Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Coming Soon to a Democracy Near You...
The envelope, please. And the winner for "most influential motion picture in American politics" is... "Hillary: The Movie."
Never heard of it? Not surprising -- very few people saw it in the first place. But "Hillary: The Movie" -- a no-holds-barred attack on the life and career of Hillary Clinton intended for viewing during her presidential campaign -- could prove to have an impact on the political scene greater than even its producers could have dreamed.
In the world of money and politics, "Hillary: The Movie" may turn out to be the sleeper hit of the year, a boffo blockbuster. Depending on the outcome of a special Supreme Court hearing on September 9th, this little piece of propaganda could unleash a new torrent of cash flooding into campaigns from big business, unions and other special interests. "Hillary: The Movie" may turn out to be "Frankenstein: The Monster."
The film was created by a conservative group called Citizens United. They wanted to distribute the film via on-demand TV and buy commercials to promote those telecasts, but because the film was partially financed by corporate sponsors, the Federal Election Commission said no, that it was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- McCain-Feingold -- which restricts the use of corporate money directly for or against candidates.
Citizens United appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was first heard back in March. But the court did an usual thing. They asked for more time and ordered a new hearing and new arguments, almost a month ahead of the first Monday in October that usually marks the official start of the court's annual sessions.
The reason for the special hearing is to more broadly consider the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform in general; whether it denies a corporation the First Amendment right of free speech.
Those who believe that a corporation is being deprived of a fundamental right feel it should be treated no differently than any individual citizen. Those opposed believe that corporations do not hold the same rights as citizens and that their deep pockets -- via political action committees (PAC's) and other avenues of participation -- already give them clout and influence dangerous to the health of a democracy.
All of this comes, as The New York Times reported, "At a crucial historical moment, as corporations today almost certainly have more to gain or fear from government action than at any time since the New Deal."
More than fifty friend of the court (amicus) briefs have been filed, an unprecedented number for a First Amendment case. The legal wrangling has made for some strange pairings. "The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides," the Times noted, "with the civil rights group fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the National Rifle Association" in support of "Hillary: The Movie's" corporate sponsors.
"Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse."
One of those who will argue on September 9th for overturning the McCain-Feingold limitations is the redoubtable Floyd Abrams, the ardent and vocal defender of free speech who has argued many landmark First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. On the other side is Trevor Potter, founding president of the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. General Counsel to John McCain during his presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008, Potter was involved in the drafting of McCain-Feingold and has filed one of the amicus briefs in its defense.
Both appear on the current edition of public television's Bill Moyers Journal, interviewed by my colleague Bill Moyers. "The question here is to what extent, if at all, can unions and corporations spend their money to put ads on or to speak out themselves in their own name about political matters, including even who to vote for," Abrams said.
"I don't think that we should make a distinction on First Amendment grounds in terms of who's speaking. I think that whether the speaker is an individual or an issue group or a union or a corporation, if anything, the public is served, not disserved, by having more speech."
Trevor Potter disagreed. "Corporations exist for economic purposes, commercial purposes," he said. "And the notion that they have full First Amendment free speech rights, as well doesn't make any sense for this artificial creation that exists for economic, not political purposes...
"Corporations just want to make money. So, if you let the corporation with a privileged economic legal position loose in the political sphere when we're deciding who to elect, I think you are giving them an enormous advantage over individuals and not a healthy one for our democracy."
The Supreme Court could rule just on Citizen United's "Hillary: The Movie" case, but the call for the special session and the current composition of the court would seem to indicate that the decision might completely overthrow McCain-Feingold.
Three thousand corporate PAC's registered with the Federal Election Commission in 2007 and 2008 spent more than $500 million for political purposes. And we've seen the hundreds of millions big business already has spent to battle the Obama administration's domestic agenda. A 5-4 decision in favor of corporate interests could mean much, much more money from multinational corporations overwhelming our electoral process.
Think of the September 9th hearing as a sneak preview of coming attractions.
39 Comments so far
Show AllLet's get it straight that we are not a democracy. So, any ruling cannot take this into account. We are a corporatocracy and unfortunately, SCOTUS will rule in the favor of business. To not rule in favor of corporations will open up a can of worms regarding the personhood of corps that SCOTUS does not want to be exposed to human reasoning and critique. Wanna bet?
Only if I can insure the bet...
I believe giving corporations the same rights as individuals is a mistake. Corporations are granted their status by state laws (or foreign countries), not by the constitution. When an individual or a group of individuals use money for political speech, the individuals are using the money in a manner that they intend. However, when a corporation uses money for political speech, the owners (for example, individual stockholders like you and me who own indirectly own the corporate stock through mutual funds), effectively have no control in the speech that the corporation. Nor do the consumers of products, e.g, gas from companys like Exxon, have much choice in whether the money they spend gets used by Exxon in lobbying against the customer's interest. This is due to corporate oligopies that exist in all aspects of society that give consumers few practical choices. As a result, corporations accumulate power through money and often act against the interests of its own shareholders, employees and customers.
Possible solution: Enact laws that bring down corporations to the same playing field as individuals. If they want to take political action, let the owners and employees write letters or contribute as individuals or groups of individuals to a congressmen or political activies. However, the contributions need to come from the individual pocketbooks, not the corporation.
Considering the broken two-party duopoly and the defunct organisms who become their candidates, does it matter what the Court decides?
Winship speaks of a possible 5-4 Court ruling in favor of corporate personhood, and this prompts me to trot out one of my favorite soap-boxes on which I have stood to speak for the last several months. Now that Sonio Sotomayor is one of the "9," will she be one of the 5 or one of the 4? A rather important question, wouldn't you think? One, for example, that the ACLU might have pushed by asking for a clarification of her stand on an important issue for democracy. But no, the ACLU said (falsely) during the confirmation period that they (we, actually, because I'm a sustaining member) don't make Court endorsements. Director Romero, a Puerto Rican like Sotomayor, said only he was extremely "proud" of her and the ACLU took no such position. Nor, I might add, did any of the "other" civil rights organizations (unnamed by Winship) arrayed on the other side of the case raise this kind of question, though they had to have known that the "Clinton" case was already in the courts and scheduled for early review by the Supreme Court. But, like everybody else, these organizations are reduced to having to "wait and see" where the new Justice comes down on this fundamentally important issue (the Bill Moyers debate on it last night fully brought out the signficance of the case), and only then may some advocates of less-than-bought elections be shocked, shocked, shocked if Sotomayor should vote for the devastating concept of "corporate personhood." (Already an electoral behemoth as Moyers, Potter and Winship point out, they are now to be a "person" too?)
jerry: from what i have read about sotomayor and her time on the bench she has been a great friend to corporations and her rulings have almost always favored corporations.
being that obama himself has been a corporate planted psyop i shudder to think what sotomayor's effect is going to be on the court. that she is a woman or hispanic is irrelevant to me, in fact its about time we had some representation from that community on the court.
apparently, having said that, she is not very committed to net neutrality either and that is even more disconcerting. the internet being the last vestige of free interaction and organizing we have left in this corporately overwhelmed country.
obama has aligned himself with the corporations and i find it is another mind warping psyop on the part of the corporate media to even attempt to paint obama as a leftie. he is nwo (just ask kissinger) to the bone.
no self-respecting leftie would have given the banks 23 trillion dollars of fake imagined but nonetheless interest bearing dollars, especially to get the out of their collapsing ponzy scheme of credit swaps and their other "financial products" that they knew to be garbage.
a self-respecting leftie would have indicted them all and sent them to prison. then the true lefty would have written some new legislation to control and inhibit the ability of the criminals to run their schemes going forward.
a true lefty would not be surrounded by goldman sachs/corporate politicians using the revolving door from wall street to the whitehouse.
i would hope that most reasonable americans are finally coming around to accepting the notion that our country has been ruined by the corporations and their blow boys - the bought and paid for whitehouse, congress and senate.
the singer bruce cockburn sings: "with pain the world grows us older" and my how we have aged over the last 10 years.
bill and hillory clinton have been two of the most corrupt politicians the country has ever seen. hillory is just run of the mill but bill - like obama - could have been a great man. he has the command of policy and politics - like obama - to have really made a difference in the lives of the people of america - but his reign in the whitehouse was a disaster for the poor, the working class and the unions.
despite his undeserved popularity he is nwo scum, neutered by his dna sample splattered on miss lewinsky's dress - who knew she would preserve the evidence.
in arkansas, arguably one of the mot corrupt of all the states (quite an achievement), bill has been widely exposed for the corrupt bugger that he is.
never mind the sex, which i think i really none of our business, the allegations of drug smuggling through mina (hello barry seals, ex-cia drug smuggler re-locating from new orleans to mina), money laundering the drug money through the rose law firm where hillary worked.
google this: "bill clinton +suicides"
the cintons have left a shocking number of dead bodies in their wake, the most notable being vince foster - who by the way did not commit suicide in the park - god knows what happened to him - the clinton's obstructed the investigation into that murder quite openly.
the clinton's don't have a marriage - they have a to-the-death partnership that is both macabre and creepy.
by the way has anyone even seen hillory in the last month
while the expose on the clinton's has been a long time coming i am deeply opposed to "coporate rights" in general and personhood completely. most of these ceo's shoud be in jail and we all know that now....
lebeaux: Thank you for responding to my concern about Sotomayor on the court and the possibility that she well could turn it from a 5-4 civil libertarian court into a 5-4 regressive one. Your characterization of her judicial decisions as mostly "corporately-friendly" should, to repeat my soap box scream, have been a giant red flag for every "liberal" person and organization who is interested in protecting our personal freedom from the overweening power of corporations. That even liberals let the Republican yahoo opposition to divert attention from this issue to side issues like "personal bias" and her community organizing work is a damning testiment to the inability of those liberals to compete effectively in the market place of political ideas.
jerry: they have an advantage - they are psychopaths - see my posts in response to the good work nevergiveup has done in finding information to put a perspective on what is happening to us all
keep up your good work
Jerry, I'm also an ACLU sustainer and my blood just ran cold reading Winship's article. But it's a little unclear, and I can't find anything at the ACLU site. It seems that Winship is saying that the ACLU *SUPPORTS* corporate speech. Can that possibly be correct?? Do you know anything definitive about it? Could you point me at any ACLU docs about their amicus brief - I haven't heard anything from them about it.
Mairead: You requested and I just found copy of ACLU's brief;
http://www.cuvfec.com/documents/case-08-205/Supplemental_Question_Amicus_Brief_of_ACLU.pdf
Haven't had time yet to read it.
As to protesting, a comment on a Buzzflash article suggests that ACLU members should protest the group's stance on this. http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/892 and see the commenter's link to ReclaimingDemocracy.org criticizing the ACLU stance. http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/ncaclu_statement_nike.htm I have found my own way (but not an effective one, I fear) to protest ACLU's quiescence about Sotomayor nomination, telling the caller who asked me to up my pledge that this as a reason I wouldn't. I didn't know at the time about this second "infraction," Like most other giant outfits, it's not at all easy to find anyone who could do anything about ACLU policy to whom to protest. If you find anything on this, give me a holler: jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. (11 is eleven).
Thanks, Jerry! I've just read through it carefully and feel much better now.
Winship quotes the NYT, but the quote suggests that the NYT misunderstood what's going on, or were deliberately misrepresenting it, and that Winship merely accepted their interpretation without checking the ACLU's amicus brief.
Essentially, the ACLU's argument is only that section 203 should be struck down as being illegally vague and likely to exert a chilling influence on protected speech, especially that of those without deep pockets. As written, it allows government functionaries to pass facially neutral but actually partisan judgement on the permissibility of certain political speech, and (says the ACLU) that's just not on.
the nyt misleading the public - surely you jest
you are gonna wind up on the no-fly list f you keep this up
I watched the Moyer's program. While it is clear that Abrams truly believes in free speech, I think he is wrong to want to bestow that hard-fought-for power to a fictitious entity whose sole purpose is to make money for its owners. We are not talking about the press here, whose purpose is not just to make money for its owners but to inform the general public of what is happening in the world: we are talking about a fictitious entity using its sole purpose for existence (the money it makes) to sway law-makers to make or break laws for its own economic purposes, not for the purposes of a better republic. This narrowly-defined entity must not be given the rights of a full-fledged being in a human system (politics).
On a personal note, I think I noticed, when Moyers asked both interviewees to comment on the Solicitor General's comment to be made this coming Wednesday at the Supreme Court, and Abrams said he didn't think a ruling in his client's favor was wrong because allowing corporations to give as much money as they want to politicians would not corrupt the politicians or the process, an involuntary wince on Moyers face. I can't be sure because I also winced at that incredible, absolutely unbelievable statement and, hence, may have not accurately seen Moyers face. But, I don't think so.
Thank you, Mr. Moyers and PBS, for being one of the few sane voices and outlets on the boob tube.
"Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse."
As if that isn't the case already.
The ruinous foundation for the subversion of our republic (a representative democracy) was the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad court notes which have been purposely misinterpreted since then to create the legal fiction of "corporate personhood", giving corporations the same right to free speech as human persons. This absurdity was further compounded by the 1975 Buckley vs. Valejo case which basically equated speech with money.
Given the current corporate-friendly makeup of the Supreme Court, it would be a huge surprise if the majority rules for democracy instead of increasing the corporatocracy we now suffer with.
Since most members of Congress and President Obama (and his White House staff, starting with Rahm Emanuel) are essentially Corporate Tools, paying much more attention to the thousands of swarming D.C. lobbyists from Big Wall Street Banksters, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Oil & Big Coal, and, most of all, Big War Profiteers, than to us "little guys and gals", there is little chance for any true CHANGE with Democrats or Republicans, the two wings of the Corporatist/War Party of U.S. Empire, alternating in power.
ed: good stuff
Corporations are persons in the same way cancer is a living cell.
If the ACLU is supporting "free speech" from the perspective that these malignant persons possess civil liberties, it's really over.
It's becoming ever clearer that our greatest enemies are corporate CEOs and Boards of Directors, not of all corporations, but most, especially those in the financial sector. In many respects, the individual CEOs and Directors are eqivalent to Charles Manson, or any other serial killer. They have taken few if any casualties in the Class War, which is a dynamic that must change if we are ever to have an opportunity to be truely free from the tyranny oppressing us.
teachers are my lessons done
i cannot do another one
she laughed and smiled and said
my child are your lessons done
karloff you haven't learned your lesson:
It's becoming ever clearer that our greatest enemies are corporate CEOs and Boards of Directors, not of all corporations, but most, especially those in the financial sector
should read:
It's becoming ever clearer that our greatest enemies are corporate CEOs and Boards of Directors of all corporations, not most, especially those in the financial sector
i walked into a hospital
where none were sick and none were well
when at night the nurses left
i could not walk at all
Sorry, but there are many corporations that do good, specifically those that are non-profit, which is why I refrained from lumping them all together as you did.
if you say so...
Mispost
This is of course insanity.
Corporations do not have the duties and responsibilities of individuals, so it is preposterous that they would have the same rights. I was shocked when I learned in Law School many years ago that they did have so many of the same rights.
Money = Speech ignores that excessive amounts of money create flood speech, which is inconsistent with free speech, as those with deep pockets can dominate the airwaves and even raise the ad costs so high as to push out competitors. One has to be an absolute unthinking MORON to believe that Money = Speech or that allowing flood speech has no negative effect on free speech. I suspect most of those arguing such are not morons but are just dishonest crooks.
If the Court rules with the corpofiends, it will just prove that the foundations of the US system are too flawed for the US to survive much longer.
You said it pal
JenniferBedingfield September 5th, 2009 3:14 pm:
instant run-offs
publicly funded campaigns
no more corporate personhood
End the Fed...
there are a lot of ways to bring the vision into being
like, why do all the TARP recipients get to keep their lobbyists in DC and continue to write legislation that our legislators rarely get to read in the bills' entirety and are forced to vote on them on short notice?
***
addressing karlof1 here: many corporations try to do good, but are forced to do otherwise due to unjust laws and regulations. that is, they can't be "competitive" in a system rigged for globalist sharks. take the US Hallmark card company's quaint pledge to not layoff any employee, but institute corporate-wide reduction in work hours instead (that was as of 10 years ago, when I last looked into it - are they bankrupt or operating out of China now?). then there is Fair Trade and other such organizations directed at supporting capitalist ventures that respect the workers AND the planet. there are important shades of gray here. for me, i got get out of Chase and into a local credit union, maybe next week for me...
Thanks for seconding my position. I once taught and lived in California, so I wish you success in both endeavors. Ten-years-ago while doing research into the US Empire (my field of historical inquiry), I came across a book with the title The Shark and the Sardines written by the president of Guatemala after he was deposed by the 1954 US-backed coup. It along with War is a Racket provide an interesting baseline with which to measure US Imperial direction, though of course there are others. Since you are within the Indoctrination System, you might benefit from reading Taking the Risk Out of Democracy, by Alex Carey.
karlof1 September 5th, 2009 5:39 pm :
I checked out the Amazon link for the deposed Guatamalan leader Juan Jose Arevalo. The book was just recently re-released, so no reviews there yet. Thanks for the tips on the other books. I'll try to check them out.
Yes, I am definitely within the indoctrination system. :-( But I am in the field of special education, life skills for kids with MR. There isn't as much brainwashing when the focus is on doing laundry for the school, cooking meals, using the bus independently, and so forth. Still, school can be a "prison" or at least a gateway to real prisons, in addition to acclimating children to sterile employment. Maybe you could make the analogy that I am like the person hired to clean windows at a dozen Chase Bank branches. Am I still a part of the problem, serving the empire? Yes, if my money were where my mouth is, I'd probably be working somewhere else. But the pay tends to be better with public schools, though that may soon change. In any event, I'd rather try to inspire the plebes, than cater to the wealthy, so my gig in public school still serves my "revolutionary" aspirations. I interact quite a bit with the regular education kids and staff, but I don't have to conform as much as they do, so I can stir things up a bit, and I enjoy that.
Peace
Hello ILuvFEMA:
I wasn't implying that you are part of the problem. You may have missed my mention that I once was an instructor within that System too, and used my position to try and enlighten students as to the realities of the US Empire, etc. I ceased being within the System when all of us California Community College part-time staff were pink-slipped at the end of the 2001-02 school year. I tip my hat to you for what you're tasked with trying to do. I seriously considered Special Ed as a career path, but opted for the ESL endorsement to my credential instead. Now the only "teaching" I do is in forums like this.
In Solidarity
People should organize into affinity groups and apply for a corporate charter. If this is the only way to secure human and legal rights for people, let's do it.
The country is upset with monopolies, trusts, too big to fail nonsense, and phony free market (corporations) on tax payer relief. Tyson is not a monopoly because people can buy pork or choose not to buy chicken--- now that legal absurdity has become too difficult for the supreme court. We know what side will win in this case so ---------. The problem is monopoly capital not corporations. The reason a forest burns is to provide life to the new. Free enterprise whether economic, intellectual or political is not operative in the United States.Just look at the consolidation happening today with institutional encouragement!
It's fairly straight forward:
The officers of a corporation are charged BY THE CHARTERS to increase shareholder value, irrespective of other values.
If given the ability to flood-speech the political dialogue with massive amounts of money, they will (must) do so in a way that will increase their shareholder value.
But the government, in theory anyway, is for securing the rights of humans/society, via the Constitution, not making a profit.
Obviously, it is better to have a strong society out of which great commercial enterprises may arise, than have weak, crooked or greedy commercial interests diminish the viability of the society upon which they depend.
Now, that above was saying it nicely...
"What the Captain meant to say":
Corporations float the wrong people to the top of the power structure for the wrong reasons. Corporations are a cancer on the body politic. Our survival is at stake.
Revoke corporate "personhood". Make them accountable to the ecosphere and humanity.
CORP IS BORG---plain and simple---CORP IS BORG.
And as I said late last year, Obama is Borg.
capital punishment for corporations
Nevergiveup, Karlof1, lebeau, Mordechai Shiblikov, Ghandighost, Gobbels sez, ED, Progressive 101, Jerry D Rose, Mairead, Paul Revere, Jennifer Bedingfield, dimpossibility,
All great comments and discussion. However, I see it as 100% unlikely that change Can or Will, come about through the mentioned avenues, esp. voting. It is completely clear to me that those in power, play by no rules whatsoever. They are drunk on power, for powers sake. The game is rigged. It's over. An intelligent and fruitful conversation about the future abandons this nonsense and bullshit that now passes for politics in the U.S. Intelligent and brave individuals must see this, and move forward. We can't keep pretending that we presently have any political power at all. We are buying into the lies that people are important to the Empire. We are disposable to them. But, you want to keep playing by Their rules? No shortage of silliness here, huh? The rules of engagement have changed quite drastically, in case anyone missed this development. When you ignore the rule of law, it's called a free for all. When you believe playing by the rules to create change is still a viable option, I would argue, they have already won. Those who are the first to present any REAL solutions, will be the first to be jailed. It can't be any other way. Connect the dots, folks. The idea of America is toast.
Wayout September 6th, 2009 8:54 am......I cannot but agree. And your suggestion is? Leave? Protest? Strike? Boycott? Passive or violent revolution?
I'm open to anything other than the status quo....the longer we wait, the weaker we get.......and THEY know that damn well.
nevergiveup September 6th, 2009 10:44 am :
Alex Jones goes round and round on this issue. He advocates an "information war" -- sharing DVDs, posting flyers, speaking up RE the flu shots, state sovereignty, and 911 (etc) at Town Councils -- but has many people on the show who are "getting ready." Many of his show's sponsors are all about self-reliance and decoupling from the system: heirloom seeds, solar power, generators, storable foods, fire arms (for self defense), precious metals (ie hard currency, not fiat), water purification, and the like.
He advocates doing everything we can nonviolently to change our government. He's quite aligned with a Ron Paul spin off, Campaign for Liberty, which is attempting to field local candidates so that people can take back their local and state governments. I support the Greens and Campaign for Liberty -- and any other group not beholden to corporate interests.
Alex draws the line in the sand at forced vaccinations, and gunpoint removal of his family from his house. If there is a manufactured plague in the next few years (this coming flu season may be more about hype and acclimatizing the public to martial law scenarios before a bigger false flag UN/WHO takeover under medical cover later on), I think Alex would be willing to shoot any agency trying to force him and his family out of his home. The government actions during Katrina (forcible disarmament and detention) violates our 2nd and 5th amendments (many were forced out of their homes, even though there was no threat to their safety).
You should be secure in your home. For me, the hot war would start with violations of the Castle Doctrine:
[from wikipedia] "A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine....."
You should know that the NSA via Fusion Centers of federal and state law enforcement agencies nationwide have the ability to read the contents of your hard drive when you are online. This is unconstitutional, and is already a violation of the Castle Doctrine.
Alex likes to quote Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" where he laments that he and his fellow Russian prisoners had consented to arrest rather than fighting when the government and paramilitary thugs broke into their homes.
I think the NWO know forcible arrests would trigger a backlash, so they intend to wear us down with biological/viral attacks first. Most people won't see it as a direct and planned attack, as opposed to our being conditioned to view Humvees with 50 cals and microwave weapons mounted on them as being the bigger threat, when in fact there may be worse threats that many do not anticipate.
I rather doubt we'll be safe in our homes as fabricated charges and pre-emptive arrests are already in the State's arsenal, and being vindicated by the courts after the fact is of no use if you're killed in the process. And as we've seen, the State flouts the law bigtime. This issue is discussed off and on at theoildrum.com as it relates to the issue of societal collapse due to Peak Oil. Long ago I was a Stormtrooper, so I do know a thing or two about setting up defensive perimiters and such. The above contributes to my reasons for attacking the Plutocracy instead of the national government. The primary dilemma faced by many concerns the State's overwhelming desire to use violence versus the desire by many to pursue a non-violent/Ghandian course. IMO, the circumstances between Ghandi's era and his particular goal and its context is totally different from the situation we face. So, I continue my search for another path.
karlof1 :
Thank you for continuing to teach via your postings here at Common Dreams. The Community College system continues to be hit with layoffs and tuition hikes, effectively destroying its intended role as a vehicle for less affluent students to obtain an education without incurring the $60K of debt that many graduates of four-year colleges now find themselves with.
I just checked out some articles at the Oil Drum. Very good website. I used to live in Hawaii -- there is a discussion of Hawaii's energy future on the front page right now.
I agree that what we face now is quite different than what Ghandi faced. Interesting times.
Good luck!
My Corporate Creed
I believe
……. In the separation of State from Corporations.
I believe
……. That Corporations hold dominion over Congress,
……. But Citizens should hold that power.
I believe that Corporations
……. For the first hundred years of this nation,
……. By Design and Charter, they served the public good
……. And they should be required to do so again.
I believe that Major Corporations
……. Exercise control of Government Administrative Agencies
……. Through revolving door job shuffling between themselves,
……. Congressional Staff, various Agencies and Lobby Firms
……. For the purpose of minimizing regulations on themselves.
I believe that Major Corporations
……. Promote non-competition through acquisition and merger,
……. Exploit both workers and consumers, and
……. Denigrate social justice through such practices as
……. Off-shoring of jobs, anti-union posturing and
……. Minimization of wages and benefits.
I believe that Too Many Major Corporations
……. For the benefit of the few already super-rich, they
……. Ravage the earth’s resources while
……. Polluting the earth’s land, water, and air and,
……. Through their control of mainstream media,
……. Obfuscate, distort, or deny truth to the detriment of the public
……. While promoting entertainment over elucidation.