3:22 PM -:- Posted by Allen    

NY Times, Fox News, on Kuglin

The NY Times has broken the story on Vernice Kuglin's trial. Here is the article on their website.

Important note

According to the article, Kuglin says that the remark attributed to the judge that he doesn't work for the IRS is a false report.

Note also that the article is by David Kay Johnston and includes his usual spin and cock-eyed editorializing.

Also...

Fox News is covering the story today, three times:

1. John Gibson's "The Big Story"
4:40 Central
Vernie Kuglin and Attorney Larry Becraft

This one already happened. I watched it. Comments below.

2. Hannnity & Colmes
8:30 p.m. Central
Vernie Kuglin and Attorney Larry Becraft

3. Gretta Van Susteren
9:15 Central
Attorney Robert G. Bernhoft

Larken is right

Larken Rose says we are in a propaganda war. I agree.

The evidence is in the way we talk about the issue. All of the TV people I've seen so far consistently refer to "paying your taxes", "paying her taxes", etc. The language used to discuss the issue prevents intelligent discussion of the issue.

You can see that fact in the tone of Mr. Johnston's article. Very clearly, he has the thing set up in his mind that either you know the truth, which is that you owe everything anybody alleges you owe, or you are criminally intent on tax evasion. And if you speak against the tax, it matters not why, you must be a promoter of a scheme.

This was further evidenced by the little difficulties Kuglin had in framing her responses to John Gibson's questions: she had to think about how to say these things correctly. Not because she isn't sharp, but because you can't use the common language associated with the issue to attempt to enlighten people on the issue.

It makes no sense to say, "I didn't pay my taxes because I didn't owe them." If you say, "my taxes", you are saying you do owe them. So you have to say something else. You have to think of what the truth is and then devise a truthful and accurate response, such as, "I didn't pay the alleged tax because there was no evidence that I owed it."

And even better, you should always challenge questions that use the installed language that traps the issue: "Sorry, Mr. Gibson, but what information do you have that supports a question presupposing that I owe anything? You have to stop people from saying "your taxes" --until you do, you are not answering the questions they ask. You have to make them ask the correct questions, or you have to restate their inquiry into a correct question, and then answer that question.

It's called repositioning.

Put the ball back into their mouth instead of trying to re-spin a trap question.

Or take the ball away from them completely.

That's the belligerent claimant's Way.