Last Week’s Supreme Court Ruling: A Step Towards Corporate Communism?
By Laura Kiesel01/23/2010
This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision to do away with any limitations to corporate funding of political campaigns. The decision comes on the heels of the surprise election of conservative candidate Scott Brown in Massachusetts to take over the late Ted Kennedy's seat. As such, the verdict seems to have been passed in preparation of the upcoming 2010 election, by paving the way for corporate sponsorship of candidates. This decision should deeply scare us all as it establishes new legal interpretations of the 1st amendment. First, it interprets corporations as legal individuals entitled to the more rights in deciding elections than you and me. Second, it deems that money is the same as "speech," and that therefore funneling money into the campaigns is the same as voicing support for a candidate. Besides flying in the face of legal precedent, the implications of these unfortunate interpretations are potentially quite dire. It makes us consumers first, and citizens second. It defines us solely as consumers and our worth to and in this country estimated by how we oil the great corporate machine. Groups such as the right-leaning Tea Party have based much of their rhetoric on the fear of government takeover of our lives. And yet, the Supreme Court decision single-handedly puts us on the fast track of a complete corporate takeover, where corporations dominate and even dictate who our elected officials will be and how they will vote. By default, our political choices will be made for us. Unlike a government representative, corporations are not vulnerable to votes or petition signs. A corporation is not limited by election terms. A Corporation is not a human! It is granted immunity from culpability in many court cases because of this reason, and as such, should not be granted rights on equal or greater par than us.
Continue reading 'Last Week’s Supreme Court Ruling: A Step Towards Corporate Communism?'
The Difference Between Rights and Entitlements
By Terry Mitchell01/22/2010
Some people, especially so-called progressives, do not seem to understand the difference between rights and entitlements. So, for their edification, I'm going to try to explain the distinction between these two concepts.
Continue reading 'The Difference Between Rights and Entitlements'
President Obama forget the populist grandstanding, do the work
By Roland Laird01/22/2010
When the Democrats lost their Senate supermajority on Jan. 19, 2010. President Barack Obama and his team went into spin mode, first saying that the loss was not a referendum on Obama's politics, then a few days later saying that Obama and his policies were partially to blame.
Continue reading 'President Obama forget the populist grandstanding, do the work'
The wealth of nations revisited: Can economists see green beyond the greenback?
By Robert Adler01/19/2010
If you want to know the current value of the FTSE or the Dow, you can find out in seconds. If you want to follow the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the US or the EU over time, a few keystrokes will get you the numbers you need.
Continue reading 'The wealth of nations revisited: Can economists see green beyond the greenback?'
The Problem with Political Parties
By Terry Mitchell01/14/2010
In his 1796 farewell address, President George Washington warned his countrymen of the problems created by the formation of political parties. It's too bad that his advice wasn't heeded. The Republican and Democratic parties now dominate politics in this country. They control more than 95% of the federal and state political offices in the U.S. Outside of local elections, it is extremely difficult for an independent or third-party candidate to win.
Continue reading 'The Problem with Political Parties'