Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, International, Justice, Media, Military, Politics, Religion, Society, Supreme Court

America’s Transcendent Issue

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

ImageWhen you contemplate all of the problems that beset us in this election year it is hard not to feel daunted by the task of finding solutions. Many millions of American’s are without jobs, with the prospect of future employment seeming illusory. The top 1% of the American population controls vast amounts of the country’s wealth.  http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1  Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly. The housing boom of years past has become a bust of monumental proportions and foreclosures are destroying formerly viable neighborhoods. Our once barely adequate “safety net” has been shredded and there are attempts to destroy both Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Despite a weak attempt at Medical reform millions of Americans find health care unaffordable, with many dying and others forced into bankruptcy to stay alive. Due to lack of money America’s once magnificent infrastructure is rotting and solutions are not on the horizon.

The collapse and bailout of our banking industry has cost us trillions and appears to have been brought about by fraudulent practices on the part of the industry, yet no one has been indicted. In fact the remuneration of top executives in this duplicitous industry has actually increased. Efforts to impose stiff controls ensuring that these artificial crises don’t happen again and that these huge financial entities do business ethically, have failed to pass the Congress. We see that the fallout from the American banking crisis has undercut the world’s economy and that economic crises in other industrialized nations appear regularly. Please notice I’m only referring to the economic problems we face and only producing a partial list of those economic problems.

We have seemingly come to the conclusion of an unnecessary war in Iraq, where trillions were spent and perhaps a million were killed, yet the withdrawal of troops is to bases that surround Iraq. We are leaving about 40,000 Americans in country, many as mercenaries (contractors is a euphemism) as we support the largest diplomatic infrastructure in any foreign nation. The war in Afghanistan still rages in a land that has never been significantly shaped by any outside empire, this despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual destruction of Al Qaeda.  Hundreds of billions are being spent and the lives of our troops are put in danger, in an exercise with little hope of success. Billions are going towards building Afghanistan’s infrastructure as ours is falling apart. Yet these instances fail to raise the broad spectrum of the military/foreign policy problems continuing to plague us. These issues include a military budget that far greater than that of all other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures 

However, these three paragraphs still do not encompass the broad range of problems we Americans face. There is more to be touched on before we come to the conclusion that I’ve reached, that there is one problem that not only transcends all of these, but its need for immediate solution supersedes any of the others in importance.

On this blog the issue of civil liberties is constantly with us because our host/founder is a distinguished Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. Jonathan Turley’s career has been spent fighting for civil liberties and for our freedoms. One result of the tragedy of 9/11 has been the steady erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The formation of a “Super Agency”, the frighteningly named (on so many levels)  Department of Homeland Security has centralized LEO’s of all levels, both civilian and military intelligence organizations, into an establishment with unprecedented vigilance of American’s daily lives. We have allowed torture, used brainwashing and unlimited preventive detention. This doesn’t fully subsume the efforts made in the losing War on Drugs that has cost hundreds of billions and in fact has proved to be an utter failure. The major drug dealers receive the main benefits via higher profits created by this enforcement. A side effect, but perhaps far more costly has been the phenomenon of our country having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our incarceration rate is way beyond Russia and China, not to mention other nations whose names are synonymous with oppression. We have literally created a prison industry, with privatization and hiring out of prisoners to work for private industries in virtual chain gangs. This is a return byAmericato indentured servitude and perhaps slavery. As any of our regular readers on this blog know the above merely superficially touches upon the problems we have in ensuring civil liberties and staving off prejudice.

So far I’ve touched on the critical issues we face regarding the economy, the Military/Foreign Policy establishment and on the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. The last area I’d like to briefly explore is that of the encroachment of religion into our political life and the radical new interpretations of Church/State separation it has brought. It is true that in America there has always been a tension between those who wear their religiosity on their metaphoric sleeves and the right of average Americans to live their lives as they see fit. This encompasses the right to believe, or disbelieve as we choose. I grew up in a time when great literary works were banned from our shores, where movies were censored, where an actual husband and wife on a TV show (I Love Lucy) had to be depicted as sleeping in separate beds and when she was obviously pregnant, the word pregnant couldn’t be used. In my native New York State, our Governor’s wife had to established residence in Reno,Nevada in order to divorce him, since divorce was not allowed in New York. This was how far religion already had encroached upon civil life and the lives of ordinary people in times past.

Today we are faced with the specter of religion once again dominating our society. These new religious zealots disdain separation of church and state; re-write history to suit their narrow views; would force a woman to bear children she doesn’t want and enforce their peculiar notions of sin upon all of us. They would resurrect the marginalization of homosexuals via depriving them of their constitutional rights and even go so far as some as suggesting we ban contraception. They raise a legitimate fear of returning us to the “Dark Ages” of only sixty years ago. Sadly, these problems with religious zealots that I’ve enumerated aren’t even a complete catalog of things we should fear by their renewed rise to political power through overwhelming wealth. 

What I propose to you here is that all of these difficult situations, to those who view them as problems, have arisen out of one overarching issue. This is the source for all of those dilemmas detailed above and therefore must be dealt with before all of the others. It is America’s transcendent issue. This is the problem of the influence of wealth upon our political system. All of the evils (to my mind) listed above arise from the power to control government that money gives. Think about that in context of every issue I’ve detailed above and you will see that at its root is the influence of entrenched wealth upon our political system. The economy is a no-brainer. The Military/Security/Industrial Complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned, has controlled our military budget and our foreign policy. This interlocking self interest group has required diminishing our civil liberties to justify the money spent on wars and intrusion into foreign affairs, by promoting a climate of fear. They also use unconstitutional intrusion to intimidate and/or punish those who expose their misdeeds. Religious institutions free of taxation and oversight have developed huge war chests to control politicians and ensure that they adhere to certain litmus tests of “putative piety”. 

From lobbying efforts and emoluments offered politicians, to the vital need for campaign financing that politicians rely on to get elected/re-elected, money drives our system. All of the difficulties we face arise because of the influence of wealth upon our political system. Therefore, in my opinion this should be the transcendent issue that must be addressed if we have any hope of making America conform to the vision of our Founding Fathers. While some may argue that I’m belaboring the obvious, I would put to them that nothing else can be changed until we change our laws on campaign financing, lobbying and corporate personhood. In that mix we should ban religious entities, not from their right to freely practice their beliefs, but from the ability to influence politicians through money that is un-taxed. In America everyone should have the right to have their say, but it is intolerable that the opinions of some “elite” citizens prevail because their money is considered “free speech” as was formulated in the SCOTUS case Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo and then recently expanded in the infamous “Citizens United Case”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission .

 An example of “Citizens United” impact was seen this week in Iowa where there were massive infusions of so-called “Super-Pac” money for campaign ads, which changed the dynamic of the Iowa Caucus. The Jack Abramoff lobbying case brought out the sickening details of how politicians were bought and corrupted. Abramoff  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff ) was recently released from a minor jail term, but most of those he was involved with, like the ubiquitous Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were never indicted. That Abramoff is trying to atone for his behavior by speaking out against money in politics, is but a cruel irony of how powerless the system is to deal with its corruption by money. 

My conclusion is that with so many problems to deal with in our country our efforts to bring significant reform must “follow the money”. If we can’t limit the destructive effect of wealth upon our political system, our efforts at dealing with the many other issues destroying our Constitutional government will fail. I believe we must start here. What do you think? Below are links to organizations that have been formed to fight the influence of wealth and to overturn Citizens United. If you agree with me you might check some of them out to see if they are worthy of your support.

http://pac.progressivesunited.org/page/rein-in-influence?sc=google_pac_rein-in-influence_3&gclid=COzhw7HFu60CFUKR7QodoWUI_w

http://democracyisforpeople.org/

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/free_speech_for_people_coalition_urges

http://www.movementforthepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CfAW_ActionToolkit.pdf

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c 

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

240 thoughts on “America’s Transcendent Issue”

  1. Hot chocolate … excellent idea … I’m joining in although it is not particularly cold or raining here which is particularly strange communities on Lake Erie in January.

  2. Blah blah blah.

    Still a no sale.

    Actually, my idea of refuting an argument is to do so once and not repeat myself simply because you’re too stupid to understand it.

    Like the press exception. You say, “Now we also have under your scheme that a news company that was a corporation would also be bard from any political content because it was a corporation” – a blatant mischaracterization and contrary to what I said and what the 1st Amendment says. The press has freedom of speech because it is specifically called for in the Constitution. The form in which the press exists – be it corporations or independent journalists – is irrelevant as it is their activity as the press that confers that right. That’s been explained to you 3 times now, yet you continue to misrepresent what I’ve said, endeavoring to create straw men.

    You keep begging the question that corporations are people.

    They. Are. Not. People.

    The issue is corruption in politics. It comes from money – hard money, soft money – it makes no difference. In striking down parts of FECA in Buckley v. Valeo, the SCOTUS took the first misstep of denying that truth of that matter. Citizens United put the government up for sale to the highest soft money bidders. I know what strict scrutiny is and far better than you do, Mr. teh Google Lawyer. The compelling interest is to minimize corruption in the electoral and, consequently, legislative systems. The way to do that is the narrowly tailored solution of setting low maximum campaign contributions for both hard and soft money and to deny corporations the ability to participate in politics period. They aren’t people no matter how many times you beg that question.

    The rest of what you say is repetitive and out of context nonsense.

    So much like my good friend Otteray Scribe, I’m going to have a cup of hot chocolate (it’s rainy and cold here too, OS), and I’m going to let you rant and rave to your lil’ Fascist heart’s content.

  4. Yep, raff. You can’t hide from teh Google Machine.

    It is late here in the Otteray with fog and rain. Think I will make some hot chocolate, watch the Weather Channel for a minute and turn in. You guys can take the helm on the troll patrol, or just let if flail around in the middle of the night all by its lonesome.

  7. OS, This is you isn’t it?

    http://calnm.dailykos.com/user/Otteray%20Scribe.

    It says you are an “aviation enthusiast”. I thought for sure you would get my “gibberish”. I guess there’s another thing you aren’t very smart about.

    But you are right, I am a troll bot and you… actually i am running out of words to describe what a pathetic lot you all are.

  8. isbick or whatever you want to call yourself, you are apparently mistaking me for someone else. Someone who might give a rat’s ass what you think. I don’t really care. To me, you are a plaything, no more than a ball of yarn for a cat. That’s all. When I get bored and tired of playing, I will go somewhere else.

  9. the last few comments from the peanuts gallery is so idiotic as to redefine idiocy.

    the fact is you are so inept and stupid as to be able to know whether I am a troll, or a computer program, or something else. You speculate but obviousely can’t tell. How dumb is that.

    OS, am I mistaken that you have an interest in aviation? or is that some other OS?

    1. I thought with all this conversation about CU it might be a good idea if you actually read some of it… clearly none of you actually have, or the dissent.

      Ahhh ignornace and stupidity must be such bliss for all of you.

  11. Blouise, yes I had noticed that. That quirk can also be programmed easily enough to make a commenter look “human” when in fact it is a computer. There are several here who are more into programming than I, especially Dr. Slarti. But I do know enough to know how it’s done. The misspellings and use of capitals are almost too consistent. Real humans are not all that consistent.

    This particular troll does not pass the human smell test.

  12. OS,

    Did you note the use of capitalization and then the absence of capitals … it’s somewhat noticeable in early postings on other threads when the subject was an Obama supporter (mainly lower case – which is interesting in and of itself) but really stands out as he devolves on this thread … rather like reading body language.

  13. Gene,

    Yeah, I guess John Stuart Mill was right. Richard Nixon said pretty much the same thing. The Nixon White House was trying to recruit staff and people to appoint to key positions, but Nixon complained that all the smartest people tended to be liberals and he would not have liberals working in his administration. Even if he had been able to find one that might take a Nixon job offer.

  14. OS,

    One would hope, but then again, ability to purchase does not guarantee quality.

  15. Gene, it spouts gibberish. Nothing at all of substance, just flailing away and when it cannot generate a logical response, shifts to “ABUSE” mode.

    Koch and Pope have enough money to buy better trolls.

  16. The only blowhard here is you, slick.

    “Now what I actually said is (and I realize it was too much trouble for you to actually include the whole quote because cut and paste is more complex then you are used to handling):”

    Actually, all of your “points” have been addressed, including the full quote here. Your game of “it wouldn’t eliminate corruption” failed too. The goal with corruption is minimizing it. Eliminating it is an absolutist’s game and a fool’s errand. It cannot be eliminated (meaning to “completely remove or get rid of something”). It can, however, be minimized (meaning “to reduce or keep to a minimum”).

    You have yet to illustrate a single way in which restricting corporate speech would have “UNINTENDED OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS”.

    You don’t have any game.

    Run along like a good little Corporatist minion and tell your masters that you’ve failed to win a single person over to your defense of the indefensible Citizens United. You can tell them that you left everyone with the through impression you’re a fascist and an intractable git though. I realize that’s kind of redundant, but then again, so are you.

    1. So I get it Gene, your idea of refuting an argument (according to your link) is to say, “And I refuted that bullshit too. ” You know that seems to be a pretty common argument around here OS uses it to. Doesn’t actually say anything but I guess it makes you folks feel less stupid when you say it.

      Now I have given you countless examples but lets try this way: If you recall CU applied not only to corporations but also other entities such as unions. (BTW: CU was a non profit corporation) Now suppose they declared it your way – in other words corporate money was controlled but then so would have been unions and for that matter just about any entity. If I, the poor person can’t afford to communicate my message on my own, which rich dicks like Romney can, and I can’t join with others promote my speech, how will I offset Romney’s lies?

      On the other hand if we take your furth lunacy that there is an exemption for corporations that you have created in the constitution but doesn’t actually exist, how do I know that someday I join an organization to promote my views but, you Masta GH create an exception for that group because you don’t like my speech (given your hostility to me and my ideas that doesn’t seem so far fetched to me).

      Now we also have under your scheme that a news company that was a corporation would also be bard from any political content because it was a corporation. In that regard, I as a poor citizen would loss that as a way to communicate my politicial speech as well. And in your world opinions would be bard so we would need thought police censures to decide what is political speech or not. Suppose a corporation made a movie on a political subject. That movie could not be shown and little old me would be denied the opportonity to hear what they had to say on that subject thanks to you.

      In other words, I could only heart what you say and from who you say i can hear it from. You will decide what i’m allowed to hear and who I am allowed to hear it from. And you call me the F word. What a joke you are.

      Now, although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shallmake no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibitionon corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the factthat a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is aseparate association from the corporation. Because speech is an es-sential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Gov-ernment to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor cer-tain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speak-ers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this con-clusion The Court has recognized that the First Amendment appliesto corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 778, n. 14, and extended this protection to the context of politicalspeech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428–429. Address-

  17. The response pattern looks as if it were written by Randy Simon himself. Repetitive, simple ad hominems with no substance.

  19. It would seem to me that an algorithm would be relatively easy to develop, based on the same anti-plagiarism software college professors use, to identify trollbots as spam and send them to spamworld.

    I guess we would be engaging in a kind of software arms race if we did that.

    1. If challanging the idocy that permeats this blog makes me a troll, I will wear that with a badge of honor. I’ve read less garbage on the WSJ and thats about as deep as you can get.

  20. There is one other thing about a computer generated troll. I does not get tired, will respond to almost every comment and can repeatedly generate long comments, even if they are at times nonsensical strings of talking points mixed in with “ABUSE” type insults.

Comments are closed.