'They Live' Directed by John Carpenter

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The release date of John Carpenter's film "They Live" is 1988 but seems more recent, more like a commentary on today's news than it is a commentary of 1980s paranoia. To be sure, there were many who warned of the dehumanizing effects of mass culture, political propaganda, political agendas --right or left!

The temptation to see allegory is not merely justified; it is, surely, the filmmakers intent. Like the much earlier "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" this message is political, a cautionary tale. While 'The Day the Earth Stood Still" deals with potential invasion, it is the alien's intent to warn us of ourselves. Klaato comes to earth with a warning, a warning about how we may destroy ourselves in a nuclear holocaust. But, he might just as well have had in mind our enslavement from without and, most ominously, from within. It the latter case, 'we' would have no one but ourselves to blame. Or as Shakespeare put it in 'Julius Caesar':

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
--Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)

'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers' seems obvious in retrospect: the 'seed pods' were the American right wing, Republicans, narrow-minded bigots, authoritarians. They would enslave us from within. John Carpenter's 'They Live' is both allegory and warning. Carpenter has created 'aliens' who have disguised their origins and their 'evil' intentions. They cannot be detected without the use of special eye glasses. The viewer accepts this as a convenient plot device. Wisely, Carpenter does not slow down the action for lectures about how this kind of thing may be feasible. Nor does he reveal an agenda but through a well-crafted story --not lectures or soliloquies. It's a device which successfully moves both plot and action to a riveting and inevitable conclusion/climax.

'They Live' is not merely Sci-Fi. It's a horror film in which a dreadful future is the monster. And, like Frankenstein, the 'monster' is one of our own creation, in this case, the complicity of 'earthlings' with evil aliens. Unlike many Sci-Fi movies and literature, the aliens of 'They Live' do not appear to have anything profound or awe-inspiring in mind. Like many earthlings the ugly aliens, resembling death heads when seen with special shades, have, it seems, only the U.S. right/GOP agenda in mind, that is, rigging Wall Street, acquiring great wealth and power, usurping the media for purpose of mass mind control. So far --they differ little from the Republican party.
Here's another review which, likewise, spotted the political implications:

John Carpenter wrote and directed this science fiction thriller about a group of aliens who try to take over the world by disguising themselves as Young Republicans. Wrestler Roddy Piper stars as John Nada, a drifted who makes his way into an immense encampment for the homeless. There he stumbles upon a conspiracy concerning aliens who have hypnotized the populace through subliminal messages transmitted through television, magazines, posters, and movies. When Nada looks through special Ray-Bans developed by the resistance leaders, the aliens lose their clean-cut "Dan Quayle" looks and resemble crusty-looking reptiles. Nada joins the underground, teaming up with rebel-leader Frank (Keith David) to eradicate the lizard-like aliens from the body politic. ~ Paul Brenner, Rovi

--They Live, Rotten Tomatoes

John Carpenter directed but, interestingly, wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym: Frank Armitage, the name of one of the characters in the movie. I have no idea why Carpenter chose to do this. In any case, the film (full movie below) is scary, challenging, and, if action is your cuppa tea, there is a memorable fight scene to end all fight scenes. Having failed to kill one another, the two characters are destined to be friends but we don't know that at the time. There is the possibility that one will kill the other. The audience is sure to find in each character traits with which he or she can identify.

Called part sci-fi, part horror, part dark comedy, it is, in fact, a cautionary tale. That it works on every level accounts for its enduring popularity.

---

---

How Citizens United Subverted the Rights of Real People and Created a Fascist State

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

I've often written about the detailed and vivid account of A. Hitler's meeting with top German industrialists --Krupp, Thysen, I.G. Farben et al. It was in that meeting that German fascism was made real in terms of an agreement between the Reich and its 'fascist' sponsors, the huge corporations who would benefit from aggression, death and destruction.

The meeting may not have defined the word 'fascism' but it most certainly birthed a Nazi regime in which corporations were given and promised not only privileges but, most importantly, big juicy contracts.

From a lesser known source is another detailed description of the nature of Hitler's fascist partnership with big business:

"From now on, the government in Berlin will allocate large sums to industrialists so that each can establish a secure post-war foundation in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the party in order that a strong German empire can be created after defeat. It is almost immediately required," he continued, "that the large factories in Germany establish small technical offices or research bureaus which will be absolutely independent and have no connection with the factory. The bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons, as well as document which they will need to continue their research. These special offices are to be established in large cities where security is better, although some might be formed in small villages nears sources of hydroelectric power, where these party member can pretend to be studying the development of water resources for benefit of Allied investigators."

--Martin Bormann, Nazi in Exile, Paul Manning [PDF]

Some have said that the 'brand' of fascism now emerging in Western democracies, the U.S. in particular, is a completely new phenomenon. I disagree! The odious 'Citizen-United' decision, in which SCOTUS decreed that corporations were 'persons', is an open and odious declaration that a corporation may utilize its wealth, riches and privileges to enslave a population of 'real people' whose humanity is as self-evident as were the principles Thomas Jefferson had declared of 'real' persons in our own 'Declaration of Independence":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Earlier, John Adams had written of the same concepts in somewhat different words:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Now, of course, we know that these rights extend to women as well. Surely --even our crooked court must understand that. Even so, the Roberts court cannot be trusted to defend the rights of men or women, or, indeed, the rights of REAL persons of any color, creed or sex. Our court cannot be trusted to uphold the law when it was respected. Nor does it recognize an even older and more venerable position: that governments derive their power, and rights of power from the peole who are ---alone --sovereign!

---

---

Gen. Smedley Butler: 'War is a Racket'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

This is a well-known classic but cannot be repeated or posted often enough as millions still seem not have to 'gotten' the message: WAR IS A RACKET!

The author --Gen. Smedly Butler --should know. This is essential reading as was Former President Dwight Eisenhower's famous farewell warning of the growing power of the Military-Industrial Complex.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the many.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.

I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

--Gen. Smedley Butler, War is a Racket

General Butler was eminently qualified to write and speak as he did. He was the most decorated U.S. Marine in history '... and very nearly became Commandant of the Marine Corps.' By the time of his retirement, he had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He received the Brevet Medal and TWO Medals of Honor (April 22, 1914 – Mexican Campaign in Veracruz Mexico; and November 17, 1915 – Haiti Campaign), all for separate actions.

Smedley Butler: War is a Racket

---

---

The Fascist Origins of 'Corporate Personhood'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Many sources support my assertion and emerging thesis: the concept of 'corporate personhood' has Germanic, fascist roots. Herr Schlegel, for example, wrote an essay entitled “Signature of the Age” (Signatur des Zeitalters, 1820). Amid his attacks on British-American "parliamentary government" may be found his Mitt Romney/SCOTUS-like descriptions of a "machine-like", ideal state.

Schlegel describes his ideal with the term "organic" --though it is not! Schlegel also used the term 'Christian' to describe his 'fascist' state. His 'Christian corporations', he said, were 'living wholes' and he described them in terms not unlike that of the corporatist (fascist) philosophy that had been espoused/advocated by Hegel.

Some hard background: in England, ‘the Crown’ has been regarded as a 'legal entity' for centuries. But that is not to say that the 'Crown' IS 'a person'! It simply does not follow that because the 'Crown' may exert power and/or authority it is a 'person'.

Likewise, it simply does not follow that because 'corporations' may enter into contracts that the said 'corporation' is a person. In the case of the 'Crown', for example, it was said that it was both a source of law and the means by which it was enforced! This, it is said, put it above 'laws' --laws which people, real people, are expected to obey. Ergo: the 'state' is, likewise, not a person.

It is said that 'all modern societies' recognize the 'legal existence, as persons, of companies or corporations'! Again --many things may be asserted! It was often asserted that the world was flat; saying so did not make it true.

Corporations do not procreate sexually; corporations do not grow, fart, belch or have babies. Corporations do NONE of the things that define 'real people' either biologically or psychologically. A 'corporation' is nothing less than a paper contract outlining how and possibly when they may interact with 'real people' and with other corporations. NONE of these 'privileges' imply or bestow upon a 'corporation' either a sexual or asexual means by which they may procreate; NONE of these 'privileges' have either the evolutionary power or the 'God-like' power of bestowing upon a mere paper contract the status of 'personhood'.

SCOTUS was wrong and wrong-headed and so are those members of the GOP who bought the scam!

Some have said that a corporation is an 'artificial' person! But a 'real person' is ...uh...a 'real' person! A corporation is not by definition! Black's Law definition is disingenuous. Neither dictionaries nor ill-informed legal decisions can make people out of what are --in fact --mere contracts. Existence precedes 'essence' and it is 'essence' which defines! People are what they are upon birth. Corporations share none of characteristics which define what it means to be a person!

Contracts which, in effect, create a 'corporate entity, differ from other contracts only because they are normally on-file with a Secretary of State somewhere. But that hardly makes of them a 'real person'. They simply outline the legal scope of responsibilities of those party to the contract. See the quote by St. Thomas More who said of them that they were, in fact, '...conspiracies of rich men to procure their commodities in the name and title of the commonwealth'!

When the Sec of State in Delaware (for example) affixes his SEAL upon the articles of incorporation he has performed in a manner PRECISELY described by St Thomas More in his classic "Utopia". Ergo --corporations are better described as being 'legalized conspiracies' than as 'real people'.

“I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.”

- Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia

Words fail to describe the depths of lies, propaganda and sophistry indulged by the likes of A. Scalia who --laughingly --believes himself to be 'too smart for the court'!

Most advocates of 'corporate personhood' indulge false analogies because 'false' analogies may be their last redoubt. Clearly --real persons are not so easily defined or summed up having attributes of consciousness and volition that may never be duplicated in unimaginably large super-computers let alone a mere scrap of papers with a seal on it. Simply, 'personhood' cannot be duplicated artificially and most certainly is not duplicated in mere 'legal abstractions' of any kind.

I deny many right-leaning assertions that "modern societies recognise the legal existence as persons of companies or corporations"! If what is said in defense of corporate personhood were true, TRADE UNIONS would, may and should claim 'personhood'. Should they do so, GOP hypocrites would scream bloody murder, foul, no fair!

By simply refusing to tolerate such an outcome, the GOP will have demonstrated its hypocrisy, its disingenuous assertion that corporations are people. Alas --the GOP has historically sought to have it several ways but right.

In the meantime, I urge those who make cars for a living --ORGANIZE AND INCORPORATE!

I urge those who make steel for a living --ORGANIZE AND INCORPORATE!

I urge those who work in any way with respect to the production of oil and/or petroleum related/derived products --ORGANIZE AND INCORPORATE!

In that way, you are guaranteed that you will be treated like REAL PERSONS while, previously, actually BEING a real person would have guaranteed your enslavement to MOLOCH.

ORGANIZE!!!

---

---

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!

Most of the time, police must present their probable cause to a judge or majistrate, whom they ask for a search or arrest warrant. 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.

The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures effectively restricts actions that cops may wish to take but cannot unless they get a warrant. Producing the probable cause is the responsibility of the police and it follows from the 'presumption of innocence'. That's not your problem! The fact is "unreasonable searches and seizures" are 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 cop's job for them. 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.

What can one do to protect him/herself from rogue cops? There is no panacea, no magic wand. I do have some suggestions:

• 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!

---

---

What the GOP Did to Texas in a Nutshell

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Prior to the arrival of the Bush crime family in Texas, the state had been progressive and liberal; it was still possible to get a good education. That is true in no small part because every Texas Governor had been Democratic since Richard Coke took office on January 15, 1874. It was not until Bill Clements was sworn in on January 16, 1979 that a Republican would live in the Governor's mansion. It was at that moment that the Texas star began to tarnish.

The GOP has accomplished a great deal since 1974:

• Briefly the GOP successfully subverted public education with notable results.
• The label 'murder capital' stuck on Dallas for the resulting 'rise in crime'.
• The corporate-owned prisons were filled-to the brims! Cause and effect?

Under Rick Perry, Texas executed 235 people in a period of just 11 years. That amounts to more than 21 people per year. Under Bush, 152 people were executed in Texas. That's 30 per year. It reads like a competition!

How did the GOP manage to get away with this scam? I submit the following explanation found on the blog: Blue Bloggin

Texas today is enduring losses of a personal and political kind that resemble the struggle against Santa Anna. Texas leadership has it’s hands in everyone’s pockets and takes what it wants, with a Texas sized smile. The concept of “No State Tax is the shiny object politicians dangle in front of our eyes to convince Texans that Texas ‘stays out of your biz’nez’. No they don’t. That is a Texas sized lie. Texas politicians want to divert all Texas funds to special interest at the expense of education and infrastructure. Texas State sponsored scams are the biggest ponzi schemes our politicians have pulled over our eyes.

Texas politicians want to control your personal freedoms, control your body, control your love life, pollute your land or just take your land away, for the pleasure of their campaign donors. Every decision made by the Texas Republican Congress has a big campaign donor behind it and the likes of Governor Rick Perry has his lies exposed on a regular basis. The ballot box is the greatest weapon Texans have, and even that is being manipulated by these crooks to make sure they have another shot at scramming Texans. Don’t fall for their lies. Vote them out!

Texas politicians have sold their soul so many times to so many special interest that Texans have no idea where their rent, grocery and car payment went. Makes you wonder how these crooks keep up with all the deception.

--Blue Bloggin 

---

---

Atlas Crapped or Objectivist Obsessions with Hard Things that Stand Upright

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Ayn Rand is not a serious 'philosopher' and those who idolize her may not be taken seriously as responsible politicians. It is unknown how Ayn Rand's obsessive fixation with all things tall, hard and upright became confused with either philosophy or economics. Below are Rand quotes numbered and followed by my comments.

1. A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

Our founders, by contrast, believed in a government in which 'sovereignty' resided in the people, that governments were freely elected for the sole purpose of defending and upholding those ideals. The use of 'physical force' against the population was verboten for anything short of violent crimes or insurrections and even then prohibited unless accompanied by 'probable cause' that a crime had been committed. Certainly --that principle had been abandoned by the time Govt thugs of the FBI et al attacked the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in which the leader, David Koresh, and 82 other Branch Davidians were murdered.

2. Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves – or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.

That question begs a meaningless and utterly unknowable 'answer' aside from the fact that any answer provided by an 'objectivist' is, in fact, subjective and utterly un-verifiable! 'Objectivist' assertions are not objective at all, based as they are upon temperament and/or irrational inclination. The meaning of any assertion rests upon the outcome of the question: can this assertion be verified logically or empirically? If so, what is the process by which it is verified! Rand talks about being 'objective' but neglects 'verification' when, in fact, nothing is 'objective' without objective, public verfification.

3. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Civilization has very little to do with privacy though most enlightened societies have defended the individual's right of privacy whenever it is threatened, even if that threat should issue from the government. It is for that reason that the 'right to privacy' is found to be a strong argument in favor of a) Due Process of Law b) the Constitutional guarantee that no warrants shall issue but upon 'probable cause' that a crime has been committed.

4. Do not ever say that the desire to “do good” by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.

One wonders why people like Ron Paul seek power! One wonders why other devotees of Ayn Rand seek political power in particular. What do we know of their motives? And what of any substance has been put forward by them? Ron Paul, for example, is believed to be a laissez-faire capitalist because he is a self-avowed devotee of 'Randism'. One wonders if Paul --an otherwise intelligent person --understands how much richer the very, very, very rich would get were all restraints now limiting rapacious greed and blind ambition were relaxed!

5. From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man – the function of his reasoning mind.

The building of skyscrapers is 'big' in Rand-land! It was in Atlas Shrugged, as I recall, that Rand revealed her fixation with hard things that stand upright ---skyscrapers, towers, Pisa, domes.

11. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.

Events have proven that the concentrated fortunes of America's people, concentrated as they have become in the very few hands of the ruling elites are INVERSELY proportional to the population as a whole. In other words, our fortunes, our decency as a people has deteriorated inversely as the very, very rich have gotten exponentially richer!

Ayn Rand Rambles for Mike Wallace

---

How 'Indefinite Detention' Has Made of the U.S. a '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! But even worse for U.S. Citizens is the threat that is likewise posed against citizens of the United States. 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 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!

Moreover --I DENY that either President nor Congress nor statutes signed by the President may NULLIFY the above principles of Constitutional law as articulated in the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments!

---

---

Why the GOP Cannot be Believed

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

GOP dogma goes like this: government regulation is excessive, a drag on the economy, an impediment to growth. For the GOP that's a 'given', an article of faith! Reagan's solution was a 30% tax cut which primarily benefited ONLY the nation's 'elite'. It is without doubt the origin of the so-called 'ruling 1 percent'.

Occassionally one runs across one or two paragraphs that simply 'hit the nail on the head'. Following are two that do precisely that. The topics are Ronald Reagan and 'trickle down theory':

"Tax relief for the rich would enable them to spend and invest more. This new spending would stimulate the economy and create new jobs. Reagan believed that a tax cut of this nature would ultimately generate even more revenue for the federal government. The Congress was not as sure as Reagan, but they did approve a 25% cut during Reagan's first term.

The results of this plan were mixed. Initially, the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD believed the tax cut would re-ignite inflation and raise interest rates. This sparked a deep recession in 1981 and 1982. The high interest rates caused the value of the dollar to rise on the international exchange market, making American goods more expensive abroad. As a result, exports decreased while imports increased. Eventually, the economy stabilized in 1983, and the remaining years of Reagan's administration showed national growth."

--The Reagan Years, Reaganomics

In a phrase: wealth did not 'trickle-down'. Instead --wealth literally flowed upward as only the upper quintile benefited from Reagan's tax cuts. Investment in the U.S. economy did not increase as we had been told it would! It is safe to say that 'investments' in offshore bank accounts enjoyed a boom! That the Regan tax-cut was followed by recession/depression of some two years --the deepest/longest since Hoover --is proof enough that none of the 'tax cut' benefited working Americans in any way whatsoever.

The right wing is heavily 'invested' in 'trickle-down' economics. Some may truly believe that unfair tax cuts will stimulate the economy. I have given this group the benefit of doubt. But one is tempted to put one's hard-earned tax cut on the truth of this assertion: GOP tax cuts have, in fact, been the root cause of every GOP depression/recession since 1900!

When the GOP eschews its creation of the 'ruling 1 percent', I will begin to take them seriously.

---

---

Mitt is Either WRONG or LYING; Corporations are NOT People and SCOTUS Cannot 'Create' Them 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 are made up of people; ergo: they ARE persons themselves.

That's not only fallacious (of course), a BAD RE-WRITE of Thomas Hobbes who described a Leviathan --a state comprised of the people in it. 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 person. The philosophical literature with respect to class theory, symbolic logic, logical positivism, et al, et al is venerable. It consists of great and classical works from Plato to Russell, from Aristotle to Wittgenstein, Hobbes to Ayer. None of them confused a "class" with its members. None of them confused the passengers with the bus that carries them!

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, if not insane! What if I should prick my finger and I lose some blood? Have several hundred thousand people died? Of course not!

Romney defends his implications because money "...gets into people's pockets" by way of companies. So what? That does not make them people! But more importantly, his argument is the crude inverse of the "labor theory of value" which is espoused by most (if not all) legitimate economists. The issue is ultimately: who creates value?

What about those people not employed by the corporations about which Romney spoke? Are they NOT people? In Romney's view, taken to its logical conclusions, one must work or indenture him/herself to a corporation in order to be a person! Absurd!

If Romney's logic were valid, LABOR UNIONS would be people because "people" belong to it! Wager: Romney will make a convenient exception. He will deny that LABOR UNIONS are people though the case on behalf of labor unions is a much better than than Mitt's case for "corporations". [See: If Corporations are people, then, perhaps Labor Should Become a 'Person'] I know of no law that would prohibit any organization from "incorporating". I suggest that labor unions "incorporate". If that is done, then corporations would have no choice but to recognize the union.

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 not only guilty of assault and battery but 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! Simply, real persons are, by definition, born of other 'persons'!

By contrast, 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.

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".

Meanwhile --corporations are NOT and never will be "people'!

---

---

How Progressives Can Take Back America

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Many 'progressives' who voted for Obama expected a 'savior'. There are none! The best strategy left to disappointed progressives is to take back the party many believe abandoned them. I was among those who believed Clinton should have taken a stronger stand in defense of liberal and/or progressive values. I despised 'triangulation'.

My biggest disappointment was Janet Reno's attack on the Branch-Davidians in Waco, an unlawful attack violating federal and state laws --most egregiously --the presumption of innocence and every due process clause known to exist anywhere at any time to include the 14th Amendment

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

--U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights.

The best strategy available to progressives now is not to create another party but to take back an existing party apparatus --the Democratic party. It will take years to mount an effective third party whose best hope would consist of 'brokering' a deal with more conservative wings of the only organized opposition to the GOP i.e. the Democratic party.

Progressives' best chance for changing the fascist direction taken by American politics may be found in a book that was, in fact, appropriated if not usurped by the GOP. I have in mind one Saul Alinsky whose 'Rules for Radical', written for a liberal, left leaning movement owing much to FDR and war opponents like Eugene Debs.

Interestingly, it is the GOP which has made more effective use of the strategies and tactics than have liberals or Democrats for whom 'Rules for Radicals' was written. It is cited in GOP campaign manuals, practiced in almost every campaign. I have personal knowledge of that, having acquired a few GOP 'campaign manuals' at a time when Tom DeLay was building a conservative machine while gerrymandering the state of Texas.

Alinsky advises 'activists' to work inside the existing system, to utilize the existing networks and/or infrastructure. Starting from scratch is inefficient, time consuming, wasteful of time and resources. Democrats have an infrastructure in place already. Use it! As ALINSKY himself said:

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

--Saul Alinsky

If 'liberals/progressives will not heed and benefit from a 'legendary' liberal organizer/activist like Alinsky, I have a slim chance of waking them up! If the 'left' insists upon walking off a cliff there is little anyone can do for them.There is now, however, an opportunity to be seized. Whatever your feelings about the Bush occupation of Iraq, the political fact of the matter is that millions of Americans seemed to have bought into the many lies that the right wing told in order to justify the massive theft of oil resources in the Middle East.

The invasion of Iraq, we were told, was part of the bigger 'war on terror' (more properly, 'terrorism'). Bin Laden was the boogeyman upon which were directed the fears and prejudices of much of the population and especially the right wing which wanted to believe. For Bushco, they were an easy sale!Recent events have turned the Bush strategy on its head! This is a paradigm shift rarely seen in American politics in which a right wing and a left wing had dug their trenches and had begun a long seige. In just a few short days, the news that Bin Laden had been killed --NOT on Bush's watch but by a Democratic U.S. regime --has shaken the GOP to its rotting foundations.

There is really very little the GOP can do but praise the efforts of a Democratic President. It must hurt! My heart bleeds!There are, therefore, opportunities to change the very complexion of U.S. politics but only if progressives work with the existing Democratic infrastructure.

Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals. Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

• Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
• Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
• Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
• Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
• Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
• Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
• Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
• Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
• Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
--Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

With the capture of Bin Laden, the GOP found itself without its erstwhile raison d'etre --the war on terrorism!

---

---

The Murder Case Against George H.W. Bush

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The CIA never forgave JFK for withdrawing air support at the Bay of Pigs. Infamous for his role in Watergate, Howard Hunt's 'confession' fails to mention G.H.W. Bush's role in the murder of JFK. In every other respect he pulled no punches in what Rolling Stone headlined: the Confessions of E. Howard Hunt.

Hunt named Lyndon B. Johnson whose own career had been assisted by JFK nemesis J. Edgar Hoover. According to Hunt, it was the FBI that ordered the CIA hit-team to snuff JFK. Later, they helped engineer the absurd cover story and cover up! The Warren Commission was a fraud and I suspect that you and I knew that at the time.
Hunt named other 'conspirators':

1. Cord Meyer: CIA agent, architect of the Operation Mockingbird disinformation apparatus, and husband of Mary Meyer (who had an affair with JFK).
2. David Atlee Philips: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Recruited William Harvey (CIA) and Cuban exile militant Antonio Vecian
   
3. William Harvey: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Connected to Mafia figures Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.
4. Antonio Veciana: Cuban exile, founder of CIA-backed Alpha 66.
5. Frank Sturgis: CIA operative, mercenary, Bay of Pigs veteran, and later Watergate figure.
6. David Morales: CIA hit man, Bay of Pigs veteran. Morales was also a figure involved with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.
7. Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and drug trafficker, possible "French gunman," Grassy Knoll (second) shooter.

The Rolling Stone --which cites and summarizes Hunt's 'confession' --failed to mention George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon; they were the two most obvious beneficiaries of the murder of JFK. As someone wrote of the E. Howard confession:

"...the piece fails to go after the roles of Richard Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush. But the Hunt confession, if accurate, leads directly to them, to their lifelong associates, and all the way to the present George W. Bush administration"

As for the Senior Bush --I met/interviewed him in West TX as he was seeking a U.S. Senate seat. The occasion was a Bush Sr 'news conference' held in a conference room at the Odessa-Midland Air Terminal.

Over the years I met him several times in Houston to include a one-on-one in the Grand Ballroom of the Hyatt-Regency in downtown Houston. I have regretted that while I asked him about the deals that had been cut with China when he was 'special' envoy to China, I left without the 'smoking gun' that might help us understand how, subsequently, China came to top the CIA's list with the world's largest POSITIVE Current Account Balance while the U.S. has dropped to dead last on the list with the world's largest NEGATIVE Current Account Balance.

And --about that famous photo of a slouching man 'hanging around' outside the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository --I might have asked him point blank: is that you?

Had I done so, I might have wound up on a hit list.

The photo to which I refer is the one of Bush Sr 'hanging around' the front entrance to TSBD just prior to the murder of JFK. I believe it is George H. W. Bush --the distinctive receding hair line, his characteristic slouch, the profile. It's Bush Sr! I don't think he was there just to see a parade.

Meantime, E. Howard's confession links almost all the 'tramps' photographed as they had been arrested hanging around the train tracks just west of the TSBD. That particular photo dates to a time just prior (perhaps a week or so) to the JFK hit. E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis are easily identified in the photo.

I met a witness to the JFK assassination. Her name is Rosemary Willis. If you look at the Zapruder film, she is the little girl in the red dress who appeared to be trying to keep pace with the motorcade. She showed me high quality 35mm slides that her father had taken. She had just reclaimed the slides after they had been for years in the possession of the FBI which seized them shortly after LOOK magazine had published some of them, most notably a shot of the grassy knoll looking west. Look made it a TWO PAGE DOUBLE SPREAD. Through the columns in the pergola was clearly seen a TRAIN with box cars.

THEN --Rosemary put the newly re-acquired ORIGINAL SLIDE on the light table. And there was NO TRAIN on the tracks seen through the Pergola. Simply ---the 'train' had been RE-TOUCHED OUT of the slide when it had been in FBI possession.

There is only one reason the FBI would re-touch a photo in such an Orwellian manner. They wanted to erase all 'original' proof of the train! Why? Simply because the TRAIN is the missing piece in Hunt's confession. The box-cars were a staging area for Frank Sturgis and even E. Howard Hunt himself. While a box car was providing cover for the murderer(s), Bush Sr was photographed pensively hanging around the front entrance of the TSBD waiting to make sure that his 'team' got the job done. It did!

And, eventually, Bush would become director of the CIA. And --even worse --'President'. The lesson: crime, murder and high treason has its 'rewards'.

Bush at the TSBD on the Day JFK was Murdered; Did Bush confess to killing JFK?

---

---

If 'Corporations' are 'people', then Labor Should Become a 'Person'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

If corporations are people so too are UNIONS! But --should UNIONS assert 'personhood', corporations (which don't like unions in ANY case) would scream bloody murder being comprised as they are of liars, psychopaths and hypocrites who cannot be held to their own 'standards'!

I have urged unions to INCORPORATE! What's to prevent them from fighting fire with fire? Nothing!!! And in this case SCOTUS would have no choice to but to support them having already said that any corporation that they may form is 'A' person.

I suggest that ALL OF THE UNIONS form a SUPER SUPER CORPORATION!

It should strike terror into the hearts of the crooks, liars, hypocrites and robber barons which now makes up the so-called 'corporate community' so dear to the hearts of crooked justices like Clarence Thomas.
THE NATION'S LARGEST UNIONS could --in fact --INCORPORATE and, in one stroke, strike fear and trembling into the hearts of so-called 'corporate AmeriKa':
As of 2003 these were all of the unions in the US with over 100,000 members in order from the largest:

• NEA - National Education Association - 2,679,396
• SEIU - Service Employees International Union - 1,464,007
• UFCW - United Food & Commercial Workers - 1,380,507
• IBT - International Brotherhood of Teamsters 1,350,000
• AFSCME - American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees - 1,350,000
• LIUNA - Laborers' International Union of North America 840,180
• AFT - American Federation of Teachers 770,090
• IBEW - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 700,548
• IAM - International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 673,095
• UAW - United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America 638,722
• CWA - Communications Workers of America 557,136
• USWA - United Steelworkers of America 532,234
• UBC - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 531,839
• IUOE - International Union of Operating Engineers 390,388
• NPMHU - National Postal Mailhandlers Union 388,480
• UA - United Association of the Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada 325,914
• NALC - National Association of Letter Carriers 294,315
• APWU - American Postal Workers Union 292,901
• PACE - Papter, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Engineering Workers International Union 274,464
• IAFF - International Association of Fire Fighers 261,551
• HERE - Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union 249,151
• UNITE - Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees 209,876
• AFGE - American Federation of Government Employees 200,600
• AGVA - American Guild of Variety Artists 182,597
• UAN - United American Nurses 152,000
• OPEIU - Office and Professional Employees International Union 150,882
• SMW - Sheet Metal Workers International Association 148,378
• BSORIW - International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers 130,928
• IUPAT - International Union of Painters and Allied Trades 115,511
• BCTGM - Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union 114,618
• TWU - Transportation Workers Union of America 110,000
• AACSE - American Association of Classified School Employees 109,188
• IATSE - International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada 104,102
• AFM - American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada 102,000
• NRLCA - National Rural Letter Carriers' Association 101,810
• BAC - International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers 101,499
• TCU - Transportation Communications International Union 101,228
• UMWA - United Mineworkers of America 100,570

Add up the membership of all these unions! How much money could be raised with the sale of stock?

I would urge this SUPER UNION, INC to sell stock! Few corporations could be so large so quickly. Should this stock sell publicly, this SUPER-UNION, INC could be a major player literally overnight. With that kind of clout, UNIONS could have their own lobbyists on K-Street!

Congress would --to say the least --pay attention and, one hopes, get a clue! Such a powerful 'corporation' could, at the same time, hire an army of lobbyists to lobby for the REPEAL of 'Citizens-United' which congress could easily do by merely, re-defining the word 'corporation'.

---

---

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

---

---

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

---

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.

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

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!

---

---