Executive Completion: Lobbying Run Riot

With the Presidential election fast approaching the freedoms we have (as American citizens) are on my mind. To be able to take part in an election, no matter how small of a role we may play, is a freedom that so many others across the planet are not able to enjoy. The freedom I find most important in America is the freedom of Speech. The first Amendment is my favorite Amendment because in other societies throughout history the freedom to express oneself is not readily available to the people. In my opinion, this makes the first Amendment sacred. It is a cornerstone in our free society, offering Americans the ability to say much of what they think without fear of consequences. If we believe that something is inherently wrong within society, the first amendment guarantees that we can speak our thoughts aloud without fear. Our government cannot tell us who to worship, what to think, or what we can say. This freedom is absolutely required to guarantee that oppression does not occur. The idea of a person, or group of people, utilizing this sacred freedom to hurt other citizens is horrific. Founding father and President James Madison wrote that “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” When the intent of the first amendment is stretched to cover corporation’s interests to the detriment of American self-interest, then a disconnected occurs. This disconnection hinders the rights and freedoms of Americans.

When framing the constitution, the founding fathers discussed a multitude of options concerning the setup of our government. Founding father and President James Madison, in particular, did worry about certain collected groups or “factions”. He feared that a large enough group could ban together and impose their will on the population. Worried that a recreation of the tyranny they escaped would inadvertently corrupt the new nation they fought so hard to create, the deliberations on how to set up the new government were detailed. With that same fear in mind, a proposal for a system with representatives elected by the people came about. Hamilton believed that representatives elected into office were unlikely to be persuaded by force within and outside of the nation. He believed that because they would have to balance the demands of their counterparts in government, the people they represented and the states that made up the entire union.

Unfortunately, this thought process did not account for the abuse that corporations could commit. Without specifics in place, the first amendment offers an escape clause for corporations to abuse the intent through lobbyists. Merriam Webster defines lobbying as an “attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action.” The use of lobbying is universal in modernity, and its American roots can be traced back to England. People hoping to sway members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons would hang around lobbies in an effort to speak to a member of parliament about their cause. Here in America the first appearance of lobbying in print was in 1820 and is as follows, “Other letters from Washington affirm, that members of the Senate, when the compromise question was to be taken in the House, were not only “lobbying about the Representatives’ Chamber” but also active in endeavoring to intimidate certain weak representatives by insulting threats to dissolve the Union.” Indeed, this offers a less than positive view of the beginning of lobbying attempt in the US. However, the need for citizens to freely speak their minds is a necessary part of our countries set up.

It allows the people of our country to remedy government errors and insist upon reparations and is another balance in the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers spoke of. When creating this great Nation, their original intention was to make sure that the branches in government watched over one another. This put no one completely in control overall. Elections were meant to allow citizens to choose who would take high ranking positions in government to speak for them. Freedom of speech allows the people to speak up if their will isn’t being carried out. If the government didn’t listen to the voices of her people, they could cry out against any repressions. The 18th amendment to the constitution, the prohibition amendment, is an example of the people’s voices in action for change. The addition of the amendment to the constitution was brought about by religious leaders and anti-saloon advocacy groups and lobbyists. Groups such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) believed that outlawing alcohol would protect women, children and families from the effects of alcohol abuse. Although I personally disagree with the thought process behind WCTU, it appears to be a noble goal.

Proponents of Prohibition also believed that amendment would lead to a reduction in taxes. Citing that less need for places like jailhouses and insane asylums would reduce overall fiscal expenditure. This was not found to be the case. In a trying economic time, prohibition ended up costing the country 40 million dollars annually to enforce. It also cost America more than 860 million annually in federal tax revenue that would have been gained if liquor were legally taxed. The ban brought about another set of voices, speaking out against prohibition. Groups sprang up against the amendment. Such groups included The Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA) and the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR). These anti prohibitionist’s groups pointed out that the amendment cost the country much needed revenue and increased organized crime. Both sides, for and against, of the prohibition issue fought for what they believed in. In my opinion, these two sides are examples of positive attempts to utilize the first amendment to socially activate change. Although they are different sides of a coin, the first amendment protected both sides allowing citizens to voice their opinion for change in society.

Unfortunately, that same amendment has been utilized by corporations to push their agendas. Removing all lobbying for America removes part of the system that keeps an external check on governmental changes. It would remove part of the voice of the American people. However, there is a big difference between representing a group who lobbies for positive changes in society and one whose goal is to alter legislature to benefit himself. When used properly, and by the right people, lobbying has the ability to promote change in America through the voices of citizens. The problem is that it is misused so often. To take a look at lobbying in America, it may help to begin by categorizing and defining the types of lobbying that occurs. Lobbyist are generally in one of two categories. The first is a group with specific or specialized interests. This group usually has a particular political goal in mind that would fiscally benefit the members of the group directly. The second is a group that is constituency based.

The focus of this group could be specific, but the base of the group has a significantly broader foundation of members. More often than not, a constituency based groups has the best interests of the public as a whole and any attempt to remove lobbying completely from the current political setup could do some damage. Such organizations are an inherent part of a larger process that occurs in government. Congressional and Judicial branches of the government affect changes in law and policy from the seats in the higher parts of government. However, they are meant to do so for the people of this great Nation and are now in a prime position to do so for the lobbyists. Day in and day out, more than 12,000 registered lobbyists walk amongst the halls able to keep in close contact with our nation’s representatives. Analysts suspect a more realistic number to be near 100,000. As of August this year lobbyists spent more than 1.5 billion dollars essentially campaigning their ideas to our governmental officials. A specific example of the misuse of the first amendment is the largest, General Electric (GE).

GE's Springfield HQ — GE’s Springfield HQ

In 2010, GE paid a whopping 39 million dollars to companies like Capitol Tax Partners and Federal Policy Group to lobby Congress in their name. While doing so, they simultaneously avoiding paying taxes and received tax rebates totaling 4.7 billion over a three-year time period. They did so by using active financing exemption which allows companies to defer taxes on overseas income. Originally intended to be in place for two years, the exemption has been extended again and again for more than ten years. Dozens of the largest companies in the United States throw millions of dollars at Congress through lobbyists to continually renew the measure, effectively encouraging those companies to create jobs outside of the country. The loophole is costing taxpayers fiscally, in both employment disappearing within the United States and taxes that the large corporations should be paying but aren’t. The Director for Citizens for Tax Justice(CTJ), Steve Wamhoff, believes that “This loophole creates an enormous tax shelter for the companies who have lobbied it into law, it ought to be allowed to expire.”

Such corporation’s expenditures on lobbying outweigh the amount spent by constituency based organizations, creating a negative shift in the balance of voices that reach the ears of Congress. Constituency groups do not have the same fiscal means as large corporations do, which gives the company who spends the most the upper hand over grass roots groups whose intent is to help all of America. In the book titled The Business of America is Lobbying, author Lee Drutman writes that “Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures – more than the $2 billion was spent to fund the House ($1.16 billion) and Senate ($820 million).” He goes on to point out that, “in 1995, roughly 68% of GE’s 222,000 total employees were in the U.S, according to its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. By 2005, the percentage of American jobs declined to 51% and by the end of 2015, just 38% of its employees were in the U.S. GE’s total global workforce has increased to 333,000. But it employs fewer American workers today — 125,000 versus 161,000 in 2005.” The only thing that the repeated active financing exemption extensions that Congress has allowed is for companies like GE to remove jobs from Americans while simultaneously not responsibly paying their fair share in taxes.

The decade of extensions has allowed GE to reduce the plants in America by 10 and increase the plants on foreign soil by 58. Now I ask you, how can this be in any way an acceptable use of the first amendment? The answer is, it is not. It is, however, a prime example of corporations using one of American citizens most sacred rights: freedom of speech, and warping it as a means to increase their wealth at the expense of America as a whole. Moreover, it is an example of the fear that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton foresaw when he wrote of factions. He meant a group of companies focused on one issue to the betterment of a small number of individuals at the expense of many in the Nation. With money and lobbyists on their payroll, groups like this are able to skirt the law and cheat us all. It is a far cry from what President Thomas Jefferson hoped for when he wrote that he hoped that American government would never “see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market.”

Hyperbole: Y'all oughta know 'er by now. — Hyperbole: Y’all oughta know ‘er by now.

The current abuse of the first amendment by corporations through lobbying has destroyed that dream. Scholar Henry Giroux said it well when he wrote that “Policy is no longer being written by politicians accountable to the American public. Instead, policies concerning the defense budget, deregulation, health care, public transportation, job training programs, and a host of other crucial areas are now largely written by lobbyists who represent mega corporations.” This cannot be permitted to continue. Corporations cannot be permitted to abuse the right to speak freely as a guise to line their pockets. It is perverse and insults the majesty inherent in the freedom of speech, as well as robbing America of jobs and taxes they should be paying. It is an utter travesty and must be addressed. A grassroots campaign to affect positive change for all citizens in the United States is quite different from what GE and other corporations are doing.

I find this particularly frustrating because I believe that Justice Marshall put it best when he wrote that “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.” Special Interest groups with members like General Electric are totally different from constituency based groups like Citizens for Tax Justice. One type clearly focuses on the betterment of themselves rather than the Nation as a whole. The difference is evident, so the question is how do we outlaw abuse while keeping freedom of speech intact? Unfortunately, we cannot. Although corporations are entities and not people, they are entities made up of people. If we remove or limit a corporation’s freedom of speech, we would also remove that right from Americans over all. Fighting fire with fire in this situation would simply create an inferno destroying one of our most revered rights, freedom of speech.

However, their abuse of the ideals behind the first amendment are clear. Freedom to speak without fear of consequences is absolutely required to ensure that other freedoms remain in place. Madison’s fear of “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, averse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” is certainly seen in the predominance of corporate lobbying in our Nation’s capital. The original intent of the first amendment can be seen most clearly through founding father and President James Madison’s original proposed draft which is as follows; “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrance’s, for redress of their grievances.” These words prove that the intent of the first amendment was to protect, not to offer a way for larger organizations to skirt taxes, remove jobs and increase their profits.

The Amendment specifically allows citizens “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” To put it plainly, I have a grievance. I find it absolutely unacceptable that Americans are struggling to put food on the table due to a lack of employment opportunities while companies like GE are receiving tax breaks to remove employment opportunities. I find it disgusting that such organizations draping themselves in the First Amendment to gain the opportunities at the expense of Americans. Both by increasing their income through no taxes and removing much needed work opportunities while doing so. I am horrified that tax breaks initially meant to be set in place for two years, have been extended for a decade. I am indignant that the extensions allow some corporations, such as GE, to profit while skirting fiscal responsibility to the American economy. Most of all, I am irate that it could ever deemed acceptable that anyone utilize the sacredness of the first amendment as a means for profit while harming American economic infrastructure fiscally. It is wrong and injures America, making light of both the ideals that the country was founded upon and the need for jobs in the country. If America and her people are the victims of a diseased set of scrupulous lobbyists by large corporations who do not care about anything beyond lining their pockets, let’s inject some antibodies via knowledge.

Authors Christine Mahoney and Lee Drutman have suggested a new method for advocacy called POST, MAP, and ASK. They suggest that groups, whether special interest or constituency based, are asked to post their positions on policy and information about their advocacy group on a website that was maintained by the Library of Congress. This method would allow access to all of the information on each group, permitting those inside and outside of Government to see exactly what each advocacy groups stands for. With this information provided to the Library of Congress, they can map out each group’s goals. When a Congressional Committee is approached by a group who has not been mapped by the Library of Congress, additional information can be asked for and added to the database. I love this idea. A tool allowing a free flow of information for both citizens and experts in both political fields of study and congressional committees would cut through a great deal of red tape. Let’s shine a light on who is for what issue. I’d, personally, go a bit further.

Add the amounts that each lobbyists spends towards their political desired outcome to the same database. With such information easily and readily available, the ability of the American public at large to keep an eye on their congressman would increase tenfold. This plan is elegant and simple, and I am of the opinion that it should begin on the federal level then be introduced on state and local levels. The method would allow everyone to see precisely where corporate lobbyists are focusing their efforts to sway congressional decisions. Enhancing a citizen’s ability to gain information on their Congressman would allow each of us access to much needed data. With this data readily available we would be able to make sure that they are working for the betterment of America as a whole. The current amount of lobbyists is overwhelming and a citizens lack of knowledge limits their ability to voice concern. So companies like GE are able to pervert the pure intent of the first amendment for selfish gain. Let’s remove this limitation so that corporate strength can no longer shut out the voice of the people.

Leary, Teresa

Gonzo State: [Untitled]

“Bentley! Bentley. I suggest…I suggest that you do something different with your life right now.” This instruction was delivered by my boss (at the time) to his unruly Huskie, but it might as well have been given to my entire generation.

As always, the day had given way to night and my mind had wrestled with itself long enough. I needed sanctuary, strong drink and a blank expression with which to watch the news on screens behind the heads of the locals. With the mind of a fried pie I careened my car down a thoroughfare of an unincorporated town in West Virginia, roughly sixty miles from Washington D.C.

“Babylon,” I came to call D.C. as a Sailor stationed in Bethesda, which was appropriate enough that no one cares to question the nickname. It was by a sense of awe, despair, disgust and reverence that I came by it the hard way some years ago.

The Christmas lights around Arlington had shone brightly on my most sentimental evening, awash with history and the sort of romance that saw my Army counterpart’s cheek against mine, her words in my ear accompanied by my kiss on her neck.

Then, the other shoe dropped and zang! I’m departing the parking garage of Target near P.F. Chang’s, a sudden desperate attempt to keep a fellow servicemember alive and out of trouble, and barely having arrived in Rockville, Maryland, found myself in the company of a remarkable amount of police officers. While all was eventually sorted out (one way or another), I did discover that being handcuffed, face down on the pavement amidst a soft rain gave me an amazing opportunity to learn and reevaluate the nonsense I’d allowed a foothold in my life. “Teachable moments,” I’ve come to call such events with a wince oft confused for a smile, and rightfully so.

Let no good deed go unpunished.

“It was all downhill from there,” I uttered to my glass and coaster on the bar, awaiting another potent haul of ethanol. “Or is it, ‘down on the bed’ from there? Not nearly as catchy.” The general uproar that passed for ambience as karaoke loomed large made my private social commentaries a non-factor.

“Hell,” I continued, mulling over the equal parts glory and horror of yesteryear, “if I was a woman they’d’ve labeled me a slut.” This was most certainly true, as I had responded to the eventual collapse of the genuine, heartmelting romance that blossomed in Arlington by carousing. I went on to live up to the archetype of heathen in the Navy, only I hadn’t needed a new port. D.C. had an endless supply of trysts for me to temporarily bind the wound of heartbreak with. I had largely imploded things with she myself, but damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, aye?

“Aye, got it!” I said, louder than intended as my libation arrived. Few noticed, none cared. But I digress.

Every single horror of the corruption of public life crept its way into Walter Reed the two years I’d been there as the primary Army and Navy hospitals merged there in Maryland. It was a handful of miles from the epicenter of our Federal Republic, our Representative Democracy. Whatever label you prefer, the genuine, tender romance and the unnecessary legal crucible were equal parts of the same story.

So it was yesterday and is today and will be tomorrow. Wars and rumors of wars will abound along with the usual ugliness, while the bountiful opportunities, resplendence, and monuments sacred to America and Her Republic will ring hollow for any looking for that chapter. However, for those with a soul not set for self-destruct, there was the beauty and elegance and love that I discovered in Babylon. For my part, I vacillated between the cauldron of brutality and the essence of hallowed humanity.

Lucifer and a third of his fellow angels rebelled (at least in part) over the perception that God valued something fashioned from dirt over them; we hamstrung ourselves with our humanity during that time (2011-2013) in Bethesda, both our frailties and our strengths.

Did we make the case against humanity with our failures? I’m not so sure. The defeatism and Apocalypticism of the admittedly conflicted era that was the “new” Walter Reed circa 2011-2013 stands apart from now in several ways. Without the deflating drudgery of rattling them all off, at the very least one could look their friends and enemies in the eye. Betrayal and intrigue might be lurking around the next corner (per the modus operandi of Babylon and the government circuit as a whole) but those seeming eons ago politics was still the art of compromise. Then-POTUS Obama (D-IL) and then-House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) can hardly be soberly accused of engaging in the politics of blood sport we’ve now.

Now? Depending on their background, looking one’s enemies and/or friends in the eye might get you flagged on any number of social media platforms and could very well get you labeled with some sort of “-ism”, as one type of “-ist” or another. A whole decade ago Section 230 was applied within the spirit of its creation, lending the happenings online a sort of Wild West vibe when juxtaposed to the great cosmic gag-reel taking place now.

“What is Section 230?” one might ask. This, too, is a well-placed and unscripted question, but it makes little difference when Louis Farrakhan can spit his vile verbal excrement at hapless passerby on social media, but not Donald Trump. No, indeed. Hardly an avid defender of the former POTUS, I nonetheless present our Federal support and protections for our Silicon Valley overlords as Exhibit A for the how/why (either/and/or) the Federal Communications Commission has adequate pretext to cry foul. This is tantamount to “collateral censorship”, or censorship by proxy. That’s the biggest item George Orwell didn’t foresee in my favorite novel, “1984”: private enterprise conducting the censorship, and not the state itself.

Since I’ve likely lost anyone who hates The Donald for my defending his First Amendment rights, I might as well toss a grenade in this burgeoning dumpster fire. Wouldn’t Joe Manchin lead off that way?

“The wind only blows sometimes.” “He’s exactly right!”

While hardly the binary option both the Communists of the Far Left and the Fascists of the Far Right want all the Sheeple to give an “Amen!” and believe, the conflict between being a John Locke liberal in favor of largely laissez-faire capitalism (not the crony kind) with a strong, (but) limited Federal government and in wanting a respectable return on our investment in Section 230 protections granted Silicon Valley (and company), it is amusing on a perverse level.

“Afterall,” I told myself, “everyone hates a centrist, so you might as well enjoy it, Jack. The good news is, only White elitists are storming off after closing your column a few paragraphs back. They can kick rocks. There’s surely a Mother Jones article or athletic mutant defecating on the very flag that enables their miserable existence out there, somewhere, that they can flee to. Still miserable, but they showed me! No First Amendment for the people who make us think and shit.”

It was only at the end of this paragraph that I realized I wasn’t just thinking this as I tapped it into a note on my phone for later insertion into this very diatribe. I was muttering much of it out loud.

“Ignore the madness of a world that has made this swashbuckler appear normal. Ignore the celebutante-rejects aghast at those not absorbed in Chinese spyware ‘social’ apps available on any mainstream App Store.”

And why not? Afterall, the Communists now want the populace to swallow the latest swill their Thought Police have puked out, and nod slowly, basking in the wisdom of the notion that Black children being taught mathematics is racist. Conversely, the Fascists want the citizenry at-large to embrace their latest, unintelligible Reductio Ad Absurdum that beating cops to a pulp while shouting racist terms at the non-White officers is okay as long as they’re patriots. Thin Blue Line and all. “Thin Blue Line”, you ingrates? Put the straw down.

“Dear God Almighty,” I mumbled into my Long Island Iced Tea, nearly gone due to the urgent need to anesthetize myself. No reply, and not because He wants us to forget He exists, but because it’s the pizza we ordered, and it has arrived with all the trappings. Whose fault is that?

The lunacy in the former example is in those on the Far Left who by proxy think the Black intellect is so dormant, psyche so timid, that there need be no Black doctors, economists, engineers, et cetera, in the future. Mathematics is a rather integral part of the process of those career paths. Who’s holding who back with racist ideology again, exactly?

The madness in the latter example is at least as vivid and particularly poignant from people on the Far Right who think cops can do no wrong. You say The Filth went too far in Example X? “I say they didn’t go too far enough!” some neo-Successionist will bleat with the fervor of a patriot, by God. Just a patriot to another country, and not this one. But why quibble about it? Sure, seems reasonable enough to pass muster on “Squidbillies.”

Imitation being the highest form of flattery, the method to the unorthodoxy of this publication has never been less necessary. Both extremes in the sadly binary world of Castro and Mussolini neophytes demand the long-term vision, the sort of engaging in politics (again, “The Art of Compromise”) as a year-round endeavor that there is no app or “hack” for. The marathon, not the sprint, is what is at hand. I’d rather flatter the Edward Brooke III, the Alexander Hamilton, the Barbra Streisand, the Hunter S. Thompson and even the Master Shake with imitation than embrace the intellectual suicide of either Irredeemable America or Exceptional American Unilateralism.

Whichever clown car takes the stage from either extremist wing of discourse, they both will assure us that we’d feel so much better if only we’d embrace their brand of groupthink. Tsk, tsk, I know, but such is the rot of the putrescence we’ve inexplicably opted to wallow in.

What both teams of malcontents mean is we’ll feel much better carrying all of our favorite shows with us on all of our devices as they continue embezzling and funneling money to the duopoly in Babylon. The royalty on Capitol Hill will then reward our wholehearted faith with continued malignant governance and further insolvency on every level (social, fiscal, geopolitical, et al).

“Who knows?” I mumbled with a shrug. “With any luck, the dead will walk again and we’ll have an existential reason to disallow the Neanderthals in Congress from fucking the same coconut over and over while saying they’re carrying out the people’s business. All, naturally, with a straight face. And pursed lips. Can’t forget the ‘duck face.’ Gotta meet my fellow Millennials halfway.”

“You say something, Hun?”

The bartender had taken notice of my glass being devoid of strong drink, and grew concerned. Animals entering sexual congress with fruit, however, passed muster.

‘Of course it did,’ I thought, but could only reply with a low rasp as I exited my barstool.

“Yes, Ma’am. Check please.”

And on the 8th day, God made bears. Lots and lots of bears.

Does this era need introduction? Or, rather, may a suitable introduction be written? I report, you deride.

1: In any rational era, the sudden appearance of lurid photographs of well-known public figures tends to happen without the consent of those captured in the images. Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Anthony Weiner, et al. Notable exceptions to this are of the celebutante variety who sport last names such as Hilton and Kardashian, but then, their deliberate release of self-incriminating material isn’t indicative of a rational era.

That there’s a Stairway to Heaven but a Highway to Hell is indicative of expected traffic volume.

The great Jerry Falwell, Jr., well his undeniable greatness as an Evangelical Christian minister and university president is so ineffable, so vast, that he was no longer able to be confined by any notion of modern decency. If that’s still a thing, that is. Either way, the photograph posted containing the erstwhile head of Liberty University (and descendent of the late and decent Jerry Falwell) is disturbing on several counts. Let’s take a look:

Now, I’m not sure if it’s the ghastly attempt at humor (yeah, “black water”, haw haw haw!), the self-caricature of the gut and the unzipped pants combined with the awful rug on his counterpart (who is not his wife, for those keeping score at home), the fact that students of said Evangelical university get expelled for drinking and/or extra-marital sexual encounters, or that this wasn’t a leak at all that makes this such a disgrace. He could’ve just said it was a faux Black Dog in his glass and been done with it.

The man (so-called) “leaked” it via his own social media aperture, and then delivered a truly abysmal mockery of an apology on-air, and I quote: “I’ve promised my kids I’m going to try to be…I’m gonna try to be a good boy from here on out.” Rock and Roll, Jerry!

Oh and Mrs. Falwell, when your marriage does end, remember: you [expletive deleted] your rebound, and that’s it. You don’t permanently abscond from reality and keep [expletive deleted] them long-term and/or marry them. Especially, I might add, if you plucked them from the extras of “The Walking Dead.”

Silly me. But seriously, though: booze and Evangelicals and social media shouldn’t mix.

2: At times, the headlines write themselves. In their own attempt to swing loose with reality, as it were, Iran has a fabricated aircraft carrier resembling one of those wielded by the United States Navy. “Why”, you ask? An entirely unscripted and well-placed question. For their own propaganda purposes that is, until the entire experiment blew up in their faces. Living out their own version of “delirium tremens”, Iran was so successful in this charade that their accidental destruction of a prop US Navy aircraft carrier poses a threat to a major thoroughfare in the oil trade. Posing an existential threat to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, and things apparently unbeknownst to Iran such as tides can shift the wreckage, endangering oil tankers.

Give the Ayatollah our best. Speaking of “the best”, if you’re going to challenge the world’s preeminent naval power, you’d better come correct. The Battle of Evermore this is not.

3: Biden must face Trump in debate(s). Yes, it’s answering a “double dog dare” from the POTUS and no, you don’t want to give in to the whims of a bully. But if you don’t follow through then it looks like you’re hiding in a basement and afraid to face Donald J. Trump on the stage. What’s the worst that could happen? They then “triple dog dare” one another to a lindy hop dance-off to the “Misty Mountain Hop” or hand out four sticks (one to both members of each ticket) to swing with? Why would you be afraid of that if you’re in the Biden camp unless, per the Trump camp’s assertions, the former Vice President will be unable to remember whether he’s going to California, or another, “y’know, the thing” that the Founding Fathers said? The great equalizer is the human ego. They’ll debate.

This is an event waiting to go wrong. Don’t hang out with bears. [image credit to Daily Caller & Barstool Sports]

4: Meanwhile, the National Park Service has posted a warning urging American adventurers not to confront bears but, if they do, to not take advantage of their slower companions. And no, this is not made up. Nor is the response of a pack of humans, recently, to a bear arriving in their midst. They didn’t flee or otherwise attempt to discourage the bear; instead they took pictures of their merry band whilst feeding the bear. Good call, ‘Murica.

5: Bill Barr’s appearance was a disgrace for everyone except the Attorney General. For committee chairman Nadler, to open the hearing with that statement was an outrage; and Jordan, thanks for the monologue on things that happened before Barr was back on the job and for God’s sake put your damn coat on!

6: Stat of the Week: the POTUS’ campaign is knocking on 1 million doors a week; the former VPOTUS’ camp is knocking on 0. As in ZERO. Z-E-R-O. This sort of nonsense only seems like nonsenseuntil the time when the levee breaks. Underestimate the mad media genius of The Donald at your peril.

Y’know what? Let’s just cancel everything. If everything’s priority one, then nothing is priority one.

7 June 2020

Black Lives Matter: Let’s cut through the fat together, shall we? Yes or yes? Good. With that, we have a problem in America. Several, actually. We live in a police state, for one thing, and for another, paramount now, is said police state taking a particular interest in African Americans.

Let’s also consider the unbelievable, highly-classified powers of FISA courts to spy unopposed on our own people without their knowledge indefinitely, the ability of the Federal government to suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens suspected of terrorism via the Patriot Act and the inexplicable repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (which forbade the Federal Government from using propaganda on American soil). Are you drinking what I’m pouring?

With no malice in my heart toward the many fine police officers across the land (a few I’ve known personally), I say again: we live in a police state.

Over the past decade alone, we have seen increasing examples of the use of excessive force on a disproportionate number of black Americans. Data clearly shows that Whites compose 76.5% of America’s citizenry while Blacks make up 13.4% of it, the former were shot to death by police 370 times versus 235 for the latter.

For those who want to bring out FBI data displaying prevalence of crime amongst inner city black neighborhoods, recall the negligible difference in drug use between whites and blacks and the parity in gun culture between the two.

America glorifies violence, and that crosses ethnic lines. Don’t believe me? Look at what I call “Dollar Voting”, in essence, what we value and spend our money on. What does our art and culture reflect? If we’re being real, it ain’t peace. Does hip hop culture lend itself to violence? Listen to the top ten hits of the genre and get back to me; but before you get back to me, let me know what Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Jerry Reed and “The Dukes of Hazzard” were all about while you’re at it.

As for the movement itself, “Black Lives Matter” is driving home a simple point: yes, every house in the neighborhood matters but only one of them is on fire.

We hardly need a hashtag for Blue (Police) Lives Matter; they roam about largely unopposed, vested with a badge and lethal weaponry, and we provide a safety net (union, pension, et cetera) and, in general, blanket support to include the high probability that bad actors aren’t held accountable in court.

All Lives Matter? Do they? Maybe I’d be more decisive in answering these questions if every new episode of “Death By Cop” didn’t always star a black man.

– Jack DeViney

*************

New Orleans Police Department preps for ongoing confrontation and protest throughout downtown.

All Lives Matter(?): Two things can be true at once. In fact, very few things in our world are mutually exclusive of themselves. One can, for example, be in favor of the events in the George Floyd case never happening again and find the phrase “Black Lives Matters” offensive. They are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. This depends on your definitions of words. Words matter. Words have meaning. Facts matter. Facts have meaning.

If by any definition, one is not a racist, but they will not stand shoulder to shoulder with Black Lives Matter signs, or they won’t kneel down in front of a mob of protestors, they become….what? Insensitive? Divisive?

To be true to this point, I believe “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” are equally asinine. We don’t protest on things we agree upon. We don’t stand outside and shout “the sky is blue”!

Are things worse now than the mid-1960’s? Or do we see public discord in 3D now? We report, you deride.

The assertion that a black man can not step from his home without fear of imminent death from a racist ‘Mericuh is as equally preposterous as the media’s “1619” narrative that America is as systemically racist as at any time in our history. Really? Where’s the poll of young, black men asking them if they’d rather live in 1865, 1965 or 2020? I must’ve missed that astute revelation.

Instead of regurgitated statistics that the left/media refuse to acknowledge anyway, how about we come at this from a novel approach. [So] what is your suggestion? I mean, with all of the statistics stating the exact opposite of your point, what are we doing wrong? Are our hiring standards too low? Is training being swept aside to fast-track officers onto beats? Do we provide immunity to officers that is unnecessary and counter-productive? Let’s get to the “nut cutting” as they say.

If we want to turn this into another narrative where the right just refuses to admit there is a substantial issue and is instead hiding behind years of conservative practices…show me! Where are the statistics that support any of this nonsense? That show America is systemically racist and prejudiced against black Americans? Where are the politicians that you are particularly citing as responsible for these aggressions? Or is it just “orange man bad”, with his “basket of deplorables”?

Once again, the left/media have overplayed their hands. We were told millions of Americans would die if we didn’t shut the world down indefinitely. Now if you have a small business and want to re-open smartly so that you don’t lose everything, you’re killing grandma! We were told that if we would just allow LGBT marriages, all examples of bigotry would be history. Now if you’re a Millennial male that won’t go out with a trans-woman (a man by all scientific facts and definitions), you’re a homophobe! And now, if you won’t march to the beat of this drum, well, you’re just a racist. Or worse, an “Uncle Tom.”

It’s tiring. It’s divisive. It’s unnecessary. This issue is one we must agree on, or we don’t have a country. You cannot have law and order if one group is being systematically hunted down and killed by those sworn to protect us.

Facts matter. Statistics matter. Two things can be true at once.

– Michael R. DeViney, Jr.

Executive Completion: Lobbying Run Riot

Leary, Teresa

Gonzo State: [Untitled]

Six Degrees of Knowin’ Nothin’: [Untitled]

Contrast: Black Lives Matter v. All Lives Matter (et al)