Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
Sarbajit, The better your posts get, the more ambivalent I become about them. I am grateful for (and a tad shamed by) the extensive work you have put into the campaign financing decision. But I think giving corporations unlimited power to pour money into politics is dangerously close to handing out megaphones to theatre goers so they can cry fire! more effectively.When our current oilspill begins contaminating the shorelines of Ireland and Brittany perhaps you will join me in being distressed by the power that american corporations have over the public mind and thereby over our government. The case is a lot like the second amendment. If one accepts that the purpose of the second amendment was to make sure that the government would never have more armaments than its people (one perfectly reasonable interpretation, as i understand the history of the constitutuional convention), then the only route to a reasonably civil society is an amendment to the constitution. But I think the constitutuional argument for a bazooka in every closet is a lot stronger than the argument for corporations as people, since, corporations were in the 18th century, creations of the government. But, this is about as much time as I can put into it today. I just want to leave a marker that say's HEY! Our government is hovering on the brink of corporate fascism, here, and not withstanding your close analysis of the decision, something has to be done. nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] - Original Message - From: sarbajit roy To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: 5/15/2010 11:55:45 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do. Oops a small clarification, 2) In the instant judgement the majority partly upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal. The Supreme Court struck down the part where the lower court held that §441b was facially constitutional under McConnell. On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM, sarbajit roy sroy...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Robert 1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is commonly understood to be communism. 2) In the instant judgement the majority simply upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal. 3) You are completely off the mark on the implications of the judgement. You should be grateful that you have a Court which is defending the ideals of your founding fathers. I have read the all versions of the judgements in isolation without being contaminated by what other people have written /commented . The majority said this a) Consequently, to hold for Citizens United on this argument, the Court would be required to revise the text of MCFL, sever BCRA's Wellstone Amendment, §441b(c)(6), and ignore the plain text of BCRA's Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, §441b(c)(2). If the Court decided to create a de minimis exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, the result would be to allow for-profit corporate general treasury funds to be spent for independent expenditures that support candidates. There is no principled basis for doing this without rewriting Austin's holding that the Government can restrict corporate independent expenditures for political speech. b) We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject. c) Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech. d) Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330-333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speakand it does notthe option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations. e) Section 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on
Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
Russ, The thing I have never understood is why libertarians do not see corporations for what they are: HUGE governments. Is it really the case that you would rather get your news from Fox than from the BBC. It seems to me that the question about whether we are to be subject to government control is water over the dam. The question is only WHICH government are we going to be controlled by. I would prefer to be controlled by the government with the most responsible governance structure. I am no socialist, but I will take the BBC over Fox ANY TIME. Gotta Run, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] [Original Message] From: Russell Gonnering rsgonneri...@mac.com To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Date: 5/15/2010 12:19:03 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do. Sarbajit- This is the most eloquent defense I have seen for the reason we must strive to remain a nation governed by law and not by people. While I enjoy some of the programming on PBS, I shudder to think of a time in which the press is controlled (funded) by the government and the PBS view the only information available. Dissent would be virtually impossible. While many would rejoice at the ability to shut up Glenn Beck, Woodward and Bernstein would never have existed, either. The viewpoint, recently given some traction by our politicians, that we have too much information available and the unwashed are incapable of discerning what is true and what is not is the road to slavery. While empowering the governing party to limit information may look good now, after 2012 I would imagine dissent will again be extolled as the highest form of patriotism. Too much information is not a problem for a democratic republic. It means that cogent explanations of ideas, put forward in clear and convincing ways, are required of politicians. Obfuscation is not the comfortable option it is when ideas are limited. Russ#3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ rsgonneri...@mac.com www.emergenthealth.net On May 15, 2010, at 12:55 PM, sarbajit roy wrote: Oops a small clarification, 2) In the instant judgement the majority partly upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal. The Supreme Court struck down the part where the lower court held that §441b was facially constitutional under McConnell. On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM, sarbajit roy sroy...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Robert 1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is commonly understood to be communism. 2) In the instant judgement the majority simply upheld (confirmed) the decision of the lower court in appeal. 3) You are completely off the mark on the implications of the judgement. You should be grateful that you have a Court which is defending the ideals of your founding fathers. I have read the all versions of the judgements in isolation without being contaminated by what other people have written /commented . The majority said this a) Consequently, to hold for Citizens United on this argument, the Court would be required to revise the text of MCFL, sever BCRA's Wellstone Amendment, §441b(c)(6), and ignore the plain text of BCRA's Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, §441b(c)(2). If the Court decided to create a de minimis exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, the result would be to allow for-profit corporate general treasury funds to be spent for independent expenditures that support candidates. There is no principled basis for doing this without rewriting Austin's holding that the Government can restrict corporate independent expenditures for political speech. b) We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject. c) Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech. d) Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330-333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expenditure
Re: [FRIAM] What you can do.
Nick-Why not have both Foxandthe BBC? Or more to the point, why not FoxandPBS?Fox is not like a government in the following ways: It can't tax me, it doesn't redistribute my wealth, it can't imprison me, it can't execute me or otherwise control me and I can turn them off. If they do not satisfy their viewers and their shareholders, they go out of business. Unless they are "too big to fail", which is a whole other discussion.I have this innate dislike for government censorship, and a very strong distrust of politicians.I like the fact that government is limited, and so did the framers of the Constitution. I can see no historical evidence of a political entity, that when granted absolute power over the flow of information to society for an unlimited period of time, used that power to increase or even merely insure the liberty of its citizens. Can you? If ever there is a situation of giving megaphones to people to yell "Fire" in the theater, it would be that.To each his own, I guess. Russ #3Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQrsgonneri...@mac.comwww.emergenthealth.netOn May 15, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:Russ,The thing I have never understood is why libertarians do not seecorporations for what they are: HUGE governments. Is it really the case that you would rather get your news from Fox thanfrom the BBC. It seems to me that the question about whether we are to besubject to government control is water over the dam. The question is onlyWHICH government are we going to be controlled by. I would prefer to becontrolled by the government with the most responsible governancestructure. I am no socialist, but I will take the BBC over Fox ANY TIME.Gotta Run,NickNicholas S. ThompsonEmeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/http://www.cusf.org[City University of Santa Fe] 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] Add to the mix: Viktor Frankl video clip
I found this worth watching: a 4:22 talk from 1972, from Frankl, whose vitality and conviction are inspirational. Viktor Frankl: Why to believe in others | Video on TED.com --- TORY HUGHES victo...@toryhughes.com Tory Hughes website Facebook|Tory Hughes Art 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] GDP vs National Debt by Country |
Reading about national debt problems in Europe, I tried to see what it looks like here and in the rest of the world and found this: http://ww,w.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/, Owen I am an iPad, resistance is futile! 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] GDP vs National Debt by Country |
Interesting, Owen. What do you make of this information? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] [Original Message] From: Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Date: 5/15/2010 5:52:30 PM Subject: [FRIAM] GDP vs National Debt by Country | Reading about national debt problems in Europe, I tried to see what it looks like here and in the rest of the world and found this: http://ww,w.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/, Owen I am an iPad, resistance is futile! 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] GDP vs National Debt by Country |
Corrected URL: http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country -- Russ On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Interesting, Owen. What do you make of this information? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] [Original Message] From: Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Date: 5/15/2010 5:52:30 PM Subject: [FRIAM] GDP vs National Debt by Country | Reading about national debt problems in Europe, I tried to see what it looks like here and in the rest of the world and found this: http://ww,w.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/, Owen I am an iPad, resistance is futile! 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] GDP vs National Debt by Country |
Well, I was interested in the European situation, and seeing the US debt being similar to others was surprising .. I figured we'd be off the charts! And the news talking heads were talking about the UK debt being the first order of business for the new gvt, but their debt was quite low. Owen I am an iPad, resistance is futile! On May 15, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Interesting, Owen. What do you make of this information? N 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] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress
Russ, It is my deepest belief that if our country is to survived, people who disagree need to learn to argue with each other. You and I really disagree on this one, so on my account, we are obligated to argue. On the other hand, I DON'T believe that others should unwillingly be a party to such arguments, so I changed the thread. We obviously agree that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, we are both made nervous when power starts to accumulate in small numbers of hands And I bet we believe, both, that having power leads to the accumulation of more of it. .And, we both seem to agree that dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power are occuring in our society, right now? OK, so far? Where we seem to disagree is where the dangerous power is accumulating in our society. I think it is in large corporations; you think it is in governments. Still on board? Why don't I stop there, and see if you agree with this characterization of our disagreement. Nick Still ok? Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] [Original Message] From: Russell Gonnering rsgonneri...@mac.com To: nickthomp...@earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity CoffeeGroup friam@redfish.com Date: 5/15/2010 1:39:10 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do. Nick- Why not have both Fox and the BBC? Or more to the point, why not Fox and PBS? Fox is not like a government in the following ways: It can't tax me, it doesn't redistribute my wealth, it can't imprison me, it can't execute me or otherwise control me and I can turn them off. If they do not satisfy their viewers and their shareholders, they go out of business. Unless they are too big to fail, which is a whole other discussion. I have this innate dislike for government censorship, and a very strong distrust of politicians. I like the fact that government is limited, and so did the framers of the Constitution. I can see no historical evidence of a political entity, that when granted absolute power over the flow of information to society for an unlimited period of time, used that power to increase or even merely insure the liberty of its citizens. Can you? If ever there is a situation of giving megaphones to people to yell Fire in the theater, it would be that. To each his own, I guess. Russ #3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ rsgonneri...@mac.com www.emergenthealth.net On May 15, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Russ, The thing I have never understood is why libertarians do not see corporations for what they are: HUGE governments. Is it really the case that you would rather get your news from Fox than from the BBC. It seems to me that the question about whether we are to be subject to government control is water over the dam. The question is only WHICH government are we going to be controlled by. I would prefer to be controlled by the government with the most responsible governance structure. I am no socialist, but I will take the BBC over Fox ANY TIME. Gotta Run, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] 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] GDP vs National Debt by Country |
Of the industrialized nations, Japan is in worst shape according to this measure. But no one seems to be worrying too much about the Yen. It's still treated as a safe harbor. -- Russ A On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote: Well, I was interested in the European situation, and seeing the US debt being similar to others was surprising .. I figured we'd be off the charts! And the news talking heads were talking about the UK debt being the first order of business for the new gvt, but their debt was quite low. Owen I am an iPad, resistance is futile! On May 15, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Interesting, Owen. What do you make of this information? N 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] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress
Let's be clear about which Russ you are talking to. This was Nick to Russ G. -- Russ A On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Russ, It is my deepest belief that if our country is to survived, people who disagree need to learn to argue with each other. You and I really disagree on this one, so on my account, we are obligated to argue. On the other hand, I DON'T believe that others should unwillingly be a party to such arguments, so I changed the thread. We obviously agree that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, we are both made nervous when power starts to accumulate in small numbers of hands And I bet we believe, both, that having power leads to the accumulation of more of it. .And, we both seem to agree that dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power are occuring in our society, right now? OK, so far? Where we seem to disagree is where the dangerous power is accumulating in our society. I think it is in large corporations; you think it is in governments. Still on board? Why don't I stop there, and see if you agree with this characterization of our disagreement. Nick Still ok? Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] [Original Message] From: Russell Gonnering rsgonneri...@mac.com To: nickthomp...@earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity CoffeeGroup friam@redfish.com Date: 5/15/2010 1:39:10 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What you can do. Nick- Why not have both Fox and the BBC? Or more to the point, why not Fox and PBS? Fox is not like a government in the following ways: It can't tax me, it doesn't redistribute my wealth, it can't imprison me, it can't execute me or otherwise control me and I can turn them off. If they do not satisfy their viewers and their shareholders, they go out of business. Unless they are too big to fail, which is a whole other discussion. I have this innate dislike for government censorship, and a very strong distrust of politicians. I like the fact that government is limited, and so did the framers of the Constitution. I can see no historical evidence of a political entity, that when granted absolute power over the flow of information to society for an unlimited period of time, used that power to increase or even merely insure the liberty of its citizens. Can you? If ever there is a situation of giving megaphones to people to yell Fire in the theater, it would be that. To each his own, I guess. Russ #3 Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ rsgonneri...@mac.com www.emergenthealth.net On May 15, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Russ, The thing I have never understood is why libertarians do not see corporations for what they are: HUGE governments. Is it really the case that you would rather get your news from Fox than from the BBC. It seems to me that the question about whether we are to be subject to government control is water over the dam. The question is only WHICH government are we going to be controlled by. I would prefer to be controlled by the government with the most responsible governance structure. I am no socialist, but I will take the BBC over Fox ANY TIME. Gotta Run, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] 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] GDP vs National Debt by Country |
Good times.. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html 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
