The Ojai Post

Freedom making a come back ! Good deal.

Yes Brian,

We can agree on this one I think. The Progressives and the Tea Party people can join forces against the corporatists, or as FDR called the - economic royalists, or even as the founders called them - loyalists. It's the same struggle.

thanks Sean . . . you nailed it !

and I get it . . . which is why I'm seeking redemption by going back to school
(for an MA in geography = "writing about the Earth") because many years ago, when I was earning my degree in 'business administration' the PR(opaganda) of the day emphasized the advantages of 'corporate personhood' over the rights and responsibilities of individuals ('natural persons') = corporations are not even held accountable to the same degree that private citizens are !

I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment which would clarify the founders (foundin' daddies, as the late great Molly Ivins was fond of saying) intent that only "NATURAL PERSONS" are citizens with the attendant rights of citizens.

"What stuns me most about contemporary politics is not even that the system has been so badly corrupted by money. It is that so few people get the connection between their lives and what the bozos do in Washington and our state capitols." Molly Ivins

and finally, to quote SPK :
"For a long time we have been laboring under an artificial left-right paradigm where people who have everything in common decide that they are against each other because of minor, cultural issues used by the corporations to divide us. The new paradigm in this country is actually the same that the founders faced. This country was started with a Revolution against a royally chartered CORPORATION."

Don't think so Spk, you "progressives"/communists are trying to tear down the country, and I think people see that now. And don't forget that other great president from Massachusetts, Coolidge !, who said - " The business of America is Business"

Whose Rights?
A new Supreme Court decision promotes corporate rights at the expense of the rights of citizens. Changing the legal structure itself may be the best way to protect democracy.

Published on Thursday, January 21, 2010 by YES! Magazine
by Thomas Linzey, Mari Margil

"Today’s structure of law gives corporations a spectrum of legal and constitutional rights which they routinely wield against people, communities, and nature. Corporations have more rights, for example, than the communities in which they seek to do business. They can and do use those rights to lobby Congress, impact elections, and to decide for us what we eat, whether mountaintops are blown off or not, whether there are fish in the oceans, and on and on. Their constitutional and other legal rights, together with their wealth, guarantee that they can define the debates that lead to the adoption of new laws—and often write the laws themselves."

to read the whole article go here :

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/21-8

Brian,

"The business of America is Business"

Sorry, it's been a VERY long couple of days so forgive me for saying this: You are talking out of your godamn ass! Why don't you explain to us how this decision benefits anyone in this country besides a very tiny minority at the top? We're talking PEOPLE here (unless you are ridiculously naive enough to believe that this is beneficial to your tiny little business). And then when you are done, can you explain to us YOUR definitions of Freedom and Democracy and how this decision furthers those ideals...

And I look forward to SPK and everyone else wiping that smirk off your face!

And P.S. Since your brain seems comfortable with Fox News/Rush Limbaugh silly little labels to heap on to "others" - trust me when I say that you are much closer to empowering the rise of Fascism in this country than all of us here put together are to empowering that of Communism! Buy a dictionary and free your mind!

I'm disgusted. I'm out!

p.s.
http://movetoamend.org/

Oh, sorry SPK. I didn't read all the way through - didn't realize you had already posted the link. Please feel free to delete these last two comments! I'm all over the place today... :)

It's basically a first amendment freedom of speech issue, you moron. I know you hate the EVIL corporations but it just so happens that many people are incorporated and if they want to endorse somebody for president then they have every right to do so - read the constitution you commy !

Brian,

I thought for a moment we could come together, sad. Your inability to grasp reality and the implications of this stunning overreach by the activist judges in the Opus Dei cabal precludes you from any meaningful dialogue. Your statement that anyone can form a corporation, while true, bespeaks your total lack of understanding on this issue.

Brian,

I thought for a moment we could come together, sad. Your inability to grasp reality and the implications of this stunning overreach by the activist judges in the Opus Dei cabal precludes you from any meaningful dialogue. Your statement that anyone can form a corporation, while true, bespeaks your total lack of understanding on this issue.

Next you'll want to ban books, have to turn off my computer now before we get zapped by lightening !

Here's a link to the decision.

Read it. If you can stomach it.

However, from what I can gather, it is not clear how earth-shattering this decision will be. It is about a documentary made for the 2008 election about Hillary Clinton - a hit piece that a corporation loaded with bucks wanted to blanket across cable teevee. Under the old law, as a corporation the promoters could be fined and potentially jailed for airing this slanderous hit piece.

Whereas, if they had joined together without corporate form, they could not be jailed or fined by government, but could be sued and ruined by Hillary for slander, assuming she could meet heightened standards for libel required for public figures. (Which should have been easy given the content of this "documentary".)

Now, under the new SCOTUS decision, if you want to slander a political figure right before an election, but don't want to face a libel suit and the threat of damages, you can form a corporation and limit your liability. (Presumably.)

Is there more to this decision than that?

I suppose that a theoretical fear of possible prosecution has been removed for bad corporate actors. Will that portend a qualitative difference in how they act? I sort of doubt it, but we will see.

Sure, we will see even more pathetic, slanderous garbage like the Hillary video and the Swift Boat stuff - but they already can do that well enough to have inflicted eight years of Bush-Cheney on us. Can it really get worse than that?

A couple of other quick points jump out:

1. Anyone asserting there is "principle" behind this decision is all wet. This 5-4 majority has had no problem upholding all kinds of blatant violations of the Constitution, including free speech rights. They are not friends of the right of BC or any other individual to air inconvenient opinions, or disseminate views their corporate masters don't want heard. These same justices last week 5-4 banned cameras in the courtroom where the Proposition 8 trial is being held. BC, square that with the high and mighty free speech language in the majority opinion.

2. For any jokers (like BC) who still pretend that their so-called "conservative" justices are not amoral activists who ignore and refuse to follow precedents inconvenient to their personal (or corporate masters') desires, note this: The 5-4 majority expressly overruled no less than two Supreme Court decisions in order to get to their result (!). So much for the theory of judicial restraint.

Enough for now.

BC: When you resort to name-calling, it not only dilutes your point, it disappoints me.

fortunately no one in this valley, or world, is dumb enough to believe either the BC or SPK (or LTOR ad nauseum) fakirs here. as to the self-serving dumbing-down spiel of "a constitutionally limited, representative democracy in this country" -- SPK is intentionally posing 'government' as 'country'. further, there never has been a democracy of any kind here ... as anyone who has ever studied beyond high school knows.

the government, the schools, the media, the banks, the law, the corporations, the medical establishment, you name it, are, by law, simply arms of the security state ... theatre for those in the global audience who pretend it has meaning, in order to suck on to it's capitalist/socialist dollar, or those in the audience like BC, SPK and LTOR who suck at higher levels, managing (or seeking to) further the farce from behind stage.

it has never been a secret who owns and runs all these theatrical institutions, unopposed since World War 1 ... with power multiplied tenfold after their coupe of World War 2, and their establishment of the global hegemony of the global military aircraft network, with Nuclear Ordinance on board. [the Military Industrial 'Complex').

nowadays, anyone can read of the budgets, though not the programs, of the government part of the security state ... and of the administration of the secret government through National Security Decision Directives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_directive and the so-called 'United States' National Security Council, NSA, DIA, CIA etc etc ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Councils

these governments, councils, and Obamas are of course only the street-level actors of but ONE of the institutions of our security state, lauded by our own BCs, SPKs, and LTORs.

an example of the nauseous theatre from fifty years ago, which all students of the Vietnam War will be familiar with, is Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

hyped by the New York Times, and the AntiWar Protest Movement, as proof of the total fraud of the war 'against North Vietnam' ... the Papers revealed it was actually an occupation and war against South Vietnam launched by President Kennedy with his murder of the South Vietnamese President .... the same sick Kennedy who gave us the fraud of NASA and the Apollo program, which, as anyone who can read knows, was a front for the much greater-financed (and a thousand-times more efficient) Military Space Program which began more than a decade earlier.

the same sick fraud I bought into thirty years ago when I was trying to do a BC/SPK/LTOR-suck with my legislation for the US Space Station Program.

well I learned my lesson, and gave up my cosy MilSpace offices for the honesty and integrity, health and sanity, love and spirit of real community and divine nature.

I look forward to the days, just ahead, when our stage-manager sister/brothers here on the OjaiPost, and throughout the valley, come to that inner-honesty, heart-arrival, of feet and mind, Earth and Sky ...

an end of cheap Power/Money/Political theatre ...

revealed in their thoughts, words and deeds ...

First, thank you so much Sean. That was a very well written and informative article.

Perhaps this decision will wake up Americans to the fact that major corporations rule, and there has only been an ILLUSION of democracy. It is now official. Whoever has the most money wins. Its pretty hilarious that BC seems to think that if he becomes a corporation he will have the same rights as say, a monster OIL company. Talk about delusion and illusion!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that the basic issue is whether or not a corporation is a "person".
The court, in its convoluted absurdity, decided it is. Therefore a corporation can contribute whatever and however it wants to a political campaign, just like an individual. Except that a corporation isn't A person, it is a hierarchy of many persons, usually with a labor force that produces the wealth and a board that spends it. (an over simplification, I know, but you get the point.) If it is a large corporation, it will have large amounts of money to BUY media time and space, thus shaping the hearts and minds of Americans (at least those dumb, deluded or drugged enough to believe what comes out in those ads, which seems to be a large group). And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ways to buy a politician...and influence and write legislation so that corporations can continue to produce useless, if not downright poisonous crap, screw over their workers and rape, rip off and poison our natural resources for the benefit of the few at the top. Anyone with half a brain knows all this. If you need specifics, I can tell you a few things about some oil companies around here...

But I digress. The question is, if the Supreme Court says a corporation has the same rights as a person, does it also have the same responsibilities? Can an insurance company that causes the death of an individual by refusing to pay for needed medical treatment be prosecuted and sentenced to death? That would be nice, wouldn't it?
But no, I don't think so...not with insurance companies making the rules.

Let's just hope that this latest Supreme Court decision will wake up Americans out of their stupor and begin to see that what is in their interest is NOT what is in the interests of major corporations like big oil, big insurance, big banks, big war machines, big poison ie. drug & pesticide companies, big corporate farms, etc....
Now if these were ENLIGHTENED corporations...maybe...except that they would still NOT be "a person".

I've signed the petition at http://movetoamend.org and plan to pass it on to everyone I know. This is VERY important.

Anon #13, whatever happened to stare decisis, that vaunted legal principle we heard so much about when they were confirming Alito and later Roberts? So much for the right wing, federalist judges not being activists who legislate from the bench.

As for the consequences of this decision. Don't gloss over it so soon. It is far reaching and truly awful. Remember the Kasky v NIKE case here in California back in 2002? Now corporations can lie with impunity because they have the right to free speech. This is really fucked up.

Thanks Sufi.

MT,

Incoherent as always. You and Brian ought to get a school of communications together. Brian can teach the art of spouting ideologically charged falsehoods and demonstrably erroneous data while you can teach Gibberish 101, 201 and Creative Insulting.

Fakir indeed.

Some additional information about the cabal that voted for this decision:

The decision was made by five justices. All five of the judges who made this horrible decision were appointed by Republicans. Two by Reagan, two by Bush Jr. and one by Bush Sr.

Kennedy and Scalia are 74 (Reagan)
Thomas is 62 (Bush Sr.)
Alito is 60 and (Bush Jr.)
Roberts is 55 (Bush Jr.)

All but Kennedy are members of or founders of the right wing Federalist Society which started at Yale Law School and the Chicago Law School in 1982 during the Reagan Administration. Scalia was the faculty advisor of the group at its' founding in Chicago. Kennedy wasn't teaching at either school in the eighties and thus wasn't involved with the group. However, he was a close advisor and friend of Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California who later recommended him for the Federal bench to President Ford

Strangely, all five are Roman Catholic. Even more strangely, all five are purported members of a sect of Roman Catholics called Opus Dei, though membership is closely guarded and often secret. The founder of Opus Dei, Josemaría Escrivá, supposedly spoke admiringly of Hitler.

The trail of this decision is well known and it is not possible to lay it at the feet of the Democrats or Obama.

Lisa, it's very empowering ! you should try it. I only do it because they started it. And it's very discriptive.

This is a decision and logic that serves the wealthy, those who have more interest in the value of their investments than in a fair and just democracy; and ultimately this is a throw back to when only land owners could vote.

Corporations provide insulation whereby an individual can benefit from illegal (and immoral) acts with the potential repercussions limited to a monetary risk. For this reason, the more power and less regulation corporations have, the less just and moral our society.

People who work for publicly traded corporations ultimately answer to and have a responsibility to the corporate stockholders whose interests are amoral, simply monetary. If there is a choice between doing the right thing and doing the thing which yields greater corporate profits, those who work for the corporation must do the thing which yields greater profit. The only solid rationale corporate employees have for choosing a path of lesser profit is generally that law prohibits it.

Of course individuals in corporations, in their enthusiasm to do a good job serving the strictly monetary aims of a corporation, sometimes go beyond even what is legal. The power that comes with a corporation's money means that most of the illegal activity is never examined or punished.

But who would be punished for a corporation's sins anyway? A corporation can never be imprisoned. A fine can be levied, which may decrease the stock price; but that risk is insufficient incentive to not break the law.

If corporations are persons, they are a very unique type of person that cannot be afforded the same powers and liberty as you or I. They are morally undeveloped by design. Being morally undeveloped, they have no moral opinion to contribute via free speech.

The opinion of every public corporation can be reduced to its essence: More money for me. Every corporation has this same opinion, their only difference of opinion is how society, people, and organizations should accommodate their ends.

Like a child, corporations are not evil, but they warrant proper controls and boundaries. Otherwise we become the slaves of this organizational construction that only serves the greed of its stockholders.

The whole point was that this guy who wanted to make a movie about Hillary was unable to do so or he would have been thrown in jail for essentially free speech. Meanwhile Micheal Moore could make Farenhiet 911 because of his media imunity, it was really BS. Anyway when the government trys to tell you where you can get your information from and what source is approved or dissaproved and jail you for not choosing the correct one - that is unlawful. We have the freedom to think for ourselves.

Think I'll form a corporation of all the Bee Keepers in California (except one), then buy-out, er, 'merge,' with all in the US, then make it multinational, then run for President under the WeBees Party, which by that time should be the ONLY political party in the World!

GO to Public Citizen: citizen.org and DO SOMETHING!

This decision terrifies me. And like SPK, I urge people not to gloss over this or underestimate how all of our lives just changed yesterday. I understand people like Brian not fully comprehending what the hell just happened, but I must admit I am quite taken aback by other people’s seeming nonchalance over this. (Not necessarily here – I’m speaking in general terms). This is not just another nail in the coffin. This IS the coffin! And the graveyard! And the 6 foot hole!

And imagine the global ramifications of this! Jesus!

I keep trying to talk myself down…trying to be optimistic by imagining we have ways to fight this (at least mitigate it)….

I’m failing. Miserably.

You can't limit free speech and political speech is free speech. I guess you fear that pepsie or coca cola is going to talk you into being a rational conservative. You will still have free will don't worry.

this decision / judgment means that "free speech" = an oxymoron !!!
because it can and will be crafted and bought and paid for by corporations

reposted from Eric (comment 21 above) : This is a decision and logic that serves the wealthy, those who have more interest in the value of their investments than in a fair and just democracy; and ultimately this is a throw back to when only land owners could vote ... If corporations are persons, they are a very unique type of person that cannot be afforded the same powers and liberty as you or I. They are morally undeveloped by design. Being morally undeveloped, they have no moral opinion to contribute via free speech. The opinion of every public corporation can be reduced to its essence: More money for me. Every corporation has this same opinion, their only difference of opinion is how society, people, and organizations should accommodate their ends.

I have 15 years of experience working for multinationals where the corporate culture and management practices were mostly structured around the principles of 'enlightened self interest' = the companies were run, for the most part, by informed and intelligent people who truly believed that through their decisions and professional contributions they were helping to make the world a better place

AND I DO NOT TRUST THE CORPORATIONS !!! because

again from Eric (comment 21 above) Corporations provide insulation whereby an individual can benefit from illegal (and immoral) acts with the potential repercussions limited to a monetary risk. For this reason, the more power and less regulation corporations have, the less just and moral our society.

The Pope's Opus Dei Connections ...?

If a corporation is doing something illegal or immoral then obviously they need to be prosecuted. So now a company like Solar Panels R Us can go out and support a candidate and talk about why they do so. And Oil companies can give their support as well, you can't say "Oh, because you are a sucessful company you are not allowed to voice your opinion". The problem is progressives view all corporations as immoral and they want the power over them to dictate every aspect of their business and when you do that you are no longer living in a free society, that is called facism. Unrestrained capitalism is the best way for individuals and companies to spread prosperity and a higher standerd of living to the most number of people. As long as they are not doing anything illegal or immoral.

The problem is progressives view all corporations as immoral and they want the power over them to dictate every aspect of their business and when you do that you are no longer living in a free society, that is called facism.

Communism, Fascism....just words to throw around, I know Brian. Must be really difficult to keep all this stuff straight...(sigh)

Can anyone tell me why only media corporations should be the only corporations who can have free speech?

And p.s. We are not talking solar panel companies and United Colors of F**king Benetton here, for God's sake! We are talking Chevron, Haliburtan, Goldman Sachs, Big Oil, Big Pharma etc. etc. etc. Not to mention all of the FOREIGN companies and government entities that have been buying influence in DC for decades.

PLEASE. WAKE. UP!

war is peace..... slavery is freedom..... corporations are persons..... money is speech.....

And concepts of "legality" vs "illegality" just flew out the window yesterday, btw. As did quaint notions of checks and balances, a non-partial judiciary, investigative journalism, a free press, an unbiased media....and on and on. Not that those Democratic ideals have been robust in the last thirty years or so, but now they are effectively GONE!

Hmmm...now THAT sounds a lot like Fascism to me!

I am speechless, for now.

From a comment I made one of the other blogs this post is on, Ismskism:

My hope is that we can now transcend the false right-left paradigm that has been promulgated by, well, capital for lack of a better word. The corporatists have been playing both sides off against the middle and keeping the public divided and preoccupied with minor, cultural issues. Now, this decision gives them carte blanche to simply buy the government outright. The corporatists ARE the enemy, not the teabaggers, not the latte drinking liberals.

Another interesting ramification involves a case in 2002 with NIKE and it’s right as a “person” to lie, Kasky v Nike. NIKE claimed the right of corporate personhood and further claimed that they could not be held responsible for false claims or lies because as “persons” they had the same right to free speech as you and I and therefore they had the right to lie. The California Supreme Court told them to basically fuck off. Nike appealed to the US Supremes and they declined to hear the case, probably because the right wing court (then run by the vile Rehnquist) didn’t want to address the corporate personhood issue under such a negative case like the right to lie to the public. Now with this decision today, any corporation can willfully lie in their advertisements and other claims without threat of lawsuit because they have the right of free speech.

The corporatists have been planning on enshrining corporate personhood in law for a very long time. The more I think about this decision, the more I realize that this case really is as bad or worse than Dred Scott.

With this ruling it now seems that all the classifications of non profits are KAPUT! The distinction between 501 C 3 and 501 C 4, in California anyway, is no longer valid. It seems that if you can't deny a corporation its so called right to free speech then you can't deny any other corp. either, so non-profits should also now be able to take positions, finance and support candidates. It's amazing! The Supreme Corp. just wiped out all those previous restrictions! I wonder if that also wipes out the tax exemption status of those non profits....which is another idea going around in government circles--in order to raise more taxes. That's probably their next step...after all in America you have to pay to vote...right?And then from there is it going to be that religious organizations can start buying their candidates thru this idea of "free speech" (ie BOUGHT SPEECH) for corps?
Think about it...
So instead of profits of a corporation being used to pay workers better wages or provide health insurance, or improve products or working conditions, profits will go to buy media time and support political machines working for this or that candidate in order to get laws that will further increase the rights of corporate owners to rip off workers, the environment or whatever to get more profits to buy more power...ad infinitum.

By the way, it had nothing to do with some guy wanting to make a film, as BC claims.
It had to do with an ORGANIZATION of people who wanted to tell a bunch of lies and hide behind their Corporate letterhead. Just like the anti-gay group that didn't want the televising of the trial concerning the legality of Prop. 8 because they were afraid of the consequences of their testimony. What are these people so afraid of if they are so righteous? Could it be because they inwardly know they are harming others with their pathetic so called "Christian" beliefs?

When BC states "Unrestrained capitalism is the best way for individuals and companies to spread prosperity and a higher standerd of living to the most number of people. As long as they are not doing anything illegal or immoral." he is expressing the ignorance of an American public that lives in a fantasy world and has been kept that way by a media that promotes blind consumerism using manipulation of the most base of human instincts and provides no REAL information about what is going on here. Is it moral to work a man to death by refusing needed health care or medical leave when the health care is begrudgingly given? Is it moral or legal to knowingly put toxic poisons into the earth and water to get oil? Is it moral or legal to make people work 13 to 18 hour shifts in understaffed and dangerous conditions and then fire them when an accident occurs? This is what our local and global oil companies do daily. But just try to challenge an oil company. Unrestrained capitalism is right. Unrestrained license to be greedy, unethical, immoral BASTARDS. AND ILLEGAL to boot, with no one able to do a damn thing about it because only money talks and Corporate OWNERS have the money. It would be extraordinarily rare for an individual to be able to muster the resources to fight an oil company, much less win. Only in Hollywood does that happen. Only in Hollywood do the indigenous people and nature win out over the massive corporate military industrial political complex.
This is not to say that there aren't people in corporations that are ethical. This is not to say that there aren't corporations that are enlightened and socially responsible. But those are the small potatoes, and anyone who doesn't realize this is a bloody FOOL. And I must object to blaming the stock holders. Not all stock holders are greedy, and neither do they have the power. It is corporate OWNERS who rule, using stock holders as an excuse.
And it is also not to say that this can't all change when people wake up out of their denial of reality. There is even hope for the BC's of the world...but maybe not until his next life where hopefully he will get to have a better education by living in a European country and even develop compassion thru the study of Buddhism...if the planet survives his unrestricted capitalism, that is.

Like I said, the progressives think all corporations are immoral. But anyway, there are still restrictions on the amount of money that can be given to candidates, the ruling was only about free speech. No one has the right to make false claims and those can litigated. As we will do against Micheal Mann.

So, how do you feel about campaign donation limitations, BC? Or lobbyists?

If you don't like either of those then you're truly clueless if you don't see why this decision is such a disaster.

Campaign donations and lobbyists will no longer be important because the corporations will be able to pretty much choose who wins and loses with their advertising -- much more direct way for them to decide who should be representing us.

Really pitiful. Shame on those Supreme Court Justices who call themselves Americans and who voted for this toxicity. This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

Brian!

This is not about free speech in the absurdly narrow way that you are describing it! It is clear that you REALLY do not fully comprehend what the ramifications are of what just happened or how con law cases work. Yes, the FACTS of the case were about a movie and the issue of Free Speech. The Conclusion and end result is that it wiped out over 100 years of campaign finance regulation! It is not about corporations getting to "talk about" and "voice their opinion" about an issue and candidates. It is about their legal ability now to pretty much BUY politicians and squash anyone else! GOOD GOD, MAN!

This comment I saw in Huffingpost - I dedicate to you and all the others who just don't have a clue:

"Everyone on the Right was screaming about how Obama bought the last election by spending ~$600M.

Well kids, take a look the bonus money the big banks just handed out, BILLLIONS, and see the future. If I was the CEO of a big bank I would pick my candidate, and make Obama's spending look like the church collection plate.

So all you tea party people think you are mad at Government now? Wait until BoA, Goldman Sachs, and Citi think minimum wage, medicare, and social security are too expensive and have their bought and paid for congress and president end them all.

Idiots. This is without a doubt the biggest blow against our democracy and ultimately the constitution - don't kid yourself, they will amend it so you can't have guns - in our history. And none of you are saying a word. Patriots my rear end."

P.S. And you might want get your Michaels straight! I'm sure even you angry Right Wingers don't have a beef with poor Michael Mann.

I don't understand why you are haveing such a cow about this, what do you envision "big" oil doing now? And I meant Michael Mann as in "hide the decline" Michael Mann.

My mistake. I apologize about the Michael crack.

regarding comment 30 (posted by inconvenient truth)
Can anyone tell me why only media corporations should be the only corporations who can have free speech?

THE MEDIA CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH !!!

it's mostly bought and paid for by their boards of directors and management who are supposedly accountable to their shareholders et al

check out FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) http://www.fair.org/

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is a progressive media criticism organization based in New York City, founded in 1986. FAIR describes itself on its website as "the national media watch group" and defines its mission as working to "invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints." FAIR refers to itself as a "progressive group that believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."

and at the other end of the ideological spectrum there is another organization called Accuracy in Media (AIM) http://www.aim.org/ which claims to advocate "fairness, balance and accuracy is news reporting"

bottom line : there is no such thing as free speech in the media

check out Amy Goodman's discussion on Democracy Now : Has the mainstream media in the US replaced serious coverage with “junk news” and tabloidism? Especially in foreign affairs, are Americans less informed than ever? Who is shaping their perceptions of the rest of the world? And who is policing US foreign policy?

http://www.democracynow.org/

And to answer your question as to what I am afraid of Big Oil et al doing - I think the following video just might pound into your head what is obvious to most everybody else I know (including most right-of-center friends I have, btw - the ones who think for themselves and who aren't shackled to Propaganda news and radio). Will everything that Olbermann brings up come to pass? Maybe (probably) not. But the fact that it very well (and legally) COULD, should scare the bejeezus out of every single red-blooded American citizen - ones who love their country anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34981476/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann

And p.s. Olbermann doesn't even touch any of the global ramifications of this radical decision. What will Big Oil - unfettered - do? You can be damn sure Chevron and Haliburton sees that the war in Aftghanistan is ramped up - so they get their pipeline. The others all naturally want another oil colony - so expect war with Iran and other countries in the Middle East. Got the picture? We've been raping and pillaging other countries for the last century, but there has always been various restrictions in place (legislation, the power of humanitarian organizations, the will of the people, investigative journalism, a few honest politicians,etc.) keeping this greed from accelerating off the charts. All that is now gone. You think we were an imperialist, hated power before - just wait! It's not out of left field for one to think that this could very well eventually lead to another world war.

So, uh...yeah....sorry if it appears as if I am having a cow!

big oil, big media, big banking, big government, the lawyers (LTOR), the politicians (SPK), the corporatistas (BC) all do what their owners tell them to do ... they are just doing their, soap-operatic, job ... disinformation, money-playing, power-playing, victimizing the world's women, poor, indigenous ... raping the land, Mother Earth, all our relations ...

the SPKs and LTORs will all be out of work, with all their politician and lawyer cohorts, when enough people start telling the truth, honoring family and Earth ...

Time to up the meds again MT.

I'm sorry I can't bring myself to watch Kieth Overcat. He is too disgusting, why do they continue subsidize him, nobody watches him. I'm sure it's ridculously stupid. So what your telling me is that the oil companies are going to have this great ad campain for us to go occupy Iran and take their oil like we already have in these other mid east contries. That's funny I thought hundreds of billions of dollars have left this country ever since we stopped producing our own oil and going to places like Sudia Arabia and Dubia. When gas got up to $4.50/ gallon it bascally broke everyone in the country and started the whole economic crisis. Not to mention lending money to people who had no business getting loans - thank you Barney's Frank and Chris Dodd. But I digress, the oil companies profits are a very small percentage, the government makes more money off the oil companies that the oil companies themselves! And they pay a huge amount of income tax which benifits the all of us. Where are all those green shovel ready jobs that are suppose to be coming down the pike?

fakir: Feel free to ignore MT - we've been doing it for years.

And Brian: Funny you mention Barney Frank, cause I can feel myself channeling his spirit right now when I say to you "Sir, having a conversation with you is like talking to a.....ROCK!"

LTOR: hey! That's my line.

BC: I must admit, I've mostly been ignoring what you say because it's been woefully off topic, but I did see you mention the campaign laws limiting contributions. Those have been swept away with the decision as well. There are no limits anymore because you canot limit "free speech" in that way. Is anything starting to get through the bee net yet?

A comment from Frank Balzer, Narconews.com. Why do the corporations want to break the chains that might inhibit total domination of public discourse? Balzer is more on point than some:

"The real problem, I think, stems from several causes.
1. The rapid and steep slide in the average citizen's standard of living. This traumatic event must be kept out of public discourse because it may bring up uncomfortable subjects such as deindustrialization and outsourcing
2. After half a century of financial and industrial balance, the US people experienced a series of bubbles bursting. This history must not be discussed because uncomfortable topics such as deregulation and privatization may be critically examined.
3. The massive inequality between social classes and the awesome rise in executive pay is also not part of the public discourse. If the history of this growing disparity was discussed, the average person may inquire about the fact executives are making huge amounts of money and the wealthy few are profiting enormously while the average person can observe the plunge in their job security, wages, and on-the-job empowerment. This may cause people to examine the union-busting proclivities of the leading banks and corporations and the utter lack of any form of workplace democracy.
They may also examine the fact that these enormous rewards are not related to any form of successful job performance or the betterment of society...in fact, they seem to have contributed to making it worse for the average person.
4. The point is is that there is so much that our oligarchs and oligopolic corporations need us NOT to remember, discuss and actively respond toward, that the economic elite have to use their control over the corporate-owned media, education and cultural institutions to produce both a dumbed down culture and a generally accepted social darwinistic attitude.
5. Actual longterm thinking, curiousity about the institutions and cultures of other societies, and the healthy pursuit of the goals of the enlightenment are several of many avenues that elite must block in order to maintain their hold on their growing wealth and power.
A recent example in domestic politics is the whole healthcare reform "debate." Though every other wealthy industrialized nation possesses some form of universal healthcare, no systematic analysis of their systems was introduced nor could we debate which elements from these systems may be applicable to our own predicament.
Of course, US foreign policy is changing so rapidly, that the elite must be assured of a totally ignorant populace in order to pull it off.
..."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The majority opinion did not disturb bans on direct contributions to candidates.

Checkmate

Wrong Brian. The decision rules unconstitutional over 100 years of campaign finance legislation. McCain Feingold is gone. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it's incorrect.

i listened to Arianna today on LRC (KCRW) and learned about

SHADOW ELITE: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government, and the Free Market
by Janine Wedel, an award-winning public policy scholar and anthropologist

"Governments and administrations come and go, but not so a new breed of power brokers, who always seem to pop up just where the action is. Wearing different hats, they press their agendas in venue after venue."

and guess who owns the MSM . . . which is essentially an instrument for implementing the agenda of the SE

Browsing independent news sources, I ran across the following alarming report that has so far been ignored by the mainstream media:

CHINESE PLANNING TO "LIBERATE" THE UNITED STATES IN WAKE OF SUPREME COURT DECISION

Allies Urge Caution – “Time for Force May Come, But It Is Not Yet Here.”

BEIJING, January 22, 2010 – Wen Jiabao, the prime minister of China, is quietly assembling a "coalition of the willing" to liberate the United States in the wake of the United States' Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations the right of unfettered domination of U.S. political institutions. So far, a number of nations have signed up, including North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma and Poland.

Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network so far have refused to join. Bin Laden issued a statement proclaiming corporatism "the best thing that ever happened for al Qaeda, after George W. Bush."

China's defense minister has predicted a "cakewalk."

"We will, in fact," said Cao Gangchuan, "be welcomed as liberators."

Concerns about the cost of pacifying a nation as large as the United States are being brushed aside. "The United States is a country that is capable of financing its own reconstruction," said Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Li Zhaoxing.

Chinese capitalists are lining up at the trough, sensing an opportunity to make reams of money. "The United States has the largest financial resources and industries, a well-developed arms industry, leading high-technology and pharmaceutical corporations, and Starbucks. By privatizing these industries through auction to companies within our coalition, we will be able to unleash an economy that will be a model for its neighbors, and a boon for the world," said one industry titan who asked that his name be withheld. "American workers, after years of corporate domination, are yearning for freedom and opportunities that can only come with liberation."

Prime Minister Jiabao has been seeking United Nations action, but reportedly is frustrated with that body's unwillingness to enforce its own charter. "Make no mistake," said Prime Minister Jiabao in a state address. "The United States Supreme Court's decision represents a serious threat to global peace. The U.S. possesses nuclear weapons and has abandoned international treaties calling for mutual cooperation and nonproliferation. Now, under the domination of corporations whose only directive is short term profit, the world is truly at risk. We cannot wait for the evidence of the threat they pose to take the form of a mushroom cloud over one of our cities."

Analysts in the Chinese Ministry of Defense believe that the time for invasion is now. "Right now, the U.S. is weakened as a result of its own economic calamities. Its military is consumed by its failure to secure Iraq and Afghanistan as expected. Her forces are stretched thin. She has no draft in place and she has alienated former allies who might otherwise come to her aid. Her most potent forces are arrayed all the way on the far side of the world, far from U.S. territory. Her indigenous forces - the United States' National Guard - are largely being expended in Iraq and Afghanistan. By invading now, before the U.S. has a chance to regroup, we have the opportunity for a swift victory," said one anonymous, highly-placed analyst.

“The plan is for swift military victory by a concerted air and missile campaign of shock and awe, which will destroy most of the United States’ defense facilities and critical installations and demoralize government loyalists within a few short days,” said a highly placed Defense Ministry official. “When our coalition troops hit the ground, they will be ready to accept the flowers and blessings of the grateful populace who will emerge to greet them.”

Critics of the Chinese plans within the Jiabao administration have been under sharp attack. Prime Minister Jiabao has expelled from his inner circle several former high-ranking officials who had urged restraint and caution. "You are either with us or against us in this battle," he declared in announcing their departures.

Questioned about the possibility of the United States using some of its large stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against coalition troops, Prime Minister Jiabao responded: “With respect to any attempts by Mr. Obama to employ weapons of mass terror, I have only three words to say: Bring it on.”

France, Germany and other European nations, along with Japan, Russia and South Korea, have engaged the Chinese government in fierce diplomacy aimed at delaying action. “The time for force may come, but it is not yet here,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in a joint statement. “The United States is stretched thin and her people are fighting to defeat corporatists. It is still possible that the American people themselves will succeed in freeing themselves.”

Critics have pointed to internal Chinese politics as being behind the move. "Wen Jiabao is jealous of his legacy. He saw that President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for escalating war in Afghanistan. Jiabao sees a Nobel Peace Prize on his own horizon if he can successfully liberate the United States," said one highly placed source.

At press time, large scale Chinese military exercises were taking place in inner Mongolia, where a replica of Los Angeles has been erected for conduct of war games.

sharing quotes from MARS ATTACKS directed by Tim Burton

President Dale: I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad.

Marsian Ambassador: Ack! Ack! Ack!

President Dale: Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?

#54 you are brilliant and have inspired me to go back to "The Onion"
as my primary source for news : http://www.theonion.com/content/index
if your comment isn't already published there you should submit it

Anon #54:

I like it, but I think I've seen a version of it before on this blog. I haven't checked. Also, as satire it's slightly flawed for me because there would be no real reason one already fascist country would want to liberate another.

(long exhale........)

Brian!

Corporate entities can give UNLIMITED amounts of cash to campaign advertising to get their puppet(s) elected AND to destroy anyone else they do not feel plays along with their agenda!!!! Advertising represents the bulk of election spending and with or without it a politician wins or loses! THAT is the substantive issue here. DAMN!

And once they have all their ducks (uh, puppets) lined up in a row - in Congress, on the bench, in the Oval Office...they will go back to further rape and twist the words of the Constitution so that this silly little distinction a few of you are trying to make between direct and indirect funding becomes a moot point!!! And I say "few" because it is only the dumbest of the dumb, the most blinded of the blind and the corporate shills in Congress who are defending this decision! Everyone else (at every level of the political spectrum) understands just what is at stake here and how vulnerable American Democracy is right now!!!

On the bright side, it is good for us to have even more proof from you (for the UMPTEENTH time) that the Republican Propaganda News Station continues to keep their minions in check by spoon feeding them incomplete, distorted and/or falsified information!

Game. Set. Match.

...there would be no real reason one already fascist country would want to liberate another.

OK. But I'm confused - what was that whole thing with the U.S. and Iraq all about again?

I thought there had been an invasion, to "liberate' the Iraqis from a so-called "fascist".

Maybe I read that in a fictional novel someplace.

I, too, am horrified by the decision.

I think we need to be very careful about any amendment process.

The words "Natural person" scare me too...Just what is a "natural person?" Is it a human being? Is it a US citizen (as in Naturalized)? Is it a person born of a woman without the aid of reproductive technology? Is it a person who is unmedicated, and therefore acting "naturally"? Is it a person who has been shown to have a particular set of genes that fit the day's version of "normal" or "average"? Lets be really, really clear about the implications of OUR words just as we are clear about Kennedy's.

the US 'fascists' go by the name of 'the Law' and 'the Government' which serves two purposes, has two functions:

1) enable the rich and powerful, through the police, to steal from the people; and:

2) divvy up the spoils 50/50 between, a) those thugs carrying out 'the Law' (the banks, media, police, corporations, school/universities, government, church ...) and, b) the Owners of those institutions.

they have no other purpose.

the sick ways and means of the 'Court' and 'Congress', Lawyers and Politicians, has never been about service to the Truth, the People, the Economy, the Sacred, our Mother Earth ...

only of despoiling all our relations ...

Heather,

Natural Person is just legal language meaning a human being instead of an artificial "person" like a corporation. But the amendment process is still likely to be very difficult. Especially when we have so many people who either refuse to understand the situation, are too apathetic to care about the situation or waiting for some type of quasi-spiritual Armageddon that will sweep all this away. Meanwhile, I can assure you that the corporatists know exactly what is happening and they are mobilizing for a final push to solidify their rule. Sounds hyperbolic I know, but I really do think this decision is that bad. When Dred Scott was dumped on this country, it took a civil war followed by a Constitutional Amendment to fix it, and it's still technically on the books.

Yes, SPK...

It is that bad. I see myself these past few days as a character-in-slow-motion in some Orwellian nightmare trying to get the attention of people around me, to no avail (as if they think I've somehow become radicalized in some nefarious way and have gone off the Liberal equivalent of the deep end...)

This decision is worthy of a Revolution and it hasn't even made a ripple in the main stream media or the consciousness of a couple hundred million people whose lives as they know it will be severely altered within the next decade.

Hyperbole? I think not.

Let me see if I can explain this to you, I'm dissapointed that enlightend people like you would be against a free speech issue! As is was, before the supreme court ruling, all the power and influence was in the hands of the imcumbents. This has been ubundently evident recently with Pelosi and Reid (and Obama) and all back room deals they've been making. An incumbent has such overwhelming advantage because lobbyists ( from all over the country BTW) from all the big companies and unions funnel money to them to buy favors, since they are barred ( or limited) from supporting an unknown up an coming challenger and why should they? The incumbent holds all the cards, they get all money because the lobbyist want legislation in their favor. The incuments end up with disproprotionately way more money and funds than a challenger. Now the playing field has been leveled.

What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About?

If I am not mistaken - you just freakin' cut and pasted that from somewhere else! Next time you do that, Brian??? Might want to run it through spell checker...

And...uh...it DOES beg the question - if this IS your philosophy (though it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND!) why did you not bring this issue up during the (illegitimate) double-term reign of GWB?

Note to self: Why am I here?

Wouldn't you agree that incumbents have an unfair advantage?

Sorry about the spelling errors, I'm a horrible speller. no cut and paste, all from my brain.

Or lack thereof...

For once Brian speaks with truth when he admits the errors are all in what he thinks is a brain...

love,
Dharma

Hey anybody up for some drinking?

2010 State of the Union Address Drinking Game

for your enjoyment:

The Barack H Obama 2010 State of the Union Address Drinking Game

WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY:

4 taxpayers: 1 rich white guy banker type wearing a suit. (Bank Boy.) 2 ordinary folks wearing jeans, 1 in a blue work shirt, the other in a white shirt, no tie, sleeves rolled up (the Jeans,) and 1 person wearing clothes that look like they were involved in some sort of sewage treatment plant engagement ring retrieval operation. Belt and shoelaces safely secured (Rags.)

1 living room with a large screen HDTV tuned to C-SPAN.

1 shot glass per person. Everybody furnishes own, placing it on a coffee table in front of TV. Bank Boy gets first choice for use during game. White shirt picks next, then blue shirt. Bank Boy takes last shot glass as well, and Rags either rents it from him, finds a replacement or drinks out of own cupped hands.

Everybody antes up 20 bucks. Cash. Except Bank Boy, who tosses in an I.O.U..

2 cooked packages of Vienna Beef Chicago style hot dogs in middle of table with butter grilled buns and pickles and tomatoes and onions and condiments and that weird neon green relish on the side.

1 bottle of bourbon.

A large stash of beer in cans on ice. Rags gets whatever is on sale, like Heileman's Old Style Light. Bank Boy gets whatever import he wants. The Jeans get domestic, but must pay for all the beer, bourbon and hot dogs.

RULES OF THE GAME.

1. Every time Barack H Obama says "Democratic leadership," the first person to stop laughing is exempt from drinking 3 shot glasses of beer.

2. When the President says the State of the Union is good, but could be better, the last person to eat a fully accoutered hot dog has to drink 1 shot of bourbon.

3. If either the Vice President or the Speaker of the House gets caught napping on camera, last person to sing the chorus from "Wake Up, Little Susie" has to drink 4 shots of beer. If Senator Robert Byrd ever appears awake, everybody has to drink 6 shots of beer.

4. As soon as Mister Obama starts a defense of Cap & Trade, everybody must drink a whole beer then throw the empty can at the television. If anybody hits Harry Reid in the head, everyone else has to drink 3 shots of beer.

5. Whenever Barack uses the phrase "economic stimulus package," the last person to slap the side of his/ her forehead with a hot dog, has to drink 2 shot glasses of beer.

6. If Obama speaks of how he sympathizes with the electorate's fundamental desire for "change," the last person to cough "Hack!" must drink 3 shots of beer.

7. Every time the Chief Executive winks and/ or points at Michelle, all four players swordfight with hot dogs. The last person with an intact weenie does not have to eat an entire shot glass full of that weird neon green relish.

8. If the President relates a touching heartfelt story of some poor unfortunate denied health care, Rags gets to kick everybody else once. Twice, if the subject of the anecdote is in the audience. Three times, if he/ she is sitting next to an astronaut.

9. Whenever Obama makes a reference to his faith getting him through tough times, last person to fall to their knees and shout "Hallelujah!" has to drink 1 shot of bourbon.

10. The first time Barack H Obama mentions bipartisanship, the last person to pretend to faint has to drink 3 shots of beer.

EXTRAS:

Before the speech, everyone writes down who they think is giving the Republican Response. Anybody who correctly identifies the person doesn't have to watch it. Bank Boy takes home all the money and the Jeans have to pay off his I.O.U.. Leftover bourbon, beer and hot dogs go home with Rags after he/ she finishes washing the dishes.

Political Comic Will Durst writes sometimes. This is certainly one example.

Brian, talking about the issue of incumbency as the problem and the SCOTUS decision as the remedy is like saying - "Damn, my roof has a leak in it, time to burn the whole house down".

Your logic = flawed! Off the charts flawed.

A great piece on "clean elections"--worth a look, BC.