District of Corruption

Viewing posts from the District of Corruption category

Truth vs. Fact

I often get asked about my role as a scientist in light of my primary employer. “Have you ever worked for the defense?” How does it feel working for law enforcement?” These are just a few of the questions that I’ve faced in trial.

As a scientist, I really don’t have a dog in the fight. My answer to that line of questioning usually goes like this, “Regardless of who’s signature is on my pay cheque, I work for the Trier of Fact – assisting the judge and jury in correctly interpreting these complex pieces of evidence. The results of my tests are grounded in science. They are reliable and repeatable. My tools and techniques are based on generally accepted, peer reviewed image science. The academic references for the algorithms used, for each of the steps performed, are noted in my report.”

That being said, I have assisted the court in uncovering fraudulent evidence presented as impeachment evidence in People v. Abdullah (BA353334). It could be said, in that case, that I was working in the defense of the accused. But again, I was there to assist the Trier of Fact in correctly interpreting the evidence. In that case, the correct interpretation was that it was a forgery. In Hor v. City of Seattle, I assisted the Trier of Fact in correctly answering the question about if/when a particular sound is heard in a recording (10-2-34403-9SEA) – seemingly in the defense of the City of Seattle – but more correctly in defense of the facts of the matter.

Trier of Fact n. the judge or jury responsible for deciding factual issues in a trial. If there is no jury the judge is the trier of fact as well as the trier of the law. In administrative hearings, an administrative law judge, a board, commission, or referee may be the trier of fact.

Taken a step further, there are certain trade groups that are geared towards law enforcement that will expel a member who is perceived or accused of having worked “for the defense.” The perception is that law enforcement are the “good guys” and the criminal defendants are the “bad guys.” Yet, to an image scientist, a 1 or a 0 is neither good nor bad. They’re just numbers. I’ve worked a few cases where the government’s “experts” got everything completely wrong, their work product was not repeatable nor grounded in science, and thus their conclusion was complete rubbish (scientifically speaking). In these cases, who’s the “good guy” and who’s the “bad guy?”

[As a side note, in the famous treason trial of Aaron Burr, he was defended by Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin, both delegates to the Constitutional Convention and among the most prominent men of the day. The Burr trial is one of the more famous examples of how politics and ego can enter into court proceedings.]

But back to the point, if you’re one of those scientists that think in terms of “good guys” and “bad guys,” are you not biased towards a presupposed outcome – good will overcome evil and the bad guys will be punished? Is this form of presuppositional bias a good thing or a bad thing for scientists who serve the court system? I am certainly not one of those types of scientists. I work the case and the facts are the facts, regardless of who is signing my paycheck.

In the end, A either equals A or it doesn’t.

It’s with this in mind that I received and began to read Ferguson, MO: What Really Happened: A Systematic Scientific Analysis by Bruce E. Krell, PhD.

Truth vs. Fact

If we are to rely upon the media and various special interest groups to inform the Trier of Fact in Ferguson, MO, as to the “truths” of the case, the shooting incident will look a certain way depending on which “truths” are presented. White vs. Black. Powerful vs. powerless. State vs. the people. Bully vs. bullied. Etc. But true experts are relied upon to present facts. In this case, Dr. Krell uses his many years of experience in reconstructing shooting incidents to examine the facts and come to a conclusion. His science is presented without distractions and superfluities. In a very methodical way, Dr. Krell takes the reader through the crime scene to examine what actually happened – what the evidence at the scene says happened.

It’s a thoroughly refreshing point of view – science (facts), as opposed to the many political angles that have been previously presented (truths). It may be uncomfortable to read, but facts are facts. Dr. Krell is working neither for the state or the people, neither for the prosecution or the defense. He’s working for the Trier of Fact, applying the science of shooting incident reconstruction to the evidence in the case.

Three cheers for Dr. Krell, though I doubt the biased media outlets will pick up on this book. Unfortunately, the facts of the matter don’t fit their narrative.

Education is already free, Bernie.

In a recent debate between rivals for the Democrat party’s nomination for the upcoming Presidential election, Sen. Bernie Sanders made several references as to why/how college education should be free in the US. Not to be outdone, our former Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, seemed to allude that not only should a college education be free to citizens, but to undocumented migrants as well.

Lost in the weeds of the discussion is the question – do folks want a free “education” or a free “undergraduate degree?” It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the difference is, as Donald Trump might say, huuuugggge.

First and foremost, education is simply the act or process of being educated. Education is, and has always been, free. Yes, that’s right. It’s a simple process. You identify something that you want to know more about. You find out more about that something. You’re now educated on that something. Simple enough, yes.

As an example, I want to build a strong and durable fence around 3/4 of my property. I don’t want to spend a ton of money, I want to source materials locally, and I want to do it as a project that involves my children’s schooling. My oldest daughter and I set about to educate ourselves as to historical wall/fence building techniques in our rural area, then broadened the search to include techniques from cultures who’ve existed in areas with similar geography and climate. We ended up finding that the beginning of the China’s Great Wall in the Gobi had the right design features and materials to match what we wanted to do. We’ve got plenty of dirt and our local lake has a problem with cat tails / bull rush that need constant clearing (free materials). The info we found even suggested building methods that could easily be adapted to our modern situation. So it is, my daughter and I are now “educated” as to an appropriate building method to construct a wall around our property (I seriously doubt that the original builders of the wall in the Gobi were required to have a degree a degree in structural engineering and certification as a civil engineer).

In another example, I recently completed an on-line class on Human Vision and Perception (continuing education for my profession) at Duke University for free, part of the Coursera project’s offerings. With Coursera, you can take classes from some of the “best” colleges and universities in the world for free.

Pick your topic, and the internet can supply you with a ton of information so that you can educate yourself.

But folks really don’t want an “education.” They want a free “degree.” Amazingly enough, those opportunities exist as well. Check out the University of the People’s web site to find out how to earn a degree in Business Administration or Computer Science on-line for “free.” But even the UOP program isn’t entirely free, there’s still a sign-up fee and fees to take exams. But, it’s pretty cheap.

Ok. We’ve found a “free” degree for folks. That should be it, right? Not even close.

The first objection will be to the on-line format. Then, it will be to the status of their accreditation. Then, the complaints will be towards the ability to leverage the degree earned from UOP in gaining employment (after all, the lawyers on Suits all come from Harvard). All of which are BS. For many young people, the college experience as such is just a 6 year extension of their childhood and a delay of accepting full responsibility for their lives. How many go to college to “find themselves?” I did. Should tax payers have to fund this “fact finding mission?” No.

The way we should handle “education,” if the Libertarians were involved in the discussion, is to focus on the market. Moral capitalism seeks to fill a need. I see that folks need X to make their lives more livable, safe, fun, etc. I provide X at a reasonable price. I make money to support my efforts and folks have their lives enriched. The market reacts to what I’m doing, spurring further innovation. Education, and “finding yourself,” should be centered around finding those things that each of us can do to better our situation and the situation of those around us. We should be raising generation after generation of entrepreneurs, inventors, builders, artists, … We should not be paying for an “education” in General Studies so that the graduate can be a well rounded delivery driver for the local pizza franchise.

Thus, as no one is calling BS on the media or the Democrats, I will. Education is already free. A university degree can also be earned at little/no cost to the student.

So what do they really want?

Willful ignorance or propaganda?

Driving in to work this morning, I was listening to the local public radio station, KPCC. There was a conversation between two hosts about the on-going problems in the Middle East. It contained the usual pleasantries and platitudes before shifting to the involvement by Russia. Then the host said something very odd. She said that US officials simply don’t know what Russia is up to or what is motivating them. Seriously?! Can a radio host be that ignorant? Was this part of the administration’s propaganda war against our old adversary? You be the judge.

First of all, Russia and Syria have been allies for decades. Russia’s Material-Technical Support Point at Tartus, Syria, has been Russia’s naval base since leasing the space in 1971. Now, granted, it was the Soviet Union that leased the space on the Mediterranean coast from the Ba’athists, but the Ba’athists are still in power in Syria and Russia assumed control of the old Soviet military. Why Syria? The old name of the ruling political party might hold a clue. The Syrian wing of the Ba’ath Party used to be called the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party – Syria Region. Socialists do tend to flock together.

Second, and more importantly, this issue is about the flow of gas into Europe. Currently, Gazprom sells a massive amount of natural gas into Europe. They make good money doing so. It’s a safe bet that they’d like to continue the relationship. But, there’s a big deposit of gas off the coast of the Arabian Peninsula. The largest natural gas reservoir in the world – the South Pars/North Dome field in the Persian Gulf, is a resource shared by Qatar and Iran. We know about Iran. Most folks don’t know that Qatar hosts the US and British military presence in the region.

A few years ago there was talk of a new gas pipeline running through Iran and Iraq to Damascus … and then possibly onto Europe via LNG ports off the Syrian coast. Coincidentally enough, this was around the time when the Syrian civil war started.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration has ham-handedly tried to overthrow the Syrian government and usher in regime change in an area ill prepared to handle such a move. The Syrian government, facing such a massive threat turned to its ally in the Kremlin. That ally, the Russian President, made good on promises made and is now cleaning up the countryside of these pesky “rebels” that the US created out of local anti-government militias. Once these militias are gone, the Russians and the Syrians can focus on kicking the Islamic State out of Syria, stabilizing the Syrian countryside.

What I’m saying to you here is all common knowledge. It comes from major media sources. You just have to go looking for it. The US is involved with it’s allies in the Middle East to try to force out a regime that is blocking its plans to build a natural gas pipeline through Iran-Iraq-Syria so that it can compete with Russia for European customers.

THIS is the war in the Middle East that the left warned you about. It is very clearly a war over the control of the area’s natural resources. Yet the left is largely silent – or willfully ignorant.

Let’s at least tell the truth about what’s happening.

Not a single candidate for President of the US that is running on a “major” party ticket is saying these things. That should tell you something right there. The Democrats and the Republicans are heavily invested in this deal (especially the Clintons with their foundation), as well as propping up the House of Saud and continuing the free ride / scam that is the Petrodollar.

Let’s be the party that speaks truth to power. Let’s be the party that ends crazy foreign entanglements. Let’s finally separate the government from big business and stop being the big corporations’ enforcers overseas.

What say you?

Do your f-ing job

Here’s a question for you, when was the last time Congress sent a budget to the President for his signature? Hint, it’s a trick question.

The United States budget process is the framework used by Congress and the President of the United States to formulate and create the United States federal budget. The process was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and by other budget legislation.

Prior to 1974, Congress had no formal process for establishing a coherent budget. When newly elected President Richard Nixon began to refuse to spend funds that the Congress had allocated, Congress adopted a more formal means by which to challenge him (the 93rd Congress, House and Senate, was controlled by the Democrat Party). The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and directed more control of the budget to it and away from the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Why is this important? Hint, it’s another trick question.

Need a clue? Consider this headline from CNN, “GOP seeks plan to avoid shutdown, defund Planned Parenthood.”

Why on earth would the elimination of funding for a single organization bring the entire government of the US to a stand-still? The answer should make you angry.

If you answered 1997 to the question above, you get first prize. Yes, that’s right. Congress hasn’t done it’s f-ing job since 1997.

Since 1997, we’ve had “continuing resolutions” and “omnibus bills,” but no actual budget that follows the laws set forth by the Budget and Accounting Act and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. What would happen to you at your place of employment if you failed to do a fundamental aspect of your job for almost 20 years?

So what happened to the work done in the Appropriations Committee? First of all, until just a few months ago, the House Committee on Appropriations hadn’t cleared a full slate of appropriations bills since 2009. That fact means nothing. Their work has to go to the full House and then to the Senate. Good luck.

You see, the leadership in Congress loves the way things are going. They love using Continuing Resolutions to fund the government. Why? Power.

If Congress fails to appropriate the necessary funds for the federal government, the government shuts down as a result of the Antideficiency Act. The law “forbids federal officials from entering into financial obligations for which they do not have funding,” such as buying ink, paying for electricity, or paying employees.

Congress can avoid a government shutdown by passing a continuing resolution instead. Instead of arguing over the merits of each line item in each bill, trimming the fat, cutting spending here and there, we’ve come to a point where Congress is faced with an “all or nothing” choice. Each “side” digs in their heels and postures about how the other is “hurting” this or that group, then they pass a continuing resolution at the last minute that funds the government for X amount of days/weeks/months.

Thus it has been that Congress has only passed all twelve regular appropriations bills on time in four years since 1977 – fiscal years 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997. What were they doing if not their job? Consolidating power in the leadership.

Continuing resolutions consolidate power in the leadership of the House and Senate. If politicians want to move a specific issue forward, they have to tow the party line. If the leadership doesn’t want the issue address on the floor, it won’t be addressed. If the status quo isn’t maintained, they’ll threaten a government shut down. They’ll starve kids, put grandma out of her home, delay care to wounded vets, and all of the other crap rhetoric each accuses the other of trying to do.

Enter H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015. It doesn’t stand a chance in the Senate, nor would it survive a presidential veto. Thus, if Congress actually wants to remove funding for this organization, it would have to remove the appropriation from one of the bills that recently left the Appropriations Committee – which it didn’t do.

But, whilst everyone is arguing over H.R. 3134 and which Presidential candidate insulted what group, the leadership in the House and Senate continue to consolidate their power with the latest bill that only funds government activity for a few months. No actual cuts in spending occur. No actual agencies are reigned in or eliminated. They simply use the CR as a tool to blame the other side, using whatever hot issue is available to raise massive amounts of money to “fend off attacks” which really don’t exist. Then, a few months later, the “fight” continues over the next CR, more money is raised, the next CR passes at the “last minute.” Rinse. Repeat. The leadership’s power grows and grows, completely unchecked. The issue is largely not reported upon. Not one mention of the tyranny of the CR during any of the Presidential debates.

This is how power is consolidated in the hands of so few people in Washington D.C. Your representative no longer matters. Your representative’s committee assignments don’t matter. The government is being run by President Obama’s “pen and phone,” and being funded by continuing resolutions. This is not at all what the Founders intended. This is precisely why the Libertarian Party is needed.

What is the point of sending people to Washington D.C. who won’t do the job they are sent there to do? What is the point of pulling the lever for an R or a D candidate that will simply act in their “leadership’s” best interest and not in the best interests of the people that they represent? People tell me that there’s no point in voting Libertarian. They say that we’ll never win. Well, what is it that they’ve “won” by voting R or D? They’ve “won” a Congress and a President completely divorced from reality and from the people they supposedly represent.

Thus it is that Libertarian candidates are needed. Libertarian candidates actually believe in Constitutional restraints. They actually believe that the Constitution means what it says in the 9th Amendment and all of the other Amendments. There’s a whole bunch of things the federal government has no business doing. If you think an R or D candidate is going to restrain the federal behemoth, you’re delusional. Sorry. It’s not going to happen.

If you want to send someone to Congress, to the Senate, or to the White House who will do their f-ing job, then your only choice is to vote Libertarian. Any other vote puts your stamp of approval on this current circus, and makes you complicit in the ruining of our beloved country.

When I could no longer stand by and mindlessly pull the lever as I had done for a few decades, I joined the Libertarian Party. I would ask you to do the same. What say you?