Tuesday, June 19, 2012

How the Great Depression Inspired a New View of 'Economics'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Irving Fisher (February 27, 1867 – April 29, 1947) was an American economist, inventor, and health campaigner, and one of the earliest American neoclassical economists, though his later work on debt deflation is often regarded as belonging instead to the Post-Keynesian school.

Fisher made important contributions to utility theory and general equilibrium. His work on the quantity theory of money inaugurated the school of economic thought known as "monetarism." Both Milton Friedman and James Tobin called Fisher "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced." Some concepts named after Fisher include the Fisher equation, the Fisher hypothesis, the international Fisher effect, and the Fisher separation theorem.

Fisher was perhaps the first celebrity economist, but his reputation during his lifetime was irreparably harmed by his public statements, just prior to the Wall Street Crash of 1929, claiming that the stock market had reached "a permanently high plateau." His subsequent theory of debt deflation as an explanation of the Great Depression was largely ignored in favor of the work of John Maynard Keynes. His reputation has since recovered in neoclassical economics, particularly after his work was revived in the late 1950s and more widely due to an increased interest in debt deflation in the Late-2000s recession.

Fisher produced various inventions during his lifetime, the most notable of which was an "index visible filing system" which he patented in 1913 and sold to Kardex Rand (later Remington Rand) in 1925. This, and his subsequent stock investments, made him a wealthy man until his personal finances were badly hit by the Crash of 1929. He was also an active social and health campaigner, as well as an advocate of vegetarianism, Prohibition, and eugenics.
Then we may deduce the following chain of consequences in nine links:
(1) Debt liquidation leads to distress setting and to (2) Contraction of deposit currency, as bank loans are paid off, and to a slowing down of velocity of circulation. This contraction of deposits and of their velocity, precipitated by distress selling, causes (3) A fall in the level of prices, in other words, a swelling of the dollar. Assuming, as above stated, that this fall of prices is not interfered with by reflation or otherwise, there must be (4) A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies and (5) A like fall in profits, which in a " capitalistic," that is, a private-profit society, leads the concerns which are running at a loss to make (6) A reduction in output, in trade and in employment of labor. These losses, bankruptcies, and unemployment, lead to (7) Pessimism and loss of confidence, which in turn lead to (8) Hoarding and slowing down still more the velocity of circulation. The above eight changes cause (9) complicated disturbances in the rates of interest, in particular, a fall in the nominal, or money, rates and a rise in the real, or commodity, rates of interest. Evidently debt and deflation go far toward explaining a great mass of phenomena in a very simple logical way.
I have been both a central banker and a market regulator. I now find myself questioning whether my early career, largely devoted to liberalising and deregulating banking and financial markets, was misguided. In short, I wonder whether I contributed - along with a countless others in regulation, banking, academia and politics - to a great misallocation of capital, distortion of markets and the impairment of the real economy. We permitted the banks to betray capital into “hopelessly unproductive works”, promoting their efforts with monetary laxity, regulatory forbearance and government tax incentives that marginalised investment in “productive works”. We permitted markets to become so fragmented by off-exchange trading and derivatives that they no longer perform the economically critical functions of capital/resource allocation and price discovery efficiently or transparently. The results have been serial bubbles - debt-financed speculative frenzy in real estate, investments and commodities.
--London Banker,Fisher's Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions and a possible revision
James Tobin argues that the intellectual breakthroughs that mark the neoclassical revolution in economic analysis occurred in Europe around 1870. The next two decades witnessed lively debates in which the new theory more or less absorbed or was absorbed in the classical tradition that preceded it.[13] In the 1890s, according to Joseph A. Schumpeter[14] there emerged A large expanse of common ground and ... a feeling of repose, both of which created, in the superficial observer, an impression of finality -- the finality of a Greek temple that spreads its perfect lines against a cloudless sky. Of course, Tobin argues, the temple was by no means complete. Its building and decoration continue to this day, even while its faithful throngs worship within. American economists were not present at the creation. To a considerable extent they built their own edifice independently, designing some new architecture in the process. They participated actively in the international controversies and syntheses of the period 1870-1914. At least two Americans were prominent builders of the "temple," John Bates Clark and Irving Fisher. They and others brought neoclassical theory into American journals, classrooms, and textbooks, and its analytical tools into the kits of researchers and practitioners. Eventually, for better or worse, their paradigm would dominate economic science in this country.  
Fisher's research into basic theory did not touch the great social issues of the day. Monetary economics did and this became the main focus of Fisher’s work. Fisher's Appreciation and interest was an abstract analysis of the behavior of interest rates when the price level is changing. It emphasized the distinction between real and monetary rates of interest which is fundamental to the modern analysis of inflation. However Fisher believed that investors and savers —people in general— were afflicted in varying degrees by "money illusion"; they could not see past the money to the goods the money could buy. In an ideal world, changes in the price level would have no effect on production or employment. In the actual world with money illusion, inflation (and deflation) did serious harm.
Also see: The Top 10 Most Influential Economists of All-Time


Sunday, June 17, 2012

The Fascist Coup Called 'Corporate Person-hood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I was asked to explain why a group of individuals should not have the same freedom of action as a singular individual. And I was told so magnanimously to "...feel free to reference any philosophy journal you wish in your response." My response was to ask WHY and HOW a group --which must act 'collectively' -- acquired what even scientists have called a 'conscience'? I asked for an explanation: how may any "group" and especially a corporation exercise a conscience'?

In fact, no collective, no corporation, no club can --as a collective --exercise 'conscience'. A group --were it a person --would be defined by its inability to act upon conscience, to 'feel' obliged to act in ways that are consistent with an ethical position, a morality, or a secular ethic derived from philosophy or logic. As a result of this hypothetical, I have come to suspect that the very purpose of both corporations and the 'movement' to make persons of them is twofold: 1) to raise huge amounts of cash and 2) to allow them to act FREE of moral restraints --restraints that 'real' persons often trace to 'conscience'!

Groups are not individuals by definition! Groups may act upon a consensus! An individual because he/she is an individual is held accountable for his/her crimes, sins or transgressions against society. That is not the case with groups of any sort nor is it the case with 'corporations'. It was the purpose of Citizens-United to put corporations above all that while granting them 'privileges' --privileges that 'real' persons will never enjoy.

One must not mistake a collective of any sort with the individuals who comprise it. A covey is not a quail; a choir is not 'a' soloist; a single violinist is not an orchestra. Nor can one mistake the sound of a choir with that of an individual soloist. Likewise, a 'pride' can never be mistaken for a single lion nor vice versa. An ant colony is not 'an' ant!

Corporate personhood is a hoax if not a bald-faced lie! And, it has been my experience, that no good has ever come as a result of a lie or the embrace of one. Thus --we come to the reasons that the hoax of 'corporate personhood' was handed down by an increasingly crooked and incompetent court. Corporations have, in fact, used their access to wealth to influence political campaigns in ways that individuals could never do! I speak from experience, having consulted several political campaigns in one of the nation's largest cities.

As an individual, I pay my bills! I don't have anything left over with which to influence politicians of any persuasion ---even Libertarians. But what if I were a large corporation with deep-pockets and even deeper connections to the Republican party? As a corporation I could write off my contributions and get a whopping tax break. The scheme is very nearly perfect but for the fact that corporations --not being persons --could be challenged. The corporate support of a political candidate could not be construed to be 'free speech'. But --never fear --the high court, now dominated by GOP appointees fixed all that!

Corporate contributions are now smiled upon. Corporations may now BUY politicians and perhaps the election itself! That is motivation behind Citizens-United. Being "people" can bankroll politicians in any way they wish. They are no longer constrained. We should not be surprised when corporations attempt and purchase elections outright. The word for this is fascism.

I am reminded of A. Hitler's infamous meeting with Krupp, Thyssen, I.G. Farben (the makers of Xyklon B). Hitler literally auctioned off the Third Reich and offered his services as Fuhrer in residence! Corporate personhood is fascism/nazism given a K-street make-over! But the end result is the same: corporations now have a great light to buy the Rei...uh... the republic! And the 'republic' is given a green light to grant whopping contracts to its corporate sponsors. The government has become a soap-box derby.

The term 'artificial person' is an oxymoron but the GOP would like to have it both ways. With Citizens-United, the GOP could have it both ways: the granting of the rights of individual persons to corporations who retained their ability to raise absurd amounts of cash. 'Real persons' are, by definition, real! Now, however, the corporate right-wing' (fascists) expect us to believe that a 'corporation-cum-person' can be both REAL and --at the same time --artificial --For the purposes of raising cash. Real persons cannot do that. But corporations can and Citizens-United was the right wing solution.

Corporations were at one time only formed in the public interest (build a bridge) and dissolved when the reason for their incorporation was finished. This was a legal protection required to get the job done. But, in any case, it does not make a 'legal abstraction' a 'person'! Fact is --people are biological. A corporation is a legal abstraction, the behavior of which is described in a set bylaws filed with a Sec of State --usually Delaware.

A corporation is better described as a 'contract' outlining the parameters of taxation, commerce, bylaw et al! But CONTRACTS are NOT people either. But there is absolutely nothing that can create people our of mere 'legal abstraction'.

Real persons are conceived biologically in a womb! There is a word for that process but this short note is not about sex. Corporations, by contrast, are pieces of paper filed with a Sec of State somewhere (probably Delaware). Ergo: a 'corporation' is not and never will be a person.

A 'corporation' has more in common with and is more accurately described/compared to a piece of paper than to real, living biological persons to whom John Locke and, later, the American founders, ascribed 'rights'. NO rights accrue to a mere legal abstractions but the 'privileges' that are defined and described specifically in a corporate charter that is prepared in advance by REAL people. Corporations can be constrained, restrained and/or limited by law and several hundred years of precedent.

NO intelligent person believes a 'corporation' is a 'person'. Sir/St Thomas More --arguably the most brilliant confidant of King Henry VIII --most certainly did not believe 'corporations' were 'persons'. More believed, rather, that they were 'conspiracies' and 'conspiracies of crooked rich men' to boot:

"I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws.But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots! 

--Sir Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia"
A hurd is not a cow! A covey is not a quail! An ant is not a colony! A stamp collection is not a stamp nor is a flock a sheep.

So there, Mitt Romney! Read and learn. You are --despite having sold your soul to the GOP --a person! But as real persons are often intelligent and because real persons have a vote (one person, one vote) you will --with any luck --never assume to the high office to which you aspire.

Also see: Profits Uber Alles! American Corporations and HItler


Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Myth of Military Keynesianism

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Military Keynesianism is another myth of dubious origins. In 1933, John Maynard Keynes wrote an open letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging the new President to borrow money to be spent on public works programs:
“Thus as the prime mover in the first stage of the technique of recovery I lay overwhelming emphasis on the increase of national purchasing power resulting from governmental expenditure which is financed by Loans and not by taxing present incomes. Nothing else counts in comparison with this.
In a boom inflation can be caused by allowing unlimited credit to support the excited enthusiasm of business speculators. But in a slump governmental Loan expenditure is the only sure means of securing quickly a rising output at rising prices. That is why a war has always caused intense industrial activity. In the past orthodox finance has regarded a war as the only legitimate excuse for creating employment by governmental expenditure. You, Mr President, having cast off such fetters, are free to engage in the interests of peace and prosperity the technique which hitherto has only been allowed to serve the purposes of war and destruction.

--Keynes, John (1933). "An Open Letter to President Roosevelt". Retrieved 2011-08-01.
How many people do you know build 'tanks' for a living? You've heard of beating swords into plowshares: how often do you suppose plow-shares become tanks and what is --in fact --the effect on farming when that occurs?

A nation that believes it can sustain a viable population by the mere production of arms is deluded. Moreover, if 'we' can build tanks --why are we no longer leading the world in the production of automobiles?

Why are we no longer leading the world in the production of steel?

Why are we no longer the world's breadbasket?

Why does Detroit look like a Ghost Town?

When was the last time you heard about the thriving steel manufacturing town of Pittsburgh?

If you believe that these things are trivial, check out the CIA's own World Fact Book. At the very top you will find CHINA with the World's largest Positive Current Account Balance!

Now ---scroll down!

Keep scrolling!

A little more!

Ah --at last --there is the United States at the very bottom of the list with the World's largest NEGATIVE Current Account Balance [formerly called, in our case, the Balance of Trade deficit]. In a word --CHINA owns us and keeps us fat and happy --like cattle! We have to be kept afloat! Otherwise, where would China dump its cheap crap.

One wonders how many American jobs have, in practice, been exported to China? How and why has this come about? This trend is traced to Nixon's trip to China; the groundwork for his historic trip was laid by one George H.W. Bush with whom I spoke on this very topic years later! Somewhat simplistically, Bush sold out American labor. It was the high price we paid to get out of Viet Nam.

'Reaganomics' bears NO resemblance to Keynesian economics in either theory or result! Keynesianism works; Reaganomics never worked and never will. Arthur Laffer, himself, may have regretted the sorry fraud! Laffer called it a "theoretical curve". Whether or not it was drawn on a napkin (as legend has it) matters not. It was assumed that tax cuts would stimulate purchases and sales generally. The reverse happened because only the very rich, an elite in fact, benefited from the tax cuts. The needs of the very rich were already met; the elites had simply squirreled away their winnings in offshore bank accounts, beyond scrutiny. The 'tax cuts' were a windfall easily tucked away. As a result, no jobs were created as a result of the infamous Reagan tax cut.

"Supply-side' economics is simply a failure, perhaps a PR stunt. The term 'trickle down theory' describes it perfectly; but the term originated earlier, with Will Rogers who said that money was "...appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."

Laffer's curve never described reality. Had he been alive, Keynes would have denounced the reduction of growth in the money supply. The slowing of growth, indeed, the actual 'shrinkage' of the economy overall combined to create the 'perfect storm better known as the recession of 1981–82! It was the worst recession since H. Hoover's 'great' one! It is Reagan's legacy of failure and dimming hopes for all but the very, very, very rich.

Thus --the Reagan years are recalled as the era of huge budget deficits, low interest and inflation rates, and a depression of some two years, the deepest, longest since H. Hoover. The 'wrong' people benefited from GOP largesse --a depression resulted. One wonders how many $millions wound up in offshore tax havens following Reagan's 'welfare for the very rich'! We may never know. It was wealth forever lost to the U.S. economy.

Neither Laffer's curve nor Reagan's tax cut were Keynesian; Keynes is famous (or infamous) for his hypothetical about which he said the govt should bury pound notes in a landfill and let the people dig them up! Indeed --Reagan would have done much, much better had he done precisely that! Alas --he did not!  His 'tax cuts' did not benefit those whose expenditures would have 'stimulated' the flagging economy. Nor did the ruling elites invest them as Keynesian economics might require; certainly they were not invested in ways that create jobs or spending. Rather --they were banked offshore, representing a contraction/depression/a net loss of jobs and GDP, i.e, a depression of some two years, the worst such depression since H. Hoover's Great Depression of the 1930s.

'Wealth inequities/disparities' are the result of Reagan's tax cuts which benefited only the top 20 percent! Subsequently, the top 20 has, at last, become the ruling elite of just 1 percent which owns more than the rest of us combined. That's because however the rich are taxed, the 'tax burden' they experience is less than that experienced by the middle and poorer classes. That is the case because a flat tax of any 'percentage' is a greater burden to those who must always spend a much larger percentage of their income on mere necessities --not the least of which are roof and food!

'Necessities' are a much smaller percentage for ruling elites for whom the 'size' of a mansion is not a necessity but a luxury, for whom the swimming pool is not a necessity but is expected of his/her 'class', etc etc etc. Items most often indulged by 'elites' are unlikely to stimulate a domestic economy in any case. And as the number of very rich persons declines, their impact on the economy declines.  In the mansions of the very rich may be found luxury items the purchase of which will not improve the lot of a steel-mill worker or the men and women who used to make cars in Detroit.

Many credit WWII with ending the 'Great Depression". In fact, as it was waged WWII was NOT a 'massive stimulus' nor was it Keynesian. When demand is low, there is always the risk of 'gluts', over-production, expanding inventories. Some have proposed that during these times, a 'convenient' war may 'pump-up' demand!

Malthus, as I recall, advocated convenient wars to 'pump up demand'! That makes very little sense. On the one hand, a war-time government urges austerity while it utilizes existing resources to oppose the 'hun'! Thus what happened in the U.S. during WWII was hardly 'Keynesian". In fact, a variety of shortages severely inconvenienced the civilian population. Having spoken with many who lived through it, I have concluded that it was not the so much the war that stimulated U.S. growth but its end. Two 'booms' followed the return home of troops: 1) industry for which the troops were needed 2) a 'baby boom' as a result of families re-uniting.

While war was waged, many imported items were no longer available; the U.S. was at war with nation's that made and exported them to the U.S. Notably --sugar and coffee were very scarce. In fact, COKE (which things go better with) was scarce or unavailable most probably because sugar was scarce. Other things disappeared entirely --silk stockings among them.

In response, salvage campaigns encouraged people to save things like scrap metal, rubber, cooking fat! From these items weapons, ammunition, gas masks and explosives were made. A truly 'Keynesian' expansion of the economy cannot be read into this experience. There are no austerity measures in a Keynesian expansion driven as it is by more money in the hands of more people who will use it to buy more products and services. In war time, many 'consumers' are at war while those left on the 'home front' are expected to practice certain austerity measures. 'Austerity' is rarely Keynesian and certainly not Keynesian in this respect.

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Where the GOP Went Wrong and Why It Still Is


by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP seems always to grow more militant after its failures. The failures have been many. As a result the GOP has turned both wrong and radical, more kooky than cult-like, both radical and rabid! This trend is traced to the Reagan years –an era that the GOP longs to resurrect but failing that might be happy if their recollections of that era were not undermined by the truth about it. Republicans would love to recall a time in which the lovable old Ronald 'there you go again' Reagan would earn a place in the American pantheon among the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR! Reality has not been on the GOP side for quite some time now. 

Look at the Reagan years. What went wrong? Did nothing go right? Reagan is most often associated with 'supply-side' economics –the GOP's favorite psuedo-ideology cited to justify whopping tax cuts for what was euphemistically called the 'investor class'. We live with the legacy of that kind of thinking: it is the emergence of a ruling elite of just 1 percent of the total population, the tiny, near microscopic minority which, in fact, owns more than the rest of us combined.

Arguably –this elite rules us because they own us. In effect, 'we' –the 90 plus percent –have assumed the burden that might have fallen to those more wealthy than us, those more able to sustain the financial burden. The result is slavery: we work and thus create the wealth of which we, as a class, are denied! I refer you to the works of any major economist since Adam Smith. All of them --from Ricardo to Marx, from Friedman to Keynes –have espoused the 'labor theory' of value.

The right wing predictably maintains that growth under Reagan proves supply-side theory. The opposite is true. Reagan's failures disprove 'supply-side' or 'trickle-down' theory for all time. Supply-side theorists believe that if top marginal tax rates are reduced then the potential loss of tax revenue will be offset by growth in the economy. That has never happened. The 'theory' is but a theoretical curve drawn on a napkin. Reagan, meanwhile, is remembered for having doubled the national debt and tripling the national deficit.

The test is whether the tax cuts produce more growth than occurs during normal business cycle recoveries. 'Supply-side economics' fails the test. Between 1979 and 1989, the growth rate was 3% --nothing to write home about, certainly not confirmation of 'supply-side' economics.

'Trickle-down theory' is not even the product of academic research. It's origins are found in political magazines, not scholarly journals. In fact, many right-leaning professional economists prefer a smaller government but have not advocated extreme tax cuts. None believe that with extreme tax cuts the economy will grow and most certainly not to the extent that revenues will actually increase –as supply-siders had said they would.

N. Gregory Mankiw, the Harvard economist, the senior Bush's own economic advisor, called Reagan's supply-side advisers “incompetent and unscrupulous”. In 1995, Irving Kristol, confessed that he supported supply-side theory but only because of its "political possibilities".

Now we come to the very reasons Bill Clinton is reviled by those who have lots of money –more money that normal people are allowed to even dream about. In 1989 the top 1% were taxed at a rate of 28.9%. By 1995, that rate had risen to 36.1%. Like Chicken Little, the 'supply-side' crowd warned that the sky was falling. It didn't! The result was unprecedented growth (not seen in decades), lower unemployment, and a whopping budget surplus. For having done such a great job, Bill Clinton was very nearly impeached and removed from office.

In general, tax cuts may stimulate demand but that is most surely the case only if those whose spending supports the economy get the tax break. That segment is, obviously, the middle class! The ruling elites do not spend in ways that drive the economy. Rather, they squirrel away their riches in offshore banks and other tax dodges. It's good money down a bottomless pit, wealth that is forever lost to the nation.

The 'Cowboy' on Facebook
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Thursday, April 19, 2012

How the Government Created a U.S. Police State

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It was in January, 2002 that the UN Committee Against Torture condemned the treatment of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib by noting that 'indefinite detention' was a violation of the UN Convention against torture! Even worse for the U.S. is the threat that is likewise posed against citizens.  In short, if the government or the President should merely 'deem' you to be a terrorist, you can be dropped into a hole and never seen or heard from again! This continues to be a threat to all Americans of every stripe and income bracket, of every political persuasion left or right should it run afoul of 'powers that be'! The word for this is: tyranny!

The detention sections of the NDAA affirm "...the authority of the President under the AUMF, a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain any person "...who was part of or [who] substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners". Anyone so targeted may be held indefinitely "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". Of course, there is no 'end of hostilities' in an Orwellian perpetual war.

The Sixth Amendment is violated when U.S. Citizens are alllowed to be detained (locked up) indefinitely at any place in the U.S. or abroad if you are merely 'deemed' to be a terrorist! 'Probable cause' is no longer required; you may be locked up if you look funny or Arab! You may be locked up if you are merely 'deemed' to be a terrorist! There is no 'burden of proof' nor is there any requirement that the government produce 'probable cause' that you have committed a crime of any sort! American citizens may be stripped of all rights if he/she is but 'declared' or 'deemed' to be a 'terrorist', however baseless that declaration may be! Those unfortunate targets of this dictatorial, draconian, tyrannical, anti-democratic measure are subject to being snatched, dropped into an Abu Ghraib type hell-hole or --worse --a Texas gulag and never seen or heard from again!

This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
These measures are all gross and egregious violations of the 14th amendment prohibiting the federal government, the various states and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property in violation of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, established previously in the 4th Amendment!

This clause makes 'protections' stated clearly and unambiguously in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. In other words, even states are subject to the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND --the Constitution! These draconian measures are not merely illegal but treasonous and those supporting them are traitors to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and to the people of these United States which are 'sovereign' whether the polticians and lobbyists in Washington recognize that fact or not!

Monday, April 09, 2012

Wars for 'Fortunate Sons'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Said to have been written in about 20 minutes, John Fogerty 's 'Fortunate Son' is most often described as "anti-establishment". It was and remains a celebration of 'blue collar pride', a musical 'flip-off' of ruling elites, the sole beneficiaries of the Viet Nam war. These 'ruling elites' are correctly identified with the Washington 'establishment' --an entrenched axis of K-street and the 'Military-Industrial Complex'!

Recall a time when Richard Nixon was President! Essential CCR personnel --John Fogerty and Doug Clifford --were drafted in 1966 but discharged in 1967. Fogerty was no fan of Nixon; he believed that Nixon's cronies received preferential treatment. He was most surely correct!

As more recent events have proven, the song was prescient; the words 'fortunate son' seem now to describe a President who was, in fact, the son of a former President, a former President who had been head of the CIA --George H.W. Bush! His 'fortunate son' would himself become President as a result of a questionable, if not crooked, SCOTUS decision following what was most surely a stolen election in Florida. It is a 'fortunate son', indeed, who rises to the nation's top office at the end of a suspicious vote recount leading to an equally crooked decision of the Supreme Court, a decision that is remembered as much for the meaningless verbal circumlocutions of one A. Scalia as it is for some eight years each of which may be described as 'annus horribillis'!

The song by CCR was, in fact, supportive of soldiers in the field but forcibly makes the point that those serving in Viet Nam did so because they were the sons of working class people --not Senators. They were the sons of ordinary Americans --not well-connected right wing politicians or justices of a court that is now forever tainted!

Credence performed 'Fortunate Son' on the Ed Sullivan Show. Back in the sixties, the producers of the Ed Sullivan show had not yet figured out that CCR's song was a pointed damnation of an unfair war in Viet Nam! Had they figured that out in advance, CCR might never have gotten the exposure.

Just as Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The U.S.A." is a pointed protest, so too is 'Fortunate Son' though many have thought both to be 'patriotic anthems! The opposite is true! Consider the lines: "And when the band plays "Hail to the Chief" Ooh, they're pointin' the cannon at you...!"

Fogerty is often asked what inspired him to write 'Fortunate Son'! His response:
"Julie Nixon was hanging around with David Eisenhower, and you just had the feeling that none of these people were going to be involved with the war. In 1969, the majority of the country thought morale was great among the troops, and like eighty percent of them were in favor of the war. But to some of us who were watching closely, we just knew we were headed for trouble.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Fatal Holes Destroy Bush's Lies about 911

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, put into his character's mouth the following:
When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!
--'Sherlock Holmes' (created by A. Conan Doyle)
We can eliminate the Bush administration's "official conspiracy theory" of 911! There is no evidence of any kind --admissible or no --that will confirm any part of it. It can be shown to be utterly impossible! Ergo: it did not happen!

History is often re-written after-the fact! A 'cover-story', however, is a pre-emptive strike. The 'first' story to be rolled out is often entrenched by the time fatal flaws are discovered. This is the case with 911! 911 was never properly investigated. Bush and major players in his administration as well as various elements of the Military-Industrial Complex found common ground: all were and remain heavily invested in Bush's 'official' conspiracy theory of 911!

In at least one case, a single fatal hole demolishes the entire stack of cards! Alas --there are numerous fatal holes, anyone one of which collapse the entire 'rotten edifice'! For example, American Airlines itself was/is the source for my blog article of about 2 years ago in which it was revealed that Flight 11 did not fly nor had been scheduled to fly on 911. Flight 11 is crucial to Bush's conspiracy theory!

The TIP off was a Wikipedia article which had been revised to reflect a truth about Flight 11, that it had not been scheduled to fly on 911. If, indeed, 11 did not fly, the Bush conspiracy theory of some 19 Arab hijackers is dead in the water. 

I wanted confirmation that it was --indeed --American Airlines that had made the change.I confirmed this with a WHOIS look-up of the IP address making the change. It was --indeed --American Airlines! AA itself had been the source of the Wiki change that now said that Flight 11 had not been scheduled to fly on 911. In fact, the flight had been mothballed for some 6 months as I recall. There is no information that it had ever been pressed into service at any time and most certainly not at the 11th hour. There is simply no evidence that supports the Bush theory with respect to any of the alleged flights whatsoever.

There are other holes in the Bush conspiracy theory. Any ONE of them destroys the whole rotten edifice as Bush's theory relies on all of them being true. All are essential if Bush is to be believed:
  1. No airliner wreckage or parts traceable to any airliner were ever recovered at the Pentagon.
  2. NO Arabs were on the official autopsy report nor is there any confirmation that any arabs were ever buried at any place and any time. 
  3. Only Pentagon employees were buried at Arlington National cemetery; there is NO record that any passengers were buried.
  4. BBC reported that Hani Hanjour could not have gotten on board because he did not have a ticket! Are we to believe a 90 pound weakling crashed the gate?
  5. Official BTS records indicate that the cockpit door was never opened during the flight! Assuming Hani got on board (see above) how did he manage to walk through a closed door?
As Orwell taught us --history is re-written daily these days. The best that we can do is point out the utter impossibility of the Bush 'official conspiracy theory of 911'. Bush lied! It has been my experience covering high profile murder trials, big city crime and politics that only the guilty and/or complicit are sufficiently motivated to actually lie about a crime. Bush, most of his administration in fact, lied!

Our only consolation is that the
fatal holes in the theory are so large that not even BIG BRO can plug them up. The people themselves could help the cause of truth by honing some elementary skills to include the refusal to swallow utter junk that violates basic principles of physics, junk that ...
  • is internally inconsistent
  • is blatantly inconsistent with its own timelines
  • is blatantly inconsistent from one version to the next.
The best example of the last entry is Don Rumseld who referred to (his words) "....the MISSILE that struck this (Pentagon) building." That's called a Freudian slip. Rumsfeld knew that no airliner had struck the Pentagon. He slipped up and told the truth. I believe that the offending missile was the U.S. Global Hawk --but the precise type of missile does not matter at this point! We may never know because Bush ordered the complete and utter destruction of all material evidence relating to the crimes of 911! What matters now is that the Bush theory can be utterly debunked.

The weakest link is Hani Hanjour! The Washington Post said that Hanjour could not have gotten on board! He did not have a ticket! Moreover, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB| released flight data which indicated that the cabin door (Flt 77) was NEVER opened during flight!! So --HOW could Hani Hanjour have gained entrance to the cockpit? Are we to believe Hani Hanjour walked through closed cabin door?
  • The ONLY OFFICIAL SCRAP of evidence to have survived the Bush cover up is the AUTOPSY REPORT released to Dr. Olmstead via an FOIA request. There are NO ARABS on the list. Ergo: there is no reason to believe that there were any Arabs on board! 
  • there is no record of any passenger being autopsied and, in the process, identified;
  • while Pentagon employees were buried at Arlington Cemetery, there is NO record of a single burial for any passenger. Where were/are their remains?
Almost forgotten these days, is the BBC story that early on inspired my suspicions. The BBC interviewed several hijackers after Bush had said that they perished in the 911 attacks. If hijackers --specifically those said to have piloted or were on board the flights at issue --were interviewed alive after 911, then Bush lied! If Bush lied, the official theory cannot be believed nor supported in any way whatsoever.

As Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth!" What remains are two facts: 1) Bush lied to hide the truth; 2) 911 was a govt/Bush admin inside job!

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Support the Proposed Amendment that Would ABOLISH 'Corporate Personhood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I fully support a movement to enact a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that rejects and will undo the recent SCOTUS decision 'creating people' of 'legal abstractions', i.e, corporations. The idea that corporations are people is insidious, seditious; it endangers American Democracy. While 'real people' are held to the letter of the law and often imprisoned for wrong doing, corporations, as 'persons; will be, in practice, 'above the laws'.

In fact, these newly created 'people' i.e, corporations will be (if not already) placed'above the laws' that apply to mere folk! As has been said:
"I will believe that corporations are persons when Texas EXECUTES one of them!
A proposed amendment would reverse the decision of the high court with respect to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-to-4 vote, SCOTUS 'created' real people of mere corporations declaring that corporations have, among every Constitutional right, a right of 'free speech' under the First Amendment. It was declared that the government may not 'impose restrictions' on the political speech that corporations may indulge. But, not being persons in fact, corporations have no such right! That is a right our founders believed were inherent rights of people, REAL people!

As a result of this pernicious decision, corporations and other special interest groups are now given license to spend "unlimited amounts of money on elections." They may 'buy' an election openly whereas, in the past, it was necessary to hide the evil deed from public scrunity! A 'real' person cannot do this! Therefore, 'corporate personhood' is, on its face, a violation of the Fourth Amendment!

The decision is a green light to corporations: buy and/or support any candidate with as much money as you want to spend! The decision could not have been a bigger afront to Democracy, i.e, government of the people. Free speech is a right of people as affirmed by our founders. That corporations may now claim that right is simply fascism. It makes of our nation a 'fascist' state ---pure and simple!

The ORIGIN of 'corporate personhood' is found in an informal note from a CLERK: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." To apply this to 'corporations' requires that one must first assume that the entity is a 'person'! That is called a 'circulus en probando' fallacy. In the vernacular, it's 'backward thinking'; it assumes facts not in evidence. It is a conclusion cited to support a premise.

And --no, Mitt --corporations are NOT people and you, sir, are NOT my friend!

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] Prior to this mere clerk's mere note, NO ONE had believed that the 14th amendment applied to anyone but real people. Nor does it now! Scalia's court blew it again! If Scalia had a last remaining vestige of conscience, he would confess that he:
  • BLEW IT;
  • ADMIT that he is a bought and paid for tool;
  • RESIGN!


Corporations are NOT people! They are 'Conspiricies of Rich Men'

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Real persons are conceived biologically in a womb! There is a word for that process but this short note is not about sex. Corporations, by contrast, are pieces of paper filed with a Sec of State somewhere (probably Delaware). Ergo: a 'corporation' is not and never will be a person.

A 'corporation' has more in common with and is more accurately described/compared to a piece of paper than to real, living biological persons to whom John Locke and, later, the American founders, ascribed 'rights'. NO rights accrue to mere legal abstractions but the 'privileges' that are defined and described specifically in a corporate charter that is prepared in advance by REAL people. Corporations can be constrained, restrained and/or limited by law and several hundred years of precedent.

NO intelligent person believes a 'corporation' is a 'person'. Sir/St Thomas More --arguably the most brilliant confidant of King Henry VIII --most certainly did not believe 'corporations' were 'persons'. More believed, rather, that they were 'conspiracies' and 'conspiracies of crooked rich men' to boot:
"I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices, when the rich men have decreed to be kept and observed for the commonwealth’s sake, that is to say for the wealth also of the poor people, then they be made laws. But these most wicked and vicious men, when they have by their insatiable covetousness divided among themselves all those things, which would have sufficed all men, yet how far be they from the wealth and felicity of the Utopian commonwealth? Out of the which, in that all the desire of money with the use of thereof is utterly secluded and banished, how great a heap of cares is cut away! How great an occasion of wickedness and mischief is plucked up by the roots!

--Sir/St Thomas More (1478–1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia"
I suspect that the idea of 'corporate personhood' may have its origins in a misunderstanding, a mis-read of Hobbes'. But the Hobbes Leviathan refers to the 'state' --not to businesses that may be chartered in any way whatsoever by a state. In any case, not even the 'state' Leviathan is considered by Hobbes to have been a single person but, rather, the abstract sovereignty invested in the state by the people as a collective --NOT as a single entity as is the case with personhood. Nor have I found anything in Hobbes that asserts that the 'state' has the power to make 'people' of abstractions whose only raison d'etre is the making of money.

A herd is not a cow! A covey is not a quail. A stamp collection is not a stamp nor is a flock a single sheep. An ant is not a colony, but more to the point, a colony is NOT an ant.


Rick Santorum Attacks the Separation of Church and State


by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The ignorant (if not moronic) right wing is stirring up fears and spreading distortions about the First Amendment again. Rick Santorum, for example, has said that the separation of church and state is NOT absolute. I beg to differ and so would have Thomas Jefferson who described a WALL OF SEPERATION between Chruch and State. And I will venture that Jefferson was in a better position to know what he was talking about and that Jeffeson was infinitely more intelligent than Rick Santorum.

The following is the text of the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.
Rick Santorum is of an authoritarian mentality that asserts a "right" to believe claptrap i.e, "intelligent design" but at the same time DENY you the right to believe modern theories of evolution. These ignoramuses label their opposition with the word Darwinian --as if 'Darwinian' were a bad word. It's NOT! Of course, Darwin's theory is "Darwinian". It also happens to be, in the man, true and verifiable. It is not theory; it's fact!

Tragically --the right wing has a mental blind spot. They are utterly INCAPABLE of applying to themselves objective rules of logic and evidence. While most intelligent people today are comfortable with the fact that the laws of physics apply equally everywhere in the universe; they are discovered, described ONLY by observation and empirical methods. The "right wing" inclined have, obviously, never considered for a moment that their thinking processes are, in fact, reversed. Intelligent people will follow a premise logically to a conclusion. The right wing --rather --ASSUMES the truth of an ideology and work backward. Forcing everything into the mold. As a result of prejudice and mentally impaired rationalizations, the right wing will accept ONLY those conclusions conforming to their prejudices. An "pen mind" is anathema to them if not completely unheard of. By any definition, the American right wing is a "kooky cult"!

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Mitt is Either Wrong or Lying; Corporations are NOT People

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Mitt Romney seemed very precise: "Of course, corporations are people, my friend!" His argument is as follows: corporations were made up of people; ergo: they ARE persons themselves.

That's fallacious of course! It's also a very bad re-write of Thomas Hobbes who described a Leviathan --a 'state' comprised of the people in it. But not even Hobbes would have dared to say that the 'state' IS a person! Being 'comprised' of people is not the same thing as being a 'being' a person.

As a person, I am made up of millions of cells, each of which replicate my DNA to some degree. But to say that EACH cell IS "ME" is absurd. What if I should prick my finger and I lose some blood? Have several hundred thousand 'people' died? Of course not!

Romney seemed to be arguing that because money that "...gets into people's pockets" does so by way of companies, companies are therefore 'people'! Again --his argument is not only fallacious but non-sensical! That workers are paid by corporations does not make people of corporations.

What about those 'people' not employed by the corporations about which Romeny spoke? Are we to believe that they are NOT people? In Romney's view, one must work or be indentured to a 'corporation' in order to be a person! That's absurd on its face. Clearly:

  • Romney has never truly understood the issue and may be incapable of understanding it
  • He is ignorant of the implications
  • He needs to take remedial courses in elementary logic and biology
  • Corporations are NOT and will never be 'people'
Let's consider Mitt's analogy in this way: if it were true that every cell in my body is a 'person', anyone cutting off my finger is, at least, guilty of assault and battery and possibly the cold-blooded murder of millions of little, micropscopic 'ME's". 

Being a 'person' occurs by virtue of being born of two members of the species: homo sapien! That is not the case with a corporation, any corporation, a corporation of any type! A corporation is, by definition, a charter, filed with a Secretary of State (most often Delaware); the charter outlines the corporate structure, lists the major officers and describes the 'type' of 'incorporation in legal terms. It is a NOT a person but simply a contract listing the major stockholders, summarizing the management and delegating various responsibilities. Certain accounting conventions follow but, certainly, no procedure has the God-like power to create 'persons' with a ledger book! No such combination of debits and credits has ever breathed life into inanimate objects and, by doing so, make 'people' of them!

When a corporation is given birth to by a woman as a result of her doing what human beings (persons) have done for thousands of years, then I might concur that corporations are persons. That will happn when pigs fly. And pigs WILL fly when I vote for a moron like Mitt Romney.

In the meantime, I suggest Mitt...

  • go back to school
  • take a biology course
  • take two semesters of philosophy
  • take two semesters of symbolic logic and one INTRO to the "Philosophy of Logical Analysis".
And ---corporations are NOT and never will be "people'!

How to Resist Illegal Police Searches and Violations of the Fourth Amendment!

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Commit this to memory:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

--Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Bottom line ---unless the officer wanting to harass you, search your car, pester you or argue with you can PRODUCE a WARRANT issued by a judge that describes 'particularly' the article that you are suspected of possessing, you need not submit to any search whatsoever. You know that! The judge knows that! But 'hot dogs' cops either don't know it or don't care or both! It is bitter irony that many who have had the law on their side have become victims of those who either care nothing for the 'rule of law'. An alarming number of these nimrods resent the fact that you have rights; as many resent legal restraints upon their conduct. Almost as many are not in the least bit concerned about your rights as a law abiding citizen and tax payer. 

Before you can be arrested, police must present the 'probable cause' that you have committed a crime to a judge before a warrant for either search or arrest can be issued.

Police may not --legally --conduct fishing expeditions, blanket searches, harassment! Information is reliable if it shows that it's more likely than not that a crime has occurred and the evidence sought exists at the place named in the search warrant, or that the suspect named in the arrest warrant has committed a crime.

These restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures effectively restrain those cops who may wish to take you into custody but cannot without a warrant. Producing probable cause is the responsibility of the police and it follows from the 'presumption of innocence'. That is not your problem! The fact is "unreasonable searches and seizures" are illegal. Any search is illegal if not authorized by a warrant and NO warrant shall be issued but upon 'probable cause'! Therefore, you are not required or expected to do the cops' job for them. And if they do not know what their job is or how to do it they should resign immediately accompanied by a big 'STFU'!

An example of what cops are capable of occurred in Houston some 20 years ago. Cops, responding to a disturbance, arrested an hispanic Viet Nam war hero who was accused of creating a row in a bar.

He was beaten so badly by the cops that the jailer refused to admit him; he ordered the cops to take him to a hospital. Instead, they took him to a dimly lit area on Buffalo Bayou between downtown and the city's River Oaks/Memorial area. There they beat the holy hell out of him while shackled. Then they leveraged him out over the bridge and DUMPED him into the inky dark waters of Buffalo Bayou some 20 ft (or more) below.

He drowned and the cops --to Houston's credit --were made to stand trial for murder! They were convicted! I covered the trial.

If you should get stopped by a cop who persists and despite not having a warrant FORCES a search upon you, get his badge number!

  • SUE him!
  • Demand that he be dismissed without pension!
  • FILE charges against him!
  • Sue either the city, the state, the district!
  • Sue the bastards!


Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Fatal Holes that Sink Bush’s 911 Lie

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

History is being re-written as we write, speak or post. American Airlines itself was the source for my blog article of about 2 years ago in which it was revealed that Flight 11 did not fly nor had been scheduled to fly on 911.

The TIP off was a Wikipedia article which had been revised to reflect the truth about Flight 11. However, I wanted confirmation that it was, indeed, American Airlines, that was making the change. This I was able to confirm with a WHOIS look-up of the IP address making the change. It was --indeed --AA itself that was the source of the Wiki change that now said that Flight 11 was not even scheduled to fly on 911, had been mothballed for some 6 months as I recall. There is no information that it had been pressed into service at the 11th hour. There is simply no evidence that supports the Bush theory with respect to any of the alleged flights whatsoever.

In my opinion, that's better documentation than Woodward-Bernstein got from 'Deep Throat'. But --as Orwell taught us --history is re-written daily these days. The best that we can to is point out how UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE (if not ludicrous) is the Bush 'official conspiracy theory of 911'.

Our only consolation is that the FATAL holes in the theory are so large that not even BIG BRO can plug them up. The people themselves could help the cause of TRUTH by honing some elementary skills to include the refusal to SWALLOW utter junk that
violates basic principles of physics
  • is internally inconsistent
  • is blatantly inconsistent with its own timelines
  • is blatantly inconsistent from one version to the next.
The best example of that is Don Rumseld who referred to (his words) "....the MISSILE that struck this (Pentagon) building." That's called a Freudian slip. Rumsfeld knew that NO airliner had struck the Pentagon. He slipped up and told the truth.

Another glaring but obvious hole is the fact that official records of the Bureau of Transportation Safety [BTS] indicate that the cockpit door was NEVER opened after take-off. But we are told and expected to believe that Hani Hanjour had hijacked the plane and piloted it himself into the Pentagon. We are expected to believe that Hani Hanjour walked through a closed door --a trick envied by David Copperfield, I am sure.

The ONLY OFFICIAL SCRAP of evidence to have survived the Bush cover up is the AUTOPSY REPORT released to Dr. Olmstead via an FOIA request. There are NO ARABS on the list. Ergo: there were NO Arabs on board! But ---that's not all:
  • there is no record of any passenger being autopsied and, in the process, identified;
  • while Pentagon employees were buried at Arlington Cemetery, there is NO record of a single burial for any passenger. Where were/are their remains?
Almost forgotten these days, is the BBC story that inspired my very first suspicions. The BBC, in fact, interviewed several of the hijackers after Bush had said that they perished in the 911 attacks. But --there they were --interviewed by the BBC.

It is also worth mentioning here that the venerable BBC actually interviewed some of the 'said' hijackers after Bush had told us they all died crashing airplanes in New York, DC and PA.

There are many, many more FATAL HOLES in Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. As Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth!" What remains are two facts: 1) Bush lied to hide the truth; 2) 911 was a govt/Bush admin inside job!


The 'Cowboy' on Facebook

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009



Monday, February 20, 2012

Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Than Many Top U.S. Corporations



by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

If 'corporations' are people, then why are they NOT paying their fair share of taxes? Some pay very little! Some pay no taxes at all! The tax burden has, in fact, fallen upon REAL people and that --in itself --proves the LIE to the SCOTUS decision known, simply, as "Citizens United" in which five robed liars decreed that 'corporations' were 'people'. Citizens United was not a 'decision; it was a bald-faced lie! If it had been the truth 'Corporations' --being 'real' people --would be paying their fair share of taxes just like hard working and often hard pressed American REAL 'real people' are doing and have been doing since this nation's founding. And, when caught breaking the law, they would be imprisoned as are 'real' real people! If the letter of law applies to people and not to corporations, then corporation are NOT and will never be 'people'! SCOTUS has become crooked!
According to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (itepnet.org), undocumented workers paid billions in state organization that works on federal, state and local tax policy issues." GE, remember, paid NOTHING. Though conservatives will likely put ITEP alonside FactCheck and PolitiFact as liberal propaganda machines, ITEP is, as the NY Daily News reports, "a prestigious, nonprofit, nonpartisan research

--Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Than Many Top U.S. Corporations
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has put out “A Guide to Corporate Freeloaders.”

  1. Exxon Mobil’s 2009 profits totaled $19 billion, yet according to its SEC filings, the company received a $156 million rebate from the IRS plus it didn’t pay any federal taxes.
  2. Bank of America made $4.4 billion in profits last year. This was after it received a $1 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, and a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS.
  3. General Electric has made $26 billion in profits in the United States over the past five years. It’s also received a $4.1 billion tax refund from the IRS. GE has cut a fifth of its American jobs in the past nine years, and is boosting jobs overseas – where tax rates are lower. And where it can continue evading U.S. taxes.
  4. Chevron’s IRS refund last year totaled $19 million but it’s 2009 profits came to a whopping $10 billion.
  5. Boeing received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers. It also received a $124 million refund from the IRS.
  6. Valero Energy made $68 billion in sales and received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS. Over the past three years, it has received a $134 million tax break thanks to the oil and gas manufacturing tax reduction
  7. Goldman Sachs paid 1.1% of its 2009 income in taxes. Yet it made a profit of $2.3 billion. And guess how much it received from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department? $800 billion.
  8. Citigroup profits last year totaled more than $4 billion. But it paid zero dollars in federal income tax, and received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
  9. ConocoPhillips profits from 2007 through 2009 totaled $16 billion. But it was still awarded $461 million in tax arrears because of the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
  10. Carnival Cruise Lines is apparently getting pretty good business. Its profits over the past five years totaled more than $1.1 billion. It’s federal income tax rate, however, came to just 1.1%.
Experience had led me to believe that most of the so-called 'illegal immigrants' who live and work in the U.S. are honest, hard-working folk. They work, raise children, shop, spend money! In fact, they represent a far greater infusion of 'monies' into the economy than do corporate leeches.

These so-called 'illegal aliens' are, in fact, paying their fair share and more! Corporate crooks often pay NOTHING whatsoever even as they export jobs, possibly your job! They leave it to real 'real' people to take up the slack!

Unlike corporate leeches upon the economy, so-called 'illegal aliens' do not export jobs. Jobs stay right here in the U.S. That is in stark contrast to GOP policies in general which have always resulted in the decline of U.S. jobs, in effect, a net export to those nation's with whom we have a negative trade balance --significantly: China. [See: CIA World Fact Book, Current Account Balance]

It has been asked: when did America, a country whose narrative and history was built on the sweat of immigrants, turn against immigration and immigrants? That's easy! That result came about with the rise of the GOP --a party of lies, scapegoats and excuses!

It has been said that there has always been a strong anti-immigration element in America! But I believe that that was not always the case. In fact, the Native Americans were here thousands of years before Europeans showed up and, in many if not most or all cases, Native Americans welcomed the new arrivals. They paid dearly for it. There are myriads of stories of genocide and atrocities. I refer the interested reader to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, specifically, his description of the fate of the Arawaks.

In the meantime, all Americans of every ancestry and origin must begin to think clearly about transperant, bald-faced lies that are invariably told and sold by the U.S. GOP --not a political party but an evil kooky cult.

I suspect that if all immigration --legal or ill --were stopped overnight, the nation would be plunged into a recession/depression. Few economies are so large that they can simply kiss off an overnight withdrawal of some several billion dollars! Banks would fall like dominoes.

To be fair, it is not only Hispanics that the GOP begrudges health-care! It's Americans of any origin or political persuasion! Their motto was best articulated by one Ebenezer Scrooge whom Dickens "quoted" thus: "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? Then let them die and decrease the surplus population!"



Monday, February 13, 2012

The Ominous Implications of Corporate-Personhood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I do not and cannot support the Libertarian party. Primarily --if the libertarian position re: taxation had been the rule, FDR could NEVER have spent the U.S. out of the GREAT DEPRESSION. Think of how fortunate we were to have had a great President in office! Think of how disastrous our fate had a 'libertarian' been occupying the White House!

As I understand their platform, the 'Libertarian party', would have opposed Roosevelt's 'New Deal' and, most certainly, Social Security. Therefore, I would hope that Libertarians have denounced the exploitation of the 14th Amendment to rationalize 'corporate personhood', which in effect, grants to corporations 'Freedom of Speech'.

I do not believe that Exxon (for example) may enjoy 'free speech'. Exxon is not a person. If EXXON were never allowed to spew their lies and propaganda on REAL people, it would not keep me awake nights. I have freedom of speech. A 'legal abstraction' does not! I don't care what myths, lies and voodoo are subsribed to by ilk like Scalia.

But this issue is of considerable interest to anyone considering whether or not to support Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a strong supporter of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and so am I. But SCOTUS recently applied the 14th to 'legal abstractions', i.e, corporations.

IF corporations are people, then nothing can be done to prevent them becoming monopolies, enslaving 'real people' in various ways. IF corporations are people, to restrain them violates the 14TH amendment. Ron Paul's vocal support of the 14th must not cloak any support whatsoever for 'corporate personhood'?

If I were opposing Paul in a run for a nomination, I would demand he answer this question: are you for or against corporate personhood? This is, in fact, the 'cutting issue' that will define the election. With the 'possible' exception of Paul, every other Republican (prominently Mitt Romney) is in accord with the GOP 'line', i.e, the infamous Citizen-United decision in which SCOTUS bestowed upon mere legal abstraction the miracle of 'personhood'. Previously --only our 'creator' had been capable of such a miracle.

Even so, the following question must be put to every Republican seeking the nomination: If you are for the 14th but against corporate personhood, how would you propose to avoid a nation in which 'corporate-persons', in fact, legal monstrosities would exploit that unique status in ways that are yet still unknown?

If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION. It would be the immediate onset of BIG BRO.

If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION.

Libertarians cannot have it both ways. If 'people' are to have this brand of freedom AND if corporations are people, then what 'power' would restrain them, the government being reduced in power and status?

Rather --corporations should be restrained by a government responsible only to REAL, real people. Pin Ron Paul down on this point! It should be made clear --beyond any shades of gray or doubt --that CORPORATIONS are NOT people! It should be made clear that corporations exist at the pleasure of a government that was described by our founders --a government of REAL people, BY real people, and FOR real people!

I suspect that just such an outcome is precisely what 5 ideologues on SCOTUS had in mind. SCOTUS, certainly, does not care about R. Paul's problems. SCOTUS, kissing up to corporate 'sponsors' re-created the Frankstein monster but on paper! It's a monstrous problem for anyone but more so for anyone claiming to be a 'libertarian'.

FREE JULLIAN ASSANGE! OCCUPY THE WORLD!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Julian Assange has been in 'custody' illegally! His right of 'habeas corpus' has been denied him though not formally. He is simply detained, denied his freedom of movement and, presumably, his access to the international press! In fact, no charges have ever been filed against him. No judge has demanded of his captors that they produce 'probable cause' that he has --in fact --committed any crime of any sort! He is a political prisoner in every sense of the word. He may be the picture of a fascist future when 'authority' or 'force of arms' may simply decree one to be an enemy of the state.

Assange is locked up though the burden of proof in almost every western nation has rested upon those making accusations. Officially, he is not accused of a specific crime. He is --simply --a political prisoner, a 'captive' of a crooked state(s).

TYRANNY
The arrest warrant for Julian Assange should not stand and breaches "a matter of fundamental legal principle", the supreme court has heard .

Dinah Rose QC, defending the WikiLeaks founder in his final appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, told the panel of seven senior judges that to consider the Swedish public prosecutor as a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice.
--Julian Assange extradition breaches legal principle, lawyer claims
This is an outrage! If Julian Assange can be imprisioned though no charges have ever been lodged against him, NO ONE IS FREE!

When the U.S. Bill of Rights had not yet been trashed, subverted by the likes of George W. Bush, the crooked court made crooked by the likes of Thomas, Scalia et al, the Bill of Rights had GUARANTEED every American DUE PROCESS LAW. The principle, it was hoped, would have been universal among 'western nations'. In fact, no one should be denied the right of Habeas Corpus.
Latin for "that you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.
--See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).
Simply, if charges cannot be found and filed upon PROBABLE CAUSE, the person targeted should be, must be released! Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, embraced by the American founding fathers, and made law in the Bill of Rights! It is, likewise, guaranteed in many nations.

Make the Right of Habeas Corpus a Principle of International Law

It is an essential safeguard against tyranny, arbitrary state action, 'official vendettas! ORGANIZE to demand that Julian Assange be 'arraigned' and the charges against him heard together with the probable cause that he violated any laws whatsoever. If the 'authorities' cannot produce the 'probable cause' to file a formal complaint with a judge, then ASSANGE MUST BE RELEASED!


Thursday, February 09, 2012

Jean-Paul Sartre vs the Pod People

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

'Mormanism' is a cult which believes Joseph Smith is a prophet! But believing Joseph Smith a prohet is no 'kookier' than any number of unquestioned shibbboleths and ideology that define the GOP just as many articles of 'faith' and/or superstitions define most if not all the world's religions. And the world's kooky cults!

By any definition, Christianity is, likewise, a cult just as it was considered to be by 'free Romans' during the long Roman Empire. Rome, especially during the post-Republican period was full of cults to include, prominently, various flavors of Mithraism. The Christians were just one of possibly hundreds of kooky cults of various persuasions, convictions and delusions.

Today it is not only Mitt Romney who is a cultist!

The GOP has seemingly deified Ronald Reagan! The GOP rank and file still worship Reagan's economic legacy, though it is, in fact, a sorry tail of inequities, slow growth, the 'export' of American industries, and recession/depression. In practice, the GOP clearly loathes any education which insists upon rigorous, skeptical science, objective inquiry, logic and/or empirical observation. All of those things threaten both cults --Christianity as well as the cult of Republicans.

Not all groups that could in one way or another be defined sociologically as cults are necessarily destructive. For instance, not every group requires its members to cut off normal contact with friends and family.

To be fair, cults are not always evil, kooky or destructive! But I am hard-pressed to name an entirely benevolent 'cult' offhand. In fact, I defend a persons right to be a 'cult-member' for so long as he/she does not harm others, commit or try to justify crimes in the name of the name of the cult, or, in any other way, deny the right of others to believe as they choose. I am tempted to write that most cults, however, are intolerant of dissent and, if not intolerant, may 'persuade' but in ugly, overly aggressive manners.

That said, I am of the opinion that cultism of any sort is 'anti-freedom'. A cult seems to me to be the ulitmate Faustian bargain in which an individual surrenders or concedes his/her individualty (soul?) to the larger social group. Just as a member of any 'armed force' or military surrenders his/her autonomy, a cult-member may no longer act autonomously.

“Existence Precedes Essence”: How May One be Free Today?

It was Jean-Paul Sartre's slogan—“existence precedes essence”—which defined 'existentialism'. With this phrase, Sartre made the point that it may be impossible to define or describe precisely what it means to be 'human'. It was, rather, a matter that is defined in the act of living itself. The human being may be alone in this respect, the inanimate world being the result of universal 'laws of physics' or 'evolution' in which 'essential properties' seem to be fixed from without, by forces exterior to the individual. Hence, Satre's famous declaration: "A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself".


Sunday, February 05, 2012

It Takes Courage to Leave the GOP Cult

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP is not a political party. It is a crime syndicate, to be sure, but also evinces characterisitcs of a kooky cult. I say that based upon my experience as a young man who got an education from 'inside the GOP'. I consulted them but stopped for reasons of conscience. I can relate to comments by John P. Judis, who chose to leave the cult.
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery." U.S. Fascism Will Have TX Origins
--John P. Judis, quote found at Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis
The GOP --sponsored as it is by exceedingly huge corporations which now presume to be persons --is an existential threat to American Democracy. The recent decision re: corporate personhood will prove to have been the piece de resistance! Either the GOP is in the pocket of the huge corporations or it is the other way around. The distinctions are as blurred as is the term 'corporate moraltiy' --an oxymoron.

The fact is corporations are mere 'legal abstractions'; they are NOT people. The definition of 'people' may be found in biology and/or psychology textbooks; I deny that politicians, old men, liars in robes can redefine with a mere decree some several million years of evolution over which they had no control or input. Robed judges are not 'God'! They cannot --with a mere decree --change the laws of evolution and/or physics. That some on the 'court' think so is evidence of insane and myopic arrogance!
I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.

--John P. Judis, quote found at Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis
That the GOP has gone too far may be good news! GOP extremes, crimes, lie and absuridties have, at last, awakened some Democrats to the danger. At the same time, some Republicans have grown uncomfortable playing Faust to to the GOP's Mephistopheles, i.e, Satan. To them --I say: too late! You may have already sold your soul! And --as they say in Hollywood: what else you got?