Campainful finance future

Recently the Supreme Court decided that campain finance would continue to be open to individuals, groups, organizations, and corporations, all of which would compete for significance to their congressional and presidential representatives on a level playing field. Obviously since most the general public can't afford to donate terribly generious sums, corporations and private groups and organizations which can typically raise capital much faster than individuals will have the advantage. For the Supreme Court this is no departure from past. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States gives details of the Court's actions throughout the late 19th century in interpreting the 14th amendment, which of course defined citizenship and was meant to protect recently freed slaves. Zinn points out that almost immediatly the court began to interpret the amendment as a protection for corporations. The decision of MUNN VS. ILLINOIS ruled that corporations had the same rights as individuals. This made it difficult for a state to regulate the charges companies dealt out, since these charges were that company's "property". Zinn also points out that between 1890 and 1910 the Supreme Court heard 307 cases involving the 14th amendment, only nineteen dealt with blacks, the other two hundred eighty eight delt with corporations. So things really haven't changed much. This month's decision is dishearting yet not surprising. So we won't be seeing any changes this election year, from the record setting fundraising totals of 2008. Already the candidates running for congress this fall have raised 459.62 million dollars thus far, according to opensecrets.org; of this the candidates have already spent 219.72 million and it's only January. With a little over nine months until this November the prospects seems bleek that campain finance will be altered in favor of democracy this election cycle, but we must persist, we must continue to push congress to intervene and continue to push the Court's stance for our future's sake.

R.I.P Howard

A national treasure

A crusader for bottom up democracy has passed away. Howard Zinn 1922-2010. Howard spent his life dedicated to the advancement, and education of the common person from teaching at Spelman college, a black women's college in Georgia to his hallmark book; A People's History of the United States. Howard outlines how any remnant of democracy in the United States has been earned by the common workers, and social and political dissidents. The elite only have their keep because of the sweat and labor of the common people. The elite have easy access to political office because the elite control the sphere of legitimate debate via the mainstream media conglomerates. As sad as I am to hear the news that Howard has passed on, I know that Howard left in his wake sturdy foundations to build future pursuits for true democracy and freedom. Any achievement for democracy this year or in the future will owe some of it's past or origins to the work of Howard Zinn, and others like him

War is a Racket

NOAM KNOWS!!!!!!!!

Observations of J. Rosen webpiece

J. Rosen's Audience Atomization Overcome: why the internet weakens the authority of the press explains real media democracy. This title seems to represent the desires of people not to atomized but to have a forum where their legitamate concerns can be debated. Blogs, social networking and alternative media domanins allow this to happen. The diagram Rosen provides breaks down three realms of "consensus". The inner core is the Sphere of Consensus, this sphere encompasses anything that is thought to be generally agreed upon by most in society, also called conventional wisdom. Rosen explains that before the internet in the age of big media, the press dominated this conventional wisdom and the second sphere of legitamate debate. This sphere lies just outside the sphere of consensus, protecting it from what Noam Chomsky might call the "rascal multitude". The sphere of legitamate debate consists of publicly debated issues inwhich the solution, or in most cases the means by which to reach a solution held in common are subject to debate. For instance, Newsweek might ask the tough questions like; How's Barack Obama going to save capitalism? But a more interesting question might be; Is Capitalism, in it's present form, working? Yet in contemporary American culture this question is considered "off limits", Rosen has a sphere for these debates as well. He calls it the sphere of devience. This sphere encompasses any belief or theory that falls outside the guidelines considered "legitamate" by those who control the realms of debate. This often leads to disenfranchisement causing many folks in this sphere to abandon the debate altogether. However, if we care about the future we have a responsibility to understand how the media system works. The audience for this piece would be anyone who's longed for more serious changes, risked themselves for democratic principals, who're disenfranchised by the system and want it to change. Rosen claims the mainstream media strives to silence debate from outside of the sphere of legitamate debate. Rosen asserts that the freedom of information sharing and democratic nature of the internet have all but eliminated the mainstream media's control over the sphere of legitamate debate, and I agree. The web has allowed folks to social network and force flexability, even if only a little, from the mainstream. Though these new technologies are a wonderful tool, I can't help but notice they are desensitizing the public to being connected and even monitored nearly round the clock. We must be mindful and fight for our minds, because it's always surprising how quickly the future becomes the present.

War in 2010

We move into a new decade, still plagued by the tendencies of our past. According to Newsweek, the Obama administration has carried out over fifty predator strikes against enemy targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This high volume of drone strikes has already exceeded the amount undertaken in the entire eight years of the Bush administration. While committee hearings and congressional panels debate how to more effectively combat terrorism, few if any on capitol hill have considered changes in our foreign and economic policies as solutions. At the beginning of the "war on terror" many commentators were amazed at the anger these terrorist had towards the United States, but rather than address the real reasons like neo-imperialism most wanted to shout really loud about how middle easterners hate democracy or envy our freedom. Imagine if our ancestors here in the United States had spent the last couple thousand years fighting off invaders to their home country who looted their resources, and who returned periodically with supreme funding and better war instruments to do it all again. Imagine if the United States had been occupied during the civil war, by the French or English, which nearly happened, to step in a divide us up amongst them or force us to become a client state to the one who emerged victorious. Given the lack of resources, and destruction of infrastructure and knowledge how do we expect these cultures to rise to the "advances" we entertain in today's western culture? Folks here in the USA take for granted that we the people should decide our own laws and political destinies, as outlined in the declaration of Independence and Constitution. Yet for the better part of the last two hundred years the United States has been meddling in the laws and political destinies of many peoples and nations around the globe. Our support for and involvement in countless coups and large scale violence all to influence a nation's economics in our favor has gained us quite a reputation with our peers around the world. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, California, and Hawaii are just a few examples of the results from U.S. "expansionism", which is a nice way to say imperialism. All of these undertakings were motivated by financial profit, as are most foreign and war policies. Early 20th century Major Marine General Smeadly Butler once said that war was a racket, and that motivations for war were mostly due to corporate and finance interests. Butler was so popular with the military personnel that he was included in a plot by some of the nation's wealthy and powerful to take power in a coup against then President Franklin Roosevelt; Butler blew the whistle on the operation stopping it in it's tracks. You may not find many sources to prove this, but it is on congressional record. One can only hope that in our own time, we may find even just a few leaders like Gen. Smeadly Butler, who will realize that our lust for profit and global predominance will not only continue to earn us enemies around various ravaged parts of the world, but also inevitably lead to internal undoing much the same way the Roman empire did centuries ago.