A lead editorial in the June 4, 2007 edition of the The Daily Oklahoman, Oklahoma's largest newspaper, noted that Richard Winger, Ballot Access News Editor, has done for ballot law what the Wall Street Journal has done for tort reform. Commenting on the rebuff by the Oklahoma Supreme Court of a 2004 lawsuit by the Libertarian Party, the Oklahoman said,"The Libertarians lawsuit is anything but frivolous. Having the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation is no badge of honor,...."
Libertarians, the Greens and the Constitution Party have all formed a coalition to gain redress from the Oklahoma Legislature without success. The incumbent parties coalition is as just as unified against competition as the challenging coalition is unified for it. One way or another the voters will have make the final adjudication since, the Legislature and the Courts have both failed.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Dysfunctional Ballots, Dysfunctional Congress, Dysfunctional Government.
Entry for June 03, 2007
Can the ballot box be restored to full functionality?
While it is intellectually legitimate to question the use of ballots to resolve questions of public choice, that is not my concern here. I begin for the sake of this discussion by accepting the premise that balloting is authorized, embodies and is presupposed by the U.S. Constitution. In contrast. the Declaration of Independence was never put a vote of the general public. It is a revolutionary document.
The Articles of Confederation were not put a vote of the general public, but adopted by the revolutionary legislative elites. The Constitution was bitterly contested and was voted upon by a large number of adult males after the Revolution was won and a mini-state apparatus had been installed..
The idea of a Constitution is now an embedded tradition in our social-political culture. Voting is just as embedded. What is not embedded or even widely understood among voters is what balloting is supposed to accomplish under our Constitution. I surmise that most people who regard themselves are legally eligible to vote believe that balloting is primarily making a choice between which of two parties' candidates to trust. Each voter brings a more or less coherent configuration of policy preferences to the ballot and makes a "hiring decision" on which applicant best advances their value preferences. Once the results of all the voters "hiring decisions" are announced, the voter believes they are honor bound to accept the result until the next round of "hiring decisions" rolls around.
Some voters may be aware more less acutely that the "hiring decision" place before them on the ballot has already been screened by existing employees - the parties already "hired". So the union of incumbent politicians pre-select candidates for the campaign interviews before any hiring decision can be made by the voters.
The incumbents union uses a variety of barriers to entry to pre-configure the ballot in their favor. Most voters have an idea what a gerrymander is. They may not know all the subtleties of how it gets engineered by the incumbents union. Most voters today know that access to the interview process of campaigning as a candidate with access to the ballot is more or less some kind of licensing process which restricts the voters' choices. Fewer voters have any inkling of how the number of hiring slots is manipulated by the incumbents union to keep employee turnover to a minimum. These are only a few of the ways balloting has become more of a ritual than a hiring decision. A large number of voters now know the process is rigged and that rigging has led to gross employee negligence and malfeasance and criminality. In large measure, the entrenched parties - the incumbents union - is directly responsible and are beginning to be held responsible by voters who are formally abandoning the union to declare themselves Independents. The barriers to exiting the incumbents union are low for voters. The barriers to entry into any other affiliation of non-incumbents are very high for the reasons just cited. But more people are willing to exit.
This means that pressures for entry can also build. The Union knows what's up. They have a strategy for putting such pressure into a cul-de-sac. It is a Trojan horse candidacy for President. The union simply sets up a sham alternative and drives the "exiteers "into a blind alley. It was done with Ross Perot and it is being prepared for this election with Unity '08. It's not important which wing of the Union prevails in any given election because their power in the Congress and the Judiciary guarantees that they cannot lose effective control of the government. The whole point of the Trojan horse campaign is to assure that the Union has all bases covered. Even if the Trojan candidate wins, they remain in control because they are insiders too. Surrogate Presidents are nothing new in American politics.
For this tried and proven strategy to work for the Union it must be coupled with election regulations that cripple any legitimate anti-incumbent candidates. These safeguards have been carefully legislated and adjudicated and remain in place no matter what kind of revolt occurs at the ballot box.
What is especially intriguing about this upcoming cycle is that the voters may be getting just a little ahead in knowing how to evade the snares that have been laid for them. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
What happens if the voters start to look down the ballot from the Presidential charade at the candidates who do not have Trojan horses to shield them? Hmmmm. More about that later.
Fortunately, jurists do read election results and follow campaigns. Why wouldn't they? Their fortunes are tied to the Union also. When a fresh breeze begins to blow, their's is a judicial tendency to hunker down and see where the fallout lands. Here in Oklahoma the recent unanimous decision by the State Supreme Court to refuse to examine the Libertarian Party's ballot access case from 2004 may also indicate Union heat not to rock the boat with a gale on the horizon. It was an easy decision to reach for the Court because the plausibility of ballot access barriers is difficult to justify with any respectable legal jargon. Oklahoma's is the least justifiable in the entire nation. Well, that's the kind of dirty work that the Union occasionally requires of its members.
Events in this election cycle may given some justification to other members of the Union to exit from their oppressive working conditions. After 2008, the Courts, for example, may suddenly recover a sense of independence and wisdom in the original meaning of the words in the First Amendment. Free speech and freedom of private political association may well become legally relevant again. It all depends on the unintended consequences of the Union's efforts to cover their flanks.
After this impending fiasco, we may be able to move toward restoring the ballot box to full functionality.
Can the ballot box be restored to full functionality?
While it is intellectually legitimate to question the use of ballots to resolve questions of public choice, that is not my concern here. I begin for the sake of this discussion by accepting the premise that balloting is authorized, embodies and is presupposed by the U.S. Constitution. In contrast. the Declaration of Independence was never put a vote of the general public. It is a revolutionary document.
The Articles of Confederation were not put a vote of the general public, but adopted by the revolutionary legislative elites. The Constitution was bitterly contested and was voted upon by a large number of adult males after the Revolution was won and a mini-state apparatus had been installed..
The idea of a Constitution is now an embedded tradition in our social-political culture. Voting is just as embedded. What is not embedded or even widely understood among voters is what balloting is supposed to accomplish under our Constitution. I surmise that most people who regard themselves are legally eligible to vote believe that balloting is primarily making a choice between which of two parties' candidates to trust. Each voter brings a more or less coherent configuration of policy preferences to the ballot and makes a "hiring decision" on which applicant best advances their value preferences. Once the results of all the voters "hiring decisions" are announced, the voter believes they are honor bound to accept the result until the next round of "hiring decisions" rolls around.
Some voters may be aware more less acutely that the "hiring decision" place before them on the ballot has already been screened by existing employees - the parties already "hired". So the union of incumbent politicians pre-select candidates for the campaign interviews before any hiring decision can be made by the voters.
The incumbents union uses a variety of barriers to entry to pre-configure the ballot in their favor. Most voters have an idea what a gerrymander is. They may not know all the subtleties of how it gets engineered by the incumbents union. Most voters today know that access to the interview process of campaigning as a candidate with access to the ballot is more or less some kind of licensing process which restricts the voters' choices. Fewer voters have any inkling of how the number of hiring slots is manipulated by the incumbents union to keep employee turnover to a minimum. These are only a few of the ways balloting has become more of a ritual than a hiring decision. A large number of voters now know the process is rigged and that rigging has led to gross employee negligence and malfeasance and criminality. In large measure, the entrenched parties - the incumbents union - is directly responsible and are beginning to be held responsible by voters who are formally abandoning the union to declare themselves Independents. The barriers to exiting the incumbents union are low for voters. The barriers to entry into any other affiliation of non-incumbents are very high for the reasons just cited. But more people are willing to exit.
This means that pressures for entry can also build. The Union knows what's up. They have a strategy for putting such pressure into a cul-de-sac. It is a Trojan horse candidacy for President. The union simply sets up a sham alternative and drives the "exiteers "into a blind alley. It was done with Ross Perot and it is being prepared for this election with Unity '08. It's not important which wing of the Union prevails in any given election because their power in the Congress and the Judiciary guarantees that they cannot lose effective control of the government. The whole point of the Trojan horse campaign is to assure that the Union has all bases covered. Even if the Trojan candidate wins, they remain in control because they are insiders too. Surrogate Presidents are nothing new in American politics.
For this tried and proven strategy to work for the Union it must be coupled with election regulations that cripple any legitimate anti-incumbent candidates. These safeguards have been carefully legislated and adjudicated and remain in place no matter what kind of revolt occurs at the ballot box.
What is especially intriguing about this upcoming cycle is that the voters may be getting just a little ahead in knowing how to evade the snares that have been laid for them. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
What happens if the voters start to look down the ballot from the Presidential charade at the candidates who do not have Trojan horses to shield them? Hmmmm. More about that later.
Fortunately, jurists do read election results and follow campaigns. Why wouldn't they? Their fortunes are tied to the Union also. When a fresh breeze begins to blow, their's is a judicial tendency to hunker down and see where the fallout lands. Here in Oklahoma the recent unanimous decision by the State Supreme Court to refuse to examine the Libertarian Party's ballot access case from 2004 may also indicate Union heat not to rock the boat with a gale on the horizon. It was an easy decision to reach for the Court because the plausibility of ballot access barriers is difficult to justify with any respectable legal jargon. Oklahoma's is the least justifiable in the entire nation. Well, that's the kind of dirty work that the Union occasionally requires of its members.
Events in this election cycle may given some justification to other members of the Union to exit from their oppressive working conditions. After 2008, the Courts, for example, may suddenly recover a sense of independence and wisdom in the original meaning of the words in the First Amendment. Free speech and freedom of private political association may well become legally relevant again. It all depends on the unintended consequences of the Union's efforts to cover their flanks.
After this impending fiasco, we may be able to move toward restoring the ballot box to full functionality.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
The Deeper Agenda II
We have identified five widely supported schools, factions or doctrinaires who attempt to inculcate judicial rules for deciding disputes involving the political relations between (1) individuals acting the capacities of voters, (2) individuals acting in concert as political party organizations and candidates, (3) individuals acting as elites with some means of influence beyond that of a voter, e.g. campaign financiers, media managers, (4) individuals acting as non-governmental organization spokespersons (NGO lobbyists), (5) individuals acting as the ballot casting electorate, and (6) individuals acting as the government at all levels.
With at least five dimensions for explanation and at least six categories of actors it would appear that understanding might be an undertaking of major complexity. However, there are obvious common factors which offer some possibilities for simplification. Everything has to do with individuals. All the political functions are performed by individuals claiming some authority to act politically in one or more specialized roles.
(0) At the minimal level is the unspecialized potential voter. This person has some claim to a right to vote which others recognize as legitimate. The unspecialized potential voter may or may not exercise the right which they reserve the right to claim at any election. This pool of the unspecialized potential voters is a reservoir of latent influence or power. They are non-rational actors. Not much can be said about the political influence of this group in the calculations of all others. We omit them from our formal list of political actors.
(1) The next level of specialized individuals are those who fully intend to vote and engage in some level of information searching activity to reach a voting decision. They may or may not vote, but if they do or do not, they can be characterized as rational actors regardless of whether an observer agrees with that person's reasoning process. This group has a bullseye on their foreheads. They are the principal target of all other specialized individuals.
(2) The next level of specialized individuals are those who are called activists. Typically they are habitual voters. These individuals often integrate information into a form which they can articulate in an attempt to influence others at this same level, a higher level or a previous 'lower' level. If they have a potential reach of influence which is wide enough, we may consider them as a member of an elite - they have influence beyond there own vote. This 'elite' may range from a person who can reach the minds of their extended family, co-workers, others in some social organization or they may be professional media pundits with a national following. Often candidates emerge or are recruited from this group.
(3) The next specialized level of individuals are amateur, semi-professionals or professionals who work primarily though a political party or quasi-party organization. They are vendors of skills required by candidates seeking election. They may also be campaign financiers or managers of media organizations. These individuals often function as brokers for access to commercial conduits for political 'speech'. They are recognizably an elite. Because of their limited numbers the votes of this group have a marginal effect on elections.
(4) A closely related specialized level to the previous one are individuals acting as spokesperson for 'non-partisan' non-governmental organizations. These individuals support and oppose 'policies' rather than candidates, e.g., churches, citizen lobbies, etc. These political actors are also an 'elite'. Their power is based on their apparent persuasive influence, not on their voting numbers.
(5) Oddly as it may seem, the next higher specialized set of individuals are those persons who actually voted in an election. They are not persons who may or may not vote. They are persons who actually did vote. They are the electorate. All the lower levels must measure their success or failure by the decisions of this group. The relationship between this group and all the others is the lynch pin of any analysis of a constitutional democratic republic.
(6a) The last level of specialized individuals is obvious. Individuals in government all act in a political capacity. They are their positions either because they were elected or admitted to government by those who were elected. This category includes professional and career government employees. They owe their status and livelihood to elected officials. Candidates for the most important elective offices frequently are selected from this caste.
(6b) A special subcategory in this class are judicial officers who are exempt from most other limitations on government employment. One might say this group is the cream of the elites. They are powerful to the extend that all lower levels of political specialists appeal to them to resolve policy disputes and their decisions are accepted. As individuals their power is reputational only. They rely on the political power of all the subordinate elements to execute their will. To defy a Supreme Court decision is equivalent to declaring oneself in insurrection against the entire state apparatus and possibly accused of heresy against humanity.
This briefly describes the functional categories of individuals in the American political system. Each of the five (or other) explanatory or justifying analyses of American politics must deal with at least these six major categories of individuals. I will focus much of my discussion on category 6b.
I hope to continue in the not to distant future...
With at least five dimensions for explanation and at least six categories of actors it would appear that understanding might be an undertaking of major complexity. However, there are obvious common factors which offer some possibilities for simplification. Everything has to do with individuals. All the political functions are performed by individuals claiming some authority to act politically in one or more specialized roles.
(0) At the minimal level is the unspecialized potential voter. This person has some claim to a right to vote which others recognize as legitimate. The unspecialized potential voter may or may not exercise the right which they reserve the right to claim at any election. This pool of the unspecialized potential voters is a reservoir of latent influence or power. They are non-rational actors. Not much can be said about the political influence of this group in the calculations of all others. We omit them from our formal list of political actors.
(1) The next level of specialized individuals are those who fully intend to vote and engage in some level of information searching activity to reach a voting decision. They may or may not vote, but if they do or do not, they can be characterized as rational actors regardless of whether an observer agrees with that person's reasoning process. This group has a bullseye on their foreheads. They are the principal target of all other specialized individuals.
(2) The next level of specialized individuals are those who are called activists. Typically they are habitual voters. These individuals often integrate information into a form which they can articulate in an attempt to influence others at this same level, a higher level or a previous 'lower' level. If they have a potential reach of influence which is wide enough, we may consider them as a member of an elite - they have influence beyond there own vote. This 'elite' may range from a person who can reach the minds of their extended family, co-workers, others in some social organization or they may be professional media pundits with a national following. Often candidates emerge or are recruited from this group.
(3) The next specialized level of individuals are amateur, semi-professionals or professionals who work primarily though a political party or quasi-party organization. They are vendors of skills required by candidates seeking election. They may also be campaign financiers or managers of media organizations. These individuals often function as brokers for access to commercial conduits for political 'speech'. They are recognizably an elite. Because of their limited numbers the votes of this group have a marginal effect on elections.
(4) A closely related specialized level to the previous one are individuals acting as spokesperson for 'non-partisan' non-governmental organizations. These individuals support and oppose 'policies' rather than candidates, e.g., churches, citizen lobbies, etc. These political actors are also an 'elite'. Their power is based on their apparent persuasive influence, not on their voting numbers.
(5) Oddly as it may seem, the next higher specialized set of individuals are those persons who actually voted in an election. They are not persons who may or may not vote. They are persons who actually did vote. They are the electorate. All the lower levels must measure their success or failure by the decisions of this group. The relationship between this group and all the others is the lynch pin of any analysis of a constitutional democratic republic.
(6a) The last level of specialized individuals is obvious. Individuals in government all act in a political capacity. They are their positions either because they were elected or admitted to government by those who were elected. This category includes professional and career government employees. They owe their status and livelihood to elected officials. Candidates for the most important elective offices frequently are selected from this caste.
(6b) A special subcategory in this class are judicial officers who are exempt from most other limitations on government employment. One might say this group is the cream of the elites. They are powerful to the extend that all lower levels of political specialists appeal to them to resolve policy disputes and their decisions are accepted. As individuals their power is reputational only. They rely on the political power of all the subordinate elements to execute their will. To defy a Supreme Court decision is equivalent to declaring oneself in insurrection against the entire state apparatus and possibly accused of heresy against humanity.
This briefly describes the functional categories of individuals in the American political system. Each of the five (or other) explanatory or justifying analyses of American politics must deal with at least these six major categories of individuals. I will focus much of my discussion on category 6b.
I hope to continue in the not to distant future...
Friday, June 1, 2007
The Deeper Agenda
Entry for June 02, 2007
The idea of elections has triumphed universally in Western culture and dominates in all major cultures except Islam. But there is not universal agreement on what purposes elections should serve, or which purpose is the most important one.
In the United States the question of access to the ballot demonstrates considerable differences of opinion on the purposes of elections. Almost all other conflicts related to elections, I contend, are implicitly related to ballot access.
According to legal scholars, who I find quite enlightening, it is remarkable to note that legal disputes related directly to elections and political parties have increased sharply in the last fifty years. Why this is so I am not prepared to say yet. What has become clear, as legal scholars have pointed out, is that in large measure judges have been unable to agree on a coherent theory for defining the relationships between political candidates, political parties, the state, and the individual, as citizen and voter. Judicial confusion has itself spawned more litigation - even if jurists often refuse to hear a case it may be because they have nothing to offer beyond the status quo. Or, giving no opinion is less embarrassing than giving a poor opinion.
Why does this matter to those of us trying to circulate petitions in Oklahoma in 2007? Well, I'll put it in my own street vernacular. If you want to escape from prison, you better understand how the guards think.
I largely agree with the legal scholars who have identified five distinguishable "schools" or "factions" that are competing in legal circles for dominance in this area.
The first, and probably the most traditional, faction is the "federalist", nationalist, or corporative managerial. The second, and probably just as old, faction is the "anti-federalist", individualist, or libertarian. The third faction we can call the progressives. The fourth, more recent faction can be called the pluralists. The fifth
faction springs from only the later part of the 20th century just when the courts began to take on these cases; we can call this group the political marketeers. The last faction is me - the last to the soirée.
So we have five eminent factions of buckaroos and one old mustang. If you don't want to get ridden into the ground you better try to understand what those buckaroos are up to.
Before I wrap up this posting I'll try to give you a further indication of where I'm headed. Litigation is the only way to keep the more or less libertarian argument before the courts and possibly win judges over before they die or leave the bench. We have been attempting to break new ground in the legal tradition in this country. It don't come easy. Even the greatest of advocates cannot get keep an innocent person from being convicted. There is no DNA test to exonerate the defendants in these cases. That is why the ultimate court is street court - the ballot box. And that is why so many ingenious people want to keep the judiciary spinning until their doctrine prevails and ours doesn't.
Nevertheless, we must continue to make our presence felt on the street and in the courts. If even one player shows up for the game you have not forfeited. As for me, I'll hang up my cleats when they pry them off my cold cicada encrusted feet in about 17 years or so.
To be continued, of course... how long is really up to the readers isn't it? Oats, anyone?
Hypothetical poll - It's a secret ballot. Only you will know.
Should any candidate appear on the ballot regardless of party?
* Yes, I can make up my own mind.
* No, I prefer to have others veto my vote.
* None of the Above - I can't vote, won't vote.
* Only if I, the respondent, am the candidate.
* Elections? Whatever...Don't bother me.
* I'm from KOKH Fox 25 News. How dare you!
The idea of elections has triumphed universally in Western culture and dominates in all major cultures except Islam. But there is not universal agreement on what purposes elections should serve, or which purpose is the most important one.
In the United States the question of access to the ballot demonstrates considerable differences of opinion on the purposes of elections. Almost all other conflicts related to elections, I contend, are implicitly related to ballot access.
According to legal scholars, who I find quite enlightening, it is remarkable to note that legal disputes related directly to elections and political parties have increased sharply in the last fifty years. Why this is so I am not prepared to say yet. What has become clear, as legal scholars have pointed out, is that in large measure judges have been unable to agree on a coherent theory for defining the relationships between political candidates, political parties, the state, and the individual, as citizen and voter. Judicial confusion has itself spawned more litigation - even if jurists often refuse to hear a case it may be because they have nothing to offer beyond the status quo. Or, giving no opinion is less embarrassing than giving a poor opinion.
Why does this matter to those of us trying to circulate petitions in Oklahoma in 2007? Well, I'll put it in my own street vernacular. If you want to escape from prison, you better understand how the guards think.
I largely agree with the legal scholars who have identified five distinguishable "schools" or "factions" that are competing in legal circles for dominance in this area.
The first, and probably the most traditional, faction is the "federalist", nationalist, or corporative managerial. The second, and probably just as old, faction is the "anti-federalist", individualist, or libertarian. The third faction we can call the progressives. The fourth, more recent faction can be called the pluralists. The fifth
faction springs from only the later part of the 20th century just when the courts began to take on these cases; we can call this group the political marketeers. The last faction is me - the last to the soirée.
So we have five eminent factions of buckaroos and one old mustang. If you don't want to get ridden into the ground you better try to understand what those buckaroos are up to.
Before I wrap up this posting I'll try to give you a further indication of where I'm headed. Litigation is the only way to keep the more or less libertarian argument before the courts and possibly win judges over before they die or leave the bench. We have been attempting to break new ground in the legal tradition in this country. It don't come easy. Even the greatest of advocates cannot get keep an innocent person from being convicted. There is no DNA test to exonerate the defendants in these cases. That is why the ultimate court is street court - the ballot box. And that is why so many ingenious people want to keep the judiciary spinning until their doctrine prevails and ours doesn't.
Nevertheless, we must continue to make our presence felt on the street and in the courts. If even one player shows up for the game you have not forfeited. As for me, I'll hang up my cleats when they pry them off my cold cicada encrusted feet in about 17 years or so.
To be continued, of course... how long is really up to the readers isn't it? Oats, anyone?
Hypothetical poll - It's a secret ballot. Only you will know.
Should any candidate appear on the ballot regardless of party?
* Yes, I can make up my own mind.
* No, I prefer to have others veto my vote.
* None of the Above - I can't vote, won't vote.
* Only if I, the respondent, am the candidate.
* Elections? Whatever...Don't bother me.
* I'm from KOKH Fox 25 News. How dare you!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
How Fascism Grows in a Culture
Good morning, Oklahoma!
It now appears clear that there was micro-management intervention in the presentation of the Newscast on Fox 25 KOKH on May 29.
I was interviewed by Andrew Speno news anchor on Oklahoma City station KOKH Fox 25. The news event was my effort to circulate a petition for access to the ballot for 2008 as required by Oklahoma election law.
That law has been under litigation since 2004 and finally reached the Oklahoma Supreme Court and they decided unanimously to refuse to hear the case. Therefore, any political candidates attempting to exercise the right to seek public office in Oklahoma under any party label other Democrat or Republican are effectively suppressed by a law which many regard as illegal under both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.
Mr. Speno and I had an amiable interview for nearly fifty minutes about ballot access law in Oklahoma and my potential candidacy for U.S. Representative in 2008. Later that evening Mr. Speno's report appeared in the Fox 25 nine o'clock newscast which seemed to me generally favorable, even though I was portrayed as a "lone crusader" who
obtained on one citizen signature before being ejected from the premises by the property owner - Albertson's supermarket.
At the conclusion of the Fox news story Mr. Speno announced that Fox was going to poll their viewers whether all political parties should appear on the ballot in Oklahoma. The poll never appeared on the their web site www.okcfox.com.
First, the anchor would not have announced the poll on ballot access if he did not have the normal authority to do so. Second, management must have a political agenda which motivates their intervention on the reporter's normal professional practices. Such micro-management indicates a corporate policy of news shaping. News shaping is
crypto-propaganda. Propaganda is the dissemination of a particular doctrine and the suppression by censorship of controversy with any opposing doctrines. Crypto-propaganda is the attempt to insinuate
doctrine without overt admission that doctrine is being promoted.
There is nothing illegal about such activity under the First Amendment. It is simply ethically wrong. Obviously its practitioners disagree. They must believe they are serving some greater good which justifies subterfuge. This does not make all Fox employees bad people from our ethical standard so long as they resist the attempts.
However, the time will come when they will have to choose between a more professional (libertarian?) ethic and overt complicity. The culprits are management at Fox. This is how fascism takes root in a culture.
I must now admit that my exercise in petitioning yesterday was more than an attempt to challenge the oppression of election law in Oklahoma. Previously I was engaged in a campaign for Congress which was suppressed by Oklahoma ballot law. KOKH interviewed me about that campaign. The presentation of that interview was suspicious. As we
begin this campaign to achieve ballot access by compliance under a stupidly prejudicial law which is beneath judicial notice in this state, I wanted to 'mystery shop' KOKH news policy. Events, I contend, support my conclusions. The Fox management was caught didling their viewers with crypto-propaganda.
They can't even conduct an unscientific poll (for entertainment value alone) about access to the ballot without intervention from management.
Fox viewers beware!
D. Frank Robinson, Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives 2006
It now appears clear that there was micro-management intervention in the presentation of the Newscast on Fox 25 KOKH on May 29.
I was interviewed by Andrew Speno news anchor on Oklahoma City station KOKH Fox 25. The news event was my effort to circulate a petition for access to the ballot for 2008 as required by Oklahoma election law.
That law has been under litigation since 2004 and finally reached the Oklahoma Supreme Court and they decided unanimously to refuse to hear the case. Therefore, any political candidates attempting to exercise the right to seek public office in Oklahoma under any party label other Democrat or Republican are effectively suppressed by a law which many regard as illegal under both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.
Mr. Speno and I had an amiable interview for nearly fifty minutes about ballot access law in Oklahoma and my potential candidacy for U.S. Representative in 2008. Later that evening Mr. Speno's report appeared in the Fox 25 nine o'clock newscast which seemed to me generally favorable, even though I was portrayed as a "lone crusader" who
obtained on one citizen signature before being ejected from the premises by the property owner - Albertson's supermarket.
At the conclusion of the Fox news story Mr. Speno announced that Fox was going to poll their viewers whether all political parties should appear on the ballot in Oklahoma. The poll never appeared on the their web site www.okcfox.com.
First, the anchor would not have announced the poll on ballot access if he did not have the normal authority to do so. Second, management must have a political agenda which motivates their intervention on the reporter's normal professional practices. Such micro-management indicates a corporate policy of news shaping. News shaping is
crypto-propaganda. Propaganda is the dissemination of a particular doctrine and the suppression by censorship of controversy with any opposing doctrines. Crypto-propaganda is the attempt to insinuate
doctrine without overt admission that doctrine is being promoted.
There is nothing illegal about such activity under the First Amendment. It is simply ethically wrong. Obviously its practitioners disagree. They must believe they are serving some greater good which justifies subterfuge. This does not make all Fox employees bad people from our ethical standard so long as they resist the attempts.
However, the time will come when they will have to choose between a more professional (libertarian?) ethic and overt complicity. The culprits are management at Fox. This is how fascism takes root in a culture.
I must now admit that my exercise in petitioning yesterday was more than an attempt to challenge the oppression of election law in Oklahoma. Previously I was engaged in a campaign for Congress which was suppressed by Oklahoma ballot law. KOKH interviewed me about that campaign. The presentation of that interview was suspicious. As we
begin this campaign to achieve ballot access by compliance under a stupidly prejudicial law which is beneath judicial notice in this state, I wanted to 'mystery shop' KOKH news policy. Events, I contend, support my conclusions. The Fox management was caught didling their viewers with crypto-propaganda.
They can't even conduct an unscientific poll (for entertainment value alone) about access to the ballot without intervention from management.
Fox viewers beware!
D. Frank Robinson, Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives 2006
Monday, May 28, 2007
Dysfunctional Ballot- Dysfunctional Congress- Dysfunctional Government
"The Democrats should not have caved in to the president. They should have continued to send him bills with a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. So he vetoes them. Eventually the president himself would cut off funds for the troops."
"As an alternative, Congress could inform the president that unless he accepts a timetable for withdrawal, Congress will stop funding the war. If the Democrats are sincere in their claimed desire to end the war, this is the way to do it."
"The power of the purse rests firmly in the hands of Congress. No matter what the president desires to do, if Congress refuses to fund it, the president is helpless. He cannot spend a dime that Congress has not authorized and appropriated."
- Charley Reese
May 28, 2007
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese362.html
Saying that there were not enough votes to over-ride a Presidential veto was an excuse not a reason for caving in.
It is possible that the habit of servility in the Congress is too deep among long-time incumbents that no other outcome could have been expected and that does seem closer to a reason than hiding behind the veil of the veto. Still the habit of Congressional servility does not explain the votes of many of the new House Democrats. Consider these votes from Thursday night on the Iraq supplemental. And remember it was a supplemental. The bill would not have shut down the Department of Defense.
Those voting 'Aye' to set a timeline for withdrawal:
Michael Arcuri, NY
Bruce Braley, Iowa
Kathy Castor, FL
Yvette Clark. NY
Steve Cohen, TN
Joe Courtney, CT
Keith Ellison, MN
John Hall, NY
Phil Hare, Ill
Mazie Hirono, HI
Paul Hodes, NH
Henry Johnson, GA
Ron Klein, FL
David Loebsack, Iowa
Jerry McNerney, CA
Chris Murphy, CT
Patrick Murphy, PA
Ed Perlmutter, CO
John Sarbanes, MD
Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Betty Sutton, OH
Peter Welch, VT
John Yarmuth, KY
That's 23 for Congressional authority.
Those caving-in:
Jason Altmire, PA
Nancy Borda, KS
Chris Carney, PA
Joe Donnelly, IN
Brad Ellsworth, IN
Gabrielle Giffords, AZ
Kirsten Gillibrand, NY
Baron Hill, IN
Steve Kagen, WI
Nicholas Lampson, TX
Tim Mahoney, FL
Harry Mitchell, AZ
Ciro Rodriguez, TX
Heath Shuler, NC
Zackary Space, OH
Timothy Walz, MN
Charles Wilson, OH
That's 17 cave-ins to Presidential power over the Constitutional authority of the Congress.
The point here is that it doesn't matter whether you think the war in Iraq should continue or stop. Under the Constitution, if a majority of the House wants to stop spending money on anything, then the spending has to stop. Whether you or I think they are right or wrong is supposed be settled at the ballot box.
But what if the ballot box no longer serves to discipline the U.S. House of Representatives? Then, the electoral system is fatally dysfunctional. That makes the House dysfunctional and that allows a dysfunctional President to rule autocratically. That means the Constitutional order has collapsed into mere semblances of any democratic check on dictatorship. The only check on a reckless President is his own calculations of what he can get away with before provoking civil disobedience and rebellion. This authoritarian insecurity leads to more and more ruthless methods of a police state.
If you can't fix what's wrong with the ballot box, you must resort to 'other means'. The issue now is: can the ballot box be restored to full functionality?
"As an alternative, Congress could inform the president that unless he accepts a timetable for withdrawal, Congress will stop funding the war. If the Democrats are sincere in their claimed desire to end the war, this is the way to do it."
"The power of the purse rests firmly in the hands of Congress. No matter what the president desires to do, if Congress refuses to fund it, the president is helpless. He cannot spend a dime that Congress has not authorized and appropriated."
- Charley Reese
May 28, 2007
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese362.html
Saying that there were not enough votes to over-ride a Presidential veto was an excuse not a reason for caving in.
It is possible that the habit of servility in the Congress is too deep among long-time incumbents that no other outcome could have been expected and that does seem closer to a reason than hiding behind the veil of the veto. Still the habit of Congressional servility does not explain the votes of many of the new House Democrats. Consider these votes from Thursday night on the Iraq supplemental. And remember it was a supplemental. The bill would not have shut down the Department of Defense.
Those voting 'Aye' to set a timeline for withdrawal:
Michael Arcuri, NY
Bruce Braley, Iowa
Kathy Castor, FL
Yvette Clark. NY
Steve Cohen, TN
Joe Courtney, CT
Keith Ellison, MN
John Hall, NY
Phil Hare, Ill
Mazie Hirono, HI
Paul Hodes, NH
Henry Johnson, GA
Ron Klein, FL
David Loebsack, Iowa
Jerry McNerney, CA
Chris Murphy, CT
Patrick Murphy, PA
Ed Perlmutter, CO
John Sarbanes, MD
Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Betty Sutton, OH
Peter Welch, VT
John Yarmuth, KY
That's 23 for Congressional authority.
Those caving-in:
Jason Altmire, PA
Nancy Borda, KS
Chris Carney, PA
Joe Donnelly, IN
Brad Ellsworth, IN
Gabrielle Giffords, AZ
Kirsten Gillibrand, NY
Baron Hill, IN
Steve Kagen, WI
Nicholas Lampson, TX
Tim Mahoney, FL
Harry Mitchell, AZ
Ciro Rodriguez, TX
Heath Shuler, NC
Zackary Space, OH
Timothy Walz, MN
Charles Wilson, OH
That's 17 cave-ins to Presidential power over the Constitutional authority of the Congress.
The point here is that it doesn't matter whether you think the war in Iraq should continue or stop. Under the Constitution, if a majority of the House wants to stop spending money on anything, then the spending has to stop. Whether you or I think they are right or wrong is supposed be settled at the ballot box.
But what if the ballot box no longer serves to discipline the U.S. House of Representatives? Then, the electoral system is fatally dysfunctional. That makes the House dysfunctional and that allows a dysfunctional President to rule autocratically. That means the Constitutional order has collapsed into mere semblances of any democratic check on dictatorship. The only check on a reckless President is his own calculations of what he can get away with before provoking civil disobedience and rebellion. This authoritarian insecurity leads to more and more ruthless methods of a police state.
If you can't fix what's wrong with the ballot box, you must resort to 'other means'. The issue now is: can the ballot box be restored to full functionality?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
When the blowback comes sweeping down the plains
Blowback is a term often used when foreign policy has adverse unintended consequences. Blowback can also be domestic.
Consider this opinion from:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts211.html
President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government’s policy than inmates in a gulag would have.
What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy" while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush’s America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?
- Paul Craig Roberts
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).
Consider this opinion from:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts211.html
President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government’s policy than inmates in a gulag would have.
What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy" while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush’s America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?
- Paul Craig Roberts
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).
Thursday, May 24, 2007
We need to elect some junk yard dogs to Congress
The general purposes of oversight — and what constitutes this function — can be stated in more specific terms. These terms unavoidably overlap because of the numerous and multifaceted dimensions of oversight. A brief list includes:
1. review the agency rule-making process;
2. monitor the use of contractors and consultants for government services;
3. encourage and promote cooperation between the branches;
4. examine agency personnel procedures;
5. acquire information useful in future policymaking;
6. investigate constituent complaints and media critiques;
7. assess whether program design and execution maximize the delivery of services to beneficiaries - governmental and private;
8. compare the effectiveness of one program with another;
9. protect agencies and programs against unjustified criticisms; and
10. study federal evaluation activities.
That's a lot of promises for 435 people on a couple of dozen committees to keep. So they don't, because they can't. The Congress wants the prestige of looking as if they do. Prestige is a poor substitute for power when the Executive branch needs all of the above done to it. And when the Congress launches a real investigation it seems that is the only thing it can do.
Nothing can be done about the number Senators to do the jobs. But the U.S. House of Representatives can be made larger. With more Congresspersons they could dig further afield and deeper. But, that it just about the last thing any President would tolerate. Which makes a good argument for doing it.
A larger House would cost more money. But we try it for ten years and see if they didn't recover all their costs and a lot more in cutting out Executive branch waste, fraud and abuse corruption. If they failed in ten years, the size of the House could be reduced in size after the next census. If they stopped just one military misadventure by the President they would have paid for themselves ten times over!
Flogging to be continued...
1. review the agency rule-making process;
2. monitor the use of contractors and consultants for government services;
3. encourage and promote cooperation between the branches;
4. examine agency personnel procedures;
5. acquire information useful in future policymaking;
6. investigate constituent complaints and media critiques;
7. assess whether program design and execution maximize the delivery of services to beneficiaries - governmental and private;
8. compare the effectiveness of one program with another;
9. protect agencies and programs against unjustified criticisms; and
10. study federal evaluation activities.
That's a lot of promises for 435 people on a couple of dozen committees to keep. So they don't, because they can't. The Congress wants the prestige of looking as if they do. Prestige is a poor substitute for power when the Executive branch needs all of the above done to it. And when the Congress launches a real investigation it seems that is the only thing it can do.
Nothing can be done about the number Senators to do the jobs. But the U.S. House of Representatives can be made larger. With more Congresspersons they could dig further afield and deeper. But, that it just about the last thing any President would tolerate. Which makes a good argument for doing it.
A larger House would cost more money. But we try it for ten years and see if they didn't recover all their costs and a lot more in cutting out Executive branch waste, fraud and abuse corruption. If they failed in ten years, the size of the House could be reduced in size after the next census. If they stopped just one military misadventure by the President they would have paid for themselves ten times over!
Flogging to be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)