If You Claim That Money Is Speech You Ought To Be Prepared To OWN It - And Not Hide It!

Just over two years ago on the topic of money presumed to be speech, I offered this perspective:

"Money is a medium of financial and economic transaction, not speech in the accepted definition. "Speech" implies an individualist aspect whereby a person's unique consciousness is able to assemble specific words to convey an original thought or opinion."

I have not budged from that since, and argue even more strenuously now that if you are going to claim money as "speech" it must be individualized and owned not interjected as an abstract agent devoid of  human responsibility.  This is germane now as we read in a recent WSJ editorial:

"The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck again, handing California's Attorney General the power to intimidate political donors. "

The editorial's complaint hearkened back to a 2016 case decision (by a lower court) that found on behalf of the Koch brothers'  dark money outfit, Americans for Prosperity. In that decision the federal judge Manuel Real imposed a permanent injunction against the California AG's demand that nonprofits hand over the unredacted names of their donors.  In other words, if you are going to go the route of dark money, your money is divorced from any "free speech" privileges.

But as we read in the editorial:

"A Ninth Circuit panel swept past the trial evidence to vacate the injunction and reverse Judge Real.  The Judge (Real) had noted that the attorney General 'struggled to find a single witness who could corroborate the necessity of [donor names] in conjunction with their office's investigations.. The Ninth Circuit brushed this aside on grounds that the AG had a 'strong interest' in donor names to investigate fraud."

The editorial seems not to appreciate the enormous potential for fraud, say via hiding criminal identities in giving money donations for political agendas.  It is as if that AG concern doesn't count.   The WSJ then whined how the Ninth Circuit "waived aside security lapses and dismissed the 'undeniably' real threats against foundation supporters."

Again, claiming special privilege for these donors on the basis of their money donations. But that does not compute, and if free speech is advocated on the basis of equal justice under the law it's a no go.  To be sure, I've no objection to political campaign speech. Let the politicos and their super PACs take over air time on the tube and make their attacks to their hearts' content. Indeed, they can say whatever the hell they want, within limits. But it is foolishness to claim this is the same as personal free speech. 

The editorial would have done better to consider the case along side how Prof. Ward Churchill's free speech rights were seriously violated some 17 years ago.  This transpired  when then University of Colorado professor Churchill wrote an essay "On Roosting Chickens" about the 9/11 attacks in an obscure journal.  Some collegian with too much time on his hands found the essay then circulated it widely on the web, and it ultimately ended up in the hands of U of C honchos who declared Churchill unpatriotic and also, unfit to teach.

A special university "panel" was convened which rummaged through all of Churchill's  existing drafts, academic papers and communications - which they did to no other prof. They then pronounced their "verdict":  finding hum guilty of "plagiarism".   In the wake, every little anti-free speech dunce in Colorado went batshit crazy calling for Churchill's head,  with the university - and The Denver Post - complying in full.

The Post hung Ward Churchill out to dry in a number of editorials and op-ed columns, The guy was convicted and hung, drawn and quartered before he could ask 'why'.  The whole episode showed the "free speech" meme for the hypocritical bollocks it is because,  while someone could depict Muslims as "ragheads" in cartoons, he couldn't dare call into the question the U.S. role in inciting blowback to trigger 9/11 - as Churchill did.

The UC vendetta - via its specific ID of Churchill as the essay author - led them to a base violation of his free speech rights and also his equal protections under the law.  In effect, NO other UC professors had their bodies of published work scrutinized, only Churchill. (Even as many wrote in support of him.) This singled him out and the questionable methods caused him to be fired. (Churchill pursued an appeal case and "won" several years later, but again in backhanded fashion the jury awarded him $1.)

So the question arises: WHY should the Americans for Prosperity donors be afforded any more protection than Churchill?  Churchill - true - willingly attached his name to his controversial essay. But in a kangaroo court of public opinion it didn't matter and he ended up losing his livelihood while being selectively smeared. If an individual can be subject to such risk there is no justification  - barring major changes in existing law - political donors should not also face risk for their dark money contributions. You don't get a free ride, e.g. anonymity,  just became you have tons of money to donate.

The WSJ editorialists then bitch at the end:

"The polarization of American politics is raising the risks of disclosure for donors, though the judicial left won't admit it."

Yeah, well the civic  Left will.  But until that risk (for retribution) is also reduced for individuals who express their unpopular opinions, the monied donors do not get a free ride - e.g. to hide. At its core that to me is what the 9th Circuit decision is really about.   It shows the serious need to extinguish dark money speech as against the very basis of free speech, for which human conception and individual creation has been assured since the era of the Founders.

IMF Warns of "Debt Catastrophe" if Debt Ceiling Isn't Raised - As Obama Takes the 14th Off the Table

Depiction of Obama from two years ago when he basically allowed the country to be extorted by the Reepo Economic Terrorists. This time he needs to approve the debt ceiling limit increase under Executive order- under the 14th amendment - even if brings on a constitutional crisis. The nation's interest must trump political interests and elections next year!

Incredibly, it appears that - despite strong advice from former Clinton aides- Obama does not have any intention of using the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling limit unilaterally, if the Tea Bagger driven Reepos continue their shutdown foolishness into the debt ceiling deadline of October 17th.  This despite the fact that according to a Financial Times article yesterday, the IMF has warned of a "debt catastrophe" if the U.S. doesn't pay its bills.

Let's be clear of the impact if the debt ceiling isn't raised by the due date. First, we may have about two weeks 'grace period' but then on Nov. 1st the Treasury must make a $25 billion payment to Social Security. This cannot be made if the ceiling isn't raised and that means that Social Security payments likely will be seriously delayed or not go out at all. Next, the Treasury must make a bond interest payment (on Treasury securities) of $30 billion by November 15th.  This payment assures creditors that the U.S. claim that bonds are "protected by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" is honored. If it is not, and it won't be if the money isn't available via debt ceiling being raised, the markets will freak out. That includes the bond markets and the stock market. Two years ago, the latter dropped 17% as a result of GOP terrorism. What will it be like this time? Who knows?

Meanwhile, The Treasury Department has stated in a report:  "A default would be unprecedented and has the potential to be catastrophic. The negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse."

As I noted in a previous blog (last month) The Constitution (Amendment XIV, Section 4),  is clear on the U.S. debt responsibilities:

The validity of the Public Debt of the United States, authorized by law, includes debts incurred for payment of pensions ....and shall not be questioned.

It is clear to me that if the Republican Congress refuses to act to raise the debt ceiling (and thereby honor the validity of paying the Public Debt) then President Obama can certainly issue an Executive Order to override a putatively derelict Congress and invoke Article 4 of Amendment XIV to raise the debt ceiling himself. 

But according to a UK Guardian article, Obama has no intention of doing so, thereby taking his most potent 'weapon' off the table. According to the Guardian:

" 'Using the 14th would show the Republicans he means business,' one former aide to Bill Clinton told the Guardian last week.

But the White House ruled out the option on Thursday, ending days of Washington debate about whether this obscure legal authority might provide a way out for Obama – at least from one half of Republicans' fiscal pincer movement.

 'The administration does not believe the 14th amendment gives power to the president to ignore the debt ceiling,' said spokesman Jay Carney.

'The fact that there is significant controversy around the president's authority to act unilaterally means that it would not be a credible alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling and would not be taken seriously by the market.' "


But this is nonsense, and Carney's blather doesn't even pass a basic laugh test. Is Carney serious?  First, the President would not be "ignoring the debt ceiling"  - but rather respecting it given that a dysfunctional element in congress has obstructed its being raised!  Second, Carney's excuse that, 'There is significant controversy around the president's authority to act unilaterally'  is codswallop given  this is a prez who regularly (and unilaterally) orders drone strikes on targets from Yemen to Pakistan to Afghanistan - without any "approval" from congress.

While his drone strikes putatively address American security compromised by terrorists, clearly invoking the 14th would address Americans' domestic financial security compromised by the GOP and the incipient threat to the economic stability of the nation. Certainly, if Yemen merits a drone strike owing to incipient terrorist threats, the Repuke congress merits the 14th landing on their asses, given the Constitution clearly states. debts incurred for payment of pensions ....and shall not be questioned

So is Obama not obliged to uphold the Constitution, and in WHATEVER manner is required? I believe he is, given that the refusal to honor the nation's debts is a basis for intervention by an adult - and making specious arguments to avoid taking that responsibility  (to probably avoid political repercussions in the mid-terms next year) does not cut it. Not one bit!

Those who encourage Obama to grow some cojones believe 100% - contrary to Carney's PR blatherskite - that the power to use the 14th does inhere in the Executive if congress forfeits its own responsibilities.  In that case, Obama is obliged as the last adult in gov't to step in and seize the power to use the 14th. So yes, the power to use it  DOES EXIST IF Obama takes it. If he projects authority, and goes on the air to make clear the reasons for this extreme action, he will be as legit as JFK when he faced down U.S. Steel in 1962 and stopped them from raising steel prices.  Many in the corporate world at that time believed he "didn't have the authority to interfere in the markets" - but he did. Because he had balls, and he knew the national interest trumped petty political concerns.

Make no mistake also that the markets, contrary to Carney's nonsense, would definitely take such a move seriously, given what the alternative is!   Does Carney,  or whatever advisor is feeding Obama this foolishness,  really believe the markets would rather see a credit meltdown, default and a drop as big as the one in 2008? Puh---leeze! Do Carney and his clique really believe the markets would rather see a credit downgrade and the country's image damaged irreparably?

Will Obama have the balls to act, or will he allow the Repuke anarchists and terrorists to get the better of him again? We have to wait and see! In the meantime let's hope there are no further smokescreens giving BS reasons not to act, and more intelligent justifications for doing so. To give the Reeps a shot over the bow and show them the WH isn't going to come to a gunfight with a sling shot this time around.

Walter White's Saga: Why Would a High School Chemistry Teacher Go Bad?

'Breaking Bad', the fantastic AMC series is now in the can as far as television history is concerned. On Sunday night, the finale grabbed no fewer than 10.3 million viewers, as former chemistry teacher Walter White went down in a blaze of glory. He also showed he knew plenty of physics, in devising an electronically-triggered,  high caliber, rotating machine gun in his car trunk,  to annihilate most of the Nazi meth makers.

But the question that really emerges is: How did this one time high school chemistry teacher mutate into the greatest meth maker the southwest had ever seen, and even to the level of taking out Mexican cartels?   As a former chemistry teacher myself (in the Peace Corps) I enjoyed it as much as teaching physics later.  Probably the titration of weak acids with a strong base were my favorite experiments, though the students were more enthralled by the ones that created small, vigorous 'eruptions' in their test tubes, like adding magnesium metal to dilute hydrochloric acid, see e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeKsLi_6WkY.

Anyway, when I began watching 'Breaking Bad' five years ago, I was interested to see how it was that Walter White would want to go to the dark side. The answer arrived when he found out he had lung cancer, late stage lung cancer. Being in his late forties, this wasn't good news, because the health insurance he had provided a capped amount which would expire in no time with necessary chemotherapy treatments.

Walter probably knew even then that his treatments would ensure that his family would either go bankrupt or into massive debt. He'd also likely know that most bankruptcies in this country are medically -based. Either people lack any health insurance and they are afflicted with cancer or have a serious accident, or their insurance is inadequate to cover the costs over time, usually because most policies are capped at a maximum.

Faced with this stark choice, Walter - in cahoots with former student Jesse Pinkman- ends up making some of the purest meth ever seen. (Mainly because Walt is a chemistry task master, always imposing his high standards on his young apprentice who, if he had his way, would churn out any barely passable crap.)

Now, the rub arrives when he has "enough". Enough moola to cover his treatment costs with more than enough left over. But he - like many Americans, once they get the taste of newfound riches - doesn't want to stop at "enough". He wants more. At this stage, he transforms into the  quintessential American CEO, always spouting  figures and formulas to justify further expansion.  Alert viewers also would pick up on White's incessant citation of the 1 percent, and his insatiable drive to be part of it.


Well, from here it's all downhill, because to rise to the top Walt is forced to ruthlessly take out competitors, including the head of a Mexican cartel (Gus Fring) with one foot in the southwest U.S. By the end, in compiling his multi-millions, Walt has left a pile of bodies behind. As one blogger has put it aptly:

"It’s all there: the ego, the entitlement, the testosterone-fueled drive to come out on top, and the sense that money, not character or relationships, defines a person’s worth."

Walter White then has transmogrified into the epitome of the one percenter who scoffs at the little people and believes wealth defines worth. It is primarily this dynamic that fuels his unquenchable yen for ever more wealth, at great cost to his family and other relationships.  I would argue a similar dynamic is at work in wrecking the relationships of the wealthiest, as they grab for ever more - not to mention wrecking the country itself.

For make no mistake it is the wealthiest,  so many 'Walter White' clones - like the Koch brothers - who have brainwashed a third of the country into believing using a shutdown to get their way is the right thing to do.   As blogger Thomas Hartmann has put it:

"...despite the complete takeover of our political landscape by corporations and billionaires like the Koch brothers, the mainstream media has remained dead silent about the devastating effects of the disastrous Citizens United decision.

As a result, the majority of Americans have no clue what Citizens United is, let alone the damage it's done to our democracy and way of life."

At least, at the end, Walter White did the right thing and took out all the scum attempting to enslave Jesse Pinkman to make their meth. He also disposed of all his money, in his family's (son Flynn's) best interests.

Don't look for anything analogous (politically) to happen to the scum attempting to enslave Americans and hold them hostage to an Oligarchy wherein health care is denied and massive debt arising therefrom is the norm.

SO What Happens With This Government Shutdown?

With a looming government shutdown, thanks to the intransigent Tea Baggers who want the results of the last election repealed, people are now wondering what will transpire.

Based on Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and other inputs, here's what you - Joe or Jane Smith - can expect:

- All 401 National Parks will be closed, including Washington Monument, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon and others. Campers will be given two days to pack up and leave.

- Passport and visa applications will all be delayed

- Mortgage applications, i.e. for federal home loans will not be processed.

-Gun permits will not be processed.

-VA Benefits will be delayed

-The FDA will stop making routine food safety inspections.

- Service members will see delays in payments but they will still be expected to report for duty.

- Service member families of those deceased will see a delay in payment of death benefits.

- About 800,000 government workers will be furloughed which means loss of pay for those additional days (on top of those demanded by the sequester) for not showing up.


The services - benefits that will not be affected include:

-Border patrol

- Air traffic control

- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

How long will this last? No one can say. According to Nancy Cordes reporting from Capitol Hill this morning, Repukes are adamant that will only fund the government if they can weaken the health care law, the Affordable Care Act.

Let there be no mistake here, that if these terrorists succeed, it will set a god-awful precedent for the future wherein any disaffected minority (like the Tea Baggers) can use hostage taking to make inordinate demands to repeal or defund any law they don't like if it doesn't comport with their agenda.  This is why, as Bill Clinton stated emphatically yesterday morning on George Stephanopoulos' ABC program, that Obama and the Dems must not give in.

My projection? A shutdown of at least one week. One thing the repukes don't want is for this to merge into the really big battle, over raising the debt ceiling.

Hold on to your seats.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/51868/a-formula-to-fight-the-shutdown

The Monied Vermin Seeking Government Chaos Via Extortion and Shutdown

As I showed in an earlier blog, i.e. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/yes-there-must-be-higher-taxes.html

the liars, thieves and Rightist extremists are on the wrong side of why the deficit has reached $16.7 trillion. In fact, it has been THEIR unpaid for wars and tax cuts that have largely driven us into this position. Also, they extorted the nation back in 2011 and they plan to do it again. This according to a new front page story in The New York Times, exposing who these groups are and how they extort by way of election-based fear of all those House Reepos that don't cooperate.

Consider the case of Aaron Schock, a conservative Republican from Illinois. Schock became a "traitor" when he (sanely) voted to increase the debt ceiling in 2011 (as had been done perfunctorily 7 times in the Bush Jr. years), and, in 2012, compounded his "crimes" by voting for a stopgap spending bill that prevented a government shutdown. Worse, he refused to vote to defund the Affordable Care Act. ("Obamacare"). 

Nor is Schock the only person now in the cross hairs. The Time notes that besides him, "10 other lawmakers considered suspiciously squishy by the Club for Growth were designated as RINO’s (Republicans in name only), and the club has vowed to find primary opponents and support them with cash — a formidable threat considering that it spent $18 million backing conservative candidates in the 2012 cycle." 

Thus, we identify the Club for Growth, as really "the Club for Chaos" who obviously can't wait to wreak havoc not only on health care, but also would have no qualms about suffering vets denied their VA disability checks, or oldsters who can barely scrape two coins together for bread and meds being denied their Social Security. For these assholes, the only thing that matters is making the rich richer and if they have to squash government to do that, so be it.

So who comprises the rest of the monied,  vermin network?

Well, readers won't be surprised, if they have followed my ten or so blogs on the Tea Party, that Americans for Prosperity, a Koch brothers group- is also involved up to its ears stirring the shit storm toward shutdown.  Like the Club for Growth's rich renegades,  the billionaire Kochs are hoping Americans will be stupid enough to screech against a sane debt ceiling increase, in order to make the nation safer for the wealthiest. Never mind, according to the Denver Post yesterday (p. 19A) the nation's billionaires are even wealthier than they were two years ago, with Bill Gates alone worth $72 billion and all of them in concert equal to the net worth of 100 million ordinary Americans. I mean, is this insane or what? How much more are we going to give these people?

How many MORE of these $65,000 all copper bath tubs :
do these fuckers need? Ten? Twenty? Can Bill Gates or the Kochs sit in all of them at once? How many 150,000 sq. foot homes do they need? Ten? Fifty? Why isn't there a rational limit to the money - property, that they can own in order for those with less to have a roof over their heads and some food? What kind of nation are we to allow such inequity?  But I digress. Sorry, after being privy to REAL poverty - seen in places as remote as the villages near the Pitons in St. Lucia - where women are infested with schistosomiasis parasites merely from washing clothes in the river - I have little patience or tolerance for people with excess wealth. I do not suffer them kindly, or the fools that seek to defend them. There it is. What can I say?


Anyway, the Koch brothers group has already spent millions on ads fighting health reform,and (as the Times reports) is beginning a new campaign to delay the law’s effects. Why can't ordinary people - families struggling with stagnant wages- have what these rich turds have: decent health care? And by that I mean access to care without going bankrupt.

But this is what we've come to expect from the economic barbarians. But who are the rest of these extremist vermin? Vermin who, while puffing "patriotism" out of one side of their mouths, have no problem destroying the basis of positive government with the other - by defunding it - unless they get their nefarious ways. And in so doing they spit on the will of the people and the general welfare held up in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Add to the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity, the National Liberty Federation, (amazing how many of these right extremists appropriate the term 'liberty') another “social welfare” group that- as the Times notes-  "sees dollar signs in shutting down the government." In other words, they see dollar signs in depriving impecunious seniors of their Social Security, and paralyzed vets of their disability benefits. Some Americans these! They sound more like Nazis, and no, that's not overblown. Not from where I sit.

How determined are these traitorous vermin to take down the government if they don't get their execrable way? According to The Times,  very determined - citing a Republican operative (Brian Walsh) who recently noted in U.S. News and World Report that the Right is now spending more money attacking Republicans than the Democrats are. He said: “Money begets TV ads, which begets even more money for these groups’ personal coffers. Pointing fingers and attacking Republicans is apparently a very profitable fund-raising business.”

The idea is clearly one of blackmail and extortion. Vote the way we demand, to defund or shut down the government (sending vulnerable citizens down the crapper) or we will take you down from the Right. We will get an even more extremist (but cooperative) pawn to help us achieve our goals. And the Devil take the hindmost or most of the nation!

Citizens need to be aware of the forces at work at this new debt ceiling crisis unfolds, and a government shut down becomes more imminent. Know who the enemy is, and in the next cycle of elections, i.e. next year, refuse to vote for any of the extremists' pawns!

Getting A Perspective on the IRS Hysteria

In a perverse way, one has to admire the always seemingly victimized Repukes for their innate ability to set off phoney outrage, brouhahas, assorted political diversions and specious scandals (e.g. Benghazi) which they insist have national security dimensions.  The latest one is the IRS issue which - to hear the Reeps tell it - has seen one of the most powerful agencies in the country singling them out for far more detailed screening of their 501(c)(4) applications - for reduced taxes to "social welfare" groups, than their political counterparts.

What a freakin' bunch of hooey! And the worst part of it is how most of the press, with few exceptions, has jumped on the Reepo outrage bandwagon without more carefully examining the facts. (One exception is Michael Grunwald's excellent essay in TIME - June 10, p. 35- 'One Nation, Tax Exempt' - asking why any charity or social welfare group would need a tax exempt status, unless it had to shelter profits. Good question!)

First, let's set the stage: under the criteria set for 501(c)(4) groups:  the degree to which they can claim tax exempt status hinges on the extent to which they are not embroiled in political opportunism, partisan political attacks and self-styled political hackery. Does anyone seriously believe the Tea Party groups qualify? Groups that have viciously attacked Obama and his administration from the get-go,  to the extent of toting loaded weapons to public meetings on his Affordable Care Act, and painting him as a Hitlerite or Nazi pond scum.

As Exhibit A,  note the photo-shopped depiction of Obama extracted from one Tea Bagger's website in the run up to last year's election. Now, can anyone with all brain cells active and with an IQ over room temperature seriously tell me that this is not only politically biased material but politically OFFENSIVE? Do you seriously believe any nimrod who would belong to a group that publishes such crap ought to receive a tax relief benefit under the IRS code? Gimme an effin' break already!

In other words, it requires no jumps in latent popular IQ to grasp why the IRS would invoke a more lengthy and detailed application form for these types of groups and people. And bear in mind again, they are obliged to scrutinize more such types specifically because of the tax code's own requirements!  But to hear the little Tea Party types whine - you'd think they had been unfairly molested. Jeezus Peace! You'd think they were all brought up on tax evasion charges or something when it was merely they're having to use a more detailed 501(c)(4) form to explain themselves!

Might the IRS have taken a document short cut and paid more attention to Tea Party brands? YEEEEESSS! So what? When one understands the extent of how IRS funding has been cut by the GOP in the last few election cycles one would grasp the need to look for high profile giveaways, like TEA PARTY - behind the name. Especially of groups that put up crap like that phoney Obama as Hitler TIME image! (And please don't interject any bollocks about the IRS' 'Star Trek' training video which cost maybe $200k and is fully understandable in an agency where probably too much of the work is tedious, boring and where a novel approach can get more results, say with new employees. If you're really about waste, go after CEOs who use inflated share money to make million dollar vids and have $15m  escapades....errrrr...'conferences'  in Vegas, complete with strippers.)

Besides which, even if the IRS spent several million on conferences, training etc. it pales besides the BILLIONS that secretive Tea Party support groups  (like Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers) want protected from Uncle Sam's taxes!  But see, when 'pukes set off this kind of hysteria, it's always the rational perspective that becomes the first casualty.

Second, regarding the hidden Tea Party support groups like Americans for Prosperity, columnist Jim Hightower has noted ('Wolves in Do-Gooder Clothing', Col. Springs Independent, p. 10):

"This privileged status (of being designated a 501(c)(4) social welfare group) would allow them to take unlimited bags of corporate cash without ever revealing to voters the names of the corporations putting up the money. The caveat is that the 501(c)(4) groups are supposed to do social welfare work and cannot be attached to any particular party - nor can politics be their primary purpose."

Did the U.S. mainstream press cover any of this? Did you hear about this side of the issue? I doubt it, not like we heard it discussed over German News networks! You likely heard no more about it than you heard of the global anti-GMO, anti- Monsanto protests.

Hightower's next point is even more salient in connection with why the IRS was duty bound to scrutinize these little peckerheads even more:

"Forget what the 501(c)(4) rule says. Karl Rove and the Koch brothers have cynically set up their own pretend social welfare groups to run secret money-election political campaigns. Suddenly, hundreds of wannabes were demanding special 501(c)(4) designation, brazenly lying about their overt political purpose, even asserting they were engaged in no political activity."

Seriously? Like the group that put up that Obama -Time Hitler image?

Next time you hear about this IRS "over stepping", please remember to roll your eyes and ask the pertinent question: WHO was it that was really targeted and WHY? And to what extent would their being granted social welfare status have harmed the rest of us?

On that note, this letter in today's Denver Post from a reader is well worth a look, in fact more than one look:

"I’ve had about enough of the GOP wailing and gnashing of teeth over this IRS thing. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the reason mid-level managers at the IRS would look for buzzwords indicating the far right is that they were tasked with identifying organizations applying for tax exempt status for which they were not eligible.

Who do you think constituted the bulk of such applications? Obviously, the Tea Party, in all its iterations. Have you heard of any new left-wing organizations lately? I don’t think we, the people, should have to subsidize political speech by anyone, and that’s exactly what this is. There are no Tea Party “social welfare” organizations, and we all know it. It’s time for the GOP to back off and let the IRS do its job, a job it was obviously doing very well, indeed." - Pete Lister,



Bingo, Mr. Lister! You were smart and savvy enough to nail it! Maybe others will in time.
----------

Footnote: A recent sub-kerfuffle has erupted over a putative change in language in the 501(c)(4) code from "exclusively" (i.e. social welfare groups having to exclusively operate in that purview) to "primarily". The latter has been noted by the new IRS commissioner to be applicable to the "implementation" of the reg, whereas the former word is in the original law. While this inconsistency definitely needs to be removed, it doesn't change the fact that Tea Party groups, organizations still wouldn't qualify since we know - as the letter writer points out- none of them meet even the lowly "primary" social welfare standard. In other words, the IRS - despite the change in lingo- was still justified in applying a higher level of scrutiny for the TeePees applying for tax exemption under 501(c)(4).

Romney’s Plutocrats: Waiting for 51 Million-plus Idiots to Give Them Policy Control

ABOVE: How the Plutocrats will partially celebrate - after food stamps are eradicated-  if 51 million “99 percenters” help elect Mitt Romney next Tuesday.

The plutocrats who’ve backed Mitt Romney have to be chuckling to themselves non-stop. With just a week to go before the election, many polls have tightened to the point that 51 million pea brains now see ‘Morphing Mitt’ as the answer to their souped-up prayers, personal problems and the nation’s financial-economic morass (created by the last Reep Prez pandering to the plutocs). Brains befogged by the Mittster’s “moderation” in the debates, many of these fools now are convinced they can “get back their nation” and maybe get employment, if only they cast ballots for Willard Mitt and Ryan. They are totally batshit crazy.

Not to mention mentally challenged, if they've already forgotten Mitt's infamous "47% victims" remark at a Boca Raton fund raiser-dinner at the home of one of Mitt's Sun Capital benefactors.

What these fools will get, compliments of Romney’s plutocrats, is not decreased deficits or more jobs but rather more wars, more military spending – and massive tax cuts for the wealthiest as deficits explode and domestic needs go unmet while the country is sucked inexorably into a massive economic and international shit storm.

Do these plutocrats care? Hell no! They only care that their tax rates never go down and also that the social ballast holding this country’s social fabric together is unraveled. They’ve made no bones about the fact they want all “entitlements” dismantled, and regulations that protect food, water safety as well. In addition, as a Romney spokesman  (Ryan Williams) pointed out yesterday, they want the STATES to assume control of storm and disaster cleanups – hence gutting FEMA. (Of course, lying Mitt denied he'd abolish FEMA - but if anyone sincerely believes he'd retain any more than a 'Potemkin' version of the agency I have a half acre of beach front property on the west coast of Barbados to sell you, for a song!)  See also: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/30/sandy-seduces-mitt-to-flip-on-fema-video/

Now, ask yourself if you’re from New Jersey right now, if you believe Chris Christie prefers to reject the emergency federal funds he received compliments of Obama – or if he’d rather pony up state money or ask private companies to do the clean up. Think about that one, but not too hard. Evidently, tens of millions of potential Romney Zombies are too ignorant or stupid to do that.

WHO are these plutocrats hoping that Romney’s push continues and 51 million or more idiots buy the codswallop they’re only voting for Whitebread Mitt and not the plutocrats’ policies?  Fortunately, Public Citizen has assembled a dossier on them, at least the major ones, which I share below with readers:

- Charles and David Koch

Estimated Net worth: Combined $50 billion with most significant corporate holdings in Koch Industries.

Most notable campaign contributions:

 $100 million to Americans for Prosperity - a Tea Party front group. They also plan to donate $400 million in the current election to ensure - or try to - that Obama is a one-termer.


- Joseph Craft

Estimated Net Worth: $1. 9 billion. Significant corporate holdings in Alliance Resource Partners (fourth largest coal producer in the U.S.). Most notable contributions include $2.1 million to American Crossroads, a Republican front and half a million to 'Restore Our Future', and Mitt Romney.


- Sheldon Adelson

Estimated Net Worth:: $21.5 billion. Signficant corporate holdings in Las Vegas Sands casinos (90% of his earnings come from Asia including properties in Singapore and Macau).  Most notable contributions this campaign cycle include $70 million in "dark money" and $10 milllion to 'Restore Our Future' for Mitt Romney.

Most famous Adelson quote:

"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to influence elections, but as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."



- Harold Simmons

Estimated Net Worth: $6.5 billion. Significant corporate holdings in Contran Corporation. Notable contributions this election cycle include $18.7 million to pro- Republican super PACs, and $6 million to 'American Crossroads.

Earlier 'claim to fame': He funded the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' attacks on John Kerry in 2004. He also spent $2.8 million in 2008 to attempt to link then Sen. Barack Obama to Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground.



- Foster Friess

Estimated Net Worth: $530 million. Significant corporate holdings in Friess Asssociates, LLC. Most notable campaign contributions include $2.3 million to Super PACS to oust Obama.

Most famous remark: "If women need birth control they can do it the old fashioned way: put an aspirin between their knees and squeeze!"

What do all of these assholes have in common? What do they seek to accomplish with their millions in contributions? Simple! Their aim is to lower taxes on corporations (which already have one of the lowest effective rates in the world, at about 9% though it's supposed to be 35%-  on paper), privatize Medicare and Social Security, and roll back all health, safety, environmental and financial regulations. Not to mention abolish FEMA and replace it by state responsibility for managing disasters.

Translation: Don't piss, whine and moan if after you vote Romney and he's elected, your Medicare costs soar, even as your Social Security is privatized - leaving you with a $440/month  'base allowance' in the event of massive investment losses, and your 401k craps out and you need to work to 75 because the financial regs that would have prevented that are all repealed. Oh, and don't bellyache after the next superstorm in the Mitt-wad era when no money for rebuilding is forthcoming, or whine when you come down with salmonella after getting ill from every other jar of peanut butter,  block of cheese, or whatever....not to mention amoebas in your drinking water!

Lastly, let's be clear the plutocrats aren't pouring all this dough into Romney's campaign or the anti-Obama attacks out of charity or love of country. They're doing it because they stand to make BILLIONS on their political investments. In fact, if they get what they want (millions of dolts putting Romney-Ryan into office while blind to their backers) their return on investment will vastly exceed anything they could hope to obtain by simple investing or even hedge fund investing in speculative financial markets.

The biggest joke circulating now among the brighter people? That so many Americans actually are convinced their personal stock and welfare will improve after putting the plutocrats into power....via a lame ass vote for Romney and Ryan!

Romney Loses it, Picks Obersturmführer Ryan as VP

Even as Romney’s Zombies burn their hair and send up ‘code red’ reactions in the wake of the Priority USA PAC's Soptic ad (which as Rachel Maddow noted last night has never been televised – but only shown on the net - until Goopers started getting their panties in a snit and drew attention to it) their standard bearer has shown this morning he’s either certifiable or desperate beyond sensibility. The reason? Selecting Obersturmführer Paul Ryan as his running mate. I mean what is this guy thinking? Even arch –conservative Richard Viguerie last night said a Ryan choice would be a flat out mistake, and merely offer a tempting target to the Left. Well, DOH!


I watched only a few minutes of Ryan’s acceptance spiel this morning because, frankly, I was in the middle of eating breakfast and I couldn’t tolerate more than 5 minutes. As he stood in front of the battleship ‘Wisconsin’ I did hear lots of calls and appeals to ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ – always good sound bites to get the sheeple to applaud, and they did. But the man knows nothing of real freedom, or liberty. (Note: When I use the term ‘liberty’ I mean it in the broader context of the unenumerated rights that inhere in the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.)

Ryan spoke of “liberty” but eschews government as any driving force, unless for military expansion – hence why he plans to increase the Pentagon budget by 40%. He also speaks with forked tongue: indicating the need for spending control, but quite happy to make exceptions for the military and the wealthy plutocrats who will thrive on his tax cuts, embodied in his “Ryan budget”.

Any imbecile knows that plutocrats who seek to control this nation love the overuse of the terms “individual liberty” or “personal freedom” because the thoughtless and less intelligent to whom the phrase is addressed don’t process the underlying meme. But the oligarchs do! Their primary doctrine is that there’s nothing we as citizens hold in common, or for which we ought to pull together – say in the interests of one another. There is NO commonweal in other words. To the plutocrats and their lackeys, like Paul Ryan, the commonweal is a myth, or a sign of softheadedness and weakness ….an inability to stand on one’s own feet and be “independent”. Citizenship becomes merely a series of transactions between independently acting individuals – each with his own self-interest.


Of course, the testimony of our own history belies this skewed notion of freedom, which at its base is the form promoted in ads by the billionaire Koch brothers and their “Americans for Prosperity” – because they hope most Americans will be stupid enough to buy it. But go all the way back to the Mayflower Compact and you will find the declaration that “these just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices …shall be thought most meet and convenient for the GENERAL GOOD.”

Go next to the Preamble of the Constitution and find the words “to promote the GENERAL WELFARE” as a prime function of government. Look closely, because it’s not “military welfare” or “corporate welfare”, or “oligarchic welfare”, but GENERAL.

Needless to say the purpose of the individual liberty screeds, whether in ads by the Kochs or spiels by Paul Ryan, is to blinker the mind of the listener to believe the commonweal and its mode of delivery – the government - is something separate and apart from us. The myth is then erected that we are ourselves a “sovereign people” and government is a creature apart and inimical to our interests. Thereby a state of mind is encouraged which is destructive of the commonweal itself. And to the extent citizens buy into it, they are accomplices to its destruction.


The sad and inescapable fact is that with Paul Ryan now Romney’s Veep, Romney will be committed to go full tilt toward implementing Ryan’s budget, which will leave this country in a shambles.

Ryan talks about “liberty” but what kind of liberty will our citizens have after military spending (which is already greater than all other nations put together) is increased by 40% and double its current share of GDP? Do people seriously believe they have any chance of securing their Social security, social security disability, VA pensions, Medicare, Tri-care or other benefits? If they do they are dreaming or delusional! Even the most logically deficient person can process that if Romney and Ryan plan to amp up military spending by $1.5 trilllion over four years – and bankroll $7 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest, something has to give! That “something” is social insurance benefits, the very foundation of freedom.


Because with those benefits gutted, the middle class will be hurled into an economically needy, necessitous future, of a type most glaringly articulated by Donna Smith on her blog at Smirkingchimp. And as FDR once said: “Necessitous men cannot be free men”.

For a person like me with cancer that requires treatment, Ryan’s budget- if implemented -will mean serious Medicare cuts and costs that I may not be able to pay. Oh he and Romney insist their scheme doesn’t apply to anyone 55 or older but don’t believe this bull pockey for a second. The true fact is the Medicare impacts will have to strike those of us past 55 in order to deliver the spending cuts Ryan needs, that (partially) balance his mammoth $8.5 trillion 4-year spending increases.

This will mean definitely increasing the Medicare age to 67, from 65, and also cutting Medicare via “the back door” by using the Chained CPI to redefine the Social Security COLA. In this way, the 3% yearly losses of benefits in S.S. will translate into 3% yearly higher cost to Medicare, since the monthly Medicare premiums are taken out of Social Security. Add to that a likely increase in Medicare premiums, of perhaps 10%, and you have the makings of a lot of suffering. If the Ryan-Romney Axis also implement cuts (or much higher offset prices, e.g.  in special treatments, such as my radiation therapy) or abolition of free preventive services - now allowed under ‘Obamacare’-   then we are all for the high jump.


But I am confident the Dems are aware of all of these facets and will use them like a sharp Bowie knife to take down these two stand-ins for the plutocrats. In that sense, Romney – in his desperation – has handed us the very present we need to ensure Obama gets 4 more years, and likely in a landslide rivaling the one Reagan had over Mondale in 1984.

Those who want to learn more about Ryan's perverse budget, can go to:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3731

Parsing and processing the information in the preceding link will show, as Economics Professor Fiona Scott Morton aptly put it (TIME: ‘The Market Can’t Cure Medicare’, May 2, 2011) that Ryan’s plan, and indeed any such premium support plan, is merely a demand shedding plan. As Morton puts it, in terms of Ryan's proposed Medicare vouchers:

“there’s no evidence many companies will be rushing in to provide health coverage to ailing boomers with competition that ought to lower any premiums"


She adds:

"The Republican plan is not solving the problem. It’s solving the problem of the cost of government health care. You have people who can’t afford it and they’ll just die. Economists call that demand shedding”.

Thus the “Medicare revolution” proffered by Ryan (and Romney) is NOT to engender market competition to "lower health premiums for seniors", but to shed market demand (by seniors) so they'll be unable to enter or access any private health care, period. And since no government help or insurance will be available (other than a meager voucher of maybe $10k a year at most),  to try and purchase private insurance in an open market,  the senior will have no choice but to die. I mean, Hitler couldn't have conceived of a better long term plan to eliminate the aged.

As for Medicaid, the 54 million poor and moderate income citizens now on that will also find themselves hostage to Ryan's fascist economics as he and Romney cut the federal component (which is now 'halfsied' with states) and offer only minimal state grants. Then, to even have a chance of getting access to Medicaid, you will likely have to be below $1,000 a year in income, if that.

Apart from that, we know health care purchasing isn’t like buying a car, or i-pad or TV. The elements of objective and cool rational choice aren’t available mainly because the time when people most need health care is when their lives may be on the line: after a serious auto accident or fall, or appendicitis, or contracting pneumonia....or prostate cancer! Then, they simply need care and cost may not factor into it given that we know costs vary across large geographical regions, see e.g.


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-cant-colorado-follow-grand-junction.html

As shown in that blog, there is a way to control medical costs, but it doesn't depend on "premium support". It requires a provider network that mandates FIXED pricing for each procedure irrespective of what insurance vehicle one has....or doesn't. In this way, the delivery of care is rendered uniform without wild geographical variations in costs, and in addition, costs can be controlled - especially in terms of unnecessary procedures.

Now....if you think all this is bad, and bear in mind food stamps will also be likely cut to barely $280 a month on average, then consider the future if Romney croaks for whatever reason, and Ryan becomes PRESIDENT. Think also of him having GOP control of both houses of congress to play around with.
Or maybe I am just being overly pessimistic.  ....NOT!!

Atheists "Need Religion" for Community? Horse Manure!

In a nation already pretty well mind-gutted on account of the virus of "public relations" it stands to reason that deformed memes will huckster in on the back of PR, and soon evolve to become new implants. People tethered to their i-pods, i-pads or cell phones will then barely notice once the degenerate memes occupy mind space and what's left of civic space. We call this a memetic foothold, or mind virus foothold. We have seen it with ever increasing frequency over the past few years - from the efforts to insist or claim "happiness" is part of GDP, to Charles Murray's (in 'Coming Apart')notion that the white lower class or working class needs more religion to be redeemed of its moral defects including: too many children out of wedlock, refusal to marry, and males' refusal to work or work hard.

SO no surprise a new meme has cropped up: that atheists and secularists could see their lives prosper by incorporating some religious attributes, or even ally with a religion to prosper in life, and enhance one's morality. Puh-leeze! The grossest error of humankind was to ever believe or become convinced that any religion offered any self-consistent prescription for ethics or morality!

And where is all this offal to be found? Why in the book entitled: 'Religion for Atheists- A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion', by Alain de Botton. Now, I must confess I lacked enough barf bags to be able to read this dreck, but did read the extended review of it in the WSJ ('Religion for Everyone', Feb 18-19, p. C1) which believe me was bad enough.

In fact as I've repeatedly said, there is one and only one use for religion: to incorporate into a Museum of Human Anachronisms, as testaments to the period when human brains, wills, critical thinking and autonomy were essentially under the domination of beliefs in fictional beings, fantasy places and corrupt authoritarians. The latter using the vehicles of sanctimony, faith and other hogwash to gain control of their respective flocks' mind, gonads, money .....or all three.

Leaving all the pfolderol out, the central argument (of both Botton and the WSJ reviewer) appears to be that secularists have no real options to counter the evident "eroded sense of community" that permeates our society and world. We are then, as driftwood cast off into stormy seas, each tossing about with little connection or control of our lives. As the WSJ reviewer puts it (I presume with tongue in cheek, or maybe not):

"Religion serves two central needs that secular society has not been able to meet with any particular skill: first, the need to live together in harmonious communities despite our deeply rooted and selfish impulses, second, the need to cope with the pain that arises from professional failure, troubled relationships, the deaths of loved ones and our own decay and demise".

My problem here is that both Botton and the reviewer offer a specious solution to a real problem: that of communities rent asunder and the tragic loss of civic space.

But in at least a dozen past blogs - see e.g. 'The Shredding of the Social Contract'

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/shredding-of-social-contract-1.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/shredding-of-social-contract-2.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/shreddig-of-social-contract-3-why.html

I noted exactly where the answers inhere. I also noted that they have nada to do with religion replacing secularism but with beating back a vicious, predatory economic system based on the parable of wolves getting to eat "sheep". (The Pareto distribution and optimality of Vilfredo Pareto).

It is THIS bestial system that has destroyed common cause, cooperation, common investment in fairness and economic justice and replaced it with a predatory jungle landscape where the social Darwinian's "Survivel of the fittest" precedes all other considerations. So, how could we not have an atomized society?

Moreover, since religions themselves are often part and parcel of this vicious economic network (check out the money changers and others doing business at the Vatican Bank, or better yet, look into its past) why expect they would offer any ways to change the situation. Hell, THEY are part of the problem!

And ask yourself WHY has civic space been steadily eroded? WHY? Why is it that the Occupy Wall Street movement has been driven from every city space its attempted to occupy? Well, because what they occupied was no longer civic space but corporate space! Civic space occupies - or had occupied- the mid ground between government and the rapacious private sector. In terms of set theoretics, imagine circles for ‘government’ and ‘private sector’ respectively – with large intersection of commonality between them. Civic space or the ‘set of civic society’ lies apart from the influence of these two.

It was where people in the past met and discussed common issues, or conducted protests or simply speechified.

No longer.

The tragedy of the 20th (and now 21st ) century is the tragedy of the civic commons. The gradual erosion of civil society and civic space (including as actual property) is largely eclipsed by corporate and market interests. Either in pursuit of state (or corporate) power, profits or both. Thus, political influence is purchased via the power of the purse (for example in lobbying) and laws enacted to favor these special interests. Laws which include usurpation of once common ground, common institutions for sharing ideas, or conducting political campaigns minus the corruption of money.

Now the confluence of government –market/corporate interests has forced those wishing to live within non-coercive spheres of influence to make a Hobson’s choice: Either to side with state power and ‘commandeering of individual rights’ or private power, and its extirpation of what remains of government and its advocacy for the non-elite segment of the populace (i.e. those unable to purchase political influence).

One can choose to be passively serviced (and servile) by a massive bureaucratic state wherein the word citizen has little or no resonance (until it’s election time) or submit to the selfishness and barbaric, radical individualism of the private sector – which extols the Social Darwinist refrain of ‘survival of the fittest’.

HOW has this come about or when did it commence? Look no further than the 1886 Santa Clara Supreme Court Decision which made all corporations "persons" under the 14 th amendment. Look to the 2009 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that solidified it, and effectively made corporations super-citizens by the power of their money-purses. For what single ordinary, flesh and blood citizen can compete with monsters that own whole networks and airwaves.

Getting up to screech on a park bench? Right!

The sense of community has been decimated all right, but there is no religion in the world that can repair that fracture or fill the social vacuum. By which I mean, real community - not the egregious temporary confection that surfaces once a week on Sundays when Catholics shake each others' hands or whatever it is they do now. And then every other day of the week do whatever they can to stab their neighbors in the back to get ahead in the rapacious "wolf eats sheep" economic system that plagues us all and forces us (via a stacked deck) to be the "sheep".

As for secular communities - they have more than ample options and that will occupy the content of a future blog!

Why Americans Hate the Media - Duh!

Jonathan M. Ladd's new book, 'Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters' seeks to examine how the citizens of this nation have become so alienated from their mainstream information sources over the past 40 years, leading to an ultimate balkanization of interests and reinforcement of partisan lines and polarization. In a recent salon.com interview Ladd sought to partially explain this:


"Most small cities in the United States, by the mid-20thcentury, only had one dominant paper. But the (overall) readership stayed about the same, or grew — so more people were reading fewer sources. There was just less competition, so they could produce the style of news they thought was the best. You had the perfect storm for the press to become really trusted."

But this tells only half the story, if that. Because it wasn't simply a matter of small scale but also the fact that journalists were paid to actually go out and DO journalism! There were actual news offices, such as at The Washington Post, that dispatched its reporters (such as Woodward and Bernstein) to follow real stories and pursue the unvarnished truth as opposed to PR. All that went through the eddoes once the massive corporate buyouts and mergers of the 1980s began. Thus, a hot pursuing team of reporters that could break something like Watergate, became a rarity. The money wasn't there, and futhermore the big honchos at the top - who sold ad space, didn't want it. They didn't want to offend any of their ad purchasers!

We now know that one of the most pervasive means for the Corporatocracy to gain power easily is by controlling the vast media machine of the country: from networks, to news organizations, to magazines and hundreds of daily newspapers.

In terms of this machine (or “the Mighty Wurlitzer”), it is useful to know that eleven media corporations have no less than 36 direct links to each other "creating a solid network of overlapping interests and affiliations". Further, these 11 media conglomerates "have directorships interlocking with 144 of the Fortune 1000 companies", according to Carl Jensen of Project Censored.

This has led media critic Robert McChesney to aver :

"Given this networking system it is safe to say that the media in the United States effectively represents the interests of corporate America and that the media elite are the watchdogs of what constitutes acceptable ideological messages, the parameters of news and information content, the general use of media resources. "

Further, and in line with the mission described above, key information can be suppressed and other information/news altered. This may then be used to enforce designated perceptions - and there is the enormous potential to instill false consciousness on a vast scale. To bend and mold millions of malleable minds into deformed ways of thinking – by using disinformation, a tried and true ‘psy-ops’ tactic.

Leaving the victims to actually believe they’re independent thinkers or their 'own voice' is projected rather than echoing clarion calls of the op -ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, or some FOX network pundit who resonates the same chord with (x + 100) other pundits.

Unless one is aware of the nature of such control - that it exists and how it works, he or she is in danger of being brainwashed. This is independent of how much education the person has, or how 'canny' or media-savvy they believe themselves to be. No one, unless they are enormously well read, preferably with experience to match, can totally escape the maw of the Corporatocracy's brain and 'green' washing machines.

As Carl Jensen, Editor of the Project Censored Yearbook notes:

"The next step in the information control process in America is to use this control to effectively exploit our minds. This, also, it seems, has been accomplished. The mind manipulators are well aware of the first principle of successful mind control - repetition"

Thus, the point not made by Ladd - never uttered - is that the increased competition from multiplied corporate media sources did not bring more information or knowledge, but rather much more PR, propaganda and disinformation. Citizens actually were in the ironic condition of having hundreds more news sources, but 95% of them inundated with noise, piffle - of little or no use, or PR. In the last case the "news" produced was deliberately intended to mold the public mind a la the dictates of Edward Bernays. Recall his famous words:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.”

In league with this mindset, Bernays believed firmly in the value of hierarchy in society. He posited – like earlier aristocrats, the existence of an ‘intelligent few’ with whom he would deign to share his methods. But the vast bulk were ‘masses’ who were owed no special consideration. These fully deserved to be engineered by the processes of information, toward an array of desired ends. The corporate media was to play a major role in this from the 1970s on.

One of the unnerving ways mind-shaping is done is using framing of the language. In its expose article, 'Unfit to Print', The Nation, (July 28/ Aug. 4, 1997), documented how the U.S. press is heavily weighted in the slant of its opinions toward the Corporatocracy. Citing a 1997 text by Norman Solomon and Jeff Cohen ('Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the Curtain of Mainstream News') the Nation authors pointed out that Solomon and Cohen turned up "the misleading phrase 'welfare reform' in 22,013 print news pieces about aid programs for the poor... while 'corporate welfare' showed up only 2,351 times, and 'corporate welfare reform' only 17 times."

Thus the mind shaping was done to alienate citizens from those ordinary people receiving government welfare, and to omit mention of the much larger corporate welfare.

On yet another level, as Charles Reich notes (Opposing the System, 1995,, p. 143):

"Mass media such as television diminish the freedom of individuals to communicate - not by direct censorship (the individual can still stand on a street corner and attempt to talk to passersby) but by swamping, by drowning out, by denial of access to an audience. Few people realize that all television and radio channels belong to the public, not to networks, not to corporate station owners and sponsors"

So if they belong to the public, why isn't the public voice expressed more often? The reason is simple, the corporate owned and operated media have their own agendas, which are independent of anything that their readers might desire. Hence, though 60% of the public at one point in 1998 professed to want the media to 'get over it already' with the Clinton-Lewinsky nonsense, the corporo-media's CEOs and owners keep the pot boiling for political reasons.

Given all this, it is somewhat humorous to hear and see mainstream news and media defenders pontificating on the need for "professionals" and "gatekeepers" as they launch sundry jeremiads against blogger nation, while they themselves sold out and betrayed the American citizen a long time ago.

Readers interested in many more examples of the corporo-media's nefarious acts, censorship and efforts at mind-shaping can refer to these past blogs:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-propaganda-industry-part-iii.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-propaganda-industry-media-part-iiib.html

Herman Cain: "Uncle Tom" for Billionaires!

As I referenced before, the use of the term "Uncle Tom" in its appropriate context is a worthwhile pejorative, and certainly not "racist". If we go back to the Old Confederacy, it first emerged as a contemptuous term used by the hard-working field slaves (especially in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) for special "house slaves" who had relatively the best that the Massah could offer. They usually had to service meals, for example, but would be left with the best vittles after the family had eaten. They also got to eat their fill, didn't have to work on Saturdays or Sundays - and sometimes even got to read.

The main reason for all these perks is that the house slave Uncle Toms also acted as the Massah's eyes and ears. If any of the field slaves even ruminated trouble, the official Uncle Tom would report it, and well....it'd be fifty lashes for the poor field slave.

Today, the connotation and meaning carries over for any black man who willingly does the bidding of today's Overseers, mainly the White Massahs and Billionaries from Wall Street. This is understood, because if that bidding translates into pain and poverty for his brothers, it means he values his advancement more than their security or welfare! This is basic and straightforward to grasp.

Now, we learn today (Denver Post, p. 4A, and AP report) that Herman Cain has "close ties to the Billionaries, Charles and David Koch". These are the same two who set up "Americans for Prosperity" which is the primary anti-tax group devoted to making the US of A safe for all billionaires in terms of income tax burdens. In other words, these fat cats have Herman carrying their water for them, and specifically via his insane 9-9-9 tax plan, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-how-to-destroy.html

According to the Post article:

"Cain's economic ideas, support and organization have close ties to two billionaire brothers who bankroll right-leaning causes through their group Americans for Prosperity"

Let's also bear in mind that same group, AFP, lies at the heart of the Tea Party movement, along with another bunch known as "Freedom Works".

In addition, the Post reports that "Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, the organization founded by billionaires Charles and David Koch. The AFP group uniformly lobbies for less government regulation and much lower taxation" (mainly for them, but higher for everyone else - as I revealed in the preceding link).

Cain, according to the Post report, credits a businessman - Mark Block- who served on an AFP advisory board, as giving him the idea for the 9-9-9 tax idiocy.

Although Cain cynically portrays himself as a kind of business "everyman" (who once owned 'Godfather's Pizza') his actions belie that. His acerbic putdown of the Occupy Wall Street protestors, saying in an interview "No one should blame Wall Street!" and "Let those protestors get jobs!" shows unequivocally the man is a pawn of Wall Street, and also an Uncle Tom for their asssorted Puppet masters, like the Kochs.

In addition, as noted in the Post (ibid.):

"Americans for Prosperity tapped Cain as the public face for its 'Prosperity Expansion Project', and he traveled the U.S. in 2005, and 2006 speaking to activists who were starting state-based AFP chapters."

Obviously, AFP's support for his presidential candidacy has been his reward or, in terms of the Old Confederacy - maybe some extra grits, corn bread and chitlins with pork,- for the nominated and favored house slave's earlier work on AFP's behalf.

Obviously also, AFP's head white massahs believe a lot of Americans (including many working class stiffs who are the most exploited by Wall St.) will be stupid enough to buy Cain's shuck and jive because a black man is promotinig garbage like 9-9-9 it must be okay, and poor black men will do fine as well. Think again! Cain's plan will actually eviscerate and evacuate what's left of this nation's prosperity or any hope that upward mobility can return again.

More plausibly, it will ensure a vast serf state for the Corporatocracy, which will doubtless find a high position for their useful idiot and water carrier even if he doesn't get the Repuke presidential nomination! Let's hope it isn't Ambassador to Barbados!