[FRIAM] Woodrow C Monte, PhD, Emiritus Prof. Nutrition gives many PDFs of reseach -- methanol (11% of aspartame) puts formaldehyde into brain and body -- multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, cancers, birt

[Rich Murray]

Woodrow C Monte, PhD, Emiritus Prof. Nutrition gives many PDFs of reseach -- 
methanol (11% of aspartame) puts formaldehyde into brain and body -- multiple 
sclerosis, Alzheimer's, cancers, birth defects, headaches: Rich Murray 
2010.05.13
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.htm
Thursday, May 13, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1601
___


[ Other formaldehyde sources include alcohol drinks and
tobacco and wood smoke,
while adequate folic acid levels protect most people. ]


As well as extensive free websites with full texts and videos,
he offers a  $24 145' DVD of a lively talk at the Southland MS
Society of New Zealand, March 29-30, 2009, and soon his
new book, "While Science Sleeps".

http://www.amazon.com/Solving-Mystery-Multiple-Sclerosis-Poisoning/dp/B003L783I0/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1

$24 145' Format NTSC DVD ASIN: B003L783I0

http://whilesciencesleeps.com/about

Curriculum Vitae, publications, photos

http://whilesciencesleeps.com/references

589 references

http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/index.shtml
[ German and Dutch also available ]

http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/news.shtml

http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/videos.shtml

http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/radio.shtml

http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/review1.shtml

http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/listener.shtml

http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/articles.shtml
223 references with abstracts or full and partial texts

http://whilesciencesleeps.com/montediet

Methanol: Where Is It Found? How Can It Be Avoided?

AVOID the following, ranked in order of greatest danger:

1. Cigarettes.
2. Diet foods and drinks with aspartame.
3. Fruit and vegetable products and their juices in bottles,
cans, or pouches.
4. Jellies, jams, and marmalades not made fresh and kept
refrigerated.
5. Black currant and tomato juice products, fresh or
processed.
6. Tomato sauces, unless first simmered at least 3 hours
with an open lid.
7. Smoked food of any kind, particularly fish and meat.
8. Sugar-free chewing gum.
9. Slivovitz: You can consume one alcoholic drink a day
on this diet -- no more! [ no fruit brandies ]
10. Overly ripe or near rotting fruits or vegetables.


Selection from Article 2, Fitness Life, December 2007, and
well discussed in the DVD video:

"Identical Symptoms of MS, Methanol Poisoning
and Aspartame Toxicity

The symptoms of multiple sclerosis (44, 83, 85, 169), chronic
and acute methanol poisoning (13, 144, 189), and Aspartame
toxicity (54, 58, 93, 181), are in all ways identical.

There is nothing that happens to the human body from the toxic
effect of methanol that has not been expressed during the
course of MS... nothing (143, 144).

This generalization extends even to the remarkable
opthomological conditions common to both: transitory optic
neuritis and retrolaminar demyelinating optic neuropathy with
scotoma of the central visual field (which occasionally
manifests as unilateral temporary blindness (85, 138, 163).

In fact, these opthomological symptoms have been thought of
for years in their respective literatures to be "tell tale"
indications for the differential diagnosis for each of these
maladies independently (85, 138, 148, 163, 169).

The common symptoms of
headache (13, 83, 181, 189),
nervousness (13, 83, 181),
depression (58, 83, 189, 181),
memory loss (18, 147, 85, 169, 181),
tingling sensations (13, 85, 168, 138, 169),
pain in the extremities (13, 85, 169),
optic neuritis (85, 138, 148, 163, 169),
bright lights in the visual field (139, 83),
seizures (21, 83, 160),
inability to urinate or to keep from urinating (139, 146, 167)
are all shared by each of these conditions and shared yet again
by complaints from aspartame poisoning (54, 58, 93, 181).

I take these strikingly similar symptom patterns as evidence
that these disorders act on identical components of the central
nervous system and in the same way.

The "Miracle" that MS shares with Methanol poisoning

In the early stages of MS, or when a non-lethal dose of
methanol has been administered, complete recovery is a
possibility.

The only two afflictions for which such dramatic "remissions"
are reported from identical neuromuscular and opthomological
damage, even "blindness" is relapsing-remitting multiple
sclerosis (85) and methyl alcohol poisoning (138, 163).

The pathology of the two maladies is in may ways identical,
particularly when it comes to destruction of the myelin sheath
with no harm to the axon itself (18, 148, 176).

Sex Ratios for MS and Aspartame Reactions

Women bear the brunt of multiple sclerosis (91a-c) and lupus
(SLE)(73) with fully three-fold representations in infliction
numbers over men for both diseases.

This is exactly the proportion represented by adverse reactors
to Aspartame reported by the US Center for Disease Control
in their study of 1984(58).

The Center found three women to every man whose
Aspartame consumption complaints were serious enough to
warrant investigation (93).

Although the female/male 

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[sarbajit roy]

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases before
the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues (one
coincidentally involving large corporations and television broadcasting), I
was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in the majority ratio handed
down by your Supreme Court (although to be frank, I am not up to speed on
the case law of your country).in "*Citizens United vs Federal Election
Commission*". The message I got from the judgement is that the Court is
adamant on ensuring that citizens are fully informed no matter what the
source of information is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place
and the bias is spelled out up front. "*The Government may regulate
corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements,
but it may not suppress that speech altogether*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the Georges
Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and incorrect
understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the premise that "*you
can get at least one half of the American public to sign anything if you
word the question properly*".

It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual majority
opinion summarised here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional democracy" is
a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one of the greatest
philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley  wrote:

> Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
> interest:
> http://movetoamend.org/
> Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
> Thanks
> Robert
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[jpgirard]

 And if you're local Santa Fe, you can come discuss this and other recent politically oriented FRIAM postings in person!
 
 Tomorrow (Saturday the 15th), over beers, at 2nd Street Brewery in the Railyard.  6:30 pm.
 
www.drinkingliberally.org
 

 Original Message Subject: [FRIAM] What you can do.From: "Robert J. Cordingley" Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 8:12 amTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee GroupGiven the opining in this list, US members might find this site of interest:http://movetoamend.org/Perhaps a chance to actually do something?ThanksRobertFRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's Collegelectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[Merle Lefkoff]

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government 
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law 
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem, 
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a 
person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the 
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for 
democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme 
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."




sarbajit roy wrote:

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases 
before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues 
(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television 
broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in 
the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be 
frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in 
"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got 
from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that 
citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information 
is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is 
spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate 
political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but 
it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. 
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the 
Georges Bush,


I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and 
incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the 
premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to 
sign anything if you word the question properly*".


It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual 
majority opinion summarised here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional 
democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one 
of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.  
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm


Sarbajit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley 
mailto:rob...@cirrillian.com>> wrote:


Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
interest:
http://movetoamend.org/
Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
Thanks
Robert


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[Merle Lefkoff]

Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Count me in Jim.  Save me a seat (the Madrona Institute office is across 
the street).   Has Friam turned into a drinking club?



jpgir...@thinkingmetal.com wrote:
 And if you're local Santa Fe, you can come discuss this and other 
recent politically oriented FRIAM postings in person!
 
 Tomorrow (Saturday the 15th), over beers, at 2nd Street Brewery in 
the Railyard.  6:30 pm.
 
www.drinkingliberally.org 
 


 Original Message 
Subject: [FRIAM] What you can do.
From: "Robert J. Cordingley" 
Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 8:12 am
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group


Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
interest:
http://movetoamend.org/
Perhaps a chance to actually do something?
Thanks
Robert


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[Chris Feola]

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."

But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml


cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government 
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law 
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem, 
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a 
person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the 
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for 
democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme 
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."



sarbajit roy wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> As a non-US member I also find this interesting.
>
> As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases 
> before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues 
> (one coincidentally involving large corporations and television 
> broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in 
> the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be 
> frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in 
> "*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got 
> from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that 
> citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information 
> is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is 
> spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate 
> political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but 
> it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc. 
> has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the 
> Georges Bush,
>
> I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and 
> incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the 
> premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to 
> sign anything if you word the question properly*".
>
> It would be instructive to those interested to read the actual 
> majority opinion summarised here
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
>
> Just in passing, if some people imagine that a "Constitutional 
> democracy" is a good thing, read this for an alternative view from one 
> of the greatest philosophers of our age .. its brilliant in parts.  
> http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert J. Cordingley 
> mailto:rob...@cirrillian.com>> wrote:
>
> Given the opining in this list, US members might find this site of
> interest:
> http://movetoamend.org/
> P

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the 
technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone 
to help us with.


So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

   /. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings,
   no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate
   the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood"
   often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves
   members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was
   established./


Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."

But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml


cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem,
because corporations are NOT by any stretch of the imagination a
person.  Using the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to gain the
legal financial takeover of the electoral process is a disaster for
democracy.  What needs to be changed, however, is not the recent Supreme
Court decision, but the legal definition of "corporation."



sarbajit roy wrote:
   

Dear Group,

As a non-US member I also find this interesting.

As an ordinary citizen who has personally argued and won some cases
before the Supreme Court of my country (India) on Free Speech issues
(one coincidentally involving large corporations and television
broadcasting), I was actually quite impressed with the reasoning in
the majority ratio handed down by your Supreme Court (although to be
frank, I am not up to speed on the case law of your country).in
"*Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission*". The message I got
from the judgement is that the Court is adamant on ensuring that
citizens are fully informed no matter what the source of information
is so long as the mandatory disclaimers are in place and the bias is
spelled out up front. "*/The Government may regulate corporate
political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but
it may not suppress that speech altogether/*." Heck, now Osama-BL Inc.
has the right to buy air-time and tell you what he thinks of the
Georges Bush,

I also find that the petition you signed is based on a limited and
incorrect understanding of the judgement,  and is designed on the
premise that "*you can get at least one half of the American public to
sign anything if you word the question properly*".

It would be instructive to those inte

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Non-expert opinions to follow:
I too think this issue is fairly nuanced. In particular I am startled in the
quote Chris supplied that journalists would be surprised to find they work for
corporations. I think the straightforward reading of the first amendment is
that people have the right to express themselves. Thus, it is Glen Beck's right
to be "Glen Beck Crazy" and explain to the
 world how the distribution of cherry pies and eclairs will never feed 
enough toy soldiers for the economy to survive
().
 

To the extent that government regulation of the newspapers and television
stations would curtail the individual's right to expression, it should not be
allowed. Clearly it would, thus it is not allowed (or at least restricted to
issues of profanity, etc.). To somehow twist that into saying that the
corporation itself, say Fox News, has the rights is odd. What would 'Fox News',
the corporate entity, say if it had free reign? Nothing, that's just weird. 

When we allow that 'Fox News' can say something, rather than insisting on the
obvious fact that people who works for Fox News says things, we slip ever
further into the danger zone Orwell warned about in Politics and the English
Language. 

Similarly, if people at an organization want to give a lot of money to a
candidate, or create an advertisement to support him, that should be protected
by the constitution. I'm not sure whether or not corporations should be allowed
to do the same, but I can't for the life of me see how such activities would be
protected by the first amendment. 

Eric




On Fri, May 14, 2010 06:20 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley" 
wrote:
>
>Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on
>the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay
>someone to help us with.
>
>
>So see this quote:
>
>
>
>Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled
>to state the obvious:


>
>  
>
>. . . . corporations have no consciences,
>no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help
>structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure,
>and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they
>are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our
>Constitution was established.


>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Robert
>
>
>On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:
>
>  
Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
>that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
>obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
>"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
>therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
>
>1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
>can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
>2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
>Amendment rights.
>
>Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
>law..."
>
>But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
>Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
>
>"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
>talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
>extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
>is criminal in America?"
>
>"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
>are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
>corporations. . . .
>
>"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
>decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
>but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
>vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
>debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
>constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
>well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
>Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
>Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
>real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.htmlcjf,recoveringjournalistChristopherJ.FeolaPresident,nextPressionFollowmeonTwitter:http://twitter.com/cjfeola-OriginalMessage-From:friam-boun...@redfish.com%5bmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%5donbehalfofmerlelefkoffsent:Friday,May14,20101:39PMTo:TheFridayMorningAppliedComplexityCoffeeGroupSubject:Re:%5BFRIAM%5DWhatyoucando.merlelefkoffwrote:Sarbajitmissestheboatcompletely.Thereasonthatthegovernment";
 
onclick="window.open('http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.htmlcjf,recoveringjournalistChristopher

Re: [FRIAM] What can 'you' do?

[Carl Tollander]

The choice is both and neither, as they are false choices.   You have 
conflated 'media', 'person', 'corporation', and 'forum'.  Congress may 
very well restrict media, for example, I may take it as my freedom of 
expression to jam some competing media channel with noise, or stray 
outside my FCC sanctioned portion of the radio, broadcasting, say, 
"Pepsi Cola hits the spot, 12 full ounces that's a lot", over and over 
at very high power, such that you receive it in your tooth fillings.  
(One might also talk here about BP).   Anyhow, if I were to do so, I 
might rightly expect a visit from representatives of my government.  The 
government certainly also has an interest in folks not using media to 
explicitly incite the citizenry to violence against others.


The point at issue may be less whether corporations are persons or 
persons are corporate (one may be happier or not with the latter notion) 
but whether corporations are citizens with citizen's rights.  All states 
to some degree regulate commerce and thus corporations (for example in 
their role as guarantors of contracts), in ways they do not regulate 
persons who are citizens or persons in general.   The relation is not 
symmetrical.  Corporations and citizens accordingly have different kinds 
of rights and responsibilities, but those of corporations are statutory 
and not inalienable.


It seems to me that the framers (if we attribute to them or their 
interpreters omniscience) might reasonably have expected that their 
words about rights applied more to citizens and less to corporate 
entities.   It is also written that Congress shall make no law 
restricting freedom of assembly, but there are no fundamental rights 
awarded or conceived for such assemblies (hmmm, do emergent entities 
have constitutional rights?), whether corporations or states; the 
assembly itself does not have the status of citizen in a democracy.   It 
is reasonable for the government to require that corporate generated or 
sanctioned messages over media to be the responsibility of a particular 
citizen,  since only citizens and not assemblies have that 
constitutionally sanctioned freedom of expression.


Clearly some net neutrality stuff related to this too.   Another time.

I'm Carl and I approved this message.

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:

1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.

Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."

But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:

"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"

"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
ml


cjf, recovering journalist

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

merle lefkoff wrote:

Sarbajit misses the boat completely.  The reason that the government
"may not suppress that speech altogether" is because under U.S. law
corporations have the same rights as people.  This is the problem,
because corporations are NOT by 

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[Chris Feola]

No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

 

Who is press? Who isn't? Who decides?

 

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

 

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on the
technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay someone to
help us with.

So see this quote:



Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no
thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the
activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves
as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the
People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.


Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote: 

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
 
1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times
can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.
 
Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
law..."
 
But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
 
"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"
 
"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .
 
"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this
decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment.
 "
 
  
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
 
ml

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[sarbajit roy]

Thanks

The way I understand it (and this is common in both our democracies) is

1) Citizens have a Fundamental ( "inalienable") right to freedom of Speech
and Expression.

2) It is trite to say (and legally well settled) that this right is
predicate upon the right to Freedom of Information. ie. a citizen cannot
speak unless he is fully informed. Similarly in  legal proceedings both
parties must have information symmetry - this is ensured by inspection /
discovery etc.

3) The reality today is that the media (TV, newspapers / Internet etc) is
almost exclusively controlled by corporations or govt. The "voice of the
citizen" people are defending / fighting for is a myth. Individual citizens
have been reduced to twitting and blogging. So the 5:4 decision was actually
a judgement for upholding the freedom of the press and deserves to be
respected if it has achieved finality.

4) There is a much larger issue involved (of which this is an aspect)
concerning the nature of the society the US has shaped itself into. If today
you live in a media controlled society driven by breaking news, spin doctors
and manipulated "popular opinion" you should seriously research the extreme
opposite end of the social spectrum - where communication is by carrier
pigeons and personal couriers - and the publication of images is banned.

5) My US friends should also examine their First Amendment Rights in the
context of the Second Amendment (which most civilised democracies reject).

Sarbajit

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Chris Feola  wrote:

> Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
> that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
> obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
> "media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
> therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
>
> 1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York
> Times
> can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
> 2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
> Amendment rights.
>
> Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no
> law..."
>
> But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd
> Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
>
> "And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're
> talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
> extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
> is criminal in America?"
>
> "I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there
> are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
> corporations. . . .
>
> "A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing
> this
> decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was
> vindicated
> but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
> vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
> debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
> constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
> well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
> Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
> Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values
> are
> real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht
> ml
>
>
> cjf, recovering journalist
>
> Christopher J. Feola
> President, nextPression
> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Perhaps this helps:
http://movetoamend.org/learn-more
the source of the Justice Stevens quote.  BTW, in the face of declining 
investigative journalism in the US there has been some talk of 
government sponsored news media in much the same way PBS has some public 
funding but with a legal mandate to be independent.  You can look at the 
BBC News as another model.  Corporate Personhood may be a bigger problem 
[threat to our democracy].

Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 7:16 PM, Chris Feola wrote:


No problem, Robert-help me into the boat.

Who is press? Who isn't? Who decides?

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
President, nextPression
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

*From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] 
*On Behalf Of *Robert J. Cordingley

*Sent:* Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.

Actually Chris, I think you are also missing the boat by focusing on 
the technicalities of a legal argument most of us would have to pay 
someone to help us with.


So see this quote:

Justice Stevens, in dissent, was compelled to state the obvious:

/. . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no
feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and
facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their
"personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are
not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our
Constitution was established.///


Thanks
Robert

On 5/14/10 3:35 PM, Chris Feola wrote:

Actually, Sarbajit is quite on point. If you read the decision you will see
that one reason the law was struck down was it tried to get around its
obvious violation of the 1st Amendment by carving out an exemption for
"media" since the press is, largely, corporate. Overturning this decision
therefore leaves two largely unpalatable choices:
  
1. The government decides what Fox News can broadcast and The New York Times

can print, since corporations do not have a 1st Amendment rights.
2. The government decides who and what are "media" and therefore get 1st
Amendment rights.
  
Both seem to be somewhat outside the spirit of "Congress shall make no

law..."
  
But don't take my word for it.  Here's noted 1st Amendment lawyer Floyd

Abrams, who won the Pentagon Papers case for The New York Times:
  
"And my reaction is sort of a John McEnroe: You cannot be serious! We're

talking about the First Amendment here, and we're being told that an
extremely vituperative expression of disdain for a candidate for president
is criminal in America?"
  
"I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there

are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for
corporations. . . .
  
"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this

decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated
but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was
vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is
debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a
constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as
well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice
Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First
Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are
real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."  



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.ht