Search This Blog

Above: Lake Geneva, Switzerland. At Montreux.

Fodderize v.t. 1. To break down individual components; to make fungible; to disregard difference; to render one easily substituted for another 2. To impose sub-quality goods or services upon, with little recourse 3. To cap role choices, hinder access to resources regardless of merit, and so avoid competition 4. To manage perception by propaganda-spin techniques, while concealing dispositive facts 5. To manipulate, lure, exploit, deceive

Translate

Friday, November 28, 2014

Ferguson People's Grand Jury, Ad Hoc: Absolve Michael Brown on grounds of gross negligence in collecting evidence, non-preservation.




The Name of Young Michael Brown.
The Police, Prosecutor: Gross negligence in collecting evidence, bias in its presentation.

Shall It Be Tainted by the Malfeasance of the Ferguson Police, and Prosecutor 
Directing the Dance of the Grand Jury Related Thereto
Resolution of Ferguson issues:  A New People's Grand Jury, not to indict a shooter, but to absolve the name of the one shot where evidence has been subject to malfeasance.  For personal viewpoint, ask Chief Justice Roberts as a declaratory judgement type opinion inquiry, non-binding, whether such is appropriate as a check and balance; as Justice Scalia oft expresses his views, ask M. Roberts.

  • Update:  Whether there has been a miscarriage of Grand Jury justice is gaining traction, see National Bar Association: some members speak out/.  And, the common sense question:  Shall a shooter, any shooter, be allowed to make no statement at all at the time, nothing recorded, and so be able to frame his later position according to what witnesses (who have made statements) said, and that that the shooter then adopts as the viewpoints most favorable to him, on which to base his own narrative.


I.  The issues:  Was there obstruction, prevention of collection, nobody interviewing bystanders for hours at the time, until immediate witnesses were long gone as the body lay there for hours, no timely measurements, photos, gross negligence in avoiding collection of evidence, mishandling, failure to preserve and denial of evidence, support The People's Grand Jury's determination of Inculpability as to the State-caused deceased Young Michael Brown; and was this presented to the official Grand Jury.

II.  If there was such malfeasance, even if the shooter cannot be indicted, should Michael Brown's name be cleared as inculpable due to said official malfeasance.  Yes, says and signed, the Missouri Ferguson People's Grand Jury Ad Hoc.

Amen.

III.  Media comment:  Morning Joe minimized its own professional, expert guest observation as to how young offenders should be approached and handled, in order for Joe to opinionate solo again.  Bring back the expert, as how to handle the young is confrontational situations is already explored and tested, but apparently not taught to police.  Decelerate a situation instead of accelerating and bumping them off in the name of Police Control, learn something.

The expert on Morning Joe on handling teens in confrontational situations cannot be found easily on the website, see http://www.msnbc.com/topics/ferguson, but she had important information denigrated by Joe who wanted none of it.  Teens different from adults, communications differences that a white cop could misinterpret, all that?  cut off.  Go back to it, viewers who can stand it, find the expert.   

.............................................................................

I.  A. Legitimacy.  Apparently this grand jury had been convened before the incident, so the Grand Jury itself and its selection appear to be according to law. 

II.  Next logical step.

Convene a People's Grand Jury, Ad Hoc, to examine released official and observed Other evidence.  The agenda:  even if a shooter cannot be indicted, did the victim deserve to die. This is different from the determination of who can convict a policeman, ever.

 This People's Grand Jury Ad Hoc, without reference to the state-determined "probable cause of a crime" as to  the state-supported shooter, could effectively clear the name and exonerate the dead as inculpable:  not able to be found guilty of anything related to the shooting, the teen Michael Brown.

III.  Media and the Expert C. J. Roberts.

Can this kind of Grand Jury, a People's Grand Jury, get traction itself. Ask a boss. The alternatives open to a policeman confronted by a young belligerent are many, and why these were not part of training is culpable in itself, so the time is ripe. 
  • Other Grand Juries assess evidence chosen and presented with discretion by the prosecutor to address "probable cause".
  • Let this People's Grand Jury address probable cause that evidence was so mishandled, uncollected, unrecorded, and so given to the policeman over time so he could manipulate his own story accordingly, as to render null and void the adjunct idea to absolving the policeman, that the victim was guilty.
Conclusion. Convene Inculpability Grand Juries.


*Artful Dodger, illustration by Kyd, Charles Dickens novel, Oliver Twist

Thursday, October 16, 2014

The State that Perry built. No Medicaid expansion. Hospital admissions only for profit. Failure to expand Medicaid predictably fosters contagion.


Texas. The State where Mr. Duncan died. 
Weigh heavily Texas' refusal to expand Medicaid.

Texas is liable for its negligent refusal to admit. With no guarantee of payment, the profit-bound hospital's decision to refuse him admission is predictable, but culpable.  Public health considerations require expansion of medicaid.


1.  Texas.  This is the state where Thomas Eric Duncan lived. He is mourned. See http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20141014-josephus-weeks-ebola-didnt-have-to-kill-my-uncle.ece

2.  This is the state that Perry built, where Mr. Duncan lived,
  •  The State that refused Medicaid expansion as not profitable for its budget, see http://keranews.org/post/where-do-greg-abbott-and-wendy-davis-stand-medicaid-texas; 
    • This Texas Health Resources site says that its hospitals cover charity care, see http://www.texashealth.org/CharityCare/ ; 
      • and a poor person need only download (who has the computer? the literacy?) the Charity Care Application (that title is a humiliation) and a committee will decide how much if any of the bill will be forgiven. And:
      • You need a Guarantor, see http://www.texashealth.org/workfiles/THR%20System/Business_Office/Charity_Application_English_12-12-2012.pdf
      • What kind of ersatz human need care is that?  
  •  The State that promotes healthcare as merely business, profit-driven, as a state policy, including apparently no problem with refusing admission to those who cannot pay to play.
    • No health insurance? Stay here for 4 hours then you are on your own, regardless of presenting symptoms, and ignoring broadly disseminated public epidemic information about infections to which travelers and now this patient may have been exposed.  See http://www.covertexasnow.org/content/uninsured-big-problem-texas/.
      • An Emergency Room stay (what exams were given?), some four hours, says the hospital, is no measure of common sense with the presenting facts here, and no excuse for negligence, even gross negligence, see http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/Hospital-Releases-Statement-About-Ebola-Victims-Care-278707821.html
  • The State that sought secession and did not succeed, seeking to be on its own to conduct governing as a business in all regards for profit rather than for the common good.  See http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/white-house-flooded-with-secession-petitions-after-obama-re-election/; 
    • The same State that now blames the CDC for consequences of the hospital's own policy and errors -- predictable once the unlikely event of the first case indeed occurred -- in infection spreading, see http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/13/us-health-ebola-usa-nurse-idUSKCN0I206820141013/
  • Thank you, Governor Perry.  For nothing?  For passing bucks?  We see you may yet consider doing what is right. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2014/08/17/why-rick-perry-could-warm-to-obamacares-medicaid-expansion/
3.  And this is the state where Mr. Duncan died.

See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/thomas-eric-duncan-liberia-ebola-war-texas-family-obituary

4.  Texas.

This is the State where Mr. Duncan lived, and died, and the nature of the State made a great difference. Vetting needed:  Would Mr. Duncan have had a greater chance of timely admission if the hospital had been assured of reasonable payment through Medicaid?
  • Who has stats on states without Medicaid expansion, and needed hospital admissions; and those with Medicaid expansion.  Is there a correlation to serious illness? 
  •  Do hospitals operated for profit (charity care looks like a sham, see above) tend to release uninsured persons without admission, or early -- to fend for selves back in the community, regardless.  Go. Find out.
  •  Are the remaining 25 or so states without Medicaid expansion putting the rest of us more at risk, because they tend to early release without admission. Will a hospital in a non-expansion state be equally ill prepared by policy and economics to avoid care unless it profits.  See FN 1

5.  Is it time to move Texas?

a.   Move where?
  • It has already failed at independence, secession.  Even if it had succeeded, it would be back on our collective doorsteps for help now, now that we know how its desire for unregulated exploitive government for its elites is shown faulty even for the elites. 
  • Re-absorption into Mexico? Explore. Would Mexico accept it as another Mexican state? Bonanza!  If so, Originalists should cheer. 
  • Go on. Git.

The Texas elites would turn reabsorption into Mexicot down, however, with no seniority offered, and as just another state in Mexico, no supremacy, and worse, its loss of scapegoats.
 b.  Move how?

Try change of mindset, now that we have an election pending.

Change of mindset keeps criticism of outsider meddling at bay; and requires only insiders.  Who can complain?  Texas failure, not CDC.  CDC can improve mightily, but in this case, with the release of Mr. Duncan, that buck has stopped.  Ask fast, before elections:
    • Who in Texas supported, supports expansion of medicaid, as that expansion done timely might well have paved the way for Thomas Eric Duncan's survival, instead of his callously driven demise.  

Some elections do funnel down to an unexpected breaking single issue.  What if Rick Scott loses in Florida because of #fangate?

6.  The refusal of Texas and other states to expand medicaid could well be that change issue now.

Clearly, however, the Medicaid expansion refusers may continue to prevail in pending elections, but at a new cost. The refusal is now tied to a tangible consequence:  epidemic because of the refusal to treat an uninsured person.  Payback time.

  • So, ye Texans, vote only for officials who will expand medicaid and fast can change the refusers' tune.
It is common knowledge that, in Texas, the failure of the legislature-governor to enact medicaid expansion leaves many uninsured, see statistics at http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5519/  This lack of coverage always had predictable consequences in terms of releasing infected people, with the main issue being when, not whether.

The issue is of national import.  Lack of coverage affects the workforce as well as epidemiologoy.  This lack of coverage has been the focus of some in-state criticism, but not enough.  See http://www.covertexasnow.org/content/uninsured-big-problem-texas/.

7.  Who could move Texas? So who in Texas can turn the mindless tide of running government for profit?
  • Try Leticia Van de Putte. Leticia Van de Putte.  Le-ti-cia Van de Putte.  
  •  Hers is not exactly a household name.  She is a democrat in Texas, a Senator from the 26th District, running for lieutenant governor and supported by the Dallas news, see http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20141015-editorial-we-recommend-leticia-van-de-putte-for-lieutenant-governor.ece/  She supported and supports expanded healthcare coverage, see http://blogs.sacurrent.com/thedaily/leticia-van-de-putte-calls-for-expanded-health-coverage/  
  • And, of course, Wendy Davis, who promotes Medicaid expansion, see http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20131203-greg-abbott-wendy-davis-split-over-approach-to-federal-government.ece
8.  From this moment on:  The nation should tolerate no scapegoating the CDC or federal government on ebola.  It was right in assessing that infection in this country was highly unlikely.  It was.  States and governors are to be proactive, however, not sitting back with their juleps and waiting for someone else to represent their people.  A state that just leaves its people to go find and pay for its own insurance, see http://www.texashealthoptions.com/cp/findingcoverage.html/, is in need of an election upset.

9.  Let's get torty.   Assumption of the risk.  States refusing Medicaid expansion assume the risk that the policy of releasing infectious people back into the population -- negligent screening -- is culpable when bad results ensue.  Negligence, and especially gross negligence -- the hospital knew this person had just been in Liberia -- is enough to trigger that one.  Sue the State, and if Texas won't allow suits against it, figure something else out.

  • What on earth justified that hospital releasing Mr. Duncan, except that it was not going to be paid and the policy is to trash the poor.  Coaching on protocols is needed, but that does not pass the buck from Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas in its initial contact and release. See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/01/ebola-us-doctors-texas-liberia

10.  Vetting.

10.1.  Fact check on whether Mr. Duncan had health insurance.  Our source may not be correct. Then ask, was his income enough for him to qualify for healthcare insurance, or was he poor poor.  That may help our assessment of the responsibility of residents.  His nephew claims he had no insurance, see http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20141014-josephus-weeks-ebola-didnt-have-to-kill-my-uncle.ece/  On the other hand, the cost to public health is so great when people are untreated, that the State should not allow uninsured people to go untreated regardless of their own negligence in not getting insurance.  Figure out a way. 

10.2   Fact check on the role of health insurance in admissions questioning: If money is put ahead of symptoms, the hospital is culpable. Ask whether Medicaid patients are admitted and the uninsured are not,  and what forms and questions the hospital poses to patients before deciding what kind of treatment to give.

What are the real alternatives?  Merely being at a hospital for 4 hours does not mean much was done in that time. Reconstruct those 4 hours.  This is a hospital touted for its acute care, see http://www.texashealth.org/dallas

  • Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.  Texas, vet the record.  Vet the forms filled out.  How clear was it that he did not have health insurance.
  • We know how important the money up front is.  Pre-register, and the second in the list at the website is paying the bill.

10.3  Past practice.  What is the hospital's policy when someone has no health insurance.  What percentage of patients pass the big charity test.  Did the emergency room follow its own protocol in not admitting Mr. Duncan.  What discretion do the personnel have.

10.4 .  Even without the CDC, does Texas simply bar the door as a matter of policy; and in this case, to the risk of all of us.

.............................................................................................................................

FN 1  Expanding healthcare in Texas comes too late for Thomas Eric Duncan, who apparently had no health insurance and so was turned away from treatment by the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas.  Vet those statements, inferences, see Mr. Duncan's letter to the editor at  http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20141014-josephus-weeks-ebola-didnt-have-to-kill-my-uncle.ece/   If he had no health insurance, vet Texas further:  what were his options for care?
  •  Texas says all is fine for "qualified" people, see http://www.tmhp.com/Pages/ClientEnglish/client_health_care.aspx/  
  • For those who do not "qualify," there is a website for finding health insurance, see http://www.texashealthoptions.com/index.html/  
  • Overall, Texans are on their own: advised to get health insurance before an emergency happens, and the federal government will penalize you with a fine if you do not have it, see http://www.texashealthoptions.com/cp/whyinsurance.html/ 

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Audience disquiet at man without choice: Gone Girl becomes Gone Guy. The man forced into ongoing marriage. Tables Turned.

What happens to those once in love with Amy? *


The script has changed. What does Amy really want?  What can she do to drive her own life.

For centuries of western culture, religion and politics, the woman has been the docile, forced into marriage as defined by the culture, not a deity (there was no marriage in Eden, or Biblically, pre-patriarchy), and to stay there: out of fear perhaps, psychological-cultural pressure, abuse, no place to go, for the children, her property often in the control of the husband, her life defined and limited by the fact of a marriage over which she had no control. See http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2013/05/news-for-doma-woman-she-was-wife-she.html/.  She became, as Marge Piercy descibes, a basket a man could put his buns in, see http://exceptindreams.livejournal.com/91327.html Generally. Even before divorce offered an option, the man could spend his time elsewhere.

Now, see Gone Girl, the film. If your area is like ours (northeast US), the theater was silent as the closing credits rolled. Disbelief, resentment, disquiet. Mutterings.  Little excited chatter.  Couples mute.

1.  Spoiler alert.  The movie jars and people remained immobile, why?  Consider: deprive the man of choice, and the culture jars.  Deprive the woman of choice, and the culture cheers.

Consider: One reason for the sensed-audience agitation may well be the turning of tables on traditional values. Here, a man, card-carrying randy man, is forced to remain in a marriage he may/may not want for whatever reasons, but the choice is not his. Force, psychological pressure, on end.

For centuries, it has been the woman who has been compelled to marry, and once married, compelled to stay there with little realistic, cultural alternative.  She may have protested, see her in 1865 at http://bogomilia.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html, a story from Peterson's magazine 1865, that she is left at home with the children while husband is out enriching his masculine mind.


2.  A man actually in the position of a woman, no choice in his life, no exit strategy except extremes?  Amy did did it. She put him there. No-one would condone her methods, but her life had been circumscribed, exploited by her mother and father before her, and she merely continues the tradition.  No matter her failures as a child, those morphed into fictional success by those exploiting her, offering her no validation for her human limitations.  So, this is a girl with free rein. Your failures will be magically changed. Create the fiction afterwards, and you will be fine. Even through deaths of others, and, who knows as to levels of self.

If the film limited her impact to self and women, stereotypes would be buttressed. The neurotic, the sociopath. Web in a man to ongoing control, and there is dismay.  So:  Gone Girl become Gone Guy.

And nobody followed up the boxcutter?  Nobody bothers. Why? Ah, yes. Once in Love With Amy.  Ray Bolger.  Boom, boom, boom boom-boom boom-boom.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

An intent of Originalists and Founders: Preserve property and status. Then Founders allowed for change.

I.  Originalism.  Is this to be the new limit on Constitutional construction, that if the Founders did not intend an interpretation, it shall not apply? Start with the Founders' own interests to find intent.  An interpretation that invades those interests would not be the Founder intent, is that so.

Originalism. Easy. Take your own snapshot, of the past you want, and Apply.

How to determine Founder intent, however, where multiple people are involved, and words can be ambiguous.

Look at the relationship of Founder holdings and interests, to their later intent. The Founders had as a dominant stake, their own property and estates, their ability to inherit, accumulate, exercise autonomy.  Clearly those interests were protected in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The intent in the rights clarified, and the procedures set forth, was to leave undisturbed the property and status enjoyed by them, and to protect whatever the Common Man, the less-wealthy but also white males, may have in their hovels or shops.

Yet, the wisdom of the Founders even if unawares was to preserve their own in the documents, but also build in flexibility for the future:  They approved and saw ratified Amendment and legislative procedures, balancing of powers and rebalancing by periodic voting and trumping: udicial decision-making that legislation could trump, and vice versa. And presidential power was also subject to trumping.

II.  Intent to protect, preserve, as seen in residences, privileges of acquisition.

 The Founders had a great deal to protect, many of them.  Anyone values what is possessed, but here the extent of the holdings for many was vast.

2.1.  James Madison's Plantation, Montpelier, Orange County VA, near Culpeper. 

Montpelier with one l, namesake of French town Montpellier with two l's. Different from the town of Montpelier farther to the south.  Hundreds of slaves supported this residence, over time some 5-7 generations, see http://www.montpelier.org/visit/plan-your-visit/enslaved-community/  This was the most educational of the houses we saw.  For Constitution information, the man, the woman, if you go nowhere else, go here.


Madison's intent:  He favored a strong central government. Founder intent, Founder preferences, not uniform.  Isolating one idea as Founder intent (go to the dictionary and look up the word instead of engaging in legislative history) is an Originalist proposal.  No context.  None.
  • If ever I have to choose a Founder whose intent I find best suited to the changing circumstances of an ongoing government structure and its changing populations, I choose Madison.  See https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/political-philosophy-james-madison/  
  • Was the author of The Political Philosophy of James Madison, Garrett Ward Sheldon, also our guide that day?  Hop the Amtrak to Washington, rent a car, go to Orange County, east of Culpeper, and find Montpelier.  The town of Montpelier, also in VA, is much farther south, and not the same.
 2.2  Thomas Stone, not rich-rich, but a lovely home, really two homes connected, and then a kitchen.


The Thomas Stone home is family-size, even for today's family of parents, a few children, and an separate house area appended there to the right. For a married child?  In-laws?  Kitchen, passway, main house, and appended second residence. Total people in residence on the plantation, number of slaves not specified, some 25-35 people.  See http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/about-the-signers/#MD and other sources.  Of all the houses shown here, the Thomas Stone is, to me, the loveliest, if not the grandest.

Thomas Stone's intent:  Not much is known.  He did not write much, was an unobtrusive person who died young. We do not know his intent, but surely it would include protecting this fine livable small plantation.

2.3  George Washington.  We all know the glorious Mount Vernon, even from pictures.  

Here, see instead his roots as imagined by those who want to see more grandeur in his beginnings than there was.  George W. did well, improving his lot as his father also had in his time.  George Washington, then, would have wanted to and did protect not only Mount Vernon, but his right to inherit -- as he did -- and to accumulate lands and properties -- as he did, and as did his father and father's father.  He would not have intended, however, that slaves be free and to vote and to be paid and to accumulate and to inherit as he had, is that so? 

a.  This is not George Washington's birth house. It is only a tribute house at Northern Neck VA, like an architectural Elvis, a commemorative building that may well be like other houses of the day, but it is not George's. It was put up in the 1930's (check) since there was nothing left that could be found at the time as to the original house.  Foundation lines much smaller were later found, indicating that this house was far more grand than the Original.  If an Originalism does not enhance the concept, skip it.


b. This is not George Washington's childhood home.  It also is a tribute site, Home Farm, or Ferry Farm, where the original is gone.  An idea of an early Washington house (was this on this property? the walk-by display may say). 



 Ferry Farm is east of Fredericksburg.  When the real is not known, make it Greek Revival.

More Oz.  This palatial construction looks nothing like the woodcuts of the original home, see http://www.kenmore.org/ferryfarm/farm_history.html, with the huge and intrusive and out-of-proportion Greek revival columns and massiveness that strains the imagination, having come from the birthplace foundation so so tiny.  This property and 10 slaves were left to George when his father died.
  • The Kenmore site states that the family was not rich, not poor. So why is this monstrosity the looming visual image entering the area? The real home had only some four rooms downstairs, and two or three upstairs, size 28' x53'. See http://www.kenmore.org/genealogy/washington/probate.html/
2.4.  Friend of Washington and Jefferson, William Fitzhugh and his plantation, Chatham Manor, Fredricksburg VA


Washington and Jefferson both stayed here.  Chatham Manor survived the Civil War because it became Union Headquarters.

2.5  Home of two signers of the Declaration of Independence, ancestors of Robert E. Lee, Stratford Hall, Stratford VA.  Robert E. Lee was born here. 


Robert E. Lee had no estate rights or interest in the property, however, as he was not an heir. This was the boyhood home of the heirs, relatives, brothers Richard Henry Lee and Francis Lightfoot Lee who both signed the Declaration of Independence.   

Robert E Lee also did well for himself, married money and worked hard. He himself was not a Founder, of course, but he stands for the success of the Founders' protection of rights to property and accumulation that the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not touch in granting other individual rights against government.



3.  If the Founders intended to retain their property interests (including slaves held), and we know that government indeed intruded, what happened? 

Originalists sweep under the political rug the fact that the Founders themselves built in ways to meet chances in circumstances, including in entire populations, and needs national in impact. They built it in, and we used it. As circumstances required and votes enabled. The taxes, the bail-outs, fostering of opportunity for the less well off, basic sustenance.  All equitable, all passed according to Founders' procedures.
  • The Founders indeed built in means for responsiveness that eventually undermined the Originalists' claim that Founder intent would fix and limit what governnment could do. Those are Original procedures, Constitution, Bill of Rights as Amendment procedures that they themselves used; balances and rebalances of powers, legislation procedures.
  •  Does this mean that this new  Originalism as a restriction of Constitution selectively omits what the Founders did to promote responsiveness, and sells the people on going instead to nonresponsive government, so the haves can continue to have at the expense of the have-nots. It becomes a partisan tool, propagation of ballyhoo, not a serious new idea in Constitutional construction.
  • Check the intents.  Founders and the Originalists both wanted and want to protect property; the difference is that the Constitution and Amendments and procedures appropriately built in the flexibility now decried by so-called Originalists.

III. Why not use strict language and findings of intent (who decides? the partisans?) to determine Constitutional rights? 

Move beyond that because of the nature of the government-population relationship.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights are like a social compact, not like a contract with set performances to be performed in a set time frame, and then the contract ends. The Constitution is also like a trust, and without perpetuities.  

Equity was and is built into the judicial and governmental system, although merging law and equity has eclipsed equity until it has nearly disappeared as part of justice.  Originalism insofar as it rejects equity, context, and latches only on to strict law, is not Original and to be discarded.  Equity echoes in fairness and context and both impacted the Declaration of Independence and the C+BR -- Constitutio and Bill of Rights. Keep them strongly in.

Throughout, equity balanced with law, adjusting for changing circumstances, fairness.  And these factors would clearly impinge on the interests of Founders type people, white propertied males, and their friends. See http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

IV.  So, what do the new Originalists intend? 

The Originalists intend a selective analysis of Founder intent, retaining only those they can enumerate that preserve property and status. They, therefore, would see consistency in intending a rollback of any government act or authorization that imposes on their desired autonomy to conduct their own lives, and to acquire and hold property.  Does that mean repeal of the Bill of Rights, and other Amendments through #27?  Repeal of enacted laws, after all these laches?

5.  Check the residence-analysis theory of intent against current Originalists.  Is it so, that much of motive and intent can be known of what a person wants to protect, from what he has. What interests do these new Originalists probably seek to protect?  In any legislation, what does a legislator hold that he wants to protect, and should not interested parties recuse themselves. What did the Founders intend as to corporate influence, the kind of money that flows to legislators from lobbies now.

Google the residences of Originalists if you like.  Do not try to pass the gates. Please do not take photographs.  Can we conjecture that the Originalists' residences are nicer than those of the Common Man and Women? include substantial estates, nice places, even if Philadelphia-shabby, where the bank account is far greater than the worn orientals would have one know. Who is more apt to act in the Common Good.

Corollary, that other people also want things in their name, a life, a lifestyle, autonomy, choice and a paycheck of dignity?  Tilt.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Sanctions Are Decisive Action. Engaged Indirection Plus Strategic Arming. From Liddell Hart to Obama.


Telephone, Avenches, Switzerland

Ring ring/ Liddell Hart to Obama. Stay the course. Putin on the loose? Loose more sanctions. Attack the economic and any other entrenched psychological balance first. Is that weakness?  No, it is strength; and wisdom. Add strategic arming in modern ways, and an enemy's behavior may modify before overt force is needed.  Opponents are already using this Liddell Hart approach to their advantage against the West, see http://newsweekpakistan.com/how-the-taliban-are-winning/.  It has been noticed as effective, even with Hart's early cynical view of war's solving the problem of surplus civilians, thus hard to unseat as a tactic, see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/21/the-way-we-fight-max-boot-s-invisible-armies.html

Context:  A president. A president pursuing change in an opponent's behavior, by  a) focused indirection, combined with  b) measured arming in contemporary ways, and  c) sanctions; instead of puffing or attacking first and figuring out what to do with "victory" later. Ignoring history, some say that we need decisive action, meaning overt and immediate forceplay as the (weak) endgame, heads swiveling to the past and what, in their own experience, used to work.

Or did it?

WWII soldiers. Uncle Don's collection.

What next:

1.  Examine the usual suspects in argument:. Opponents of "mere" sanctions ask, Which way is this president going? We have paid for armies! Weapons!  We must brandish! Indirection is weak. Man up!  Holding cards close to chest is aloof, self-centered. Preserving options, holding open exit ramps both sides. Spineless. Fox has fits.  Discomfort when absolutes are not imposed or imposable.

They forget that we started the first Gulf War using appropriate analyses, see http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1998/Vol24_1/6.htm


Then the analyzing stopped; so we have to backtrack.

2.  Explore: What supports the idea of focused indirection, and preserving options, measured arming, and sanctions, rather than our overt bluster and war.

a. Some short answers:
  •  Indirection has been the soundest military and political policy in history for long term stability over the long term, to the consternation of bombardiers and other direct assaulters of any age. 
  • Combine the measured indirection with actions designed to undermine the opponent's morale and supply, and military and political goals may be accomplished while minimizing the need for confrontive battles. 
  • The religious arena parallels the instability of the political-military.  In the religious arena, the reversion of Christianity to brute force,instead of voluntary following of a way of life, to lock in converts and conformity to an institutional ideology, resulted in Inquisitions, religious wars, sectarianism, that continues today.
Read The Strategy of Indirect Approach at https://archive.org/details/strategyofindire035126mbp/.  Look at pages 4-5, for example, in Introduction, pages 1-6, 'History as Practical Experience.'
"More and more clearly has the fact emerged that a direct approach to one's mental object, or physical objective, along 'the line of natural expectation' for the opponent, has ever tended to, and usually produced, negative results.*****"
Continuing by summary at pages 4-6, to attack on the line of natural expectation is more likely to firm up the enemy's resolve and cohesion, and resistance. Accordingly, mere force and resources are not enough to bring victory.  A victor must also, and even more importantly, destabilize morale, control, and supply in advance of the application of force, if force is indeed needed. And unbalaning comes through, yes, sanctions as a primary tool, timely and effectively applied.

b.  And a longer one.
 
Good ideas, like the effectiveness of indirection combined with measured destabilizing, get shelved because of lack of glamor, no sound bites, no film clips, and of time passing and disinterest when emergencies fade. As on Morning Joe, see how long by the clock you have to wait before someone parrots talking points. Click away immediately/

 The fading of an idea, such as the value of indirection instead of confrontation, does not necessarily signify lack of merit. It may reflect the self-interest of the commentators: Those who limit their wisdom to their own experience ask, What do we do with ourselves, our sense of worth, what of our jobs, if war is no longer macho?

And the mentally coralled head talkers will never let that happen. Is that so? Their identity and future as candicates make them bound like little feet. Listen to them: Polls support this, polls support that. Is this so, instead: that polls measure only the effectiveness of a spun partisan message repeated until absorbed by the vulnerable, not necessarily an assessed merit of idea.  Do polls merely serve the man currently balancing on top?


Salzburg, Austria.  Sphaera, by Balkenhol. The fragility of trying to stay on top.

Compare that one-note preoccupation with status to the mind of  Liddell Hart, decades ago, that swiveled on its neck easily through traditions of warfare from early western history through the 20th Century wars. His principles apply today if only necks would turn to look. 

3.  Rethink Sanctions:

Proposal.  Stay the course. Use sanctions even more widely as a means of  affecting behavior, morale, the unbalancing. Add messaging, and wise, focused provision of appropriate arms.

Failure to apply sanctions in a timely and effective way enabled the WWII guru to succeed long enough to, and in ways that still, support the ideal memory. What? We did something wrong?



Sanctions.  Take the idea seriously. Sanctions even decades ago were seen as a careful targeted use of economic pressures to change behavior, not turning to wars as first recourse.  It must be coupled, however, with the real conundrum:   What use of targeted arms, who provides what to whom, what works in a modern age of secrets and intelligence-gathering.  What maneuvers in the shadows, strategical operations, that bear no overt resemblance to formal attack.  Dislocation.  Creating uncertainty. Aim where the enemy does not expect, the line of "least expectation," http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/126431/b-h-liddell-hart/strategy-the-indirect-approach
"In almost all the decisive campaigns the dislocation of the enemy's psychological and physical balance has been the vital prelude to a successful attempt at his overthrow."
And if behavior changes reasonably satisfactorily as a result, there is no need for overthrow. Perhaps/ Stability.

And that takes funding to get a message across, while others maneuver through a line of lesser expectation.


4.  Enough sanctions are indeed decisive actions.

What? You say even Hitler could have been stopped earlier, with sanctions firmly applied and early? Combined with careful application of arms to allies?  But they were paralyzed, you say?  How did Hitler do that? With advance work, behind the lines work, with careful and plausible propaganda, induce fear, spin, sloganeer, focus on masses not intelligentsia for the message, oppose, obstruct, duck debate, repeat.

5.  How to turn the old liners.

5.1  Opponents are wed to their past.  Rebuild the traditional army, say some.



5.2  Make him tell us his plans before he moves, and follow the direction we say.  If he is circumspect, how will we measure him?


5.3  The old guard cannot swivel, is that so? Are they tethered?  See the sugarplums of past military memory bind us now.




Get those planes in the air!


We are the guy in the white hat. Please say, we are the guy in the white hat, coming in the nick of time to WIN.



4. Conclusion so far:

We have forgotten what Mother Germany learned.


Is this determinism by neck.  Are some in leadership positions here and elsewhere are so bound by their own cultural tradition, experience and mindset, that their necks are more comfortable looking backward than forward.  Those necks no longer support a face looking to the future, nor can they swivel to look around to vet their own beliefs.  Those necks dare not reject the monetary and positional rewards that the stiff neck offers.
 
Let Hart's concepts be part of the discussion. Engaged, purposeful indirection; targeted, careful providing of selected arms, strategic maintenance of many options.


Friday, July 4, 2014

Thank Facebook: Whistleblower on Manipulated News Feeds

New Science of Ballyhoo
Slanting information is more than mood manipulation.  It is PsyOps on the home front.

1.  Facebook's manipulation of news feeds, resulting in alterations of mood, is a demonstration of established methods of persuasion, not an experiment.   2.  Facebook is a welcome whistleblower on how persuasion techniques manipulate people's mindsets.  PsyOps on the home front.  3.  Applaud Facebook and expand the discussion beyond mere marketing applications, Ballyhoo * tactics, to the sinister use of the established science of PsyOps. Focus on how institutions and industries control emotions and obstruct facts:  News industry left and right, media industry, politics industry, religion industry, marketing industry.  Watch the planned steps play out.


1. Facebook's manipulation was a demonstration, not an experiment. 

Facebook conducted a demonstration, not an experiment, on the emotional effects of slanting news feeds. Contrary to reporting, Facebook did not conduct a mere social experiment when it tallied the results:  Those targeted with negative feeds responded negatively elsewhere on related activities.  Those targeted with positive feeds, responded positively elsewhere.

Facebook instead conducted a demonstration of persuasion techniques in common use for a long time, not an experiment.  Facebook demonstrated how spin can produce a broader attitude that infuses the thinking of the target. By aiming at an emotional response rather than enabling an analytical one, persuaders rule.  Do polls also feed one way or the other? What if only one group is likely to answer the phone? See Propaganda Techniques.

2.  What other techniques work to manipulate mood, mindset.  Count the ways of spin.  Negativity as a tactic: a plan of negative action.

a) Induce a threat, survival fear, ideological loss.
b) Sloganeer (talking points) and Scapegoat somebody else for the problem.
c) Focus on the groups less likely or able to do their own research and analysis -- get the talking points out there.
d) Obstruct and Oppose facts.
e) Denigrate humanitarianism. Only wimps think of others. The tired, poor, hungry, deserve it. Do Not Debate Do Not Debate.
f) Repeat. Loud, unrelenting, interruptive, uncompromising, occupy the space.

Those have been in formula since the 1930's. See Vetting Roots: When Roots of Belief are Propaganda/
Mnemonic:  ISSFOODR. for the diet of manipulation.

3.  Where a population is targeted by Big Persuasion, do polls reflect a measured response after reasonable analysis of issues, or mere planned Reaction.  What does a national mood reflect when polled?  The persuaders and the shovelers, or have the responders vetted, analyzed on their own the facts?  Once committed emotionally, can people now solidly in the persuaders' camp, be expected to change or value facts. How to correct. Education as to techniques, tools for mental defense?

4. .  Facebook as whistleblower.  Facebook is a welcome whistleblower on uses of PsyOps at home, in politics, religion. Any institution.  Manipulating beliefs and mindset is good marketing as well as good soldiering, and has become own field of study. See http://psywarrior.com/psyhist.html/.   So: Let Facebook continue to let out, to demonstrate, that all news feeds end up manipulated, presented selectively to suit the provider's objectives. 

Let it out that people can defend if they know the techniques to watch for, the kinds of words that are inserted to alarm. And give them a place to find untainted facts.  That is the tough one. 

Q. But is it ever possible to communicate all the facts?
A. Perhaps not, in an era of sound bites.

At least, however, we can provide for a source that is untainted that can provide access and cross reference to far more on both sides. Factcheckers who have tried, however, get pre-empted by persuasion-oriented fact spinners using the same terminology.  Can a fairness doctrine in some form be put in place that meets other First Amendment interests?  The need is there, see Propaganda Steps

5.  Expand the discussion.

Facebook does not deserve outrage.  It has opened a slammed-shut door, a door to workings of psychological operations that probably some never knew was there and used to use them. 

Are people really shocked, shocked to find that their beloved information providers are merely setting a stage that suits the providers' financial or other goals, and may well be unrelated to merits or all the facts.Facebook's demonstration was indeed a success,and a service to our society. No wonder the outcry has been huge by those who fear that their persuasion ability may be limited if people know what they do, and can prepare and defend:  Persuasion by propaganda is unrelated to presenting the merits of an issue, but rather to whether the persuasion succeeded or not and who benefits (high fives at Fox, any hive of ideology).

4. Conclusion.  Media PsyOps. Advertising PsyOps.  Political sales PsyOps. Build on the military knowledge. Private sector use of sneak tactics to gather information and persuade is no different in terms of danger to a democracy, issues of the need for transparency in workings, than government action.  Snowden: The sky did not fall after you.  Facebook:  If people take these demonstrated results seriously, the sky of persuasion should fall.  Which of us is the target of the brain whisperer today?  See Neuromarketing, and Ads that Whisper to the Brain, at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14stream.html?_r=0

Consider: Facebook is a welcome whistleblower for how persuasion has moved from benign marketing to sinister manipulation unawares.  Private sector advertisers and moneymakers commonly use neuroscience, and the history of persuaders and ISSFOODR techniques, to get ahead.  Facebook's demonstration of how easy it is to shape opinion apart from the merits serves to whistleblow manipulations of information feeds on topics across media, politics, religion, anyturf where one group seeks to assert control, or persuasion if you prefer, over another. Vetting Roots: When Roots of Belief are Propaganda

Private sector use of PsyOps tactics. Governmental, political, religious, use of PsyOps tactics. Successful Fox manipulates news feeds. MSNBC manipulates news feeds in response, but with more nodding to presenting the other viewpoint. Religion, politics, the marketplace. The elite who own the waves, or the written opinions.  All manipulate what the population will see and hear and before they have a chance to get all the facts on their own.



* Explore a history of hoodwink, Science of Ballyhoo, Edward Bernays' legacy. Then consider whether broad use of the historically deadly ISSFOODR variation, see above, is far more sinister and damaging to a democracy than anything Snowden revealed. 

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Nigerian Kidnappings. Where Have the Fathers Been? Women are Zip. Chattelize Women. Conservative Christian Fathers Abandon Daughters.

Where are / were the Fathers, 
in the Nigerian Mass Kidnapping. 
Boko Haram. 
Women alone have no power.
Finally we see fathers of the girls in photos. Are you impressed? 
NO.
They could have cared less over a month or more. 

The fantasy of sexual slavery, woman as incubator,  is perpetuated by culture, religion, politics.

Global preoccupation: Control the Cervix. Is that so?  Horrors.
Nigeria epitomizes the global truth-let: Women still are, and shall be, chattel, as long as men control and benefit from control of women. Where have the fathers of these girls been, this month and longer.  Each day, their daughters lose value. Why should Nigerian Goodluck Jonathan do anything, as indeed he has not? The men in his cultural community, regardless of religious identification, are not behind the idea of sacrificing anything for women.
What is the global lesson: Women. Vote, wherever your are, however you can.

  • Dateline Nigeriaa.  Film of girls, mothers.  Update to now, where we finally see fathers, reporters of "families," concerned about the kidnapped girls in Nigeria, taken by Boko Haram Muslim Extremists.
  • Finally, after a month, we see fathers, families.  Where have the men been?  Hard question

Where are the fathers protesting the kidnapping of their daughters. Hundreds of schoolgirls kidnapped by Muslim-professing religious extremists, read religious extremists in any form, Christian, Jewish, Muslim;  for whom the cultural-power value of downing women supersedes all else.  Hashtag # whatever bring back out girls.

Where are the fathers. Again, dateline Nigeria.  See hundreds of mothers seeking the return of schoolgirls kidnapped by Muslim-professing religious extremists.  The fathers, do they say this: That these girls once had value as unsullied wives, chattel, and even if they are returned, they are sullied, brainwashed by now, no value.  Let them go.

Culture and economic self-interest supersedes all. Let religious interpretation in all things fall in line to worship power culture and economic self-interest.  Read:  Male usurpation. Power and tradition drives what culture supports, in all things.

These are so-called Christian girls.  The religion does not matter as to whether girls shall be sexual chattel or not.  Global sexual chattelization of women is the issue, and if religion is used to justify it, Nuts.

Evangelical Christian missionaries in foreign lands.  Stand up and take a position.  Did you, do you, foster the worldview that women are zip.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Obama and Belling the Rus-Cat. Piers Plowman Revisited. Raiders of the New Rus. Wise Ones Track Piers Plowman. International Aggression Response.

 Obama and Belling the Rus-Cat.
Piers Plowman.
Viking Raiders, Rus, and What History Teaches about Response to Aggression.

Ukraine triggers many interests. Today we are thinking of Rus traditions, and how history may speak: when forces to overcome are, as a practical matter, unstoppable in the immediate future. Old Rus, new Rus, all dealing with or engaging in invasions, settling, as we in the West also did.  And, to address how to cope with an unstoppable force, read the West's Piers Plowman, Belling the Cat. What resolution was proposed in the earliest versions of that too-simplified story.

1.  Rus.  Putin. Like Vikings. They will run their course.

Vikings came and went in their territories for a long time; eventually settling in where they had raided, or just going home. 

Is there a connection with historical repeats of this raider behavior and this drive to reincorporate a "new Russia".  If Big Russia is asserting rights to the Old Rus as the new Rus, see old Rus at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/513010/Rus, examine what that means.  Rus is not "different." It includes early Swedish Viking raiding and trading roots, down the Volga, among other sources of Rus as a concept. The history of Viking trading-invasion, as the West well knows, is not one of negotiation; they chose to raid and/or settle or not. Many did settle in the areas previously raided.

So what next for the people already there in Ukraine when the new force of Rus comes? We has recourse, we meaning here, those of us who may see ourselves on a receiving end of  a broader Rus influence, if Putin's Rus are not "stopped." But stopping is not possible easily. What recourse?  Sanity. We still have that. And perspective, if we choose to look.
  • Our own history echoes what is happening in Ukraine now. The "new Rus," as in old roots of Ukraine driving and "justifying" new invasions of it, is also us. We also have invaded those here before us. 
  • So, we also are the Cat, as in the medieval story that European Piers Plowman wrote-recorded about Belling the Cat.  
    • Is that story on Obama's nightstand? Piers Plowman's early tale of outside power threatening a community, Who Will Bell the Cat? 
    • It suggests a resolution that Obama and our leadership routes so far are following: 
    • Here I suggest that Obama, as Piers, has a strong idea of what may well work best.  
    • Put away the battle drums.
2..  History of The Rus*.  Is it there on Obama's nightstand?

Why ask:
  • Ask because President Obama's approach to the Rus-Cat today suggests he has learned wise lessons from sources such as these:  As Piers Plowman moralizes, in a practical way in approaching an encroaching deadly Cat, this indeed is a world of Cats.
  • This particular Cat of our day is better dealt with by containment than for the community to die trying to eliminate it.  This is much as the Vikings had to be avoided and contained, if possible, until they wore out, or settled in peaceably.  Waiting while minimizing damage is one way to arrive at a stable world, even with a Cat loose; and successor Cats.  Waiting recognizes that this is a Cat-filled world.  
  • No era has been free of a Cat. Yet, people survive.
3.  Background on Viking-Rus History.  Keep in mind our own parallels as settlers with guns, colonial powers, raiders against Native Americans, or exploiters of those we made slaves.: 
4. Viking mentality.

This did not spring from nothing.  It was fertilized by an aggressive Christian militance, where early benign missionaries were replaced by institutional conformity-religious empire drivers. Cultural adjuncts that killed if people did not convert.

Is this invasion of cultural institutions that demean what was already there, a root of perceived humiliation by those beaten? Is a sense of disregard driving, in part, the new Rus.

5. What, then, can we assess about President Obama's current slow-go, containment approach to the Today's Viking Rus-Cat. Putin putting himself at the helm of new longboats.

We learn that patience and containment may well work. And, indeed, there is not other choice. Containment may result in a militant containment, rather than defeat and decimation; can we live with that as a macho culture?  I think we must and should.

6.  Examine the old Piers Plowman,  How to Bell the Cat.  Is it on Obama's nightstand? If not send him an early version.  It reinforces his approach.

  • Our current international aggressions, by this new Rus-Cat, are just like the looming Cat of old; the medieval Cat new in the mouse neighborhood, a cat who loves to eat them mousies: reminiscent of Kliban at http://www.eatmousies.com/intro.html  
  • Recall the words:  Bite heads off, nibble feet, etc.Get over the idea that we are seen as the mice here, and assess: Put Putin's visage on the old posters. Do a search.
The original medieval Piers Plowman tale, as generally known is pap.  The early original ends with a twist not usually recalled from truncated childhood versions.  See the Who Will Bell the Cat cite above. Review:
  • The Mice in the original story do not just skulk away in defeat, unable to defend, doomed to accept the community victimhood that the uninterrupted presence that the Cat imposes.
  • The mice instead listen to a Wise One among them, who puts the Cat in perspective. Quoth the Wise One:
    • The Cat, it is true, will get some of us. But if we get rid of this Cat, another will arrive to take its place, because this is a world of cats. Get rid of one, and another arises. Unintended consequences.
    • The Cat, if left to its own devices, is really a limited threat. 
      • It can only eat so many of us, before depriving itself of its own food source. 
      • So if we can survive the initial onslaught, the entire community is probably not threatened with devastation for the long term.  
      • The Cat itself will have to limit its own hunting.
      • Meanwhile, some deft Mice will escape, and themselves multiply up again, and wise up each time in how to defend from, hide from, or tease to exhaustion, etc., Cat
  • This Cat, if successful, will attract more Cats. The competing multiple cats will be faced with wiser mice, however, and the Cats probably will start to fight among themselves, thus relieving some pressure on us mice.
Resolution:

So let us wise up as to how to avoid the claws.  We, as the mouse community, the world, will have to accept some losses as the successor Cats do their dance.

But in return, we (voting is a concept with power that can overcome Cats, if we can overcome the powers trying to defeat voting) will survive, and survive well enough.  Life proposed: a a limited Cat invasion from time to time, until we can whack it like whack-a-mole;  and stability between what this Cat can eat, and who is left. Can we in the West contain the Koch-Cat?  Maybe not in the short run. But there is the vote, and the natural intelligence of the Mice.
And with no cat at all, does our own community grow so complacent and large that we cannot sustain ourselves?
  • So, the wise course is to protect those around you, each household looking after its own, looking after others as may be feasible, but admitting cat-hood as an unchanging part of this community's life and death.
7. Upshot. Go, Obama.

The Wise Course sounds like containment. It has none of the glamor of McCain's cannons; but give Obama, the counsel of the Wise One, this opportunity.  Oh, the opposition to letting life happen while protecting quietly our own, helping others sensibly, under the radar. Can that idea survive when faced with the political malignancies of candidates posing as hosts, as in Morning Joe the Candidate of the Flapping Flags Behind His Chosen Head; (is this becoming a rant?); and his beloved Wall Street Journal (the Wall Screed Journal?) editorials that get prime business-interest time even when other views are equally eloquent. Mika, speak up!.

Obamas has the approach. Where you cannot stop the grab and go of countries or businesses, at least you can limit the opportunities, live smarter, more informed on your own, less like cattle answering a call.

Read the initial view, at http://migratorypatterns.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-will-bell-cat-piers-plowman-and.html , and perhaps find it applies to many adversities encountered while breathing.

..................................................................
*  The Rus.

Who? The Rus as in Russia. More specifically perhaps

Rus as Viking descendants from the Sweden side of the Norse, invading, trading, raiding centuries ago, but sidling deep into eastern Europe down the Volga toward the Slavs.  This was a different Viking cultural route, rather than those other Norse headed for the British Isles and the monks whose initially benign Christian message betrayed the Norse by becoming an unstoppable cultural invasion.  The trigger for those earliest Viking raids including Christian atrocity against the Saxons, Charlemagne was no nice guy. See ; and  http://www.heritage-history.com/?c=read&author=upton&book=charlemagne&story=saxon/

 Does the Viking tradition speak to today's Rus in some way. Raid and run. Have your way, double down, and duck. The trigger for earliest Viking raids including Christian atrocity against the Saxons, Charlemagne was no nice guy. See ; and  http://www.heritage-history.com/?c=read&author=upton&book=charlemagne&story=saxon/ And kindly missionaries gave way to inquisitorial dogmatarian institutionalists.

These Germanic Saxons, and later missionary fields in the Scandinavian areas, were literally next door to their cultural brethren, the Norse. But here, we focus on the eastern Rus.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Voting as Protected Speech. The Roberts Penumbra. McCutcheon. Loose the Memes.

Election spending and Election voting.

With Citizens United and McCutcheon ( site re perhaps reversal in works?), money actions to promote a message are speech.  Why are voting actions not speech? Old reasoning that looked at voting narrowly needs a revamp.   Targeted voter suppression indeed is to punish the voter for the message.  See Dorf at http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2011/06/when-if-ever-is-voting-speech.html.

Both means of communicating a message are to be equally protected under the First Amendment.  If voting is not so protected, then neither should money speech.

Loose the memes.  Take the issue of voting and its to Chief Justice Roberts. It is his penumbra..
.
The Penumbra of First Amendment Protected Speech.

Chief Justice Roberts' right to participate in electing is his rationale for protecting speech. Protecting participation necessarily includes both the funding, the donating, and the voting.  If citizenship proof remains unreasonably high, as many voter ID laws are in light of deprivations of many unfunded potential voters, then this follows:  Only voters, autonomous qualifying humans, can contribute to the politics; and that bars corporate and non-human entities from contributing, and that defeats Citizens United. Is that so?  Individual, not aggregations.
..................................................................

Chief Justice Roberts in McCutcheon * writes for the Majority Four that prior significant spending caps in political donating by individuals are unconstitutional. Money is speech, triggering First Amendment strict scrutiny on any restriction. Speech is vital to participation in politics, so that individuals are as protected as corporations in their financial speech. Writes C.J. Roberts, "There is no right in our democracy more basic than the right to participate in electing our political leaders."

Stop||. 
Rewind<.
First, right to participate
 Second, electing our political leaders. 
Now, Play>:
 
All forms of participation in electing is therefore to be protected under the First Amendment.  There is a penumbra there, with a reach over voting as speech as well as money as speech.

This McCutcheon case relates directly to the participation in the electing process as criteria for protection:  if speech is vital to elections, and speech is protected under the First Amendment, then not only participation by donating money is covered as such speech; but also the actual act of voting.  What is more politically participative than the vote?

Yet McCutcheon goes so far as to only put icing on the existing donor class cake, elevating election donors to a  Most Favored status -- no hurdles, compared to other forms of participating in our democracy.
  • First, corporations are freed to give almost unlimited money, to a high degree. 
  • Donate by mail any time, online, by check. Some transparency may apply, that the donor is free to sort out. 
  • Are there any barriers to donating? Not many. A political donor need not be human.  The political donation is sacrosanct.  The political donor
    • need not be a citizen, or over 18, or  hatched in this country or its territories, or "naturalized," and as a corporate donor, 
    • needs no brain or conscience except the adopted consensus of enough board members or shareholders, who by their by-laws are bound in a fiduciary and legal way to put their profit first, not the State of the Union. 

Now look election voters, those seeking to participate in the electing of their leaders, with participation as the most basic right in our democracy. The lowly voter cannot just use the mail any time, go online any time, vote at will within the administrative timeline from conclusion of primaries and setting of ballots, to last day of electing.  The voter must also a) be human (that can be presumed, probably); b) age 18 or more; and c) a citizen, born here, or of two parents each of whom is a citizen, or someone who was naturalized.
  • Citizenship has become an unreasonable hurdle where states require only certain documentation, under an ill-disguised purpose to avoid the fraud that somehow does not materialize under reasonable scrutiny, see http://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud. 
  • If there is no solution to strident claims of voter speaker fraud that a court can figure out, except voter speech exclusion, then do this:  Require donor speakers as well to be citizens, that is, register as incorporated here; and their donations to be used only in the district where they do business (which can be very broad).  No donor individual or corporation can be a non-citizen. Rev up the proofs.
  • Voting is already a right, not a privilege, see http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/
  • Time to make it a protected free speech right.
So:  Specify, in the next Supreme Court case, that voting rights are protected speech under the First Amendment.  In the alternative, add restrictions to donors so that they, too, must be incorporated here, and disclosed with every donation.
Watch this green shoot spring from the penumbra of Chief Justice Roberts.  Voting as protected speech, vital to participating in our democracy. Is the issue of what is already protected speech, and not protected, a new one to the electorate? There are education opportunities out there. See http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions/

There is no reason to exclude voting from protection.  Excluded from first amendment protection are the usual porn, obscenity and shouting and fire in crowded theater things, perjury and blackmail, bona fide threats, soliciting for a crime, defamation and fighting words, and the like. 

Voter speech could not be on an exclusion list.  Ergo. Voting speech is presumptively protected speech, to be restricted only after strict scrutiny. Make proofs of citizenship flexible and favoring the voter.

Conclusion.

Talk speech, money speech, voter speech.  All aspects of voting speech should be protected. Increase the time, place and manner of the vote, just as donors have almost unlimited time and manner of donating. After all, ask, what is the "our" in the election of our political leaders.
  • Why should non-citizens, corporations, who cannot vote on their own at all, so far, be able to influence elections of the voter-citizens' in choosing the voters' political leaders.  Discuss.


Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts, for your penumbra concept of the sacrosanct activity of participating through speech. Through your most gracious penumbra, voters can look forward to the firm establishment of their rights of participation in electing our leaders, just as the brain-free corporate money talkers and the moneyed individuals now can. The individuals get a double whammy: first the donation, then the vote.  The lowly voter gets only one shot.

================================

Update:  The Daily Kos also supports voting as speech, just as money is speech.  See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/02/1289123/-If-Money-is-Speech-Isn-t-Voting-Speech/  This appeared the day before our blog, but had not been seen by us.

McCutcheon:  See http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/

Constitution on voting.  Amendments:

No abridging voting rights of citizens
15th -- based on race, color, prior servitude; or
19th -- based on sex; or
24th -- based on failure to pay a poll or other tax; or
26th -- based on age, so long as voter is 18.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution

  • Further amendments for no abridging based on limited voting opportunity in terms of time, machinery, location, would be covered by the strict scrutiny required in specifically including voting as a protected free speech right.


Citizen: born in a US state or territory; or of parents who are each a citizen; or by naturalization, see https://www.dhs.gov/how-do-i/become-citizen/