Milwaukee native William Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon and elevated to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan. As a true conservative, he stands out from and head and shoulders above the ideologues whose radical activism has swept away 100 years of legislation and judicial precedent at both the federal level and in the states and confered the rights of personhood on legal entities created soley by the laws of those states.
Below is Rehnquist's well reasoned dissent against a decision made by the "liberal" justices on the court, that overturned both state law and a ruling by a state Supreme Court with regard to the rights of corporations. It should be noted that the Supreme Judicial Court whose judgment Justice Rehnquist is affirming below is the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I bid you, read the words and know the mind a REAL conservative instead of a robed judicial royalist (emphasis added below).
Case Argued November 9, 1977 Decided April 26, 1978Case # 435 U.S. 765 Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Stevens, joined. Justice Burger also filed a concurring opinion. Justice White filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Marshall joined. Justice Rehnquist filed a separate dissenting opinion.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting.
This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a "person" entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., (1886). Likewise, it soon became accepted that the property of a corporation was protected under the Due Process Clause of that same Amendment. See, e. g., Smyth v. Ames, (1898). Nevertheless, we concluded soon thereafter that the liberty protected by that Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, (1906).
Before today, our only considered and explicit departures from that holding have been that a corporation engaged in the business of publishing or broadcasting enjoys the same liberty of the press as is enjoyed by natural persons, Grosjean v. American Press Co., (1936), and that a nonprofit membership corporation organized for the purpose of "achieving . . . equality of treatment by all government, federal, state and local, for the members of the Negro community" enjoys certain liberties of political expression. NAACP v. Button, (1963).
The question presented today, whether business corporations have a constitutionally protected liberty to engage in political activities, has never been squarely addressed by any previous decision of this Court. 1 However, the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Congress of the United States, and the legislatures of 30 other States of this Republic have considered the matter, and have concluded that restrictions upon the political activity of business corporations are both politically desirable and constitutionally permissible. The judgment of such a broad consensus of governmental bodies expressed over a period of many decades is entitled to considerable deference from this Court. I think it quite probable that their judgment may properly be reconciled with our controlling precedents, but I am certain that under my views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States, which I share with the two immediately preceding occupants of my seat on the Court, but not with my present colleagues, the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts should be affirmed.
Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law:"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created." Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).
The appellants herein either were created by the Commonwealth or were admitted into the Commonwealth only for the limited purposes described in their charters and regulated by state law. 2 Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, (1944) (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636.
There can be little doubt that when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process of law. Likewise, when a State charters a corporation for the purpose of publishing a newspaper, it necessarily assumes that the corporation is entitled to the liberty of the press essential to the conduct of its business. 3 Grosjean so held, and our subsequent cases have so assumed. E. g., Time, Inc. v. Firestone, (1976); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964). 4
Until recently, it was not thought that any persons, natural or artificial, had any protected right to engage in commercial speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, (1976). Although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation's right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation.
It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. 5 A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.
Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed. 6 I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation.
One need not adopt such a restrictive view of the political liberties of business corporations to affirm the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court in this case. That court reasoned that this Court's decisions entitling the property of a corporation to constitutional protection should be construed as recognizing the liberty of a corporation to express itself on political matters concerning that property. Thus, the Court construed the statute in question not to forbid political expression by a corporation "when a general political issue materially affects a corporation's business, property or assets." (1977).
I can see no basis for concluding that the liberty of a corporation to engage in political activity with regard to matters having no material effect on its business is necessarily incidental to the purposes for which the Commonwealth permitted these corporations to be organized or admitted within its boundaries. Nor can I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court's factual finding that no such effect has been shown by these appellants. Because the statute as construed provides at least as much protection as the Fourteenth Amendment requires, I believe it is constitutionally valid.
It is true, as the Court points out, ante, at 781-783, that recent decisions of this Court have emphasized the interest of the public in receiving the information offered by the speaker seeking protection. The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity. Cf. Maher v. Roe, (1977).
I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court.
It should be noted that the Supreme Judicial Court whose judgment Justice Rehnquist is affirming is the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
American "People" Hostile to Corporate Serfdom
8 out of 10 Americans are opposed to the Extreme Court ruling endowing inalienable rights on corporations and other artificial "persons" and allowing them to make unfettered purchases of campaign advertising during elections, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html
In fact 65% of Americans are STRONGLY OPPOSED!
72% of the American Citizenry favor Congressional action to curb the ruling!
Furthermore, this opposition to the theft of OUR democracy crosses partisan lines with Democrats (85 %), Republicans (76 %) and independents (81 %) opposed.
3/4 of conservatives are opposed and most of them are strongly opposed.
2/3 of conservative Republicans favor Congressional action to curb corporate and union spending on elections.
Looks like there's still at least one thing that most rational Americans can agree on, we don't want more special interest influence in our politics.
In fact 65% of Americans are STRONGLY OPPOSED!
72% of the American Citizenry favor Congressional action to curb the ruling!
Furthermore, this opposition to the theft of OUR democracy crosses partisan lines with Democrats (85 %), Republicans (76 %) and independents (81 %) opposed.
3/4 of conservatives are opposed and most of them are strongly opposed.
2/3 of conservative Republicans favor Congressional action to curb corporate and union spending on elections.
Looks like there's still at least one thing that most rational Americans can agree on, we don't want more special interest influence in our politics.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
How to Steal Elections and Influence the People
Benito Mussolini the father of fascism which he also called corporatism must be grinning from the grave through his scrotum clenching teeth as America, who defeated him, now follows in his footsteps. In fascist Italy the legislative body, the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni (Chamber of the Fascists and the Corporations) was made up completely of representatives of Italy's corporations. With Extreme Court's ruling the creeping fascism of the last decade has quickened to a head-long run. Some clues about how the final steps of the corporate takeover of OUR government and OUR representation are to be found below.
A DC lobbying firm has posted advice to it's corporate clientel on it's website:
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/Detail.aspx?publication=6214
on how to warp OUR democracy and steal OUR elections. Not only that, they're telling the corporatists how to do it as anomymously and as under the radar as possible as evidenced by the following passage:
10) How will corporations likely take advantage of their opportunity to make independent political expenditures?
Just because a corporation may make an independent direct advocacy expenditure doesn't mean that it should. Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base. Moreover, upon the first major corporate-funded public communications airing, media coverage is likely to focus on the corporation's involvement in the campaign rather than the content of any advocacy.
Therefore, most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.
Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in "under-the radar" sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks. Since state and local laws preventing corporate political expenditures will also likely be repealed as a result of Citizens United, small corporations may also become involved in state and local races through regional media.
They also advise their clients that they needn't be excluded just because they are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corps as follows
2) Will U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations be exempt? (from the ban on foreign nationals contributing to elections).
Yes. The definition of "foreign national" exempts any person that is "not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States." 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2). The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has determined that this exemption includes a U.S. corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, so long as the foreign parent does not finance U.S. political activities and no foreign national participates in any decision to make expenditures. Many of the legislative proposals that "respond" to Citizens United seek to tighten or close this exemption.
So Obama was right and Alito in his flow robes of political hackery was either wrong or disengenous when he shook his head at the State of the Union address.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini, the father of fascism
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis
America, it was nice while it lasted.
Sean Cranley - Corporate Serf No. 387-22-0812
A DC lobbying firm has posted advice to it's corporate clientel on it's website:
http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/Detail.aspx?publication=6214
on how to warp OUR democracy and steal OUR elections. Not only that, they're telling the corporatists how to do it as anomymously and as under the radar as possible as evidenced by the following passage:
10) How will corporations likely take advantage of their opportunity to make independent political expenditures?
Just because a corporation may make an independent direct advocacy expenditure doesn't mean that it should. Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base. Moreover, upon the first major corporate-funded public communications airing, media coverage is likely to focus on the corporation's involvement in the campaign rather than the content of any advocacy.
Therefore, most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.
Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in "under-the radar" sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks. Since state and local laws preventing corporate political expenditures will also likely be repealed as a result of Citizens United, small corporations may also become involved in state and local races through regional media.
They also advise their clients that they needn't be excluded just because they are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corps as follows
2) Will U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations be exempt? (from the ban on foreign nationals contributing to elections).
Yes. The definition of "foreign national" exempts any person that is "not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States." 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2). The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has determined that this exemption includes a U.S. corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, so long as the foreign parent does not finance U.S. political activities and no foreign national participates in any decision to make expenditures. Many of the legislative proposals that "respond" to Citizens United seek to tighten or close this exemption.
So Obama was right and Alito in his flow robes of political hackery was either wrong or disengenous when he shook his head at the State of the Union address.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini, the father of fascism
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis
America, it was nice while it lasted.
Sean Cranley - Corporate Serf No. 387-22-0812
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Joe Camel for Senator!
The inalienable right to free speech was endowed on We The (mere mortal) People by our Creator. But in the most arrogant example of judicial activism ever, Chief Judicial Activist John “Benedict Arnold” Roberts and his merry band of royalist robed reactionary ramblers have both betrayed the founders vision of democracy and bestowed this right on corporations based on the notion that corporations are “persons” something any four year old would immediately recognize as foolishness. Corporations are not people. Did you go to school with any corporations; have you ever seen one walking down the street? Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against corporations, I’m a VP at one and we derive our livelihood from our clients, most of which are also corporations. I just don’t want to be ruled by corporations, for people governed in the interest of others cannot remain truly free.
Yes, I said royalists, you know aristocrats, which our founders fought a revolution against to throw off our backs! Thomas Jefferson warned America to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” After all, the Boston Tea Party was as much about the corporate stranglehold that the monopolistic and transnational East India Company sought to place on the colonist’s livelihoods as it was about defiance of the despotic British monarch.
The extreme court could have simply ruled on the merits of the Citizens United v FEC case, they chose activism, expanding the breadth of the ruling and sweeping away 100 years of state and federal legislation and legal precedent from Teddy “Trust Bustin” Roosevelt to McCain-Feingold. Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt recognized the threat to democracy that large corporations posed in the last gilded age when he proposed public funding of all elections and said, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” But the five corporatist appointees on the bench did their master’s bidding and loosed the floodgates of the corporate ownership’s cash on our elections, allowing unlimited advertising during election campaigns for political propaganda. Injustices Roberts and Alito should be impeached for lying under oath since both provided sworn testimony during their confirmation hearings that they would respect existing law and uphold established precedent. Priestly robes aside, these were either exhibitions of very poor judgment by Roberts and Alito or worse, outright lies.
Ask yourself, what is an American Corporation? Corporations aren’t born, they’re not naturalized, and don’t get to vote when they turn 18, they are not citizens. Saudi Arabia’s or China’s government owned oil companies ARAMCO or PetroChina, respectively can incorporate in Delaware for $20 making them legal “American” Corporations. Transnational and foreign corporations with American subsidiaries will be able to use unlimited funds to fill the airwaves with slanted information and outright lies during elections from Dog Catcher to President. Once corporations have successfully used legalized blackmail to cow a couple of our representatives or bribery to install their representatives to replace ours, the rest will dutifully fall in line for free out of fear of the corporate funds, yielding a tremendous return on their investment.
Imagine a corporation approaching a lawmaker with positions in the public interest, but not theirs and making it known that they are prepared to launch a media blitz smearing him or her in the last weeks of their campaign. Or a corporation buttonholing a sympathetic, attractive person and telling them, you don’t need to raise funds from the citizen constituents of the office we’ve selected you for, we will run all your campaign ads for you, oh and here is a list your positions on the issues. Heck, why not just cut to the chase and introduce the altruistic representative from the Altria Group, Senator Joe Camel?
This anti-democratic atrocity must not go unchallenged. Laws must be enacted to restrain this aggregated corporate power, because when profits are involved we certainly cannot count on corporate restraint. Passing the Fair Elections Now Act, requiring shareholder approval for such expenditures and holding CEO’s (actual persons) personally accountable for such messages would be a good start. But ultimately the Constitution must be amended to reserve the rights of personhood to real human beings only and to deny super-personhood to these immortal, omnipresent, amoral, faceless artificial beings. Go to movetoamend.org or freespeechforpeople.org for information.
Are we going to replace the word “men” with “corporations” in the Pledge, Preamble and Declaration of Independence? Will we still yet hold the truth self evident that our government is instituted among Men and derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? Or will we hoist the logo spangled banner of corporate servitude?
The Burlington Area Progressives are hosting Attorney Eugene Gasiorkiewicz to present “The Ethics of Corporate Entitlement in U.S. Elections” and psychologist Dr. David Nichols, Ph.D. to speak about “The Electorate’s Feelings of Disenfranchisement and Suppression of the Vote”. The event will be Thursday February 18th – 7:00 PM at the CATHE Center, 125 East State St. in Burlington. The public should be outraged and all are encouraged to attend! Admission is free however donations are accepted to defray the costs. Speak now or forget about it! For more information call (262) 237-4351.
Sean Cranley – Corporate Serf No. 399-22-0812
Burlington, Inc.
Yes, I said royalists, you know aristocrats, which our founders fought a revolution against to throw off our backs! Thomas Jefferson warned America to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” After all, the Boston Tea Party was as much about the corporate stranglehold that the monopolistic and transnational East India Company sought to place on the colonist’s livelihoods as it was about defiance of the despotic British monarch.
The extreme court could have simply ruled on the merits of the Citizens United v FEC case, they chose activism, expanding the breadth of the ruling and sweeping away 100 years of state and federal legislation and legal precedent from Teddy “Trust Bustin” Roosevelt to McCain-Feingold. Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt recognized the threat to democracy that large corporations posed in the last gilded age when he proposed public funding of all elections and said, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” But the five corporatist appointees on the bench did their master’s bidding and loosed the floodgates of the corporate ownership’s cash on our elections, allowing unlimited advertising during election campaigns for political propaganda. Injustices Roberts and Alito should be impeached for lying under oath since both provided sworn testimony during their confirmation hearings that they would respect existing law and uphold established precedent. Priestly robes aside, these were either exhibitions of very poor judgment by Roberts and Alito or worse, outright lies.
Ask yourself, what is an American Corporation? Corporations aren’t born, they’re not naturalized, and don’t get to vote when they turn 18, they are not citizens. Saudi Arabia’s or China’s government owned oil companies ARAMCO or PetroChina, respectively can incorporate in Delaware for $20 making them legal “American” Corporations. Transnational and foreign corporations with American subsidiaries will be able to use unlimited funds to fill the airwaves with slanted information and outright lies during elections from Dog Catcher to President. Once corporations have successfully used legalized blackmail to cow a couple of our representatives or bribery to install their representatives to replace ours, the rest will dutifully fall in line for free out of fear of the corporate funds, yielding a tremendous return on their investment.
Imagine a corporation approaching a lawmaker with positions in the public interest, but not theirs and making it known that they are prepared to launch a media blitz smearing him or her in the last weeks of their campaign. Or a corporation buttonholing a sympathetic, attractive person and telling them, you don’t need to raise funds from the citizen constituents of the office we’ve selected you for, we will run all your campaign ads for you, oh and here is a list your positions on the issues. Heck, why not just cut to the chase and introduce the altruistic representative from the Altria Group, Senator Joe Camel?
This anti-democratic atrocity must not go unchallenged. Laws must be enacted to restrain this aggregated corporate power, because when profits are involved we certainly cannot count on corporate restraint. Passing the Fair Elections Now Act, requiring shareholder approval for such expenditures and holding CEO’s (actual persons) personally accountable for such messages would be a good start. But ultimately the Constitution must be amended to reserve the rights of personhood to real human beings only and to deny super-personhood to these immortal, omnipresent, amoral, faceless artificial beings. Go to movetoamend.org or freespeechforpeople.org for information.
Are we going to replace the word “men” with “corporations” in the Pledge, Preamble and Declaration of Independence? Will we still yet hold the truth self evident that our government is instituted among Men and derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? Or will we hoist the logo spangled banner of corporate servitude?
The Burlington Area Progressives are hosting Attorney Eugene Gasiorkiewicz to present “The Ethics of Corporate Entitlement in U.S. Elections” and psychologist Dr. David Nichols, Ph.D. to speak about “The Electorate’s Feelings of Disenfranchisement and Suppression of the Vote”. The event will be Thursday February 18th – 7:00 PM at the CATHE Center, 125 East State St. in Burlington. The public should be outraged and all are encouraged to attend! Admission is free however donations are accepted to defray the costs. Speak now or forget about it! For more information call (262) 237-4351.
Sean Cranley – Corporate Serf No. 399-22-0812
Burlington, Inc.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Morons Cut off Nose to Spite Face
"Charlie Sykes says some towns are going back to gravel roads" was my first clue about the pervading mentality at our special town meeting of electors last night to vote on a proposal by the Board to borrow $1.5 million to reconstruct some roads and build a new community center: http://www.springprairiewi.com/
Essentially, the Town borrowed $5M several years ago to reconstruct some aging roads that were getting too expensive to continue repairing. They did it when the economy was down and they could borrow and hire cheaply and they promised not to raise taxes, a promise which they kept.
The Board is very fiscally conservative and not prone to promoting fanciful projects and the Chairman laid out the rationale masterfully. The Town hall was built in 1885 as a one room school house and had a small addition put on in the 50's. Both are in sad shape and will require significant cost to repair which is unknown until they actually open up walls, foundations and the roof and see what's there. Two retired residents who worked in construction said it's a money pit and putting more into it for maintenance and repair is just throwing money away. Reading the list of defects is hilarious, like "Furnace goes out when the wind blows." and "Septic tank has not been pumped in at least 35 years", no one living knows.
We're going to need a new town hall eventually, hell there wasn't enough room (I was in the kitchen other were in the hallway) fror everyone who showed and cars were parked up and down Spring Prairie Road on both sides of busy HWY 120 in the snow in the dark. We can borrow money and hire conctractors cheaply in this economy so it''ll cost more later. AND they promised again not to raise taxes and laid the figures plain as day. Not only that but our taxes would actually drop for the first two years at a minimum due to the finances and the lower maintenance costs for the new building. People kept asking the same dumb questions over and over that either someone else had already asked or that had been explained in the first place and some people were just plain rude and hostile. They voted it down with 60 to 70% against, because of the moronic belief that any government borrowing or spending is evil!
So instead of wrapping the $1M from the previous loan in with the new $1.5M, speading it out over 6 years, lowering taxes and getting a new hall that will serve for the next 100 years we're going to keep and repair the deteriorating spithole at unknown expense, keep taxes the same and wipe the $200K in the reserve fund that needs to be tapped to to pay off the old loan without raising taxes. The Board could have just done it on their own, but they wanted to take it to the voters. The voters elected these people, they are their friends and neighbors and they're not spend thrifts by any stretch. Yet they thumbed their noses at their studied recommendations and threw the money spent on an architect down the spitter. What a bunch of buffoons. Honestly, what a thankless job. I wouldn't be surprised if they resign. They're all older retired guys, who the hell the needs those kind of headaches?
I mean people were upset that there was going to be an office available to the sherriff where they could do paper work. "That's the county's responsibility!" Yeah and the county would pay for the supplies and equipment (phone, radio, computer). We wouldn't want a sherriff's deputy right here in our "community" (using the word very loosely) more often, hell it's only 20-25 minutes from Elkhorn!
How much longer do I have on this planet? I won't have to spend eternity with these "spirits" right?
Essentially, the Town borrowed $5M several years ago to reconstruct some aging roads that were getting too expensive to continue repairing. They did it when the economy was down and they could borrow and hire cheaply and they promised not to raise taxes, a promise which they kept.
The Board is very fiscally conservative and not prone to promoting fanciful projects and the Chairman laid out the rationale masterfully. The Town hall was built in 1885 as a one room school house and had a small addition put on in the 50's. Both are in sad shape and will require significant cost to repair which is unknown until they actually open up walls, foundations and the roof and see what's there. Two retired residents who worked in construction said it's a money pit and putting more into it for maintenance and repair is just throwing money away. Reading the list of defects is hilarious, like "Furnace goes out when the wind blows." and "Septic tank has not been pumped in at least 35 years", no one living knows.
We're going to need a new town hall eventually, hell there wasn't enough room (I was in the kitchen other were in the hallway) fror everyone who showed and cars were parked up and down Spring Prairie Road on both sides of busy HWY 120 in the snow in the dark. We can borrow money and hire conctractors cheaply in this economy so it''ll cost more later. AND they promised again not to raise taxes and laid the figures plain as day. Not only that but our taxes would actually drop for the first two years at a minimum due to the finances and the lower maintenance costs for the new building. People kept asking the same dumb questions over and over that either someone else had already asked or that had been explained in the first place and some people were just plain rude and hostile. They voted it down with 60 to 70% against, because of the moronic belief that any government borrowing or spending is evil!
So instead of wrapping the $1M from the previous loan in with the new $1.5M, speading it out over 6 years, lowering taxes and getting a new hall that will serve for the next 100 years we're going to keep and repair the deteriorating spithole at unknown expense, keep taxes the same and wipe the $200K in the reserve fund that needs to be tapped to to pay off the old loan without raising taxes. The Board could have just done it on their own, but they wanted to take it to the voters. The voters elected these people, they are their friends and neighbors and they're not spend thrifts by any stretch. Yet they thumbed their noses at their studied recommendations and threw the money spent on an architect down the spitter. What a bunch of buffoons. Honestly, what a thankless job. I wouldn't be surprised if they resign. They're all older retired guys, who the hell the needs those kind of headaches?
I mean people were upset that there was going to be an office available to the sherriff where they could do paper work. "That's the county's responsibility!" Yeah and the county would pay for the supplies and equipment (phone, radio, computer). We wouldn't want a sherriff's deputy right here in our "community" (using the word very loosely) more often, hell it's only 20-25 minutes from Elkhorn!
How much longer do I have on this planet? I won't have to spend eternity with these "spirits" right?
Thursday, February 04, 2010
NFL a Triumph of Socialistic Capitalism
This Sunday millions of Americans will gather watch the spectacle of the NFL Superbowl, a triumph of socialistic capitalism. The NFL is by far the most successful professional sports enterprise in America today. And the reason for this great success? Revenue sharing among the individual franchises that make up the league, you know socialism. They share revenue on everything from tickets and TV to towels and t-shirts, with the individual franchise keeping a portion of the sales and the rest going for equal distribution among all the teams.
Make no mistake about it, the NFL and the individual franchises (except for the most-glorious Green Bay Packers) are capitalistic ventures intent on making a profit and a return on investment and that is as it should be. But the NFL, unlike it's now weaker cousin MLB (America's former passtime) long ago realized that the health and well being of the whole is directly related to and dependent on the health and well being of each individual member.
By socializing their success the NFL has been able to produce a superior product with most of the teams being competative at any given time and a fairly rapid turnover of championship teams. And this has been good for their customers, the fans who get competative teams to root for and close , entertaining games to watch, which in return is good for the NFL and all it's members. There are no Yankees in the NFL, using their big media market renvue advantage perenially to buy their way to success. There are no Cubs, perpetually refusing to re-invest revenue in a superior product, secure in the monopoly over their mindlessly loyal and long suffering fans. It's better to be successful on a wheat pile than king of a dung heap.
Purity is not always a good thing and often comes with severe drawbacks and shortcomings. It's true with dogs and horses. Constant inbreeding in the quest for purity ends up accentuating inherent weaknesses and in general, mutts tend to be healthier than purebreads. The same is true with economic systems. Pure capitalism and pure socialism soon show the cracks of their inherent weaknesses that inevitably lead to crisis and failure. But the balancing act of a healthy blend allows the strengths of both to come through while keeping expression of the weaknesses of each to a minimum.
So remember this Sunday when when your witnessing a prime display of sucessful socialistic capitalism that even the Saints can, at long last have a chance to reach the top and enjoy their day in the sun when there is a reasonable sharing of resources and a level playing field. Go NFC Saints!
Make no mistake about it, the NFL and the individual franchises (except for the most-glorious Green Bay Packers) are capitalistic ventures intent on making a profit and a return on investment and that is as it should be. But the NFL, unlike it's now weaker cousin MLB (America's former passtime) long ago realized that the health and well being of the whole is directly related to and dependent on the health and well being of each individual member.
By socializing their success the NFL has been able to produce a superior product with most of the teams being competative at any given time and a fairly rapid turnover of championship teams. And this has been good for their customers, the fans who get competative teams to root for and close , entertaining games to watch, which in return is good for the NFL and all it's members. There are no Yankees in the NFL, using their big media market renvue advantage perenially to buy their way to success. There are no Cubs, perpetually refusing to re-invest revenue in a superior product, secure in the monopoly over their mindlessly loyal and long suffering fans. It's better to be successful on a wheat pile than king of a dung heap.
Purity is not always a good thing and often comes with severe drawbacks and shortcomings. It's true with dogs and horses. Constant inbreeding in the quest for purity ends up accentuating inherent weaknesses and in general, mutts tend to be healthier than purebreads. The same is true with economic systems. Pure capitalism and pure socialism soon show the cracks of their inherent weaknesses that inevitably lead to crisis and failure. But the balancing act of a healthy blend allows the strengths of both to come through while keeping expression of the weaknesses of each to a minimum.
So remember this Sunday when when your witnessing a prime display of sucessful socialistic capitalism that even the Saints can, at long last have a chance to reach the top and enjoy their day in the sun when there is a reasonable sharing of resources and a level playing field. Go NFC Saints!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Corporate Superpersonhood, Meet the Boss
New Pledge: I pledge allegiance to the corporations of the Transnational States of America,
and to the profits for which they stand, one nation, under Wall> Street, bought and paid for,
with liberty and justice for those who can afford it.
and to the profits for which they stand, one nation, under Wall> Street, bought and paid for,
with liberty and justice for those who can afford it.
New Preamble: We the Corporations, in order to form a moreprofitable union, provide for the tort defense, promote the corporate welfareand secure the blessings of free-markets for our owners and our subsidiaries, doimpose and establish this Constitution on the United States of America.
If corprations are people then:
Why can't they be put in prison when they break the law?
Why can't they be put in prison when they break the law?
Why can't they be given the death penalty when they murder people?
How come they're immortal?
How come they can be in multiple jurisdictions and even countries all at once?
Why didn't they go to my school so I could have a corporation as a friend?
Why can't they vote?Why don't they need a passport ot enter or leave the country?
Why aren't they counted in the Census? Isn't the census primarily about allocating representation to the PEOPLE? Am I missing something!?
How come they have different tax rates then say, oh I don't know, people?
If money is speech then:
Speech must be money,so how come they don't tax speech?
Speech must be money,so how come they don't tax speech?
Why can't I put my speech in a CD and collect interest in my speech?
If I commit an infraction, how come I may have to forfeit my money, but not my speech?
Why can't I fold my speech up, keep it my wallet and get it out later when I need it?
Well at least we needn't fret about donating our hard earned money to candidates anymore. Why try to change the ocean with a dribble.I can't wait for a foreign corporation like Saudi Arabia's ARAMCO TO STARTPICKING THEiR REPRESENTATIVES IN OFFICES FROM DOG CATCHER TO PRESIDENT!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Welcome to the Ownership's Society
As the prescient Chief Justice of Wisconsin's Sumpreme Court said to the UW Law School graduates in 1873 on the the cusp of the last robber barron infested gilded age:
"[There] is looming up a new dark power . . . the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for political power. . . The question will arise in your day, though perhaps not in mine, which shall rule - wealth or man; which shall lead - money or intellect; who shall fill public stations - educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital . . ."
Robert La Follette, Teddy Roosevelt and the progressives movement answered this call then saving democratic-representative governance. Chief Judicial Activist John "Benedist Arnold" Roberts and his corporatist collaborators on the Extreme Court Bench undid their efforts and 100 years of estblished law and precedent with one deep bow to their masters of the owenship society. Who will answer today in the hope of proving Frank Zappa wrong when he said:
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, pull back the curtains, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
Five corporate apointed Supreme Injustices just took down the scenery. Is the curtain next?
Chris Hedges has written an interesting and ominous article about the illusion of democray and the emergent inverted totalitiarianism. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25
You're free to move about the country.
Warm Rememberances,
Sean Cranley - Corporate Serf No. 394-74-2812
Sunday, January 24, 2010
NADA - Not A Democracy Anymore
Mike McCabe, Executive Direcor of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign authored this statement on behalf of WDC regarding the recent traitorous and judicially activist supreme (Extreme) court ruling that has surpassed even bu$h v Gore in terms of audacity and damage to our democracy and the freedom of the American People http://www.wisdc.org/pr012110.php
Historically democracies have lasted about two hundred years or so before the plutocrats and feudal lords re-exert their control. Well America, it was nice while it lasted.
The narrowest of majorities on the U.S. Supreme Court legislated from the bench today, effectively enacting a radical vision of the First Amendment and a bastardized version of democracy that has never been approved by elected representatives of the American people and strays far from the ideals spelled out so elegantly by the nation’s founders.
The Court majority’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a continuation of the judicial activism on election finance that began in earnest in the 1970s and substantially expands the scope of this policymaking by unelected and unaccountable judges for life.
Boiled down to its essence, five of the nine justices ruled that money is speech, corporations are people, public offices are commodities and elections are the marketplace where these commodities are bought and sold. The majority opinion asserts the appearance of big money influence over elections will not cause the public to lose confidence in the democratic process. The cluelessness demonstrated by such a declaration begs the question: What planet do these justices live on?
This ruling further chips away at both the letter and spirit of the federal McCain-Feingold law and favors the corrupt status quo in national politics. The five justices overlooked the corrupting effects of allowing massive sums of wealth to be brought to bear in election campaigns. Their ruling throws century-old law on the use of corporate and labor union treasury funds to influence elections on the scrap heap.
On the other hand, a super-majority of justices upheld the constitutionality of disclosing money spent on elections. This leaves the door open to meaningful disclosure reform at the federal and state levels.
Unaddressed in this case and untouched by today’s ruling are public financing programs like the one just enacted for state Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin. Such programs remain on sound constitutional footing and now become all the more important as one of the few remaining tools to guard against political corruption and ensure the voices of ordinary citizens are heard.
It is also important to note that this case involved a challenge to a federal law, not any state law in Wisconsin. However, today’s ruling does have state-law implications, which we will be assessing in the days and weeks to come.
Historically democracies have lasted about two hundred years or so before the plutocrats and feudal lords re-exert their control. Well America, it was nice while it lasted.
The narrowest of majorities on the U.S. Supreme Court legislated from the bench today, effectively enacting a radical vision of the First Amendment and a bastardized version of democracy that has never been approved by elected representatives of the American people and strays far from the ideals spelled out so elegantly by the nation’s founders.
The Court majority’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a continuation of the judicial activism on election finance that began in earnest in the 1970s and substantially expands the scope of this policymaking by unelected and unaccountable judges for life.
Boiled down to its essence, five of the nine justices ruled that money is speech, corporations are people, public offices are commodities and elections are the marketplace where these commodities are bought and sold. The majority opinion asserts the appearance of big money influence over elections will not cause the public to lose confidence in the democratic process. The cluelessness demonstrated by such a declaration begs the question: What planet do these justices live on?
This ruling further chips away at both the letter and spirit of the federal McCain-Feingold law and favors the corrupt status quo in national politics. The five justices overlooked the corrupting effects of allowing massive sums of wealth to be brought to bear in election campaigns. Their ruling throws century-old law on the use of corporate and labor union treasury funds to influence elections on the scrap heap.
On the other hand, a super-majority of justices upheld the constitutionality of disclosing money spent on elections. This leaves the door open to meaningful disclosure reform at the federal and state levels.
Unaddressed in this case and untouched by today’s ruling are public financing programs like the one just enacted for state Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin. Such programs remain on sound constitutional footing and now become all the more important as one of the few remaining tools to guard against political corruption and ensure the voices of ordinary citizens are heard.
It is also important to note that this case involved a challenge to a federal law, not any state law in Wisconsin. However, today’s ruling does have state-law implications, which we will be assessing in the days and weeks to come.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
An Open Letter to the President
Dear Barack --
While you have done many admirable things in the first year of your presidency, you're getting cooked in the media and by the Republicans because your accomplishments are not direct enough -- and, therefore, can't be explained in brief messages (of just a few words).
You need to re-concentrate your efforts on the 4 things you were elected to do -- and you need to do them in a way that you can explain in a simple phrase. (Not, "We removed the insurance companyies' ability to discriminate on pre-existing conditions," but "We created Medicare for all.")
The four things you were elected to do are:
1) Create Jobs
2) Fix Health Care
3) Save the Environment
4) End the War
One of the reasons we lost a Senate seat in MA was the lack of easily explainable progress in any of these areas.
There is no one in the country that thinks you have done any of these four things. Further, there is no one that can explain any of your accomplishments in these areas in simple, direct terms.
If you can't explain it in simple, direct terms, the American people won't buy it or believe it.
You need to redouble your efforts to take simple, direct action. You need to be courageous.
Presidents are remembered for their leadership -- not for their ability to be bi-partisan or reach amiable compromises.
You were elected to lead (not to compromise).
It's time to lead and address these issues directly.
Yours Sincerely - Steve Sullivan
While you have done many admirable things in the first year of your presidency, you're getting cooked in the media and by the Republicans because your accomplishments are not direct enough -- and, therefore, can't be explained in brief messages (of just a few words).
You need to re-concentrate your efforts on the 4 things you were elected to do -- and you need to do them in a way that you can explain in a simple phrase. (Not, "We removed the insurance companyies' ability to discriminate on pre-existing conditions," but "We created Medicare for all.")
The four things you were elected to do are:
1) Create Jobs
2) Fix Health Care
3) Save the Environment
4) End the War
One of the reasons we lost a Senate seat in MA was the lack of easily explainable progress in any of these areas.
There is no one in the country that thinks you have done any of these four things. Further, there is no one that can explain any of your accomplishments in these areas in simple, direct terms.
If you can't explain it in simple, direct terms, the American people won't buy it or believe it.
You need to redouble your efforts to take simple, direct action. You need to be courageous.
Presidents are remembered for their leadership -- not for their ability to be bi-partisan or reach amiable compromises.
You were elected to lead (not to compromise).
It's time to lead and address these issues directly.
Yours Sincerely - Steve Sullivan
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
My Letter to President Obama in the Wake of What Looks Like a Defeat in MA Senate
I just sent this note to the Whitehouse as I wait for the results in Massachusetts.
I think he needs to get more letters like this.
*
I do not know the outcome of tonight's vote in Massachusetts. I do know that I sent money and just spent the past hour phoning from Wisconsin to turn out the vote in my old home state. I hope Martha will win, but the news does not look hopeful.
I do think I know what went wrong - not specifically with her campaign, but overall: You, the President (whom I worked so hard for) have not done enough. You have not gone far enough with healthcare -- abandoning the Public Option or Single Payer off the bat. You have not gone far enough in creating jobs, nor in punishing Wall Street for their failures, both in tending our money to begin with and in investing the bailout money in America rather than in enriching themselves.
In short, you have not pushed hard enough or been progressive enough. You have been Jimmy Carter when we need another FDR. You have compromised when the country needs you to LEAD.
It's time to wake up and LEAD the country, before there is no country left to lead and none left to follow you.
Please, stand up. Be President.
Your Supporter (and former office runner),
Steve Sullivan
I think he needs to get more letters like this.
*
I do not know the outcome of tonight's vote in Massachusetts. I do know that I sent money and just spent the past hour phoning from Wisconsin to turn out the vote in my old home state. I hope Martha will win, but the news does not look hopeful.
I do think I know what went wrong - not specifically with her campaign, but overall: You, the President (whom I worked so hard for) have not done enough. You have not gone far enough with healthcare -- abandoning the Public Option or Single Payer off the bat. You have not gone far enough in creating jobs, nor in punishing Wall Street for their failures, both in tending our money to begin with and in investing the bailout money in America rather than in enriching themselves.
In short, you have not pushed hard enough or been progressive enough. You have been Jimmy Carter when we need another FDR. You have compromised when the country needs you to LEAD.
It's time to wake up and LEAD the country, before there is no country left to lead and none left to follow you.
Please, stand up. Be President.
Your Supporter (and former office runner),
Steve Sullivan
Monday, January 11, 2010
Learn to Speak Teabag/Wingnutti Death Threats
Apparently the cartoonist (Mark Fiore) responsible for this brief educational video has received numerous death threats from the wingnutti. And he's not even Danish!
Dog! Thou shalt not insult the profit, Michelle Backman!
Perhaps the GoverNOTor Sarah Palincomparison, who as just announced will be the key-note speaker at the next two major teabaggings, has issued a Fatwah for the Teahadists to get this infidel!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Move Your Money!
Wall Street has ceased to be about capitalism, which involves investing in companies that produce goods and services of value and has turned into a casino, betting (not investing) on derivatives and credit default swaps that produce no inherent value. In the process they have damaged the U.S. and world economy and squandered the wealth of millions of innocent Americans.
They have used their money to usurp the people's representation in our government, change the rules that governed themselves and thereby created a crisis whereby the money paid by the citizenry in taxes had to be used to save them and avert a complete global meltdown, diverting attention and resources from other critical needs and boosting federal debt.
Too big to fail should mean too too big to exist, but they'll fight this and any other regulation tooth and nail with their undo influence and bribery. A new movement has been started to encourage people to move their money out of the big Gall Street banks and into community banks to send a message and punish the greedmongers: http://moveyourmoney.info/
Personally, I'd encourage people to join a credit union instead, but I think their on the right track. Take your money away from the bankster-robberbarron-riverboat-gamblers and put it in your own community!
Thursday, December 03, 2009
The Fallacy of the GOParty Line
Because they must criticize Obama no matter what he does or says, all the little GOPpositionsits, including of course Paully the Parrotboy” Ryan are running around spouting the same approved gandabyte talking point; if we set a time table, our enemies will just wait us out. The thing is, if you have audacity to think about it for a moment, this tired old party line (they said the same thing about Iraq) falls apart utterly. And of course they conveniently ignore the inconvenient truth that President Obama explicitly stated that the drawing down of forces would be contingent on conditions on the ground.
If the matter was as simplistic as the GOPsters “logic” would have us all believe (or as their mental constructs allow) the Taliban need only have stopped fighting a couple years ago and we’d be leaving now based on favorable conditions on the ground, in country. They could then start their movement back up again. But movements don’t work that way, they’re like sharks, they either move or they die.
So we see yet again that when exposed to a modicum of critical thinking the GOPlogic that seems to make sense on the simplistic surface is hollow in the middle like a rotten tree. But I guess they feel they must come up with something negative with which to prop themselves up. And of course, never meeting a war they didn’t love, they’ll never be satisfied with anything less than war without end, amen.
If the matter was as simplistic as the GOPsters “logic” would have us all believe (or as their mental constructs allow) the Taliban need only have stopped fighting a couple years ago and we’d be leaving now based on favorable conditions on the ground, in country. They could then start their movement back up again. But movements don’t work that way, they’re like sharks, they either move or they die.
So we see yet again that when exposed to a modicum of critical thinking the GOPlogic that seems to make sense on the simplistic surface is hollow in the middle like a rotten tree. But I guess they feel they must come up with something negative with which to prop themselves up. And of course, never meeting a war they didn’t love, they’ll never be satisfied with anything less than war without end, amen.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Weapons of Mass Murder Should Be Illegal
It’s time make hand guns like the Fort hood shooter used illegal. These weapons are easily concealed, highly powerful and with high capacity, easily interchangeable clips they allow a shooter to spray hundreds of bullets in a few minutes and reload in seconds. They are weapons of mass murder, serving only evil and have no legitimate purpose whatsoever. In fact their only purpose is to kill people, lots of people, quickly.
The Virginia Tech shooter fired 170 rounds in 9 minutes and left 32 people dead and 30 more people horribly injured. The Fort Hood shooter fired 100 bullets in 3 minutes. He had high capacity magazine clips with 20 rounds per clip. With a gun in each hand that’s 40 rounds before he has to reload and he reloaded more than once which only takes seconds when exchanging clips. Frankly, with barrages like that I’m amazed they both didn’t kill more innocent people.
If either of these shooters had to reload more often and spend more time doing it they would have been quickly overwhelmed by the crowd of people who were their intended victims. But these semiautomatic guns stack the deck entirely in the favor of the mass murderer.
If you want to have a revolver or a deer rifle for self defense and sporting purposes, fine. Can these weapons also be misused? Of course, but they don’t place the kind of overwhelming force into one person’s hands that these weapons of mass murder do. You say it’s your constitutional right to own weapons of mass murder? You’re wrong, you can’t own machineguns, grenades, bazookas or a host of other arms either. That is because they serve no legitimate non-military purpose while delivering much too highly concentrated destructive force, endangering public safety. Anyway, when the Second Amendment was written a very skilled musketeer could manage at most four inaccurate rounds per minute. Reality has changed with the times.
And for those of you naive enough to think you need these kinds of weapons as hedge against a tyrannical government. Think again. Look at the resistance in Iraq. They quickly found that fighting the American military with guns was a sure way to die. That’s why they resorted to tactics like car bombs and IEDs. Thinking you’d fare any differently with your little pistol is plain foolishness.
Yes, people kill people and with these weapons of mass murder one person can kill lots of other people in a few seconds. The only people who think we need these guns are the profiteers who make and sell them, their lobbying arm the NRA, gun nuts and just plain nuts. Of the 14 worst mass shootings in the last 40 years 7 of them have been here in America. This time we need to actually do something and rid ourselves of this kind of dangerous garbage before it happens again.
The Virginia Tech shooter fired 170 rounds in 9 minutes and left 32 people dead and 30 more people horribly injured. The Fort Hood shooter fired 100 bullets in 3 minutes. He had high capacity magazine clips with 20 rounds per clip. With a gun in each hand that’s 40 rounds before he has to reload and he reloaded more than once which only takes seconds when exchanging clips. Frankly, with barrages like that I’m amazed they both didn’t kill more innocent people.
If either of these shooters had to reload more often and spend more time doing it they would have been quickly overwhelmed by the crowd of people who were their intended victims. But these semiautomatic guns stack the deck entirely in the favor of the mass murderer.
If you want to have a revolver or a deer rifle for self defense and sporting purposes, fine. Can these weapons also be misused? Of course, but they don’t place the kind of overwhelming force into one person’s hands that these weapons of mass murder do. You say it’s your constitutional right to own weapons of mass murder? You’re wrong, you can’t own machineguns, grenades, bazookas or a host of other arms either. That is because they serve no legitimate non-military purpose while delivering much too highly concentrated destructive force, endangering public safety. Anyway, when the Second Amendment was written a very skilled musketeer could manage at most four inaccurate rounds per minute. Reality has changed with the times.
And for those of you naive enough to think you need these kinds of weapons as hedge against a tyrannical government. Think again. Look at the resistance in Iraq. They quickly found that fighting the American military with guns was a sure way to die. That’s why they resorted to tactics like car bombs and IEDs. Thinking you’d fare any differently with your little pistol is plain foolishness.
Yes, people kill people and with these weapons of mass murder one person can kill lots of other people in a few seconds. The only people who think we need these guns are the profiteers who make and sell them, their lobbying arm the NRA, gun nuts and just plain nuts. Of the 14 worst mass shootings in the last 40 years 7 of them have been here in America. This time we need to actually do something and rid ourselves of this kind of dangerous garbage before it happens again.
Monday, November 16, 2009
United Healthcare Against Reform But For Penalties
Yet another reason for me to hate United Healthcare, the health insurance company selected for me by my employer, largely because Wisconsin is not a competative health insurance market. 75,000 UH employees and that's just one insurance company!
Gee, do you think there's a little overhead cost there for our healthcare system? The entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the Medicare program for 100,000 million Americans has only 60,000 employees! Yeah no public option AND higher penalties for people who don't become customers in the custody of their monopoly. Nice. I wish I could fire their ass.
From Friday's Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/13/headlines
Insurance Giant Recruits Employees to Oppose Public OptionThe nation’s largest health insurer is recruiting employees to lobby against congressional proposals for healthcare reform. Newly released emails show UnitedHealth Group wrote 75,000 employees this week to ask them to lobby their senators against inclusion of a public insurance option in the Senate healthcare bill. Form letters provided to employees also call for imposing higher financial penalties on Americans who choose not to buy health insurance.
Gee, do you think there's a little overhead cost there for our healthcare system? The entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the Medicare program for 100,000 million Americans has only 60,000 employees! Yeah no public option AND higher penalties for people who don't become customers in the custody of their monopoly. Nice. I wish I could fire their ass.
From Friday's Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/13/headlines
Insurance Giant Recruits Employees to Oppose Public OptionThe nation’s largest health insurer is recruiting employees to lobby against congressional proposals for healthcare reform. Newly released emails show UnitedHealth Group wrote 75,000 employees this week to ask them to lobby their senators against inclusion of a public insurance option in the Senate healthcare bill. Form letters provided to employees also call for imposing higher financial penalties on Americans who choose not to buy health insurance.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Names of the Dead Website
Congressman Alan Grayson, who gained in notoriety for succinctly summarizing the GOPish plan for healthcare "don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly," has created a website http://www.namesofthedead.com/ to honor the 44,000 Americans who die every year, because they don't have health coverage according to a Harvard University study and of course to shame those who would stand in the way of preventing the equivalent of twelve 9/11s a year, every year, year after year.
Monday, October 26, 2009
GOPocrits
The list of 55 GOPocrits who oppose the Public Option for others, but are on Medicare themselves http://weiner.house.gov/news_display.aspx?id=1364 is as follows:
Rep. Ralph M. Hall; Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett; Rep. Sam Johnson; Rep. C.W. Bill Young; Rep. Howard Coble; Sen. Jim Bunning; Sen. Richard G. Lugar; Rep. Don Young; Sen. Charles E. Grassley; Sen. Robert F. Bennett; Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers; Sen. Orrin G. Hatch; Sen. Richard C. Shelby; Rep. Jerry Lewis; Sen. James M. Inhofe; Rep. Ron Paul; Rep. Henry E. Brown; Sen. Pat Roberts; Sen. George V. Voinovich; Sen. John McCain; Rep. Judy Biggert; Sen. Thad Cochran; Rep. Harold Rogers; Rep. Dan Burton; Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon; Rep. Frank R. Wolf; Sen. Christopher S. Bond; Rep. Michael N. Castle; Rep. Joe Pitts; Rep. Tom Petri; Sen. Lamar Alexander; Rep. Doc Hastings; Rep. Cliff Stearns; Rep. Sue Myrick; Rep. John Carter; Sen. Mitch McConnell; Sen. Jon Kyl; Rep. Phil Gingrey; Rep. Nathan Deal; Rep. John Linder; Rep. Kay Granger; Rep. John L. Mica; Rep. Walter B. Jones; Sen. Jim Risch; Rep. Ed Whitfield; Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner; Rep. Virginia Foxx; Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison; Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite; Sen. Saxby Chambliss; Sen. Michael B. Enzi; Rep. Elton Gallegly; Rep. Donald Manzullo; Rep. Peter T. King; Rep. Ander Crenshaw
Rep. Ralph M. Hall; Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett; Rep. Sam Johnson; Rep. C.W. Bill Young; Rep. Howard Coble; Sen. Jim Bunning; Sen. Richard G. Lugar; Rep. Don Young; Sen. Charles E. Grassley; Sen. Robert F. Bennett; Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers; Sen. Orrin G. Hatch; Sen. Richard C. Shelby; Rep. Jerry Lewis; Sen. James M. Inhofe; Rep. Ron Paul; Rep. Henry E. Brown; Sen. Pat Roberts; Sen. George V. Voinovich; Sen. John McCain; Rep. Judy Biggert; Sen. Thad Cochran; Rep. Harold Rogers; Rep. Dan Burton; Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon; Rep. Frank R. Wolf; Sen. Christopher S. Bond; Rep. Michael N. Castle; Rep. Joe Pitts; Rep. Tom Petri; Sen. Lamar Alexander; Rep. Doc Hastings; Rep. Cliff Stearns; Rep. Sue Myrick; Rep. John Carter; Sen. Mitch McConnell; Sen. Jon Kyl; Rep. Phil Gingrey; Rep. Nathan Deal; Rep. John Linder; Rep. Kay Granger; Rep. John L. Mica; Rep. Walter B. Jones; Sen. Jim Risch; Rep. Ed Whitfield; Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner; Rep. Virginia Foxx; Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison; Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite; Sen. Saxby Chambliss; Sen. Michael B. Enzi; Rep. Elton Gallegly; Rep. Donald Manzullo; Rep. Peter T. King; Rep. Ander Crenshaw
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Old Glory Is So Yesterday
Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign http://wisdc.clearsender.com/tracker.php?link=220888262::239::59516 has written a great piece about "conservative" judicial activism and the danger to our Constitution and our democracy posed by a forthcoming Supreme Court ruling that could blatantly hand OUR government and OUR so-called representatives over to the concentrated power of the big corporations once and for all: http://www.wisdc.org/blog/2009/10/old-glory-is-so-yesterday.html
We the Corporations, in order to make it illegal to form a union, provide for our legal defense, promote our welfare and secure the blessings of resources to ourselves and our subsidiaries, do ordain this revised Constitution of the Corporate states of America.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - Benito Mussolini
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis
"The really dangerous American fascists, are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. - FDR's Vice President Henry Wallace, April 1944.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)