is. The thing is, what we spread around to others does have real world consequences. The whole vaccine/autism “debate” is a great example of this. Some third rate celebrity tells everyone within earshot that she thinks vaccines cause autism. She references some pseudoscientific “studies,” does talk show rounds and magazine interviews, gets profiled repeatedly online, and eventually people start to believe it. They start spreading the misinformation around, and eventually we get… increased rates of the diseases that modern vaccines had all but wiped out. That’s just one example.

For the record, I am not blaming Jenny McCarthy specifically for the uptick in measles and rubella, but the effects of vaccine “truthers” have become very real, and celebrities with wide audiences who jump on the anti-vaccine bandwagon aren’t helping matters.

Education doesn’t end after college. We should always be looking for new information. Learning is important, both for the common good, and for personal growth. After a certain point, many people become stuck in their opinions. Anything that shakes their worldview tends to be dismissed or even ignored. This breeds laziness, which leads to misinformation. The internet is a great tool for learning. Much knowledge can be gleaned from its depths. However, it’s also a great tool for the lazy and gullible. And the lazy and gullible tend to spread their information around, both to the lazy and non-lazy alike. A quick Google search can find lots of good information. Make it too quick, however, and you get news sites that aren’t really news sites.

Almost every day on my own Facebook feed, I see a repost from Empire News, The National Report or the Daily Currant. Usually it’s a well-meaning friend who wants to tell everyone about the latest travesty from Washington, or some outrage that supports whatever social and/or political belief they have. But it’s not just individuals that spread false information around the world. Political commentary sites like Drudge and Breitbart have been guilty of jumping on clickbait and joke articles. Several state-run news organizations, including from Iran and China, have been mocked for missing the satire of sites like the Onion. Misinformation affects everyone, and makes our collective news IQs drop.

However, there’s hope! There are multiple tools for combating the spread of online misinformation. Perhaps the easiest step is just knowing what sites are not actual news sites. Some go to great lengths to appear real, some make it fairly clear that they are indeed satire, but all of them are responsible for people becoming dumber about the world around them. I have put together a handy guide for keeping track of some of the worst offenders.

For starters, there’s the Onion, the granddaddy of online news satire. The thing with the Onion is that (with the occasional amusing high-profile exception) most people understand that it’s satire. It also happens to be (generally) very good satire, which makes a difference. Usually when the Onion is reposted, it’s by someone who gets the joke… although this is not always the case.

Clickhole is a spin-off of the Onion, and is intended to be a parody of clickbait sites like Buzzfeed and Upworthy. However, it’s almost too good, and has, in the last year or so, been used by the gullible to spread bad information.

The Daily Currant is one of the most commonly re-posted sites. While they do advertise themselves as a satirical site, it’s also set up just like a tabloid news site, and has a very serious, even humorless style which makes it closer to FoxNews, um, I mean, The Weekly World News, than to the Onion. Satire usually includes jokes, or at least a wink or two to the reader. The Daily Currant generally refuses to do this. It usually posts articles that read as ideological wish-fulfillment, often with a rightward slant. It’s probably why you’ve seen your argumentative uncle posting headlines like, “Obama Pledges $700 Billion Bailout of VA,” which manages to be both mean-spirited and incredibly untrue.

National Report is in the same vein as The Daily Currant, with a tabloid-like setup, and articles with titles like, “Michelle Obama Claims Upcoming Interview With ‘OUT’ Magazine Will “Shock The World,” and Facebook To Be Shutdown For A Full Week To Perform Standard Maintenance. A significant percentage of the online misinformation spread this past summer about Ebola was thanks to several widespread posts from this site.

The News Nerd is geared toward racially charged headlines and sometimes just downright racist commentary. Most of the articles appear to be clickbait for those interested in confirming deep-seated racial biases. Also, it’s full of ads. So many ads, that the content is almost unreadable. Actually, even without the ads, the content is basically unreadable.

Empire News and Empire Sports News are similar to the Currant and Report, though tend even less to satire and more to just hoaxes.

Mediamass is primarily a celebrity gossip site, though, of course, completely fake.

NahaDaily, Huzlers, Demyx, and News-Hound (currently calling itself “Mogul”), are fairly run-of-the-mill sites of this ilk, though each are a bit less-readable and more awkwardly-formatted than some of the others.

Christwire.org is fairly self-explanatory – a send-up of conservative Christian commentary, with some of the most outrageous content among the listed sites. The founder admits that he’s trying to fool people into believing what he posts in an attempt to ridicule some of the more extreme beliefs of the fringe right.

There are others, many listed in the links posted at the bottom of this page. Fake news sites like the above tend to be more about generating ad revenue as quickly and cheaply as possible then actually providing entertainment and humor the way the Onion (usually) does.

Other then recognizing what websites are known to post fake news, the only real way to fight the spread of online stupidity is through effort and awareness. I know, that’s no fun. Nobody wants their interneting to be hard. Thing is, it doesn’t have to be. The tools to fact-check are fast and readily-available.

To start off, here are a few pro tips: If it seems ridiculous – even if it comforts and confirms ideological beliefs – it likely is fake. Or, more succinctly put – if it sounds too good to be true, then it is.

If the headline is attention-grabbing to the point of parody, ie: clickbait, it is wise to remain skeptical.

If the article can only be found via political commentary/opinion sites (regardless of ideological slant), but not on mainstream news or even alternative news sites, then there’s a good chance it’s a hoax. Not saying the mainstream media hasn’t run with a bad story, or that there aren’t major flaws with much of the big corporate-owned pages, but fact-checking tends to be much better with the bigger sites.

A Google search can be instructive just from a numerical standpoint. If a search for a story yields only a few obvious hits, then it’s either incredibly new, or, much more likely lacks credibility.

Sources matter. The more sources listed in an article, the better chance it has of being truthful. Even just from a statistical standpoint, the more sources, the better.

Remember Snopes! It’s one of the best and oldest fact-checking websites. If you’re unsure of a topic, check http://www.snopes.com. It’s a huge site with an enormous variety of topics, all debunking – and sometimes confirming – myths, lies, urban legends, and other propoganda.

Beyond Snopes, there are other good options for gleaning the truth.

Wikipedia has its flaws, including the disadvantages of being open to public alteration, but few websites can match the depth of the site. Actually, probably none can. And, it is also very good about providing sources and links, and tends toward very solid fact-checking.

FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both are focused on the political realm, especially American politics. Both are non-partisan and generally quite fair.

The Fact Checker is also politically-themed, and is run by the Washington Post.

TruthOrFiction.com is more of a Snopes-style page, and specializes in online rumors and myths

HoaxSlayer.com is also in the same vein as Snopes and TruthorFiction.

Finally, Google or even other search engines (there are other search engines?) can provide most of what one needs for discovering the differences between fact and fiction. Calm and thorough searching with a discerning eye is all one generally needs to uncovering the truth.

The main reasons why people tend to fall for internet hoaxes are laziness and the need to have one’s beliefs comfirmed. People like to have their opinions validated by an “authority.” It’s comforting to hear someone knowledgeable say, “You’re absolutely right to feel the way you do.”

The thing is, the truth is often uncomfortable. It muddies the waters rather than providing an easy answer. But nuance and brevity usually don’t mix. This is where laziness and ideological comfort tend to blend. Many people don’t want to put in the work only to find their deepest-held beliefs are wrong, or at least flawed. But that’s really the key to finding truth online. One must be willing to do some research, and one must also be willing to accept that sometimes facts aren’t comforting. It takes effort, honesty and courage. Come to think of it, the effortlessness and anonymity of the internet frequently acts to suppress effort, honesty and courage.

To those who care about advancing knowledge, consider my tips. To those who don’t, be prepared to be debunked.

In order for me to walk the walk, my sources are listed below. There’s some good stuff to read here.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118013/satire-news-websites-are-cashing-gullible-outraged-readers

http://digiday.com/publishers/fake-news-site-national-report-public-service/

A Handy Rundown of the Internet’s Fake News Sites

http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/22/7028983/fake-news-sites-are-using-facebook-to-spread-ebola-panic

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/Fake-News/tp/A-Guide-to-Fake-News-Websites.htm

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/elections/list-fact-checking-websites

Posted in Entertainment, Humor, Media, Myths and misconceptions, Satire | Tagged breitbart, culture, daily currant, drudge, empirenews, facts, fake news sites, hoaxes, humor, internet, lies, media, media bias, misinformation, myths, national report, satire, slander, tabloid reporting, the onion, thenewsnerd | Leave a comment

Who is killing the Postal Service?

Posted on December 16, 2014 by hbreck

It’s no secret the modern Republican Party’s first overriding principle is that government is the largest problem facing America today. Pretty much all their current philosophy stems from this central tenet. Less government is better. Now this of course, like anything else, is still fraught with caveats. Republicans tend to spend just as much money as Democrats, especially at the state and city levels. It costs money to govern, and no matter how much Republicans will complain about government spending, they too like what spending can bring them, especially in the realm of votes. But the basic creed of the GOP since the 1970s is that governments are inefficient and useless, and they prove that by purposely sabotaging what actually works in government. In recent years, one of their biggest targets has been the Postal Service. And I’m not talking about the band, either. Though I’m sure the Republicans would find things to hate about them, too.

First, let’s go over some history. Hang in there, it won’t take long. The United States Post Office Department was one of the few governmental bodies officially mandated by the Constitution. Throughout the formation of the initial colonies, post offices were formed and disintegrated, but it was always understood how important they were to a functioning society. After the founding of the United States, and its aforementioned Constitution, the Postal Service Act was signed into law by President Washington on February 20, 1792. The Post Office Department was made into a quasi-cabinet department by Andrew Jackson in 1829, then a full cabinet seat in 1872.

For years, the Post Office was one of the bedrock foundations of the US Government, and generally held up as an example of a “good government program.” There were, however, occasional issues. In 1970, after years of declining conditions and low wages, the New York chapter of the postal union started a strike that would eventually encompass most of the country and over 200,000 workers. Eventually, the strike ended without any firings, the 4 postal unions won full collective bargaining rights, and the Postal Reorganization Act was signed by President Nixon. It turned the U.S. Post Office Department into the U.S. Postal Service, an organization structured much more like a corporation. For the most part, the new setup worked. The USPS enjoyed a monopoly over letter service, and generally worked efficiently. The USPS took in no taxpayer funds and still enjoyed annual budget surpluses for years. The USPS was entirely funded by stamps and fees, with the exception of a small amount of advertising costs. Pay improved from the low point in the early ’70s, and the health benefits and wages enjoyed by postal workers made it an ideal career for hundreds of thousands of Americans. So, just to be clear, a large government program that has been fiscally self-sufficient, somewhat independent, and generally well-run. What’s not to like? Well…

So what’s happening now? How could such a successful organization falter so badly in recent years? There are a few reasons why the USPS is seeing a decrease in revenue and deliveries, many of which involve the advent of e-mail and the internet in general. The modern world is eating at the edges, just a bit.

However, even with changes in the way Americans communicate, the USPS should still be showing a profit. They’re not, almost entirely due to a huge knife to the back, courtesy of the GOP (and a few well-meaning but disastrously clueless Democrats). Back in 2006, the Republican Congress, spearheaded by one Darrell Issa of California (whose corruption and general moustache-twirling villainy I’ve discussed before), took it upon themselves to teach the Postal Service some good old-fashioned capitalist responsibility. Or, more accurately, they found enough votes to ram through legislation that would seriously weaken, and eventually cripple, one of the best examples of a successful government organization. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006 required, among many other things, that the USPS fund its retiree health obligations for the next 75 years, and to get that done within 10 years. This amounts to 5.5 billion dollars every year for a decade. And yes, 75 years worth of retiree benefits translates to benefits for people who haven’t even been born yet. No other governmental body, or for that matter, no business, is required to pre-fund benefits for potential retirees 3/4 of a century into the future.

Putting aside funds for pensions is a smart thing to do, and it makes sense to require some sort of interest-gaining lockbox for those type of funds. Actually, at the time, the USPS did have a sizeable budget surplus, and was having no issue meeting obligations for employee pensions.

So Darrell Issa found a way to kneecap the best example of governmental competence, and he did it under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.” And the results have been predictable. For a few years, the USPS managed to cough up the extra 5.5 billion, but by 2011, it had fallen 20 billion in the red… which is close to the amount it was forced to pay into the retiree fund. Meaning, the USPS would still have been financially viable, despite losing ground to UPS and Fed Ex, and despite internet bill pay becoming increasingly prevalent. And even the recession on top of all that was unable to keep the Postal Service from turning a profit. Nope, it took the people who insist that government is just no good to bring it to its knees.

In addition, an error in accounting by the Office of Personnel Management overcharged the USPS for its contributions to the Civil Service Retirement System – by the tune of up to $80 billion. So, forgiving the Post Office either the overpayments into the treasury, or the billions already paid into their future retiree’s health plans – and all of a sudden, crisis averted. It wouldn’t even have to be both. The USPS has been financially hosed twice, and fixing either situation would bring them back into solvency.

The Republicans have been crowing over the perceived failures of the Postal Service, making sure to blame all of the current woes on internal financial mismanagement.

Well, now what? The Postal Service has been forced to close rural offices, cut positions, and has been seriously discussing cutting Saturday letter service. Mail sorting centers may be on the chopping block. Other cuts are going to be necessary, and multiple Republicans have openly called for increased privatization of the mail industry. Essentially, the USPS is being picked apart, thanks to anti-government zealots from within the government. And it’s not just the several hundred thousand employees of the USPS that will suffer. Most Americans rely on mail service of some sort, especially in rural areas. We will all see longer wait times and eventual higher costs. If the GOP gets its way, and completely kills the USPS, expect to see vastly higher mail costs in the future.

The USPS does not need to be saddled with a burden that no other government agency (or business for that matter) has to deal with. Repealing the PAEA would be a great first step. Or at least altering it to reduce the burden on the struggling organization. This is not likely to happen. If the President suggests it, then the likely backlash will be that every Tea Party member in the House will scream that he’s a tyrant and a socialist and probably kicks puppies in his spare time. Then John Boehner will make some comment about “presidential overreach.” Eventually it will drop as an issue and be forgotten. But the problems remain.

In the end, the Republicans, so excited to prove that government doesn’t work, are sabotaging a perfectly serviceable organization in order to prove themselves right. And it’s working.

We don’t have to stand for it. The Postal Service is not a sexy organization. It doesn’t have the hardware of the military, nor does it deal with disasters like FEMA. But it’s one of the oldest, most stable, and most useful government services. And it’s actually mandated by the U.S. Constitution. This is not something we should just give up on. There’s no good reason to kill it. Letting ideologues destroy it for no reason is what we’re doing. Talk about this issue. Write letters (while you still can). Donate to campaigns. Fight to save the United States Postal Service. And, petty as the impulse is, it would be nice to kick a little political sand in Darrell Issa’s face.

What I have written is the briefest of overviews. For more good information on this topic, please consult these fine links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/postal-service-financial-problems_n_1833211.html

http://abc7news.com/archive/9012963/

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/us_postal_service_financial_viability/issue_summary

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/republicans-look-to-destroy-post-office-further/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-frisch/postal-service-cuts_b_961602.html

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/30/postal-service-death-republicans.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/07/nation/la-na-tt-postal-service-20130206

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/22/1084948/-Republicans-manufacture-a-crisis-for-the-Postal-Service-and-too-many-Democrats-go-along#

http://www.alternet.org/story/152451/3_big_lies_at_the_heart_of_republican_attacks_on_the_post_office

http://mic.com/articles/11697/postal-service-bankrupt-republicans-set-usps-on-fire

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/30/postal-service-death-republicans.html

http://www.creators.com/opinion/jim-hightower/the-truth-about-the-u-s-postal-service.html

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/In-The-States/How-Republicans-Crippled-the-United-States-Postal-Service

Posted in Budgets, Economics, Governance, History, Politics | Tagged budget, Congress, Constitution, corruption, Darrell Issa, economics, fiscal responsibility, GOP, government, mail, manufactured crisis, politics, post office, Postal Service, republicans, United States, USPS | 1 Comment

Fun with smog!

Posted on November 20, 2014 by hbreck

In other news, GOP outlaws theories of evolution and gravity. Delusional political party floats around Congress.

This is going to be a long 2 years.

Over the last week, Congressional debate over the fate of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline has dominated the media. It’s an important story, and one that has lingered for years, but at the same time it was discussed and voted on, three more environment-related bills quietly passed the House. Combined, these three bills could conceivably have a greater impact than the Keystone pipeline (had it passed).

The bill that is potentially the most impactful, H.R. 1422 (formally known as the Science Advisory Board Reform Act), is officially a call for “transparency and accountability” within the EPA. It seeks to alter the makeup of the EPA’s official science advisory board. It will allow, for the first time, scientists and “industry experts” who work directly for companies subject to environmental regulation to serve on the advisory board. It also prohibits independent scientists from using the research in their specific field while advising the board.

Currently, of the 51 members of the SAB, three possess expertise and experience within industry. This law seeks to expand that number and allow actual industry scientists to advise on the industry that the EPA seeks to regulate and monitor.

Essentially, the GOP wants the foxes to guard the henhouse. The bill prevents scientists from providing advice in their actual field of work. Which means an expert on water pollution would not be allowed to advise the EPA on water pollution. At the same time, an employee or advisor for a chemical factory that is found polluting that same water will be allowed to advise the EPA on water pollution.

This is ridiculous, even by Republican standards (Republicans have standards?). The Republican-led House has spent many years attacking the EPA (and frequently attacking science in general), but this is one of the most blatant and corrupt attempts to fight against science and reason we’ve seen in quite a while.

What do the Republicans have to say about this? Why do they want to shift the structure of the SAB from independent and knowledgeable scientists to industry shills? Their claim is one of transparency. Republican Representative Michael Burgess of Texas stated that the current board “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” Utah Representative Chris Stewart (R) said, “All we’re asking is that there be some balance to those experts, and that there further be transparency and understanding of who was selected, why they were selected, and why others were excluded. We’re losing valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don’t include them in the process.”

So that’s their reasoning for the bill. Any ulterior motives? Any at all? Well, Representative Stewart has stated in the past that he doubts that humans have impacted climate change, and he has also advocate the elimination of the EPA itself. Nothing fishy there…

So, is this really about transparency? The bill prohibits SAB board members who are actual independent scientists from using and citing their own research because of “potential bias,” while corporate experts (with direct financial stakes in potential regulatory targets) are encouraged to advise the EPA.

Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) said it best: “I get it, you don’t like science. And you don’t like science that interferes with the interests of your corporate clients. But we need science to protect public health and the environment.” Yep. That pretty much sums it up.

But wait, there’s more!

H.R. 1422 is just one of three bills designed to weaken and frustrate the Environmental Protection Agency. Another one, “The Secret Science Reform Act,” (H.R. 4012) is an attempt to further hamstring the EPA. This one (as pointed out by the Union of Concerned Scientists) creates a Catch-22. It requires the EPA to publicly release not only all studies related to a specific piece of regulation (they already do that), but also all raw data associated with each study. On the surface, that doesn’t sound too bad. The problem is that some of that raw data is legally blocked from release already. This raw data would include things like private medical information, industry data, trade secrets, trademarked information, and so on. Much of this information is currently used in research, just not released to the general public. So, raw data fitting the aforementioned description is not allowed to be used at all, since it can’t be publicly released.

What does all of the above mean? In the words of the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Demanding public release of full raw data the agency cannot legally disclose is simply a way to accuse the agency of hiding something when it has nothing to hide.”

Basically, under HR 4012, the EPA would not be allowed to adopt rules and regulations unless the research involved is 100% publicly released, however the vast majority of said rules involves some research with confidential information. Even if only 1% of the raw data is confidential, it would still be required to be released in order for a rule to go into effect. And if that data cannot be legally released… well, then there you have your Catch-22.

This law would prevent the EPA from doing, well, pretty much anything. If the bill could somehow escape the President’s veto (it likely won’t), then the EPA would be toothless. Well, even more than it already was.

Finally, the third bill in this trio of GOP anti-science and anti-reason attacks is a bill that would that would lead to fast-tracking of air permits for new factories and “energy-intensive projects.” Essentially, H.R. 4795 is a way to circumvent provisions in the Clean Air Act. It requires the EPA to publicly disclose how many permits it issues each year, as well as requires frequent reporting of information to Congress on how it can further expedite the permit process. It will allow new or expanding factories and power plants to rush the permit process and avoid complying with Clean Air Act requirements.

These three bills, particularly the first two (both of which have comfortably passed the House), are on the surface, attempts to improve “transparency” within the EPA. However, looking deeper reveals the truth. The Republican Party has long desired to defang, cripple, and eventually dissolve the EPA altogether. For so many Republican Congresspersons, the EPA just gets in the way of business. Climate change is either a fantasy or out of human control, according to these lawmakers, and other issues with pollution and environmental policy are either exaggerated or unimportant. We see this over and over, year after year. If there is government action or a government body available to do some environmental good, then it’s really just a tyrannical attempt to weaken business. There are many elected legislators who have basically stated as much. These are not people who’s minds are going to be easily changed. These are people who are going to try to pass laws like these over and over, until the President gives in or leaves office.

Fortunately, none of these three bills will likely be taken up by the Senate, and should they eventually reach the desk of the President, they will almost certainly be vetoed. They are a sign though, of how the next two years are going to go. Representative government is pretty much always under attack by … well, government representatives. The new Congress will be even more anti-government than the last, and especially anti-Obama. Expect to see two years of obstruction, silly legal maneuvers, and frequent attempts to cripple organizations which seek to watch over the public interest.

Education and awareness are key to combating this. We can’t allow the new Congress to intentionally sabotage the country out of pettiness, greed, and ideological rigidity. Two years can be a long time. But it can also be a long time to prepare for 2016. And that may be a good thing, too.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/18/3593645/house-epa-science-advisory-board-bill/

House passes bill to reform EPA science panel

Another attack on the EPA and public health

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1422

http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress_must_block_these_attacks_on_independent_science_commentary-237993-1.html

http://blog.ucsusa.org/have-two-minutes-call-congress-as-the-house-is-voting-on-whether-to-paralyze-the-epa-732

http://blog.ucsusa.org/who-keeps-an-eye-on-epa-science

http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-secret-science-reform-act-perhaps-we-should-just-call-it-catch-22-417

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_pass_yet_another_underhanded_attack_on_science/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/17/white-house-threatens-to-veto-3-house-gop-epa-bills/

House passes bill to enhance EPA reporting requirements

Posted in Governance, Politics, Science, Technology | Tagged anti-government, Barack Obama, Congress, environment, EPA, extremism, extremists, Federal government, governance, hypocrisy, industry, pollution, regulations, republicans, smog | Leave a comment

Elected yet unelectable – Darrell Issa

Posted on November 9, 2014 by hbreck

Elected yet unelectable

Darrell Issa

Currently starting his 8^th term in the 49^th California Congressional District

Congressman_Darrell_Issa

For my third installment in this series, I’m going to bring up one of my favorite topics regarding the worst elected officials in the United States government – hypocrisy. Ah, yes, in this case, a self-styled “whistleblower” (against that rotten old Barack Obama) happens to be one of the most corrupt and scandal-ridden members of Congress. You may have read about him in recent years, that fun-loving car thief from California, Darrell Issa.

First of all, Issa’s misdeeds start well before any election. Back in the early 70s, young Darrell was a bomb defuser for the US Army, specifically called an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician (EOD). A fine and important profession. Mr. Issa once claimed to provide security detail for then-President Nixon while he attended the World Series. Problem is, while Issa did indeed work at the 1971 World Series, President Nixon wasn’t there. Okay, so he exaggerated, probably to impress friends. Big deal, right? Well, he wasn’t all that nice to his friends, either. One of his Army comrades, Jay Bergey, confronted Issa over his Dodge Charger disappearing. Bergey threatened his fellow soldier, who denied stealing the car, but after the threat, the car turned up the next day.

The next year, after being discharged from the Army, Issa was arrested twice… once for suspicion of stealing a Maserati, and once for being caught with a concealed firearm during a traffic stop. Prosecutors eventually dropped the car theft charge, but he was sentenced to six months probation regarding the weapon.

From there, it seemed he started to clean up his act. He re-enlisted in the Army, this time in the Reserve, became an officer, and generally received excellent reviews. He eventually moved up to Captain. Yet, Darrell apparently still had trouble with cars. In 1980, before his second discharge, his brother William sold his 1976 Mercedes to a car dealer, while impersonating his brother. At the same time, Darrell reported the vehicle stolen. Both men were indicted for grand theft, but they both denied any knowledge of the other’s actions, and during the investigation. Darrell repurchased the car from the same dealer. Eventually, the charges were dropped. However, the very next year, Darrell ran a truck into another car, then fled the scene. The other driver sued him, and they eventually settled out of court.

So, by 1981, Darrell Issa had been in the military twice, lied about working for Richard Nixon, carried a weapon illegally in his car, commited a hit-and-run, and possibly stole (or was an accomplice) three different cars. Busy man. And he was just getting started!

In 1982, he had started a car alarm company called Steal Stopper. The company started off in a rocky fashion, but eventually began to turn a profit. In August 1982, Issa suddenly increased the coverage of the fire insurance policy for his factory by 462%. He also moved out all of the computers that held accounting and client information. Then, 3 weeks later, on September 7^th, the factory burned to the ground. An investigation of the fire led to the discovery of “suspicious burn patterns” as well as evidence of an accelerant used to start the blaze. Nonetheless, the matter was never investigated further, and Issa likely dodged a bullet.

Eventually, the car alarm business made Issa wealthy. Indeed, as of 2014, his net worth is estimated somewhere between 360 and 450 million dollars, making him the wealthiest member of the House of Representatives. You know those Viper car alarms that were so popular in the ’90s, that would speak when someone drifted too close to a car installed with these devices? “WARNING, STEP AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE!” Yeah, that’s what made Issa rich. Yet another reason why he’s an asshole.

“WARNING, THIS VEHICLE OWNER SPENT MORE ON THIS ALARM THAN ON THE ’91 FORD TEMPO IT’S PROTECTING!”

Moving on….

In 1998, he unsuccessfully ran for Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat, losing in the primary. He was able to parlay the name recognition gained from that run to a House seat in California’s 48^th Congressional District, replacing retiring Republican Ron Packard. And that’s where the next part of this story begins. To recap once more, before he was ever elected to public office, indeed, by the time he was just 30 years old, Darrell Issa had likely been involved in three car thefts, a weapons charge, a hit-and-run, and possible arson and insurance fraud. So, the good people of San Diego County had no problem electing a career criminal to represent them in Congress. And that’s where the good stuff starts.

Why is Darrell Issa unfit to make laws in the United States? Other than his criminal history, that is? Well, actually, that should be enough by itself. However, the American electorate can be a forgiving bunch, and much of Issa’s past is not known outside of political experts and some of his own constituents. Since he has been in the United States House of Representatives, Mr. Issa has amusingly taken it upon himself to root out corruption… at least, as long as the corrupt are Democrats.

He has become President Obama’s inquisitor-in-chief, going after the Administration over every single “scandal” – most of which, like the IRS scandal, have been shown to be largely manufactured. And yet, Mr. Issa was, and continues to be one of the Bush Administration’s strongest defenders.

His defense of the conditions at the Guantanamo Bay prison were almost funny, describing the living situation for the prisoners there as being no worse than what occurs in hospitals in the United States. Because apparently forced sleep deprivation, sexual and religious humiliation, prolonged sensory overstimulation, and threats with dogs are all standard treatments in American hospitals. Yeah…

Issa also mounted what he likely thought was a stirring defense for the Blackwater scandal, though he seemed to be confused by whom he was defending. During a hearing over the deaths of 11 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater employees, Issa equated the hearing with an attack on… David Petraeus?

“I think it’s been made incredibly clear by the previous statements on the Democrats side that this is not about Blackwater. […]What we’re hearing today is in fact a repeat of the MoveOn.org attack on General Petraeus’ patriotism.

What we’re seeing is that, except for the 79 members who voted against denouncing MoveOn.org, eight of whom are on the dais here today, what we’re seeing is what they couldn’t do to our men and women in uniform, they’ll simply switch targets.

The bodies were not cold in Iraq before this became a story worth going after here in committee.

I’m not here to defend Blackwater.

But I am here to defend General Petraeus and the men and women in uniform who do their job, who were first denounced by MoveOn.org, then not denounced by members of Congress, many of whom are on the dais today, speaking as though they don’t support attacking every possible way the administration’s war in Iraq.”

So, an inquiry into a massacre of civilians by a civilian military contracting agency was somehow akin to an attack on the then-head of the Army in Iraq. It’s doubtful that even Issa believed what he was saying, but it never hurts to try to distract with bombast and false offense.

A few years later, Issa seemed to forget his affection for Petraeus, and decided that he was just a puppet of the Obama administration while doing his damndest to find the there there in Benghazi.

“David Petraeus said what the administration wanted him to say is the indication. Ambassador Pickering heard what the administration wanted to hear. The only under oath people I know about who have said what happened on the ground that day was, in fact, before our committee just on Wednesday.”

In 6 years, Petraeus goes from unfairly targeted martyr to Obama stooge in the eyes of Issa.

Issa found other interesting ways to be a hypocrite. In 2008, Issa put a great deal of effort into explaining away the destruction of several million emails related to the Bush administration’s Valerie Plame scandal. His awkward (and inaccurate) depictions of the previous administration’s Lotus Notes-derived email software now comes across as amusing at best, since he has been the loudest voice among the Republican chorus beating the dead horse of the IRS non-scandal.

Beyond Darrell Issa’s hypocrisy, his constant drum-beating of non-scandals, and of course, his criminal history, Darrell has a long history of petty words and actions at those who upset him. Some of his vendettas don’t amount to any more than mere words, such as his 15 year feud with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Eric Lichtblau, or blaming his brother for his own likely culpability in his crimes of the 70’s and 80’s. In 2007, his aggressive defense of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance program led to Congressman Jerry Nadler eventually withdrawing true and accurate statements about said surveillance.

Of course, some of his words amount to legitimate pain and suffering, such as his accusations of perjury against Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, his release of a Border Patrol memo that would eventually lead to the unjust firing of US Attorney Carol Lam, and let’s not forget his near constant assault on the Obama administration.

Issa also spent quite a bit of time defending and supporting the Patriot Act, specifically the domestic surveillance aspect, as well as the troubled Guantanamo Bay prison, and as mentioned before, the Blackwater security contractors. He defended the criminal Bush GSA administrator Lurita Doran, invited the disgraced and incredibly corrupt State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard to the 2007 White House Christmas party, and in general, defended almost every Bush Administration policy that he would later accuse Obama of pursuing.

So, why is Darrell Issa unelectable? Is it his long criminal history? Is it his relentless pursuit of personal wealth that likely required considerable fraud? Is it his aggressive, bullying political tactics? Could it be his willingness to slander and threaten others to win political victories? Could it be due to his dishonesty, hypocrisy, or inconsistency? Or how about all of the above? There are plenty of members of Congress with dubious personal lives, unpleasant personalities, and sordid political tactics. And I can’t wait to discuss them, too. However, few have combined all of these characteristics for so long and in such an unapologetic way as Darrell Issa of California.

Here’s to the freshly re-elected Darrell Issa, who managed to win his 8^th term in Congress despite being completely unelectable. And here’s to the voters in California’s 49^th district, who keep voting in this horrific excuse for a human being year after year.

As always, here’s some more information on Darrell Issa, and what makes him tick. Read it if you’re in the mood to raise your blood pressure.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Issa

http://ballotpedia.org/Darrell_Issa

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt/entry/darrell-issa

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/martin-bashir-reminds-viewers-darrell-issas

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/01/11/report-media-ignore-rep-issas-alleged-criminal/174997

http://www.mediaite.com/online/not-so-grand-behind-rep-darrell-issas-three-auto-theft-accusations/

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/05/16/darrell-issas-lies-create-uncomfortable-scrutiny-criminal-background.html

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2014-03-06/darrell-issa-other-side-story

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219172/-Here-s-how-Darrell-Issa-manufactured-the-IRS-scandal#

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/19/1209858/-Welcome-to-the-Darrell-Issa-Hall-of-Shame#

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/dastardly-darrell-issa

Posted in Elected yet unelectable, Governance, Politics | Tagged arson, awful people, Barack Obama, Blackwater, California, car theft, Congress, controversy, corruption, crime, Darrell Issa, Elected yet unelectable, hypocrisy, insurance fraud, IRS scandal, Obamacare, Valerie Plame, Viper Alarms | 1 Comment

A quick Election Day rant

Posted on November 4, 2014 by hbreck

This post was inspired in part by a recent series of online debates I found myself entangled in, as well as others recently observed.

In the theme of this election day, here’s a pro tip for those who consciously start (or engage in) political debate.

When somebody decides they don’t like what you have to say, and disagrees with you, debates you, argues with you, or tells you that you’re an idiot, guess what?

It’s a good thing. Seriously.

As long as they aren’t actually preventing you from speaking or responding – you are not being suppressed. You are not getting shouted down, and the other person’s opinion is not being “shoved down your throat.”

If a reasonable, back-and-forth debate causes you to feel oppressed… then you’re probably doing it wrong. You likely just have a weak argument (or can’t deal with disagreement). Either way, the problem isn’t with the person you’re debating.

Free speech is messy. Free speech means a measure of responsiblity. It’s the responsibility to acknowledge and defend the free speech of others, even when it makes you uncomfortable. Actually, it’s most important when it makes you uncomfortable. It’s so common to hear people claim that one issue or another is being “shoved down their throats.” Really? An idea is being forced on you? Or could it possibly be that you just don’t like the idea and don’t want to argue (or can’t argue) the point?

More than once have I observed (and experienced) somebody picking a fight, only to later claim they were being suppressed/oppressed/picked on/singled out/shouted down/and so on… And why? Because they were challenged on their claims. Apparently, to some, free speech means only free speech for oneself.

Rather than feel like a victim because someone else had the audacity to disagree with you… Listen. Debate. Disagree. Agree. Think. Use your brain. There’s an actual chance you may learn something, and even, *gasp*, change your mind! The horror!

Debate is not only healthy, but it’s absolutely essential. We live in a democratically tinged society (in theory). A successful democracy (or representative democracy, republic, etc) requires disagreement and dissent to function. A complete consensus leads to corruption and intellectual entropy. No matter how good an idea is, thoughtful opposition is vital. Not only does it keep one sharp, it also keeps one honest.

Don’t be afraid to challenge someone. Don’t be afraid to argue for your beliefs. But also understand that you aren’t the only one with valid opinions. Your free speech only has value if everyone else has an equal measure of free speech. And someone else exercising it by disagreeing with you isn’t suppressing you. Quite the opposite. Debate gives your free speech meaning.

Quit bitching and get to the debate. The world of government, economics, politics… it’s all too important not to discuss.

And go vote!

Posted in Politics, Quick post | 2 Comments

Progress vs perception

Posted on September 30, 2014 by hbreck

This is just a quick observation, not a full post. Reading Facebook posts today, I observed more than one person complaining about the state of crime in America and “all the crazies out there these days.” This type of discussion is a bit irritating, knowing how simplistic that view is.

I’ve noted this before, but it bears repeating. Crime (violent and property), death by war, death by disease, infant mortality, and a general tolerance for cruelty have steadily dropped pretty much every decade since the Renaissance. Other than the occasional obvious upticks (1940’s come to mind), per capita death and destruction has greatly improved through the years. In every objective measure, humanity is becoming more humane. This trend has been observed by multiple historians and social scientists.

So why do most people I talk to think the opposite? Why does it feel to so many that humanity is backsliding? I see Facebook posts from people freaking out about a single crime (not realizing that it’s notable because it’s rare) and talking about wanting to buy a gun, or move away, or decrying the state of the world, and so on. Why is it that life is getting measurably better, and yet so many feel the opposite?

Certainly, cruelty and misery do exist, and we have yet to actually resolve the problems of war, hatred, and bigotry. Conflicts pop up on both national and international scales, seemingly weekly.

Clearly the speed and responsiveness (if not always accuracy) of the modern media play a role. We see events as they happen, in multiple formats, compared to just a decade ago, or a few decades ago. Going back even further, before the advent of the telegraph, news of major world events may not reach other nations for days or weeks. Our interconnected global community is a factor.

It can’t be only media, though. There must be other reasons why a sizeable percentage of the most powerful nation on Earth believes that the world is collapsing into oblivion.

In the American context, that perception of widespread crime and misery can actually become self-fulfilling. Modern American gun culture has long and complex origins, but much of the current popularity of private firearms ownership is directly related to fear of crime. However, American firearms ownership (and increasingly lax regulation) is possibly the biggest reason for America’s comparatively high murder rates. While murder rates have dropped in the last couple decades, Americans still kill each other (and usually with guns) far, far more than other wealthy democracies. The persistent gun culture deserves much of the blame. Now, I don’t want to turn this into an anti-gun treatise, and I do have a much longer gun-related post in the works. That will turn into a big debate soon enough. There’s quite a bit more to discuss regarding American gun culture and firearms policy. However, I can’t help but note some of the correlations between American fear of violence, and the perpetuation of said violence.

Beyond the near-instantaneous media, and certain cultural pockets that perpetuate the negative perception of the state of humanity, there must be another cause for our pessimism. Is there something ingrained in us to assume the worst? Could the long history of violence and misery that has punctuated civilization have caused humanity to reflexively see the world in a negative light? Perhaps our brains have evolved toward feelings of general pessimism.

For those who do believe the worst, and who assume that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, I recommend some good reading (and one listen).

Atrocitology by Matthew White, is a fun, comprehensive, and somewhat morbid look back at the worst atrocities (wars, famines, etc) in human history, with a general theme of refuting the notion that the world is a deadlier place in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse, by Gregg Easterbrook, is a more recent look at (mostly American) history, and how trends in the quality of life are moving in a positive direction. It analyzes how better lives aren’t improving happiness.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, by Steven Pinker, is perhaps the best book of the three. It argues, using comprehensive data,that we currently live in the most peaceful time in human history, and the likely trend is for a continuation of this improvement.

Finally, here is a recent podcast from Cracked.com containing an excellent conversation that discussed, among many things, why people often struggle to believe certain statistics, including why crime rates are down across the country, despite our fears to the contrary.

http://www.cracked.com/podcast/9-statistics-that-prove-youre-wrong-about-everything/

I would argue that it does little good to assume the worst, but the books and podcast listed above explain why better than I do.

Posted in History, Myths and misconceptions, Quick post | Tagged allegory, cattle, crime, progress, Steven Pinker, violence, war | 2 Comments

Who deserves $15 per hour?

Posted on September 25, 2014 by hbreck

“Okay, rant – For those fast food employees striking for $15 an hour, let’s do some math. At $15 an hour Johnny Fry-Boy would make $31,200 annually. An E1 (Private) in the military makes $18,378. An E5 (Sergeant) with 8 years of service only makes $35,067 annually. So you’re telling me, Sally McBurgerflipper, that you deserve as much as those kids getting shot at, deploying for months in hostile environments, and putting their collective asses on the line every day protecting your unskilled butt!? Here’s the deal, Baconator, you are working in a job designed for a kid in high school who is learning how to work and earning enough for gas, and hanging out with their equally goofy high school pals. If you have chosen this as your life long profession, you have failed. If you don’t want minimum wage don’t have minimum skills.”

This little “rant” has been making its way around social media sites in the last few days. I happened across it, having been shared on Facebook by two different friends of mine. On the surface, the flaws in this little bit of online trolling are obvious. Well, they should be obvious to most, but it’s clearly something that has quite a few people nodding their heads in agreement. However, this type of thinking is not only ignorant, it’s also harmful. Americans already have a strange relationship with low-wage workers, even among the low-wage workers themselves. There is a peculiar culture among middle and upper class folks, involving opinions on what the poorer people in society “deserve.” Assistance for the working poor, or even just acknowledgement of their hardships, is often deemed tantamount to socialism.

What I posted above is a post going around social media this past week (I procured it from Facebook, but it may not have originated there), which has been copied and shared ad nauseam. It references recent protests across the country by fast-food employees, who have argued that they deserve to make a living wage, and that minimum and near-minimum wage is not sufficient or fair to those diligently working 40 plus hours a week. These protests have garnered both significant support and derision.

So, I’m going to waste more time than I probably should looking over this stupid “rant” and explain why it’s wrong. Yeah, I know, I should more carefully pick my battles. But, people smart enough to know better are falling for this stuff.

First of all, this makes some pretty big assumptions. For one, right off the bat, the rant takes the same defensive tactic I’ve seen many people post before. They’re taking someone else’s attempt at improving their quality of life as an attack. Basically, $15 an hour is more than low-ranking soldiers make, and fast-food workers “deserve” to make less than our fearless soldiers. I’ve seen the same argument made using paramedics (and other first-responders) as the example. The weakness with this argument is a pretty glaring one. It assumes that striking fast-food workers are demanding to make more than any specific group of people.

This is, of course, completely untrue. What the fast-food workers are arguing for is a living wage. They have argued, and I will now argue again, that what they request should not reflect on other occupations. With an increased minimum wage, all jobs should (and usually do) see a gain in overall pay. Fast-food workers aren’t arguing for their pay to be lifted over other jobs. They want the tide to rise and lift all boats. Absolutely, paramedics and soldiers (among others) have difficult jobs. Few people would doubt that they deserved to be paid well for doing often dangerous work. But fast-food workers simply aren’t comparing themselves to first responders and military personnel. It’s an apples and oranges comparison.

What the striking fast food workers are really arguing for (even when they don’t always put it this way) is an increase to the minimum wage. The United States has one of the lowest minimum wages among wealthy nations, generally several dollars an hour (translating to thousands of dollars a year) less than that of the nations of Western Europe, for example.

There are individual cities and states within the US that have increased their local minimum wage well beyond that of the federal minimum. In every case, they found the increase had a positive effect on the economy. Unemployment has actually decreased, contrary to conservative doomsayers’ predictions. Matching a minimum wage to inflation – and keeping that amount above the poverty line – has impressive positive effects on the overall state of the economy, as well as reducing overall poverty rates.

Beyond the economic upside of enforcing a universal living wage, and of course, the incorrect assumptions of what the striking fast-food workers are actually requesting, there is something else really wrong with the above rant.

It gets the very nature of the job wrong. In the modern US service economy, fast-food jobs are no longer merely for teenagers. In order to make a living of any sort, many adults, often with plenty of higher education, have been forced to find more menial work. A solid majority of the current American fast-food industry is manned by workers past college age. These are people who often have previously held higher-paying jobs. For millions of American workers, the Great Recession forced them out of the workforce. In order to do little things like eat, and maintain shelter, many took whatever jobs they could get. This often meant fast-food. And these hard-working Americans were still often forced to apply for food stamps and other assistance. Minimum wage, even at 40 plus hours a week, simply isn’t enough for most adult Americans to get by. Many have children, or older relatives to feed, clothe, and house.

The days of fast-food being the sole province of the young and the voluntarily-employed, have been over for a while now. “Good jobs” aren’t always easy to find. And the longer that people, even qualified people, are out of the market for those jobs, the harder it is to actually land one. Employers often look at unemployment periods more than they do legitimate qualifications.

To counter the idiotic “rant” that set off my rant – No, very few people have chosen fast-food as a career. They decided that working is preferable to not working, and found what they could. But that has been woefully inadequate for even mere survival, much less the ability to thrive and prosper.

It is a sign of an advanced and civilized society that those in good financial shape acknowledge the existence of those who aren’t. We all pay taxes, we all contribute, or at least are supposed to contribute. Contributing to the common good brings up everybody. It is not a restriction of individual freedoms to understand that some communal action is necessary to maintain a functional and healthy society. The individual matters. So does the common good. Neither needs to be sacrificed for the other. We are a nation of 315 million, living in an interconnected world of 7 billion. There are no islands anymore.

America prospers when Americans prosper. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 hours per week, they should not have to struggle. They should not require food stamps just so their children eat. The real point that the above rant missed, isn’t that people earning the minimum wage deserve more or less than “higher-skilled” workers. It’s that the minimum wage itself is insufficient. Maybe $15 an hour is too high. Maybe not. It’s a good point to start from, as a negotiating tactic. Perhaps this would eventually lead to an $11 or $12 per hour minimum wage. That would still be a huge improvement. Maybe McDonald’s would need to add 40 cents to a Big Mac… maybe Dollar Menus would become 2 Dollar Menus… Maybe Wal-Mart would set prices closer to that of say, Target.

This is a small price to pay for wealthier, healthier, happier, and more secure people. Almost every large corporate employer of large numbers of minimum wage workers can absorb a 20, 50, to even 90 percent bump in the average wages of their employees. Corporate profits have been that good in recent years. Investing in those who make the company run is a smart move, from a corporate perspective. But this involves long-term thinking, which Corporate America is notoriously pathetic at. At this point, it is needed. The minimum wage has been set too low for too long. Until the federal government finally gets on board (Looking at you, Congress), the states and cities will have to pick up the slack. And I will fully support these places and make sure that cities like Seattle and San Francisco are praised as actually understanding the needs of the American worker and the American economy.

As to whomever actually wrote the above post, and to those who nod their heads in agreement – understand that life for those at the bottom is quite a bit more complex than you believe. And understand that those at the bottom are the ones that hold up everyone else. Strengthening them strengthens us all.

As a postscript to this little “rant,” I wish to recommend a book to anybody who doubts the need for an increased minimum wage. Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich. This book opened my eyes to the individual plights of those who work full-time, but still barely survive. There are all sorts of people at the bottom rung of the American workforce. Actually meeting them, and learning who they are as people, might go a ways toward helping those like the above “ranter” change their mind on what type of pay is “deserved.”

A little empathy would do wonders for America.

Finally, here are some links explaining exactly what’s going on with the fast-food protesters:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/19/protesting-for-worthy-causes-can-compromise-future-employment

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/15/dignity-4

Posted in Economics, Social Justice | Tagged capitalism, competition, economics, employment, living wage, minimum wage, Social Justice | 2 Comments

	Kamala Harris For Pr… on The Stakes
	Kamala Harris For Pr… on Sticks and Stones
	Kamala Harris For Pr… on A Scary Time for Young Me…
	Kamala Harris For Pr… on Acting Guilty
	Kamala Harris For Pr… on Political Hostages in Tex…

A Skewed Perspective

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse: Science Denial and Congress

Elected yet Unelectable – Michael Grimm

Fun with fake news!

Who is killing the Postal Service?

Fun with smog!

Elected yet unelectable – Darrell Issa

A quick Election Day rant

Progress vs perception

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta