Brainwashed by Fox... You think?

The following is a recent Facebook post.  It's unbelievable to me that anyone can not recognize the propaganda machine that is Fox News (same goes for MSNBC.)

• "In the 1980's, I wastch CNN because, literally it was the only game in town. By the early 1990's, I'd stopped watching CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS because of their overt bias against conservatives. I haven't purposely wastch CNN in more than 20 years.
  
  Honestly, I prefer FOX News, because they at least are willing on most of their shows to present an opposing view point, no matter how idiotic. None of the other propagandizing channels do."

 This person doesn't have a clue that he's been drinking the cool-aid for 20 years.

Dirt is good! Amazing Sand Art!

That is sand!
For someone who grew up at the beach this is pretty amazing.

Here's a video.

Now... 15 Reasons Why This Congress is the Worst

Ezra Klein published an excellent piece the other day regarding the ineffectiveness of this congress.  14 great reasons why it is probably the worst congress ever.

> Read it here <

Today the Democrats gave us a 15th reason.  Thanks for continuing the trend...

"The Senate has failed to advance legislation that would require independent groups to disclose the names of contributors who give more than $10,000 for use in political campaigns.

The measure, known as the DISCLOSE Act, died in a 51 to 44 vote on a procedural motion. It needed 60 votes to move forward.

Its failure was widely expected, but Democrats pushed for the vote, believing that Republicans will be politically damaged by their opposition to bringing new transparency to campaigns. The vote could also serve to energize the Democratic base, which has been exercised over the role they believe secret corporate donations are playing in the campaign.

> Full article here <

Or just google "Disclose Act" and find your preferred news source.

Are Corporations People? Jack Welch says YES!

A friend sent me Jack Welsh's editorial on the WSJ regarding a corporation being a person:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577524823306803692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Here's my thoughts:

Their point seems be focused on the fact that a corporation is composed of carbon based life forms (people) and therefore the corporation is a person.  (I think technically there is some flawed logic in that assumption.  A football team is composed of people – do we consider a football team to be a person?)  Based on this assumption, they continue on to point out that as the result of the corporation being composed of people that it therefore has the characteristics, emotions, attributes, compassion and drive of a person.  I don’t agree with this.

I’m no corporate or constitutional scholar (actually not a scholar of anything), but for me this falls in to the category of “It just don’t make no sense”.  Isn’t kind of sad that we need corporate scholars, constitution scholars, lawyers and courts to tell us what a person it?

Can a corporation feel nationalism?  Is a person born or is a person incorporated?  Does a person choose the state they want to be incorporated in because that state has the most advantageous laws for a person?  And, no matter which state the person actually lives in, they are governed by the laws of the state they choose to be incorporated in.

In our legal system a corporation is an entity, but it is not a carbon based life form.  It is an ink and paper based life form.  It is an “artificial person” and not necessarily composed of the people who own it or work for it.  Owners can change, employees can change, but the corporation remains as a separate and intact entity.  (  http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person2.htm ) 

Important to note: the corporation takes on the liabilities of carbon based life forms (people) who own it or work for it.  It provides a shield or foil for the carbon based life forms.  I would guess that in his history, Mr. Welch has taken advantage of this particular attribute of a corporation.  The corporation does not love or cry.  It feels no remorse.  It does not learn from its experience, more importantly its mistakes.  The carbon based people do (sometimes).  Those same people the Welchs point out who discover drug therapies to target cancer, who build the heart valve, who work toward shared goals, who own shares in the corporation are the first ones to run to the protection of the corporation when things go awry – drug kills people, faulty heart valve, etc.  It is no longer the people’s responsibility or liability, it’s the corporation’s.  Once this has occurred, ask those people if there is a difference between the people and the corporation.  I’ll bet they have a different perspective than what is in the Welchs’ article.  I’ll bet he has.

While pointing out the good the people in a corporation may create, the Welchs conveniently skip the problems and abuse corporations have perpetrated on individuals and society– there are many, many examples that I don’t need to go into.  In my humble opinion – within a corporation there is a group think or group conscious that grows within the carbon based life forms (people).  It is this group think or conscious that is a primary component of the corporate entity.  Within this group think the perpetuation of the corporation becomes more important than any carbon based person – employee, customer or innocent bystander.  There is something about the group think or group conscious (institutional conscious) that is created and cultivated in the environment of the corporation that has often lead to an action that is harmful to other individuals or society.  My guess is that if you queried the people who make up the corporation when a harmful act is carried out they would not have taken the action on an individual basis.  It appears (to me) that the institutional conscious fosters an environment where bad people can do bad things, and good people regularly do things they would probably consider bad outside of the institutional conscious.

IMHO – the Welchs present a “cute”, “feel good” proposition, but go no-where near touching the real issues of corporate personhood.  I would have expected more from Jack.  Two words that he missed come to mind – accountability and responsibility.  His conclusion – “when people say that corporations aren't people, what they really want to say is, "Business is evil."”  This is not what I want to say. 

 

I’m not saying that corporations and business don’t do good things.  Nor am I saying that they are evil.  However, I do think that (1) a corporation is not a person, not even an artificial person (2) a corporation is not entitled to the same rights and protections of a carbon based person (3) carbon based persons have the right and should expect their government to protect them from the corporations running amok (3) carbon based persons have the right and should expect owners and employees of corporations to be held liable for actions that harm others or prevent others life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To bring this around to campaign finance…  If, as the Welchs suggest, the people at the heart of corporations are so proud of it and well meaning, why can’t we know the people (and other corporations) who are behind corporate political donations.  It seems from their article that people who make up corporations and the corporations themselves are so altruistic they would be happy to share with the world the actual carbon based life forms (and other corporations) behind the political activities.

Presently in our country, it appears that a corporation is an artificial person.  It is afforded the same rights and freedoms as a carbon based person.  I personally do not believe that should be the law of the land.  I’ll end with these questions – Can a corporation say and commit to the pledge of allegiance?  Can a corporation say a prayer?  Do corporations dream of golden sheep?

“It just don’t make no sense”.  Maybe I’m just not smart enough to get it.

Jefferson was a critic of the monopolizing of economic power by banks, corporations and those who put their faith in what the third president referred to as "the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.”
 

I think he got “it”.

(Note1: I did come up with that last question on my own, but when I googled it I found this: http://www.partisans.org/2012/03/do-corporations-dream-of-golden-sheep/ . An interesting read by the way. Note2: “Running amok” is open to interpretation, but I think you get what I mean. Note3: Not that prayer is that important to me, but I think it is important to others.)

Basic Healthcare For All - Why can't we do it?

Why can't the most powerful country on the planet provide basic healthcare for all of its citizens?

The ranks of the uninsured today are equal to the combined populations of Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

A questioning article:
> GOP to the uninsured - Drop Dead. <

Suggestion to the President in a debate with Romney: "Read that list slowly, Mr. President. Then ask your opponent: “Would America turn its back on the citizens of these 25 states if everyone there lacked basic health coverage? That’s what we’ve been doing for decades. You knew it was right to act when you were governor of Massachusetts, Mitt. How can you pretend we don’t need to solve this for the nation? And how can you object with a straight face when your own pioneering plan was my model?”
 >More Here<

Isn't there a saying about insanity?

Ah, yes - "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."  (Thanks Albert!)

"The House of Representatives voted today to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It was the 33rd time Republicans have voted to chip away at, defund,  or repeal the health care law. Democrats called the move a political charade since the repeal law has no chance of becoming law this year."
 > More Here <

These guys know what the outcome of almost every vote is before they take it. Why waste this time.  Work on the business of this country where both sides can work together to pass legislation that will make it through the Senate and be signed by the President.  Stop grandstanding for you base and get something done.  (Not saying that the democrats are not guilty of the same exact thing.  They are!)

Damn it! Why does "everybody" get to vote...

From the mouth of a republican at a Romney fundraiser:

"I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them."

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

 Its just too bad "everybody" has the right to vote.

> Details Here <

Romney Financial Shenanigans: Why?

Come on Mitt you’re running for president.  Why not structure you finances so that Main Street can understand them?

Mitt Romney released two years of his tax returns, which showed, among other things, that he pays a lower tax rate than many middle-class families and has employed a Swiss bank account to hold his investments. Today, Vanity Fair ran an expose on Romney’s investments, providing some new details regarding funds that he keeps in the Cayman Islands, how his retirement fund grew so large, and how he manages to avoid paying his fair share of taxes.

“Romney, like the superhero who whirls and backflips unscathed through a web of laser beams while everyone else gets zapped, is certainly a remarkable financial acrobat. But careful analysis of his financial and business affairs also reveals a man who, like some other Wall Street titans, seems comfortable striding into some fuzzy gray zones,” wrote Vanity Fair’s Nicholas Shaxson.

> Click for more <