The Observation Deck

I have a number of questions and comments regarding the recent "We The People" forum and the connected "Move to Amend" group which the forum was organized to support.

1. Marcy Kaptur "reflected on the shift of power from a democracy that serves the people to a plutocracy where those that have the most money have the most influence."
I would like to ask where she, or those that agree with her, stand on the average net worth of a member of Congress as compared to the people they represent. What of the fact that the richest (highest median income) counties in the nation are mostly in the Virginia/Maryland area.
I would suggest that most of our politicians and bureaucrats are, in fact, the very thing this group claims to be against.
I'm reminded of Matthew 7:5

2. For those who do not have the basic understanding of corporate structure and tax policy, corporations are taxed separate from the individuals that make them up. When a corporation makes $1 million, they are taxed on it. When an individual recives their salary of $30,000 from that same corporation, even though this money has already been taxed when it came to the corporation, they are also taxed. (This differs from sole proprietorship and partnerships where income is taxed only once.)
Corporations, in that respect, are just like people.
Corporations do not have voting rights. In this respect, they are wholly unrepresented in government. The individuals within the corporation can vote, but their interests are not going to precisely coincide with that of the corporation and they have the individual right to vote as they see fit.
I would contend that by stripping corporations of their ability to spend money as a means of political speech, you would eliminate their only means to represent themselves. How would they fight an increase in their taxes?
Now, there was that old pre-Revolution expression: "No taxation without representation."
Tell you what...I'd support the move to strip corporations of ALL the Constitutional rights and obligations, eliminate corporate taxes too.

3. When Move to Amend speaks of "corporations" does it mean "corporations" or does it include charities, unions, PACs, etc. etc. etc.?
In looking over the official endorsing organizations list at the Move to Amend website, I suspect it is only corporations.
The North Carolina AFl-CIO would not endorse a program that would limit its own speech. Nor would the Sierra Club, Code Pink, Velvet Revolution, moveon.org or any of the many Occupy movements.
This looks like a carve-out in the guise of a Constitutional Amendment.

4. A brief history lesson: Move to Amend was founded in the aftermath of the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Citizens United had produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2008 primaries but was not allowed to advertise the film, lest it run afowl of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Citizens United challenged the law and, in the end, won.
Marcy Kaptur is a Democrat, same as Hillary.
Nickie Antonio: Democrat.
Tom Bullock: Democrat.
You'll forgive me if I have my suspicions about your motives, especially after seeing all those left-leaning organizations who support "Move to Amend". Is it really about uncontrolled political spending or about attacking largely conservative organizations 2-years out from Hillary's as-yet unannounced bid for the presidency.

5. The cake stating "Let's Cut Corporations Down to Size." Let me just share with the profound words of Mr. Mike Rowe.
"Size might matter in some pursuits, (I’ve been assured it does,) but in business, there’s nothing inherently good about being small, and nothing inherently bad about being big."

With all that said, I'm all for campaign finance reform. I'm against gerrymandering, anonymous money (let's hear it for all the "Mickey Mouse's" who contributed to Barack Obama's campaign) and voter suppression (where it ACTUALLY exists, not the concocted argument about minorities not being able to get IDs. Why do you automatically assume that if a person is a minority, they're too poor to buy an ID?)

How about if we create and apply laws to everyone equally instead of leaving carve outs for "special interests." It was John Adams who spoke of the United States as a "Nation of Laws, not of Men." It enshrined in the edifice of every courthouse that Justice is blind.

1. the issue is the severity of wealth disparity, not wealth disparity in and of itself. this means she is not a communist. the DC beltway is full of contractors and their lawyers and lobbyists. they have high incomes. they lobby for contracts, tax cuts, and tax doges.

2. Corporations are a separate business entity than their shareholders. this is the business platform of limited liability. sole proprietors and partnerships have their own bevy of taxes. corporate taxes are the lowest they've been in 80 years, nominally. practically, with the loopholes and exemptions, they are much lower. for some reason, employment, median earnings, and household savings rates have all gone down with them. the corporations are intrinsically represented in government, by their lobbyists. It is great that corporations want to pay for advertisements directly, but this would probably lead to a lot of disagreements between its shareholders.

3. I am not very familiar with what laws say which types of organizations can post advertisements when and where.

4. I rely on Citizens United to inform me on who not to vote for. I vote against the nastiest, most dishonest campaigns. this is usually whoever Citizens United and the Koch brothers endorse.

Law is about grammar and diction. Law is a tool. the profession of it has advanced to the point where it takes thousands of pages of jargon to get the simplest thing done. that is how the United States became a nation of Tools, and not people. Morality is a judgement call based on sentiment. the more Legal a society is, the less moral it can be. that is why kindergartners get expelled for bringing plastic butter knives in with their lunch.

Roy Pitchford wrote:4. A brief history lesson: Move to Amend was founded in the aftermath of the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Citizens United had produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2008 primaries but was not allowed to advertise the film, lest it run afowl of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Citizens United challenged the law and, in the end, won.
Marcy Kaptur is a Democrat, same as Hillary.
Nickie Antonio: Democrat.
Tom Bullock: Democrat.

Antonio and Bullock hosted a meeting at Mahall's a few weeks ago. Since it was on a Saturday I intended to go. Since we were really busy at work I had to work that day so I didn't make it. Mr. Bullock said they had about 50 or 60 people. If I had made it I suppose it would have been 60 to 1. Since I didn't make it the odds were 60 to 0. That's the odds that progressives prefer. They just can't tolerate an opposing viewpoint.

Of course that illustrates the built in advantage of the Progressive Movement. You and I are busy at work, busy with family, busy with hobbies and busy with life in general. The progressive is busy telling you how to run your work, family, hobby and life.

It would have been fun. Maybe next time.

the Koch brothers are about 59th in terms of donations to political parties:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

That doesn't count the propaganda advantage the Progressives have in dominating Hollywood and the media in general. Even with that advantage Progressives seek to criminalize opposition to their policies.

The Obama administration is moving so "supervise" newsroom operations.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3828260732

Progressives are supportive of this operation because it fits their grander plans to kill ANY opposition. The State is their perfect vehicle. The motto of the progressive movement is:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state.
http://lacontrarevolucion.blogspot.com/ ... tside.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

This fits so well that I just had to include it:

Cancel the philosophy courses, people. Oh, and we’re going to be shuttering the political science, religion, and pre-law departments too. We’ll keep some of the English and history folks on for a while longer, but they should probably keep their résumés handy.

Because, you see, they are of no use anymore. We have the answers to the big questions, so why keep pretending there’s anything left to discuss?

At least that’s where Erin Ching, a student at Swarthmore College, seems to be coming down. Her school invited a famous left-wing Princeton professor, Cornel West, and a famous right-wing Princeton professor, Robert George, to have a debate. The two men are friends, and by all accounts they had an utterly civil exchange of ideas. But that only made the whole thing even more outrageous.

“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” Ching told the Daily Gazette, the school’s newspaper. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

Swarthmore must be so proud.

Over at Harvard, another young lady has similar views. Harvard Crimson editorial writer Sandra Y. L. Korn recently called for getting rid of academic freedom in favor of something called “academic justice.”

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?” Korn asks.

Helpfully, she answers her own question: “When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.”

One could easily dismiss these students as part of that long and glorious American tradition of smart young people saying stupid things. As Oscar Wilde remarked, “In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.”

But we all know that this nonsense didn’t spring ex nihilo from their imaginations. As Allan Bloom showed a quarter century ago in The Closing of the American Mind, these ideas are taught.

Indeed, we are now up to our knees in this Orwellian bilge. Diversity means conformity.

Let me invoke personal privilege by citing a slightly dated example. When the Los Angeles Times picked me up as a columnist in 2005, Barbra Streisand publicly canceled her subscription in protest (I’m proud to say). You see, Streisand’s friend, iconic left-wing columnist Robert Scheer, had been let go. And I was one of the new columnists brought on board. This was an outrage.

“The greater Southern California community is one that not only proudly embraces its diversity, but demands it,” Streisand wrote to the Times in a syntactically impaired rant that read a bit like one of those letters I occasionally get from prison inmates who’ve memorized words from a thesaurus without fully understanding what they mean. “Your publisher’s decision to fire Robert Scheer is a great disservice to the spirit of our community. . . . So although the number of contributors to your op-ed pages may have increased, in firing Robert Sheer [sic] and putting Jonah Goldberg in his place, the gamut of voices has undeniably been diluted.”

Nearly a decade later, I still don’t know what it means to dilute a gamut of voices. But I do know what she meant by “diversity.” It means: “people who agree with me.” It’s lazy and insipid shorthand for “left wing.” After all, by the normal metrics of identity politics — race, religion, gender — Scheer and I are largely interchangeable. Where we differ is ideology. And ideological diversity is the only kind of diversity the Left finds offensive.

Which brings us back to the sages of Swarthmore and Harvard. They at least understand that ideological diversity is actually, like, you know, a thing. They just think it’s a bad thing.

More pernicious, however, is that they believe the question of justice is a settled matter. We know what justice is, so why let serious people debate it anymore? The millennia-old dialogue between Aristotle, Plato, St. Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Rawls, Rorty, Hayek et al.? Shut it down, people. Or at least if the conversation heads in a direction where the Korns, Chings, and Streisands smell “oppression” — as defined solely by the Left — then it must not be “put up with.” Diversity demands that diversity of opinion not be tolerated anymore.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of The Tyranny of Clichés, now on sale in paperback

Bill Call wrote:
Antonio and Bullock hosted a meeting at Mahall's a few weeks ago. Since it was on a Saturday I intended to go. Since we were really busy at work I had to work that day so I didn't make it. Mr. Bullock said they had about 50 or 60 people. If I had made it I suppose it would have been 60 to 1. Since I didn't make it the odds were 60 to 0. That's the odds that progressives prefer. They just can't tolerate an opposing viewpoint.

Of course that illustrates the built in advantage of the Progressive Movement. You and I are busy at work, busy with family, busy with hobbies and busy with life in general. The progressive is busy telling you how to run your work, family, hobby and life.

Wait, so they had the meeting on Saturday and somehow this is bad because you are busy? When, exactly, SHOULD they have the meeting? Is there a day/time that works best for you that would prove they care about people?

I'm sorry but if 60 people can bother to show up on one side of the issue and NOBODY can show up for the other side, that tells me that the other side finds it fairly insignificant. If it was that important an issue, wouldn't more people show up?

Again, in all seriousness, when exactly should they hold a meeting if you are too busy with work and with hobbies? Extremely curious.

Matthew Lee wrote:

Bill Call wrote:
Antonio and Bullock hosted a meeting at Mahall's a few weeks ago. Since it was on a Saturday I intended to go. Since we were really busy at work I had to work that day so I didn't make it. Mr. Bullock said they had about 50 or 60 people. If I had made it I suppose it would have been 60 to 1. Since I didn't make it the odds were 60 to 0. That's the odds that progressives prefer. They just can't tolerate an opposing viewpoint.

Of course that illustrates the built in advantage of the Progressive Movement. You and I are busy at work, busy with family, busy with hobbies and busy with life in general. The progressive is busy telling you how to run your work, family, hobby and life.

Wait, so they had the meeting on Saturday and somehow this is bad because you are busy? When, exactly, SHOULD they have the meeting? Is there a day/time that works best for you that would prove they care about people?

I'm sorry but if 60 people can bother to show up on one side of the issue and NOBODY can show up for the other side, that tells me that the other side finds it fairly insignificant. If it was that important an issue, wouldn't more people show up?

Again, in all seriousness, when exactly should they hold a meeting if you are too busy with work and with hobbies? Extremely curious.

Matt,

I asked the same questions of "The Most Interesting Man in the World" and this was his response:





As with "The Most Interesting Man in the World:"

Whatever side of the tracks Bill Call is currently on is the right side, even if he crosses the tracks he'll still be on the right side.

When a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, Bill Call hears it.

Bill Call never wears a watch because time is always on his side.

If opportunity knocks, and Bill Call is not at home, opportunity waits.

Time waits on no one, but Bill Call.

Bill Call is the life of parties that he has never attended.

Indeed, Bill Call is ... "The Most Interesting Man in the 'Wood."

Matt

Matthew Lee wrote:Again, in all seriousness, when exactly should they hold a meeting if you are too busy with work and with hobbies? Extremely curious.

I wasn't complaining about the time or venue I was just pointing out the inherent advantage enjoyed by the Progressive movement. They seek to destroy any source of news not under the control of their ideologues.

The Federal Communications Commission's news room "study" was to be financed by George Soros.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/mike-cian ... 8m-funding

Should George Soros be forbidden to fund his pet projects? Is there a difference between seeking to stop debate and seeking to expand the debate?

If Bullock and Antonio succeed in their efforts to shut up and shut out the opposition will we be a better country? Will our freedoms and lives be more or less secure?

As I said , the advantage the Progressives have is that they are obsessed with controlling ours lives while the rest of us are busy living our lives.

Americans prefer Progressivism.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1245 ... earch=true

if we were less progressive, we'd look more like Europe.

My kind of progressive:



FWIW

Matthew John Markling wrote:

Finally, a post that I like. Although, my hair isn't that grey.

Matthew John Markling wrote:My kind of progressive:



FWIW

So...you'd rather have a Republican telling you what you can and can't do than a Democrat telling you what you can or can't do?? That is what Progressivism is about. You're not smart enough to run your own life, so we (the government) have to help you.

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary."

How about if people live their own lives and the government stops telling us who we can give money to, what we can buy, what we can sell, what we throw away, how we raise our kids, how we keep ourselves alive.

Also, let me share with you a couple books/pamphlets which I have digitally restored in the last couple years:
The "Socialist" Roosevelt
The Birth of the New Party or Progressive Democracy
Progressivism and After

what is the government making you do,
that you do not want to do?

what do you want to do,
that the government doesn't let you do?

Many years ago, they raised the alcohol age to 21.
It was Ronald Reagan! I had to go to Canada just to order a beer like a normal guy.
What ideology was that law? Is it libertarian? Conservative? Liberal?

A Good Read: "How to be a true progressive" at http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21597898-if-barack-obama-wants-increase-economic-opportunity-he-should-embrace-ideas?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/howtobeatrueprogressive

taxes on the rich and corporations are the lowest they've been in 80 years.
the loopholes and exemptions are only greater.

social security or FICA taxes are an income tax that is only nominally earmarked for the Social Security program. I'm not sure why everybody is so worried about it operating at a deficit, because that is not really any different than the rest of the deficits.
http://02ae523.netsolhost.com/gsfrd.html

"value added taxes" generally mean sales taxes, excise taxes. These taxes have risen drastically in the last few decades, to compensate for decreases in federal subsidies for suburban construction, water plants, sewage treatment plants, schools, etc.

one possible value added tax could be on gasoline and diesel, to offset the cost of Gulf Wars and "Interests".

Corn and Corn syrup production is highly subsidized. This is to keep the fast food industry and soda pop industry going. corn syrup is necessary to deliver the most popular drug, Caffeine, in carbonated beverages. a value added tax on soda and coffee seems reasonable. caffeine is the most popular drug. caffeine is the gateway drug to meth and coke.

ryan costa wrote:caffeine is the gateway drug to meth and coke

Well, then, I'm in trouble.