Blog has moved

I've moved my blog to my webpage - neilhanson.com - I'd love it if you checked that out.

GOP Continues to Block Wall Street Reform

Really?

This still astounds me. What are these guys thinking?

So their entire approach to health care reform, (and can anyone truly argue that they LIKE paying twice as much as the rest of the western world, and recieving worst care?), was to stand like a stubborn spoiled child and just keep saying "no, no, no". Then they whine because they didn't have enough input into the process?

Folks, you have to actually engage your brain and engage in honest dialogue.

Now, can anyone really argue that we don't need to reform Wall Street? This den of thieves brought the world to the brink of economic collapse before Bush and the Republican Congress bailed them out with a trillion dollars of taxpayer bailouts in 2008. This is a big deal - should be the biggest deal on the radar for any true patriot.

And the Democrats are really vulnerable here - this is one of the few places where they appear to be as guilty as the Republicans when it comes to being in bed and beholding to corporate interests. So what on earth is wrong with the Republicans - they should be aggressively trying to push reform, not playing their whine and cry spoiled child routine again.

Corporate Personality - Chapter 2

I've ranted before about the absurdity of the Citizen's United case, and the absolutely insane ruling by this activist right-wing Supreme Court defining a corporation as a person, and defining money as equal to speech, thus applying the constitutional protection of free speech to the money that the wealthy can use to further currupt our political system.

I know that many will argue that I am missing some nuance here, and that I am oversimplifying. But really, regardless of how much "person-hood" a corporation might have enjoyed before this ruling, this ruling makes it very plain to the American people that this Supreme Court believes that a corporation is equal to a person under the constitution.

OK, regardless of how insane and absurd I think this is, it is clear that we have become so pro big-business in our judicial system, and so beholding to the fat-cats of our oligarchy, that this ruling seems to be sitting OK with most Americans. All the shouts of "WAKE UP AMERICA" are not going to reverse this ruling.

So, I think that the laws of the nation should be applied to corporations in the same way that they are applied to citizens. So, if a corporation steals from people - as in the case of Enron, or in the latest case of the big banks, then the CEO goes to jail, and the corporation has a criminal record. If the corporation is convicted of a crime, then it loses the same rights that a citizen loses. If it is convicted of 3 crimes, then the 3 strikes law applies, and it gets life in prison - in the case of a corporation, that means that it must be disbanded - it cannot exist any longer - the death penalty. Stockholders lose big value. We no longer have to find individuals guilty - if the corporation does badly - the corporation "goes to jail".

Right now, BP has a big debt to society to pay. What if an individual committed that degree of environmental terrorism? That penalty should apply to BP - right now!

Why not?

Socialism as the Cause of Economic Problems?

I'm a little confused about the right wing machine talking about Greece as the example of why anything except unfettered capitalism is a failure.

If I get the argument correctly, they are saying that Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain are examples of socialist economies that are bleeding red ink and must be rescued by other countries in Europe. They say that it is the socialist tendencies of these countries that is bringing them down.

But wait, if I read the whole story, aren't Germany and Denmark two of the big "rescuers"? Isn't Germany the most socialist economy in Europe, where every corporation in the country is required by law to have half of their board of directors appointed by the union representing the workers of the company?

And is it true that the countries that are in trouble are really there primarily because they bought into the whole "absolute free trade" myth?

I don't know the whole set of facts on any of this, but it does seem clear to me that the reasons for countries like Greece hitting the crisis that they are hitting can't be boiled down to something as simple as "socialist practices". There are many economies that are very socialist and are quite robust over the long haul.

And here at home, aren't we headed down some of those same dangerous paths, even though we are probably one of the least socialist economies in the world? Did we forget that just 18 months ago, we were on the brink of leading the world into an economic disaster akin to the Great Depression?

I have to believe that a really big part of this relates to the fact that we quit "producing". I read recently that when Reagan took office in 1980, fully 20% of our economy was manufacturing - building things. And that now, after 3 decades of Reaganomics, only half that amount - about 10% of our GDP - is a result of manufacturing.

This all comes together in the notion of the Walmart economy - exporting our manufacturing to countries where we can employ slave labor, and importing cheap labor into this country to cover the service economy that we have become.

Bye bye middle class. Hello economic problems.

Not that I am advocating socialism as the answer to the economic problems that we face. My point is that whether an economy leans toward socialism or away from socialism is not really the thing that makes it strong or weak.

So those who promote socialism - promote it for a different reason. For those who demonize socialism - you need to face the truth that economic health or problems have little to do with socialism. Keep looking, and by the way, don't be surprised to find that many of the root causes might be some of your little pets...

Immigration Nation

My head spins round and round and feels like it is about to pop off each time I hear more of this immigration reform dribble.

This is another one of those things that is so simple if you back away from it a bit. This is an economic issue, plain and simple.

We are a nation that is addicted to extremely cheap labor. Our economy has been transformed over the past 30 years or so into a situation similar to what we faced prior to the Civil War in this country. Then, like now, people talked in moral platitudes about what is right and wrong, but their buying habits and voting habits make it plain that they want the status quo to continue. OK, maybe I'm stretching a bit, but not as much as you might think.

I have owned small businesses at different points in my life. In the late 70's, as a small businessman, I hired lots of unskilled casual labor. Back then, I could sometimes get such labor for $8/hr, but usually the going rate was around $10/hr. Of course, in big cities, it could be more. Today, as a small businessman, I can hire the exact same unskilled casual labor for about $8 and hour - sometimes $10. In fact, in most cases, I can find a pretty good pool of folks willing to work for $6 or $7 in most places. Of course, they are not legal, but they are here because they know that people will hire them.

Let me be clear. I work very hard to make sure that we hire only legal workers. And for doing this, I pay a steep penalty. That is, while I am paying $12 - $16 and hour for labor, my competitors are paying $6 - $10 for labor. Makes it pretty hard for me to compete. I used to live under the fantasy that my customers would care about this, and I made a big deal about this. At the end of the day though, nobody is ever willing to pay more to hire a contractor because he only hires legal workers.

That tells the whole story right there. These same people who are not willing to pay a contractor more because he hires legal workers are often the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who are up-in-arms about the fact that the "government won't do something" about the illegal immigrant problem.

Ya gotta wake up America. Ya don't get to have it both ways. Either we are willing to live as a culture and an economy that supports the notion of paying decent wages, or we are a culture who supports the notion of slave-like labor. If you are one of those who is whining about the illegal immigrants, you need to look around your life and see all the places where these illegal immigrants make it possible for you to receive services and goods more cheaply. You need to ask yourself if you are willing to pay higher prices to solve the problem.

If you aren't willing to pay that higher price, then shut your yap.

If you shop at Walmart, then you are supporting this "slave-like labor market" where we buy goods from companies who exploit labor markets where people will work for next to nothing. If you don't believe in this economy, then stop shopping at Walmart, and make it plain why you don't.

On the labor front here in America, INS could pick any day in any city, and could make raids that would net them a bunch of illegal workers. If they did this, then sent the immigrants home, then THREW THE CEO OF HE COMPANY WHO HIRED THEM IN JAIL, I guarantee this would get attention. If we did this day after day, and the CEO and the COO of ConAgra and other companies ended up serving real jail time, this immigration problem would go away for the most part.

I suspect that most people - having read the above - are nodding their heads in approval.

But guess what would happen if we did that - prices for the products and services that these people produce would start to go up. Are you willing to accept this outcome? If not, the shut your yap about the "problem".

Because, in the end, the "problem" isn't Mexicans who come into our country illegally. The "problem" is the citizens of our country who have voted over and over again with their wallets and the other votes that they cast that they are fully supportive of our "wink and nod" economy of importing cheap labor.

Opposing Financial Industry Reform - Really?

I know I must have this wrong. I keep seeing indications that my beloved Republican Party - after refusing to engage in any positive way in the debate and structuring of healthcare reform - is now going to actively resist and oppose reform of the financial system.

Really? Surely not. Who on earth thinks this can possibly fly?

I understand wanting to protect the Big Bank Fat Hogs who give them money, and I understand that they feel confident that they media will - as usual - find ways to try and make anything they do look good. But how on earth can anyone think this can be successful?

The Financial Services Industry brought this country to the brink of collapse over the last 30 years. Bush and the Republican congress couldn't start bailing them out fast enough, and the Obama administration continued the insanity that the Republicans began. They are soaking the taxpayer for several generations to come, while raking in insane and immoral levels of compensation to their executives. Who can argue with this?

Given the facts, I would expect the voters to put any politician who supports these bastards in chains and stocks. That would certainly be my vote.

But the Republicans are going to give it a whirl?

Really?

Hello America - will this finally wake you up?

TJ Quote about debt

"And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude."


-- Thomas Jefferson

Where Were the Tea Party'ers When There Was A Crisis

We had a real constitutional crisis in this country recently. We had a President and a Vice President who were working hard to dismantle that sacred document. They had a willing partner in a congress led by Republicans. Their actions have been and continue to be found to be illegal. They created a real security crisis in our country with their reckless international policy, and they created near financial calamity with their reckless fiscal policy.

So during those dark years, where were these Tea Party people? That was the time when we needed them marching on Washington, and trying to take this country back.

But they missed the boat. They seemed to have slept through that real need for protest and "taking the country back" from the despots.

But now they wake up. And the election happened a year and a half ago, and some of the bad guys were thrown out of office. We now have a leader in place who appears to be willing to lead from a place of honesty and integrity. We now have leadership who seems to respect the Constitution of our great country - at least a little more than the last bunch did.

And now they want to protest? What on earth do they think they are protesting? They can't possibly believe, (I mean, really believe), that we don't need healthcare reform in this country, yet that is what they seem to be mad about. We have a healthcare system that delivers a lower quality of care than the rest of the modern world, and charges us twice as much to do it. They really believe that is OK?

Really?

Now, I'm in agreement with them that the provision that requires Americans to carry health insurance makes me a little uncomfortable. I don't like that. But in the absence of a National Health Care Program - like every other western country has - this really becomes necessary if we want to control the costs. We can't have our cake and eat it too - we can't refuse to provide healthcare to all, provide ONLY private healthcare insurance, continue to provide emergency services to those without care, and continue to shoulder the financial burden of the uninsured. It just doesn't work.

We require that motorists carry auto insurance - because the financial burden on society is too great if they don't.

Now, I can also sympathize with those who say that our entire system has gone bad - that we need to start over - that we need to go back to the original constitution and find a way to fix all this really bad stuff that we have layered on it. I get that - I agree with them. I get that the IRS and the income tax is not constitutional and that we should abolish it - I agree with SOME of that logic.

But to now come out and protest over reforming one of the most broken things that we have, after ignoring the assault on the constitution that was carried out by Republicans over the previous 8 years exposes these people for what they appear to be - pawns of the extreme right wing, which has also taken over the Republican party.

Get real and attack with equal passion the Republicans who have truly assaulted out country and our constitution, then you might get some sympathy and support from real patriots like myself.

Right Wing Terrorist Organizations

Why do we have such trouble calling a spade a spade in the media?

We have extremists in this country. They are right-wing terrorists who call themselves Christians for the most part. This is EXACTLY what we have with the Islamic Terrorist groups. The problem is, these are MUCH MORE DANGEROUS - they are operating within our own borders, with sympathetic coverage from the media in most cases.

We need to decide how we feel about terrorism in this country, and react to terrorists accordingly. Either we believe they are a threat to us - as demostrated by the trillions of dollars that we have spent on the "war on terrorism" that Bush and Cheney declared - or we are willing to coddle them and listen to them and negotiate with them - as demonstrated by the terrorism enablers like Fox and most of the rest of the media.

We seem to have forgotten the OKC terrorist attack from the 90's.

When will we refuse to allow the extreme right wing in this country to continue to close down their strangle-hold on us?

Redefined War On Terrorism

How do we pick and choose when we want to fight terrorism?
In the 90's, Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh laid a plot and successfully bombed at Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. Lots of women and children were killed. It was a direct attack on "The People" of the United States - striking at the very fabric of our Federal Government. The two seemed to have ties with right wing extremists in the United States, and preached a message of hatred toward the United States and our Government. They were clearly terrorists - terrorists representing an extreme anti-government hatred from within our own borders.
Clinton could have declared a "War on Terrorism", I suppose, and spent hundreds of billions of money that we didn't have on trying to create a myth of security. But that didn't happen for two reasons:

• I think he was wiser than that, and not reckless with trying to scapegoat one particular group in order to take our eyes off of the real problems that we should be working to correct.
• The right wing in this country, and the vast media empire that they control, would never have allowed it, as it would have struck at the heart of movements that they actually seem to support.

Then, the next big terrorist attack occurred. This time they didn't strike at "The People" of our nation as represented by our government and our government agencies. Instead they struck at the symbol of corporate greed and the emerging Plutarcy that is taking control of our nation. This time, the death toll was much bigger, and the financial impact was even bigger. This time, the terrorism didn't come from the right wing cancer within our own country, but instead from the right wing cancer within the Islamic world - extreme Islamic Fundamentalism. This time, the right wing within our own country was firmly in power, and they pounced on the event to galvanize the sort of "demonization" that they could rally people around. They did a great job of manufacturing a "War on Terror", and using this guise to rape the public treasury of hundreds of billions of money that belong to The People.
Sure, we may have created some short term security gains in our country as a result. We seem to have been able to continue to thwart potential threats that were related to the right wing Islamists. However, just last week, a nut-case of another brand successfully executed another terrorist attack in our country. This time, there was not the great loss of life as the terrorist flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas, but the symbolism was the same as the McVeigh terrorist attack on OKC. This was an attack directly on The People of the United States of America, as represented by our government.
And where is the right wing and their giant media machine in this country?
I know that it is hard to believe, but now, instead of supporting a War on Terror, they actually appear to be supporting the Terrorists. They have kept the story very low-key in their media, and they have actually begun to spin up support for the "underlying causes" of this attack.

Hard to believe, I know, but apparently true. I continue to see media pieces focused on the sympathy for the sorts of frustration with the actions of our government that would lead to an outcry like this bombing.

Now, I'm no great supported of the IRS, or many of the ways that our government operates. But our government continues to be YOU AND ME. When someone attacks us in this manner, it is an act of terrorism, plain and simple. Our response should be the same in all cases. If we think that the appropriate response to 9/11 is to spend a trillion dollars on invading a couple of countries, then why isn't an appropriate response to OKC and the IRS bombing to spend at least a few hundred billion inside our own borders rooting out and destroying the sort of anti-government rhetoric and fundamentalism that makes this sort of thing happen?
Let me be very clear - I do not thing that is an appropriate or productive response, just like I don't think that what we have done in Iraq and Afganistan is appropriate or productive.

My point is very clear - the right wing in this country continues to control the message that gets to us, and grows ever more effective in their "big brother" role of thought control. Nobody seems outraged at this terrorist attack, and even worse, the right wing media seems to have done a GREAT job of getting us all to think that maybe what happened was OK - maybe we should open our minds to having a little sympathy for the underlying causes of the attack - the sense of oppression and injustice that seems to have been there.
Where was this sort of open-minded thought process in 2001? Those who suggested it were crucified.
All three attacks were equally wrong. They all three deserve similar response on our part. The people who carried them out, and the people who supported them, should be prosecuted. Period. I sympathize with none of them. However, in all cases, we SHOULD look at the underlying causes, and do what we can to correct the real problem. More on that later...

I'm just saying...
We need to wake up and see what the right wing is doing to manipulate us. Big Brother grows more effective every day, and this little example demonstrates it so very clearly.

Craig - Really? More of the same?

Craig, 
After our conversation today, I came to your site. There is so much to be disturbed about out in politics today, and Obama is way low on the list. He is actually trying to do something positive. So, since the theme of your site seems to be to just "attack" the one guy who seems to be trying to make some positive changes, I really have no interest in reading it.

If you were to focus on the real issues - the things that we true conservatives should be focused on, then I might have some interest. For example: 

• What about the absurdly activist right-wing Supreme Court decision recently to step WAY BEYOND what they were asked to rule on, and make law in the country by ruling that a corporation is the same as a person, and entitled to the same Bill of Rights protection? Even worst, they decided to rule that money = speech. This may just be the most destructive Supreme Court ruling in the history of our country, yet it isn't on top of the agenda for all conservatives? Obama happens to be on our side on this one.
• You want to talk about fiscal irresponsibility? As you and I discussed, the most "fiscally conservative" administration that we have had in the past 30 years was the Clinton administration. I hope that shames my fellow Republicans as much as it shames me. Between Reagan and Bush2, the massive debt load was created at a time when it wasn't needed. Now, in a time of financial disaster, we actually need to assume debt to prevent collapse, but the massive debt load that was created by Reagan and Bush2 amplifies the negative effects of this coming debt. By the way, the 2009 growth in debt belonged to Bush2, as that was his budget. Just like the 2001 economy belonged to Clinton. Remember that the budget is created a year in advance.
• And speaking of the debt, how absolutely criminal is it that we bailed out the banks in 2008? All of you folks who want to attack Obama conveniently forget that it was Baby Bush who did the bank bailout deal, for which people should be tried for treason in my opinion.
• And speaking of treason trials and fiscal irresponsibility in the same sentence, we have to put the whole debt on the table here, and see where it comes from today. When Bush Baby took office, the debt was $5.something trillion - depends on exactly when you cut if off. When he turned it over to Obama, it was something north of $10 trillion. Almost doubled it in 8 years. And worst, these were 8 years when we DID NOT NEED to be taking on additional debt - we took on the additional debt in order to artificially stimulate an economy that did not need stimulating in order to make him look good in the short term, with the predictable result of the near disastrous crash that he brought on. And, that $10 trillion doesn't even include the massive $trillion+ cost of the war (which he refused to have the balls to ask the American people to pay for) or the $trillion in bank bailouts that he authorized.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

OK, so now we get to Obama. (I could go on but my point was simple - stop blaming Obama for the mess that Reagan and Bush Baby have created.) I am sick to my stomach over the Republicans in congress who sit on their hands and refuse to participate in any positive way in working our way out of the mess we have gotten into. I am ashamed that I am still registered as a Republican. Obama continues to reach out to these people, and they continue to play the old games. And of course, we all know that the Democrats are just too plain dumb to organize any sort of counter to the Republicans sitting on their hands. What ever happened to the "up or down vote" rhetoric that came from the right wing when there was filibuster threat from the Dems when they were in the minority? How quickly we forget, and how quickly the Dems continue to fail to get it. 

So, what is it that you're mad about? 

• The fiscal mess? Then realize where the mess came from, and help the guy in power now try and fix it. Stop voting for these "don't tax and spend anyway" people of either party. 
• Ongoing security concerns? Start supporting efforts to get us off of an oil-based economy. We started down this road in the late 70's, and the go-go Reagan years made us forget that this is a time-bomb we have to face someday. Of course, the Bush family is so in-bed with the Saudi's and the oil industry that they did all that they could to cement our ongoing dependency. If we were not dependent on oil, (its not about foreign oil, its about OIL), then we could immediately cut our defense budget in half. That's big bucks, I don't care who you are. And most of all, we could let the Bin Ladens and the rest of the Saudi, Iranian, Russian, and Iraqi oil criminals rot in their stinkin' oil. How 'bout investing in some good old-fashioned American ingenuity and manufacturing, and create an industry building wind, solar, and other alternative generating sources. Sure its complex and hard, but we're not stupid people, and I'm tired of the oil industry telling me we are. As for your question about oil reserves - looks like I overstated at 4% - looks like we have less than 2%. I'm sure there are different numbers on this too - the bottom line is that we don't have squat compared to the rest of the world, and more importantly, the reserves that we have are becoming VERY EXPENSIVE to exploit. If you do the math and compare our consumption rate to our total reserves, then you can easily come up with a wild idea that we have years or decades worth of reserves. However, remember that the deeper we try to get into these reserves, the more expensive it becomes to exploit them, and we aren't that far from bankrupting the country so that we can keep using oil. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_res-energy-oil-reserves  
• Worried about the health-care mess? Mad because as a nation, we spend twice what the rest of the modern world spends for health-care, (twice per capita), and our overall quality of care as measured by most objective measures is not even close to the top - usually not even in the top ten depending on what your measures are. Sure, if you are one of the wealthy in our nation, you can buy whatever you want. But for the other 99.something% of us, we don't make the top 10. A dramatically increasing trend in our country is that people are going overseas for procedures, because they can't afford them in our country. The fiscal conservative in me is pretty pissed off that we pay twice as much as everyone else, and get considerably less. And I'm even more pissed off at the Republicans in congress who are clearly just the lap-dogs of Big Pharma and others, continuing to try and sell that same old saw about how great we have it here. Do a little research - you'll be as pissed as I am. 
• As for the tax burden that you and I discussed, let's start with the easy stuff. I don't think you really need me to provide you with links to sites that can give you these facts. Since 1980, we have been on a steady march toward redistributing wealth in this country out of the hands of the many, and into the hands of the wealthy few. This march has had behind it the continued drumbeat of the old neo-liberal saw about how if you give the money to the wealthy they will stimulate growth. (That's right - these are neo-liberals in the most true sense of the global economic sense.) In fact, if you want to stimulate the economy, put the money in the hands of Joe Six-Pack. He's the guy who will spend it right away, and that's where the stimulus comes from. In the hands of the wealthy few, the money is invested in really productive things like complex derivatives that implode the economy and nice mansions in the Hamptons. You want to stimulate our economy, then start by getting back to the "buy American" ethos of the early 70's. Can you imagine the good that could come to our economy if instead of dumping hundreds of billions into the corrupt banking system, we would have invested instead in real manufacturing companies like GM who create real American jobs? What if we invested in these companies, and created real jobs building wind turbines and an upgraded grid for our nation? For the money we pissed down the toilet to the banks, so that they could stimulate the economy with their obscene bonuses to execs this year, we could have transformed the complete electrical infrastructure in this nation. In 1980, as a businessman, I could hire casual labor for about $10/hr in most places. Today, 30 years later, as a businessman, I can still hire casual labor for about $10/hr. (This is with NO inflation adjustment, reinforcing the facts that are abundant that real wages have declined for most wage earners over the past 30 years. Don't get me wrong - the greedy and self-interested businessman in me likes this, but the human being in me is disgusted.) During that same time, average salaries of the top 1% and the top 10% of earners have increased geometrically. At the same time, we have continued to reduce the tax burden on the top earners, while increasing the tax burden on the lower earners. (Remember that Federal income tax is only one component of the overall tax burden - the other components like sales taxes hit the low wage earner at a much higher "rate", and these other tax rates have had to increase in order to make up for the ever shrinking Federal $$ available as we cut taxes on the wealthy.)

So, think about it. We have had a 30 year experiment in this notion popular with the neo-liberal Friedman school about giving money to the wealthy and they will make things better. What we have found is that real production and manufacturing are all but disappearing in this country as investors pour their money into the countries where they can buy cheap slave labor, real wages in this country have plummeted, we have been brought to the brink of collapse. And you really want to keep doing this? Really? Look back at the explosion of the middle class in this country. In the 50s and 60s, wages increased for labor, and a real middle class was created. The result was a pretty darned good economy. The wealthy were taxed at EXTREMELY high rates. Look at some old tax tables - back in the late 50s and early 60s, there were tax rates as high as 90%. So, when we had the highest historical levels of taxation on the wealthy, we had the highest rates of real economic growth in the country. Not only did we have continuing and growing prosperity, but we were actually reducing the overall debt load of the nation in much of that period, when measured against GDP. (Back then remember we called GNP).

Sure there are lots of factors to everything, but at a high level, we have 2 30 year periods we can look at, divided by 1980. Leading up to that divide, we taxed the wealthy at a high rate, we increased the wages of the lower and middle class, we heavily regulated industries, and we saw robust and sustained growth. Post 1980, we have plunged further and further into debt, have destroyed manufacturing in the country, have reduced real wages for most of the country, and have brought ourselves to the brink of financial collapse.

You really want to keep this up? Really?

It's been fun chatting. Think about a different theme for your website - Obama is the last thing we need to worry about right now - he's doing OK for a new guy handed a disaster.

Neil

More on the Activist Supreme Court

I can't get off of this Supreme Court ruling. It just keeps rolling around in my little brain.

I am wondering if those voters that continue to vote right wing realize the damage that their continued support of this developing plutarchy is doing.

• The right wing media machine continues to beat a very narrow set of drums.
• The right wing christian elite continue to sell their souls to the devil of this right wing media machine by engaging in the quid pro quo that delivers votors to the right wing if the right wing will support a very narrow set of agenda items - specifically abortion rights and gay rights issues.
• The real power of the right wing machine accepts these votes to keep them in power, and gives enough lip service to the narrow issues to keep the voters coming back.
• Then, while in power, they completely dismantle the ability of the people to govern, and continue their march toward replacing our democratically elected Republic with a plutarchy that has the facade of democracy and republic.

This ruling by this radically activist Supreme Court - appointed by the radical right - is the cornerstone that will allow the right wing to make tremendous progress in this regard. The two key principles that this ruling declares are these:

• That a corporation is the same as an individual - that a corporation is protected by the Bill of Rights in the same and equal fashion that a real person is protected by the Bill of Rights. Think about this.
• That money is equal to speech.

This tears the fabric of our Republic to pieces. No longer are we a nation "By the People, For the People, and Of The People". With the advent of modern media, people have become sheep to the media. The media is where they get all their information. The media is controlled by the corporate right wing. The corporate right wing now has complete and unfettered ability to spend whatever it takes to get their flocks of sheep to vote the way they want them to vote. They will feed the flocks ONLY the information that they want them to hear, and they will slant and bias all information and opinions to conform to the shape that they want their new nation to take. There are no limits.

People, the government is US!!! Stop buying into this right-wing propoganda that has become urban legand over the past decades. The urban legand tells us that government is bad. Hello - government is US - WE THE PEOPLE! It is our only way to control the rapidly growing plutarchy!

Money is not speech. Period. Money is money, and it is used to buy things, to control things, to corrupt things. It is not speech. The Supreme Court should be looking for ways to protect speech FROM MONEY. That is, if we had a Supreme Court that was not made up of shills for the extreme right wing plutarchy.

A corporation is NOT A PERSON. The Bill of Rights applies to people, not to corporations. Corporations should be tightly controlled and regulated entities, not rulers of our country, and certainly not protected by our sacred Bill of Rights.

This should be THE PRIMARY ISSUE on the mind of every voter between now and when Congress takes action to reverse this abomination of a ruling.

Campaign Finance Reform - A Simple Solution

The simplest solutions are often the ones that get overlooked. In the case of campaign finance reform, there is a very simple solution that could alter the face of politics in America, dramatically reducing the level of corruption and nearly eliminating the ability of big money organizations (corporations or unions or anyone else) to own the political agenda.

Which is exactly why COMA (Corporate Oligarchy Money in America) will do all that they can to assure that such a simple solution is never implemented. They will paint it with all of the normal paintbrushes of emotional fear that they have used for years. They will call it socialism, and if that doesn’t work, they will call it communism. They will hammer on these themes until enough people fall back into their place with the rest of the sheep, and let their COMA masters have their way yet again.
First, a starting place:

• We must reaffirm the notion that there is such a thing as the “Public Commons”. This was an important notion when our country was founded – the idea that each person had a right to stand in public and say whatever they wanted to say. If there were no Public Commons, then there could be no free speech, right? If all space were private, then landowners would control speech completely – they would decide what got said on their property. Unless you were a landowner – part of the aristocracy – you would not be able to speak freely. The right to speak freely was completely dependent on the existence of public space.
• At the time of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, electronic media obviously did not exist. The Public Square was the place where we expressed our freedom of speech, as well as the written word.
• As the electronic airwaves came into existence, there seems to have been an understanding that these airwaves were public property. In order to use these electronic waves, a person or organization must “lease” a particular space in the public square of the airwaves. They are granted the privilege to use that bandwidth for a particular period of time.
  So let’s stop there. It’s important. Can you imagine if our founding fathers had decided to lease the public commons, and allow the leaseholder to control and profit from speech in their little corner of the public square? It would be absurd. It would completely destroy the notion of free speech, quieting the voice of the individual completely, giving voice ONLY to those who were granted the privilege of controlling a portion of the commons.

So let’s stop there. It’s important. Can you imagine if our founding fathers had decided to lease the public commons, and allow the leaseholder to control and profit from speech in their little corner of the public square? It would be absurd. It would completely destroy the notion of free speech, quieting the voice of the individual completely, giving voice ONLY to those who were granted the privilege of controlling a portion of the commons.This sounds a lot like the feudal systems in Europe that our forefathers were trying hard to avoid, doesn’t it? There would be a small aristocracy who would be in complete control of speech, and through that control of all speech and communication, would further consolidate their hold on power, influence, and money.


I think that we understood this to some degree as print media became more influential, and electronic media began to explode. We put in place laws and limits on how much of this huge power could rest in any single hands. Radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, etc. needed to be owned locally rather than as part of big national corporate voices. We rightfully feared the ability of big barons of money and power to completely control the public conversations, and put strong limits to try and curb this.
Over the past 3 decades, these protections have been rapidly eroded. We have a very few mega-corporations who own essentially all of the media in our country. Is it any surprise that the explosion of corruption and corporate ownership of our represented officials has coincided with this handoff of the Public Commons to this small handful of the super-rich and super-powerful?
The first step in fixing this uber-corruption is to remove control of the election process from the hands of COMA, and put it back in the hands of the American People. This is the simple step:

• If I broadcast over public airwaves, I am granted this privilege by The People, as represented by the government. One of my responsibilities in order to maintain this privilege is that I must grant voice to people who seek to represent The People.
• It should be illegal for me to charge any fee when I fulfill this responsibility. I MUST provide free voice to people seeking election in my coverage area. There will surely be some definitions regarding where lines might be drawn, but the bottom line is that a big portion of my airtime is held by the public in order to express their right to free speech.
• It is illegal to buy time on the airwaves, and it is illegal to charge for that time.
• Period

Notice what this does? It takes money out of the equation completely. The big media giants will whine and cry about all the revenue we are keeping them from taking in. Tell me why this is the problem of The People? I run a small business, and there is no “Bill of Rights” that guarantees me revenue or profit as a business person. If Fox and NBC don’t like it, they can fold their tents and go home – I am absolutely positive that there are many other organizations who would LOVE to have the privilege to use their bandwidth, and will find a wonderful way to make excellent profit within these rules.
For us – The People – we take money completely out of the election process. Well, we don’t eliminate it, but we reduce it dramatically. Sure, this means the media companies take a huge hit – maybe we can find a better way to deploy those resources…
Pretty simple, right? I wonder why we never hear about it? Could it be that the way we hear about ideas is through Big Media, and this would be a crushing blow to Big Media?

The Supreme Court of Corporate America

It should come as no surprise that as the court has become stacked further and further to the right, they would continue to assault the constitution of the United States.

This is way more simple than the media makes it out to be.

Corporations are not people. Period.

Corporations, Unions, and other organizations have no protections under our constitution. The modern corporation is an invention of a cartel to whom we continue to turn over control of our country. This latest move by this right wing activist court shows the depth to which we have handed over our country to the modern day robber barons of corporate America.

Every true conservative in this nation should be alarmed at this shameful activism on the part of partisan judges serving their corporate masters...