Wednesday, February 8, 2012


A VOICE IS STRONGER THAN MONEY

On Tuesday Presidential candidate Rick Santorum with no money, but with a strong message for the evangelicals, won all three caucuses and primaries. Mitt Romney and his super PACs, with all of their money could not overcome the vox populi of the people who voted.

Last night was an important example of how the people can check the process of money in campaigns.  There has been so much made of the ads paid for by the PACs under the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that the people may be finally understanding the ads are to be ignored. 

As I noted in my original post on the issue, the solution to Citizens United is not to restrict speech, but the people.  The people must be willing to ignore the ads.  The people must learn to educate themselves about the candidates. 

It does not serve freedom if when the people are lazy we restrict the free speech of corporations and wealthy people.  It is theoretically possible Citizens United could force the people to become more attentive to the candidates who reflect their views.  This certainly has to be better than the people giving up on someone like Rick Santorum just because the talking heads claim he cannot win.

The talking heads and PAC money candidates can be ignored in favor of principle.  The power remains in the vox populi.  So long as we keep the power with the vox populi, We the People will effectively check our elected officials.

Sunday, February 5, 2012


THE CHECKS AND BALANCES INHERENT IN FREE SPEECH, AND THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY

In the same way the press seems to have abandoned its check on government through a free and vox populi oriented press, so too have far too many Americans through their refusal to stand up and say - enough is enough. 
Former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower foresaw the dangers of corporatism in our democracy.  He specifically spoke to the issue of the military industrial complex.
Here's an excerpt:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later

You can also watch him speak on the issue in his farewell address.



In the 60's students and young adults raised up and spoke their minds on all sorts of issues from civil rights, to war, to drugs, to poverty.  The students took control of the universities and created student unions.  One area on campuses where students succeed was taking control of the bookstores and keeping prices down.  In time the student leaders voluntarily gave up that control to corporate interests who then paid a fee to the university for the privilege of bilking the students.

The 60's proved that if the people exercise their check on government and the courts they can effectuate policy changes.

It is true the people are making progress in small ways.   But the reality is, in terms of the corporate take over of our government, as warned by President Eisenhower, it is nearly complete.  One reason the corporatist have succeed is the radical right.  President Reagan promised them he would oppose all individual freedom for anyone they deem immoral in exchange for their vote.  This was the final major putsch in the corporate take over of our government.  It was also the first major modern step to the rise of anti-liberty voices in the name of God.

Occupy Wall Street is a voice against corporatism.  Unfortunately, as the key leaders sought comfort in the warmth of their homes, the more radical near anarchists elements have begun to turn the movement into a movement of destruction.  Unless the original leaders of Occupy Wall Street seize control soon, the movement could be lost.

The radical right seems to understand the function of the people as a check on government and courts. While I am not happy with what they are doing in the following example, the example is clear evidence of how the people can still check the actions of the government.

The legalization of gay marriage in Washington is now a  formality.  But because the radical right is unhappy with this result they intend to exercise their right of free speech and assembly to overturn the Washington legislature through a possible public ballot initiative. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-gay-marriage-washington-idUSTRE81204O20120203

While I may not like how they intend to use the ballot initiative, it is nonetheless a good thing that as a group they seek to exercise their right of checks and balances as against the legislature.

Until the American people understand that the concept of checks and balances goes well beyond the three branches of government, corporatists will continue to take control of our government.  The people need to know through ballot initiatives and the ballot box they are the ultimate check on the courts and legislatures.

The funny thing about the radical religious right and their alignment with the corporatists is, it was the corporatists who changed the blue laws which had stores closed on Sunday.  But then I guess when you generally seek to do the work of injustice, you get  in bed with the devil himself.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1164.html

Meaningful change will not come to our government until the people reassert their power of Checks and Balances on the government and the courts.

Friday, February 3, 2012



CHECKS AND BALANCES,
AND SEPARATION OF POWERS

I loved to teach this lesson because it would drive traditional government instructors nuts.  Most teach this as a simple one day lesson about the checks and balances each of the three branches of government have on one another.  It is so much more complex as defined in our Constitution.

Inherent in the US system of checks and balances is the press.  Inasmuch as there is no free and body politic oriented press in the US, the part played by the press in checks and balances is now officially dead.  The sad part about this is, with an investment I believe to be of about $100,000 a true free and body politic oriented press could be started on line and in a few years make the owners billionaires.  If just a handful of all the unemployed journalists understood ethics and capitalism, they would no longer be unemployed.  They would own the most successful online newspaper in the world.

A simple example - a big deal is being made about Romney stating he loves to fire people who work for him.  In a world where ethics matters in journalism, journalists would have added to the narrative that what he was saying in substance was - he likes to fire people who do not perform.  You know what - me too - and so too should the American people when it comes to our elected officials.  The comment was about accountability, not some deep seated psychotic need to fire people.  What real journalists do is get into the substance of the comment and not the isolated words.  That did not happen with Romney's comment

The other comment which got Romney in trouble is not worrying about the poor.  Real journalists would have gotten into the substance of this comment.  They did not.  Instead they simply used the shock value behind the statement rather than allow it to be a starting point  for policy discussion.

Romney's argument was the poor have a safety net.  As a true socialist, and as someone who actually knows what the ideology of socialism is all about, I have always despised the welfare state of President Johnson and as executed by the Democratic Party.  A civilized society must have a safety net, but not a built in addiction to that safety net.

Quick side note - I do taxes for free for a lot of people this time of year.  This year I have done several wherein the head of household is not only not paying one penny in taxes, but because last year they had a baby, they are getting back over $5,000.  No matter how you look at it, this is a welfare payment.  What really bothers me is, last year the taxpayer paid the bill for the prenatal care, birth, and post birth care of the baby.  These bizarre policies have us paying poor people to have babies.  There is no dignity in this.  Here is my deal.  If you have children on medicaid, then you should not be allowed the child tax credit.  That money should be used to pay back the cost of health care for your child.   Social policies which create an addiction to the safety net must be abolished.  Conservatives can argue budget policy  for the reason to stop these payments, socialists can argue human rights abuses.  In my view it is a human rights abuse to addict poor people to the safety net.  It encourages poverty and a lessor quality of life.

BACK TO THE ISSUE:

What the press failed to do in response to Romney's statement about the poor is look to the policy implications of his statement.  If the safety net means we do not have to worry about the poor, then in fact he is saying he sees no reason to cut the budget by removing parts of the safety net.  This should shock true fiscal conservatives.  He is also saying he is not worried about government institutionalized poverty.  This should shock everyone.  The true shock in his statement is not, not worrying about the poor, but in the policy implications of his statement.

This is what the American press is missing.  This is what the American people are looking for in their press.

The power of the press at one time had the ability to take down a presidency.  Today the press could not take down an ass wipe.  The reason for this is the decision by the press to keep news in soundbites.  The press no longer reports the entire narrative behind the story.  The press looks only for shock value, while dismissing the narrative behind the words.

Key to our freedom is a free and independent press.  Corporatism now directs our press.  In effect what the corporatist approach to journalism has done is remove an important check on our government.  The end result has been a government less accountable to the people.