The ecstatic drool from Corporates is flooding the D.C. Beltway and drowning the people’s voice

The news for liberals and Democrats is depressing in the first year of the meek Obama Administration and filibuster-crippled Congress culminating in the election of Scott Brown and the Supreme Court free speech decision announced today rolling back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns. Wall Street and the bankers are drooling as this week they doll out $144 billion in bonuses. Both Obama and the Congress have shown they will not restrain, let alone seriously punish, those who have heavily damaged the U.S. and world economy.

The last year has made clear that the Corporate Communists, as Dylan Ratigan has labeled them, hold far too much power. The CCs, just as earned or stolen money is never enough, have no desire to rein in their ever increasing money-power. The voice and power of the people is being drowned out.

As usual, the M$M seems to have missed the major lesson from the Mass. Election. This was not a triumph for the Republicans and a disaster for the Democrats. It actually was a disaster for both and a triumph for the people.

Independent voters make up 51% of Mass. voters. They were sending a message to both parties and the Obama Administration. They want leaders who are as angry as they are about Wall Street and the insurance companies. Someone like Scott who claims he will get tough with both. That’s why they voted for Barack who promised he was an outsider bent on cleaning up Washington. Much was promised; little was delivered when all those insiders became his key appointments. Obama has been unwilling to fight for the few outsiders he nominated. Even with the Christmas bomber, Obama let his nominee to run the TSA languish until this week he quit in disgust. 176 other White House appointees are still unconfirmed. The Republicans put up a fuss and Obama caves issue after issue.

Mass. voters are very familiar with health reform and all its incumbent problems due to heartless insurance companies because they bravely voted for serious reform to provide universal health care in their state. They watched Obama and Congress give away a very modest public option that would have only affected five percent of Americans. They know and have felt the impact of a severe recession thanks to the CCs. In his victory speech, Brown never said the word Republican once. The movie character who yelled “I am mad as hell and won’t take it any more!” worked for a Boston TV station.

If you examine the character and beliefs of national guard, Lt. Col., judge advocate Brown, he is unlikely to be the spokesperson for all those independent voters across America who are also extremely angry. Independents make up a third of more of the U. S. electorate and they are desperately seeking a real leader. No Republicans have emerged especially when it has Beck and Limbaugh as the nominal spokepersons. There is one Democrat who could fill the void.

A man born of teacher-parents who grew up in the tenements of the Bronx working his way through Harvard graduating summa cum laude in three years. A man who earned a Harvard law degree and worked as a law clerk for two very different supreme court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia as well as two other opposite-poll judges, Abner Mikva and Robert Bork. A man who then obtained a masters in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government and has passed the exams for a Ph.D. in government.

A man who teamed up with a fellow Bronx High School of Science graduate and started an innovative telecom business that began on the second floor of a funeral home and grew to be a $2 billion-a-year business, on the Fortune 1000 list, and traded on the New York Stock Exchange. A man who reported a worth of $31 million as a freshman U.S. Representative.

Yes, if you haven’t already guessed, I am talking about outspoken Florida congressman Alan Grayson. After just a few years amassing considerable wealth in business, Grayson decided to leave in 1994 and return to law representing whistleblowers, who witnessed fraud against the Government. After the war in Iraq began, Grayson was the only attorney who was willing to pursue such cases, in the face of hostility from the Bush Administration. Congress called on him four times to testify about contractor fraud in Iraq.

Grayson shot into the national limelight last October when with only a few Republicans within earshot, dramatically declared the GOP health care plan is “Don’t get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.” No matter how much the media or the right wing has attacked him, he has not backed down. He is impervious to anything but what he believes. He can’t be bought because he has substantial wealth. He came from modest roots and understands the pain Americans are currently undergoing. He is a very effective voice of the people who could lead them in a very needed uprising.

Below is a list of YouTube videos where you can see him in action. If you know of a potential leader who can energize the people in a positive fair way devoid of ideology as effectively as Grayson, tell me who it is. Elizabeth Warren could be another candidate so there are others out there.

YouTube videos

$1.2 Trillion Slush Fund: Congressman Alan Grayson Grills Fed Vice Chair Donald Kohn 1-13-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0JAfq4esk&feature=channel

Alan Grayson on the Worst Deal Since Manhattan Was Sold for $24 in Trinkets 2-11-09 Deal with Citigroup 306 billion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-DOwLnQ4nk&feature=channel

Alan Grayson: Is there any way to save the system other than showering taxpayer money on banks? 3-5-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jO5Z-9yy54&feature=channel

Grayson to Geithner: What Rules Do We Need to Prevent the Taxpayer from Being on the Hook? 3-26-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZLiu_9Q2FE&feature=channel

Alan Grayson: “Which Foreigners Got the Fed’s $500,000,000,000?” Bernanke: “I Don’t Know.” 7-21-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ&feature=channel

Rep. Alan Grayson on Rachel Maddow: No One Cares About Bipartisanship 10-20-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWbTzbadG0I&feature=channel

Alan Grayson Introduces Amendment to Stop People From Going Broke or Homeless 10-20-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCylyNv-RHw&feature=channel

Grayson v. Broun on the Constitution ACORN 10-21-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKz5ZHM8kFM&feature=channel

Alan Grayson on Hardball: Is Dick Cheney a Vampire? 10-22-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0sgwv0rNUA&feature=player_embedded

34 Comments

  1. Casual Observer says:

    I am also an admirer of Grayson, and have clicked through a bunch of his youtubes. Not a bad one in the bunch.

    To pick a very small, minor bone with your closing above, I’m mystified by the seeming universal disparagement of “ideology”. Obama is particularly hateful of it. But ideology is a good and necessary thing. The Declaration of Independence is an ideological document. While excessive ideology is arguably bad, ideology itself, per se, is not at all bad, harmful, or evil.

    finally, pour out a dram on the ground tonight for Air America–which just announced ceasing broadcast, and shutting down.

    • cocktailhag says:

      I hadn’t heard that about Air America… The progressive station I listen to here isn’t a part of it, but it does carry Ron Reagan; it appears to be going strong. I agree with you about ideology; the Republicans are in it up to their eyebrows, and it seems to work for them. The Dems shun it and they can’t govern their way out of a wet paper bag. Ideology works; it organizes people and drives their passion, for good or ill. (Especially for ill, these days…)

    • rmp says:

      Your bone is accurate. We all have an ideology. The neocons have given it a bad name and I have fallen prey. That’s really bad news about Air America. The Right Wing ideologues seem to have a lot more money to throw around.

  2. Yes, Alan Grayson appears to be the perfect leader of the Democratic party of the future. But will he be able to obtain the funding needed to take the next step?

    After SCOTUS opened the floodgates yesterday for corporate campaign spending, it’s going to be very difficult for populace candidates to compete for higher office.

    http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_rockford/2010/01/21/corporatism_wins_big_time

    • cocktailhag says:

      Great piece at O/S…. I actually signed up so I could leave a comment. Thom Hartmann was apoplectic, but not at all surprised, over the ruling. He saw this one coming, as did I. Unfortunately, I was installing tile all day and the saw drowned out a lot of the commentary. I plan to write about this tomorrow. To think the media’s all worked up about one danged Senator…
      I have a lot of reading and pasting to do tonight. The parts or the dissenting opinion I heard were pretty good.

    • rmp says:

      He has $31 million and even with five kids he has some personal money to use. judging from how much he made from the masses for just speaking the truth, he could do all right especially if he became a viable third party candidate. Besides all that money thrown out by the corporations doesn’t mean money will rule considering the Internet and social networking. A lot of the independent and thinking voters are turned off by negative ads so I am not convinced money is as powerful as it is except for buying congress critters. Setting firm rules on redistricting and stopping gerrymandering would also defeat some of money’s power. The real answer is citizen funded elections. See this site:

      Lessig on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC Decision (Video: Lessig and his organization wants Citizen Funded Elections. Sign up at link for email updates.)
      http://action.change-congress.org/page/s/citizensunited?utm_source=full&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100121

  3. cocktailhag says:

    Great piece, RMP…. I’m a Grayson fan, too, but this court decision is going to make his type, already a rarity, pretty much irrelevant.

  4. dirigo says:

    Michael Lind, who posts on Salon, had this piece up a few weeks ago.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2010/01/11/second_bill_of_rights/index.html

    He argues that we may be facing the choice between being citizens or consumers. Or he’s reminding us that’s been the choice all along.

    The Massachusetts vote may or may not push us toward becoming mere consumers of bought politics, but today’s supreme court decision surely does.

    There’s a squeaky wheel here.

    Turn it one way and there’s the noise of having a stake in our public affairs and communities, and insisting on that stake. Turn it the other way and there’s more corporate noise, right in your home, a din which will dull, over time, anyone’s sense of living in a democracy, or of having the belief that there are such things as “economic rights.”

    Calling attention to this squeak, the to and fro of it, over and over, might help.

    • rmp says:

      See my comments to Steven Rockford. Tell me why ads and movies by the corporate will be so overpowering. The electorate and campaign politics is undergoing a revolution. Too much interaction with a voter, like robot calls, can also turn them off. I’ve worked grass roots elections recently and it is getting harder and harder to get to people. Voters pay a lot more attention to friends and family which is why the Internet is so powerful. But again too many emails or texts from people they don’t know turns them off. Ads and mailings are not all powerful. Now buying off TV media still is.

      • dirigo says:

        I’m a professional media practitioner but would never pose as a media expert, as if I had a McLuhanesque itch to scratch in public.

        I’m refining sharply how I use my own media menu as I try to market myself on a different level these days, and as I do that, while grappling with the digital learning curve (kinda steep for me!), there’s stuff I’m simply not bothering with, like social media. I don’t have cable. I don’t assume I have to watch network television, and I get my news largely on my computer these days, along with my weekend metro paper.

        Doing what I’m doing right now (mostly performance), I see little use for it (Twitter etc.), although I hear and see younger people involved in it.

        My take is that there’s inherent peer pressure to do that stuff; and it’s being sold that way.

        All I would suggest is: there is sophisticated (and apolitical) media criticism available, along with very solid critical thinking programs and classes. But I have no idea whether kids are getting that today. In public schools I’d tend to think not.

        The classes I’ve been taking for some time require no active technology, and in fact it’s inappropriate in these conditions. What is required and entirely appropriate are very well developed skills in focus and concentration, with the mind working by and for itself, supported by constructive criticism from a solid instructor. Any use of technology is supplemental, used in support of the primary goals. By the way, your observations about “Avatar” and the issues of how Cameron made the technology serve the story, rather than intrude or overwhelm it, are worth noting here. And those issues, or that notion of storytelling, are old ones.

        I look at adults and see blithe, blithering idiots in many ways, and so don’t necessarily think they can help their kids. At the same time, kids tend to turn off their parents anyway. Are more and more people hiding, becoming more withdrawn in their Ipods? Looks like it sometimes.

        Paying attention to friends and family.

        Having dinner together every night.

        Those are quaint notions aren’t they?

        • rmp says:

          A hell of a lot less people even watch ads any more, especially the youth. Youth control their media and what they want to pay attention to. Even the majority of voters who voted for Brown, probably made their decision based on other things than ads. Money can make wingnuts even more nutty, but those nuts were lost anyway to the kind of candidates who would not be owned by money.

          A lot of TV ad companies are getting their product used either in a drama or reality show or in other more subtle ways. That’s why Faux News and RWA radio works so well for the RWA candidates. Ooops subtle is not the right choice of words. Heavy handed works better on them. In fact, it is the only thing that works.

          • dirigo says:

            A club, or a two-buh-four, over the head, over and over.

          • dirigo says:

            I wouldn’t necessarily assume that kids (young people with developing minds) are able to discern and make judgments about what it is they’re absorbing just because they have “control” of their media.

            Tuning out is one thing. Making sense is something else.

  5. The Heel says:

    I wish a Guy like Grayson would form a third party. Maybe join forces with a Ross Perot or somebody of that caliber. If we need one thing more than anything it is real choices on election days. Especially with the Dem fiasco unfolding, nobody could argue that “voting for xyz is voting for Republicans” – an argument still worth mentioning 10 years ago. It obviously doesn’t matter which one of the two parties and which clown in the White house comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted, as the Hag put it recently.
    I will donate generously to a third party, as long as it distances itself from religion and the military industrial complex / oil barons. The M$M can be purchased back easily.

    • rmp says:

      I could go for Grayson as a third party candidate. I liked Perot at first and then he showed his true colors. So we need someone of much higher caliber than Ross.

      • dirigo says:

        Gee hag, I read about Air America, and then linked to a piece about Citadel broadcasting going under.

        I didn’t know about Citadel, which owns WABC in New York and WLS in Chicago, two of the great old line American radio stations. And they syndicate Imus.

        I think it’s definitely time to recall Harlan Harrington from Naples, put the CHNN flying boat on blocks, and pay down the latte bills.

        Interestingly, the report about Citadel (on Bloomberg) mentioned Clear Channel as the biggest of the big radio owners. Natch. But the story suggested Clear Channel, with debt of its own to pay down, is not necessarily in a position to gobble up Citadel’s assets.

        • cocktailhag says:

          Here, Clear Channel owns three righty stations, and KPOJ, among others. Approximately the reverse of the political inclinations of the market, of course. I think these monopolies, like the newspaper and TV ones that came with them, are choking under their own debt… the payoff in political realignment may have come too late. But gone are the families that used to own TV stations and newspapers, and still had a little pride and/or civic spirit that once in a while trumped economic interests. Air America’s mistake was trying to work top down, ala Clear Channel, rather than bottom up, trying to attack consolidation and return media to its local roots. Then again, in 2004, there was no time for that. Al Franken is now a Senator, and Ed and Rachel have TV shows, so their contribution lives on, whatever happens from now on.

          • sysprog says:

            There are numerous reasons for the death of Air America, but one of the reasons is that the Culture Warriors saw it as a strategic target and tried to kill it.

            Commercial TV and Radio are in the business of selling eyeballs and ear drums to advertisers. For this to work, you need to (1) have an audience and (2) have advertisers who want to reach that audience.

            Mass marketers advertisers will commonly buy ads on every radio station in a market, in order, say, to reach every drive time commuter.

            But in 2006 it was revealed that there was a well-organized blacklist, and many advertisers were refusing to buy ear drums from Air America.
            __________

            http://nytimes.com/2006/11/06/business/media/06air.html

            Advertisers Shun Air America

            [...] The memo listed almost 90 advertisers that it said were taking part in blackouts of Air America, including Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Visa, Exxon Mobil, Cingular, McDonald’s, the United States Postal Service and the Navy. [...]

            __________

            Hey, you don’t win culture wars and establish cultural hegemony by pulling your punches.

            You go for the knock-out.

            Those conservatives and corporatists understand Gramsci, while the lefties don’t even know what hit ‘em.

  6. rmp says:

    I hope this time Obama will follow up his tough talk with tough, no give in to WS, action. The Brown win has definitely helped for him to find his spine. We’ll see.

    Pres. Obama Remarks on Financial Reform (9min c-span video)
    http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/21/HP/A/28698/Pres+Obama+Remarks+on+Financial+Reform.aspx

  7. rmp says:

    Alan just sent me this email. I was one of the 15,000 that signed his petition yesterday:

    Dear RMP
    This morning, I watched five Supreme Court Justices stab at the heart of democracy, our electoral system.

    They overturned over 100 years of statute and precedent, and declared that corporations can spend all the money that they want to buy elections. In fact, these five men in robes declared that they have a constitutional right to do so.

    I was there. I saw it. And one seat away was Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who could barely contain his glee.

    If you signed our petition, you were there, too. Right in the courtroom. Because your petitions were with me, and I delivered them to the Supreme Court. If you signed our petition, you were one of almost 15,000 people who told these judges that “we cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations.”

    And now, we have to fight. We have introduced six bills to prevent the sale of our government to the highest bidder. The “Save Our Democracy” package must pass. As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, the war is forced upon us. And if we fail, then as I said yesterday, “you can kiss your country goodbye.”

    Forward this message to your friends now. Tell them to sign the petition at SaveDemocracy.net to support the “Save Our Democracy” package now.
    http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4&tag=012110_forward

  8. rmp says:

    A friend just emailed me this:

    A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
    A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.
    A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.
    Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy.

    • sysprog says:

      Sheep and wolves? I’m uncomfortable about simply dividing the world into good guys and bad guys.

      Both libertarians and communists like to speak about the world that way.

      James Bovard – - a libertarian writer – - seems to have been the originator, in 1994 or so, of the quote, “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”.

      Bovard has, since then, written variations along the line of the email from rmp’s friend.

      Bovard means evil big gummint – - not evil corporations – - when he says “wolves”.

      Many variations of Bovard’s quip have been floating around ever since, sometimes credited falsely to older writers such as Ben Franklin.

      Of course, wolves and sheep have been getting together metaphorically since forever.

      Bovard, the libertarian writer, was (perhaps unknowingly, unless he’s a scholar of Marxism) echoing Nikolay Ivanovich Bukharin, the Bolshevik editor of Pravda, who explained in 1920 why Communism (“proletarian democracy”) is good and “bourgeois democracy” (nowadays Bukharin might say “corporate” instead of “bourgeois”) is bad:

      http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/06.htm

      The ABC of Communism (1920) [English translation, Penguin Books, 1969]
      by N.I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky

      § 47 Proletarian democracy and bourgeois democracy

      A bourgeois democratic republic is based upon universal suffrage and upon the so-called ‘will of the people’, the ‘will of the whole nation’, the ‘united will of all classes’. The advocates of a bourgeois democratic republic, of a Constituent Assembly, etc., tell us that we are doing violence to the united will of the nation. Let us consider this matter first.

      In Part One we learned that contemporary society consists of classes with conflicting interests. For example, long working hours may be profitable to the bourgeoisie, but they are disadvantageous to the working class. Peace between the classes is as impossible as peace between wolves and sheep. Wolves want to eat sheep, so sheep must defend themselves against wolves. But if this be so (and unquestionably it is so), then we have to ask whether it is possible for wolves and sheep to have a common will. Every intelligent person knows that it is absurd to talk of anything of the kind. There simply cannot be a will common to sheep and wolves. We must have one thing or the other: either a wolves’ will, that of those who enslave the cheated and oppressed sheep; or else a sheep’s will, that of those who wish to deliver the sheep from the wolves and to drive out the plunderers. There can be no middle course in this matter. Now, it is as clear as daylight that the same thing applies to the two main classes of human society. In contemporary society, class is arrayed against class, the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Between them there is a war to the knife. How can they possibly have a common will, a bourgeois-proletarian will? Obviously there is no more possibility of bourgeois- proletarian desires and aspirations than of wolf-sheep desires and aspirations. We can either have the will of the bourgeoisie, of the class which imposes its will in various ways upon the oppressed majority of the people; or else we can have the will of the proletariat, of the class which imposes its will upon the bourgeoisie. It is particularly stupid to speak of a will common to all classes, of interests common to the whole nation, in an epoch of civil war, in a period of revolution, when the old world is crumbling to pieces. The proletariat wants to transform the world; the bourgeoisie wants to strengthen the old slavery.

      How can there be a ‘common’ will for bourgeoisie and proletariat? It is manifest that the very phrase about a will common to the whole nation is humbug if the words are intended to apply to all classes. No such common will has been realized or can be realized.

      But this fraud is necessary to the bourgeoisie, necessary for the maintenance of capitalist rule. [...]

      - – Bukharin and Preobrazhensky
      __________

      We’re not quite yet at the point where corporations are allowed to actually vote on election day, but Lyle Denniston, tonight, writes:

      http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-the-personhood-of-corporations/

      Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens may have had his tongue in his cheek, or perhaps wanted merely to taunt the majority, when he wrote in Thursday’s opinion on the role of corporations in national politics: “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” It is a tantalizing notion.

      Suppose that General Motors Corp., troubled that a candidate for Congress from Michigan was too favorable to the United Auto Workers, decided to do everything in its corporate power to defeat that candidate. So, aside from spending huge sums of its own money (none of it federal bailout money) to influence the outcome, it went to the office of the voting registrar in downtown Detroit. It sought to sign up, affirming that it was a citizen and resident of Michigan. Denied registration, it sued, claiming that, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it was a “person,” and, as a “citizen,” it was entitled to equal protection under the election laws. Would the Supreme Court buy that?

      General Motors might already be halfway to winning [...]

      - – Lyle Denniston
      __________

      • Thanks for the Bukharin. I once sat on folding chairs in airless underground rooms and listened to hours and hours of stuff like this, and the scholastic arguments which followed.

        Libertarian and neoconservative wonks have no idea what anemic pablum their own efforts are by comparison. If you look closely, though, you’ll see that Bukharin is quite skillfully defending a lie, as all ideologues must in the end. The world is never so simple as the systems we create to explain it. In that sense, with all the catechism training, all the confessing, genuflecting, and assertions of papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, the Roman Church has proven to be more flexible — some would say slippery — than communism as practiced by the Soviets ever was.

        And Ron Paul, or Paul Wolfowitz? Parvenues, pikers. Nobody does how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin like old commies.

  9. dirigo says:

    “Repeal corporate personhood.”

    – Dennis Kucinich

    Hmmmm ….

    • sysprog says:

      Corporations are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I’ve ever known in my life.

      • dirigo says:

        Hasn’t this been dealt with in science fiction? Star Trek maybe?

        The valiant crew of the Enterprise, ostensibly defending home and hearth, confront the claims of an alien species with an inordinate sense of self (and not much wit), despite the fact that they are non-organic beings; or an automatic monitoring system left behind by some genius species, which, after suffering damage due to a direct hit from a stray asteroid, starts putting on airs; or a measly 20th century computer, placed aboard a probe and sent into the heavens from Cape Kennedy, and then inadvertently melding with another lost logarithmic entity, decides to head back to Earth to blow it up?

        What are the pretensions of these THINGS, including ones which (not who) want to sell you killer pills (Johnson & Johnson) and whatnot?

        Our courts seem unable to deal with the question.

  10. rmp says:

    A lot of experts, much more than me, are very concerned about today’s Supreme Court decision. Here’s the take from Grayson and KO:

    Countdown: Rep. Grayson is shocked and worries about our democracy
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/34984984#34984984
    Countdown: KO Special Comment who believes democracy has been destroyed
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/34984984#34985508

    A very experienced activist provides her advice:

    Wisdom at 100: Defend Democracy Against the Corporate State
    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-11

  11. cocktailhag says:

    Sysprog, I have to differ with you perhaps borne of misunderstanding, that the bourgeoisie and the working class are necessarily at odds anymore. My father was an attorney, my mother a teacher, and we could only be considered bourgeois, “above” the working class but far below the plutocrats, who in the old days were kind of an anachronism. What is different today is that everyone but the plutocrats are being clobbered every day, and everyone below is being pounded into the working (if we’re lucky) poor. As my Cuban ex used to say, “What’s next, La Revelucion?” Enter Blackwater, to make sure that doesn’t happen.

    • sysprog says:

      Marxists have their own unique and often confusing jargon, and when they say “bourgeois” they don’t mean your regular middle class bourgeoisie such as your parents (and mine, too).

      They mean evil plutocrat.

      So, when the Revolución comes, you’re probably safe, and besides, you’ve got callused hands, no?

      • cocktailhag says:

        More than usually today, I was installing tile. The righties are doing an awfully good job of eliminating those pesky in-betweeners, whom Marx ignored, but who also made capitalism work for quite a while.

      • Correct, except that to the extent that the middle class identifies with its masters, it’s guilty of false consciousness, and thus must be considered a class enemy after all.

        So…we good commissars send the foreman to Siberia along with the hired manager and the plutocrat who owns the place. Running dogs, like our friend Tom, are simply shot.

        As I said above, the Soviet catechism had even less to recommend it than the Catholic one.

  12. sysprog says:

    Dahlia Lithwick at Slate :.

    http://slate.com/id/2242208

    The Pinocchio Project
    Watching as the Supreme Court turns a corporation into a real live boy.

    [...] Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is “to confuse metaphor with reality.” Today that metaphor won a very real victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real corporations are feeling very, very good.

    - – Dahlia Lithwick

    I wonder if the name, Pinochio, implies anything.

    I suppose it means that the Blue Fairy has decided that the corporations have proven themselves worthy of personhood on account of being honest and brave and unselfish and able to tell right from wrong by listening to Jiminy Cricket.

    So, then, alright, no worries.

  13. meremark says:

    -
    Each of the ‘liberal bias’ media which rightwingerteabaggers hate so much, so strongly, is, in the fact of that media property, in fact it is a Korporation.

    Media are korporations.
    Korporations are media.

    So korporations have a ‘liberal bias’ — as r.w.teabaggers see it — and they surely are going to join helping to kill korporations. Maybe the main weapon is BOYCOTT. … or maybe not.

    - -

    Finance‘ is about revenue and spending, and managing both sides.
    The same goes for ‘campaign finance.’
    So far, all plans to regulate the ‘campaign revenue‘ side seem to get washed away in a flood of cash through the lobby drowning the chamber.
    ‘Campaign spending‘ regulation has not been planned or tried. Such as BAN paid broadcast campaign ads, as we BAN paid broadcast cigarette ads — they can use print media, NOT broadcast.
    With ‘campaign spending’ regulation / ban, whether a candidate is rich by inheritance or ‘korporate contributions,’ and how rich, matters for naught since the money canNOT be spent (buying broadcast brainwashing).
    I suggested BAN paid broadcast campaign ads to candidate Bruggere one day. He stared at me dumbstruck, physically turned ashen white — all the blood drained from his face so rapidly that I thought he was about to faint. He turned and walked away.

    New idea (from the SCOTUS doctrine shock): Don’t wait for regulation banning TV from getting the money. There is sooner to be a TV (network) which voluntarily announces it exercises its right to refuse service to anyone and so not sell time to politics and NOT air a single campaign ad.
    Its viewer ratings would go through the roof to astonishing heights … which raises the price it could charge on the ad times it does sell.

    - –

    There really must come a show of force. Idea: A mass swarming into WashDC, on the Mall, on May 1. I came up with a name and promotions for the event.

    Million Marx March on Washington.
    Families
    Workers
    Armed Services Veterans

    . . . come one, come all

    Million Marx March on Washington May Day.

    - -

    Those are the ideas I am trying to write good succinct writing around. Or embed in good writing — steal my ideas, please! My words go off on tangents and that’s not good writing.
    But I know it when I read it.