The Day Capitalism ate Democracy (and burped)

So, unless you happen to be living in a cave you probably read about this debacle.

The SC only had to decide on whether Citizens United, a right-wing non-profit's political hit movie on Hillary ran afoul of McCain-Feingold. Instead, the conservatives on the SC decided very shamefully that the broader question of whether Corporations looked uncannily like human beings and thus merited First Amendment protection, had to be decided now. And whoa, in fact decided that Corporations could do whatever the fuck they wanted to swing elections. Cause they are no different from you and me.

Why now, you ask, when the Health Care bill is on life-support and the 2010 mid-term elections round the corner? If you're like me, you may wonder if perhaps the Corporatists organized this effort. Maybe the usual culprits got together, big banks and big Pharma, and decided, hey, we better get control over members of Congress before their sorry asses make any more trouble for us.

Rants aside, one of Anthony Kennedy's (he is after all supposedly the swing vote) arguments is that if the First Amendment can be applied to you and me, it could also be applied to associations of citizens:

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

So, a corporation is an association of citizens? Are you shitting me? An association? Kind of like, uhh, people who spontaneously get together and march down a street protesting a war? A group of similar-thinking individuals who have a bone to pick with someone or something? Who have a fire in their butts? What absolute, unvarnished, rubbish!

Does a wretched cashier who gets paid minimum wage working at a Wal-mart store qualify as a citizen in this grand association? Does he get any say in determining who Wal-mart decides to lobby for or against?

Since the SC overturned a law dating all the way to 1907 (whatever happened to the idea of respecting settled law!) on constitutional grounds, I suspect that that's it. Congress cannot make any law overturning this decision unless the Constitution is specifically amended. And good luck with that people!

If I could take a moment and speculate foolishly on how the future will play out in this country, it is this: Capitalism will turn into uber-Capitalism, the difference between the haves and the have-nots already historically high will become ridiculously high. Civil disobedience will return to mainstream America, and who knows maybe even a revolution in my lifetime. Maybe America will prove Marx right about the possibility of unequal distribution of power and of income, and its disposition to depression and unemployment, ultimately leading to the demise of Capitalism.

Obama cries mama!

So, I don't know if you read Krugman's column today. He urges the House Dems to pass the Senate bill. Never mind that the leader (i.e. the president) is missing just when the Massachusetts shit hit the Senate fan.

I agree with Krugman. It is hard to remain loyal to Obama when he makes a wimpy remark like:

I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on.

One thing I would advise Obama is that he had better quickly coalesce around his values; otherwise people will agree he is a package without a spine. How much lower will you lower the bar, Mr. President?

Consumerism

Sorry for taking such a long break (for all my imaginary fans who've been waiting impatiently for a post since 2007), but what can I say...I've had nothing to say. After all, one needs to be a little crazy to continue appeasing imaginary fans, or at least to have a massive alter ego. But now, I've reached that happy place -- either the little crazy part or the ego part, I know not, but the urge to write again has come back.

So, all of us liberals, especially the back-to-earth ones rail about consumerism. That the darn thing is a disease, it must be eradicated, it is responsible for everything from global climate change to the housing bubble. One such article is from Amitai Etzioni in the New Republic.

Well, I think all of us are wrong to focus so much on consumerism. Accusing someone of consumerism is like calling them stupid or greedy, it just doesn't work. When we tell them that consumerism doesn't buy happiness, instead why don't they try having a quiet family dinner, it is enough to make most people's blood boil. They may even think you're right, but damn it, is their God-given right, the American Way of Life, etc to do whatever they bloody well want without a do-gooder telling them otherwise.

So, I have a small suggestion. Replace the emphasis on consumerism with, instead, an emphasis on less waste. Sounds trivial, doesn't it, but think of it. If everyone couldn't throw things away, they would spend far more time ensuring that what they buy they really need.

OK, it is also a value, and as a value it is as hard to inculcate in a society used to throwing things away, but there are a few differences. The phrase "less waste" is not a negative judgment, simply a value. And as a value, it is easier to instill in people. Also, it is easier to incentivize. For instance, the EU law on manufacturers is that they are able to take back their products after they've reached their end of life.

One incentive on less waste is likely to happen -- when products become more expensive. So, a falling dollar is sure to benefit the world even as us Americans struggle to consume. This is naturally so in most developing and under-developed countries -- it is simply too expensive to buy something that one doesn't really need.

Is perjury as bad as lying to your wife?

Apparently, Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he was angling to impeach Bill Clinton for his dalliances with Monica Lewinsky. Of course, this is a familiar Republican pattern: Strom Thurmond's racism even as his pecker apparently is not capable of distinguishing color; and that Florida ex-Congressman Mark Foley who was writing legislation to protect children while writing pornographic instant messages to his own underage pages.

But Newt's justification for his peccadilloes is amazing: he claims that Clinton was guilty of "perjury," so deserved to be prosecuted while he was only lying to his wife. This is what he said when asked if he was having an affair at the same time:

Mr. Gingrich: The honest answer is yes. …. I drew a line in my mind that said, ‘Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept … perjury in your highest officials.

Ahh, I see, Mr. Gingrich. It is excusable to lie, but to get caught lying, now, that's a big no-no.

The insulation of America

Mummified man found in front of TV:

"SOUTHAMPTON, N.Y. — Southampton police responding to burst water pipes in a Hampton Bays home found the mummified body of the owner — dead for more than a year — sitting in a chair in front of a television.

The television was still on."

Another reason I am thinking of moving to India.

Operation Iraqi Freedom in Action

The irony is almost overdone. As reported by the Los Angeles Times on the sentence of a U.S. Marine in the intentional killing of an unarmed and innocent Iraqi man, Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamandiya:

"Pennington told Folsom he regretted his actions but that he and other Marines were frustrated by their ill-defined mission in Iraq and the inability to tell friend from foe.

'As callous as it sounds,' he said, every Iraqi was considered 'guilty until proven otherwise.'"

Baker vs Neocons in pursuit of Iraq's oil

pbs.org

Antonia Juhasz writes in Alternet about the Iraq Study Group's report:

"The report calls for the United States to assist in privatizing Iraq's national oil industry, opening Iraq to private foreign oil and energy companies, providing direct technical assistance for the 'drafting' of a new national oil law for Iraq, and assuring that all of Iraq's oil revenues accrue to the central government."

So, Baker's calling for a realpolitik way of dealing with the crisis, including letting Iran have its pound of nuclear flesh -- which Ahmadinejad will surely extract -- while the neocons fret and fume, wanting to persist in their muscular militaristic (and failing) solutions.

But, mind you, both their goals are the same: the privatization of Iraq's oil assets and allowing for military presence in the middle east. With peak oil round the corner, and the world's 2nd largest oil reserve languishing, there's much money to be made if only...

It sure seems that the power-brokers are losing patience with GW, and sending Baker in to straighten him out seems like the last step before something more dramatic. Wonder if impeachment is imminent. Signs in the media should reveal more.

Democrats' new strategy

democrat.com

Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two of President Bush's staunchest domestic critics leapt to his defense Thursday, a day after one of his fiercest foreign foes called him 'the devil' in a scorching speech before the United Nations.

'You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president,' Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. 'He is an everyday thug,' she said."

The strategy? Don't bash Bush, only we can do that.

C'mon Dems: don't beat around the Bush.

Chavez on Bush

Julie Jacobson
AP

Holding up a copy of Noam Chomsky's book, Hugo Chávez attacks 'devil' Bush in UN speech:

In a 15-minute address to the annual gathering of international leaders in New York, President Chávez said he could still 'smell sulphur' left behind by the 'devil', George Bush, who had addressed the chamber 24 hours before.

The Guardian also reported that:

Delegates and leaders from around the world streamed back into the chamber to hear Mr Chávez, and when he stepped down the vigorous applause lasted so long that it had to be curtailed by the chair.