Op Ed: 'Personhood' Perverts Our National Heritage, Now Denies Progress

(EUGENE, Ore.) - Multiplying politically-manipulated measures are fueling the fires of a new rebellion in this nation. That’s a furious fact, reflected in numerous ways and now undeniable on many grounds.

Personal desolation resulting in disgust --and, for some, in near seditious revulsion-- have combined to create this consummate democracy-threatening mess. Most Americans still believe in their Constitution, and seek rational, reasonable adjustment to 21st Century reality.

They realize the realistic dangers of any return to once-radical, now outmoded, yet still seductive, concepts of “separatism for all fifty states --and state-rights uber alles.” They know well what the real world will do to fifty small-ones trying to compete with massive malignancies most recently demonstrated by 9/11 vs New York!

The first rational reason for any strong, unified governance is full-funded and determined “defense of the realm”, well demonstrated for us ever since ‘76. Our truly deplorable democratic political status is still further driven by continuing confusion, sometimes complicity, within and between both once-essential “political parties”.

NOW both are manipulated, if not quite/yet openly “managed”, by deeply corrupt corporate-dollar interest obviously driven by “campaign contributions”. Yet despite this confusion --partially fueled by seeming pertinent-and-relevant “worst-case examples-- most Americans know from mature and massive major experiences over their lifespan that there IS still a potent, ready and accessible answer.

They correctly fear that seemingly inevitable return to the Hamilton/Jefferson political feud which so long delayed and denied our “experiment in democracy”. Federalist vs Anti-Federalist confrontation long ago became a part of our history --and so did the answer.

What many more voters have come to recognize as the consequences of corporate corruption at work and seeking more governance power is the inevitable result of falsely-achieved “corporate personhood” --allowing access to the “right” of political free-speech to a legal fiction as if that fictional character lives, breaths, marries and even reproduces exactly like a human being.

That’s the true danger recognized by our Founders, presciently presented with rational, reasonable control built-in, by their classical and famed Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Their governance system has served us well for 250 years, providing the world-leading pattern now sought by other nations as well as a foundation for what we now need in the emerging 21st Century.

The ever-recurrent hope and promise of formative fundamental change was well-reflected in the election of President Obama --itself standing-proof of millions more-informed, reflecting Constitutional responsibility. Change is difficult, demanding, defining and definitely the ONLY SURE route for what we KNOW we NEED. As always in any nation, for any possible part of the process of change, PATIENCE remains the key word.

Systemic failures of democratic responsibilities by our vaunted “free press” are --perhaps ironically-- now well-known to be closely connected with continuing and lavish corporate dollar-influence, via both advertising revenues and actual ownership.

Cognitive and political science professionals long ago determined that it requires a broad and deep national movement to bring on the force demanded for reshaping “the world as we have come to know it”. There always comes a moment of meaningful impact, opening the way for momentum mutualized for millions by broad new understandings finally achieved.

Tea-chests tossed into Boston Harbor was one-such, bringing on final-action culmination, long in arriving but remarkable by impact and consequencee for the whole world ever since 1776. That massive movement now needs only the arrival of its progressive-view leader to trigger its traction. That surely will never happen in context of fifty small-ones once more reflecting the same confrontations and conflicts we once before were forced to settle!

The key moment, we may learn, may well be when the ongoing distortion --now verging on perversion-- of one major third of our governance system becomes so strong that it can no longer be rightfully ignored. (“Legislative-Executive-Judicial”)

We now face the fact of fearful action by the Supreme Court, forcing the final resolution of fully rebellious refusal to relate to commonweal needs by those who lost in the last election, clearly including those now proclaiming a return to “state-right uber alles.”

This “final action” by “the current conservative consensus” of black-robed designates to our appointed- Supremes, “fully conceptualizes the myth of corporate personhood” --taken NOW, many believe, because they are obviously fearful of broad natural developmental consequences already on the way.

That action confers on very UN-”natural persons” the “patently human right of political passion, principle and action”.

That action attempts to substitute wide-and-deep dollar-driven influence-seeking by corporate private-gain interests for what --for over a century-- has been well understood as “a right belonging only to human beings” endowed with life by that status alone: Free speech devoted to principle, plan and potent performance of political principle.

THAT-last is surely something compatible only with the very human ability to think and reason rationally; not to something poured over a pile of legal documents by lushly-paid legal-eagles, yet presenting “only a charter granted to ‘a legal fiction’ at best.”

Can you imagine corporate dollar-power in any way controlled --much less conquered !--by fragmented fifty-state separatism, frustrated by ubiquitous bagmen at work in every Legislature?

That was one rational, reasonable fear faced far back in our history by those who favored strong national government. If that “meaningful moment”-mentioned has now arrived, its greatest potential leaves us to decide what next-steps are now required to salvage, succor and thus save our still-ongoing original “experiment in democracy.”

There remains no possible doubt of the prescient -- and very prominent-- preference, fully and mutually expressed among the Founders in many historically recorded moments of dialog and impassioned debate: They deeply distrusted the already-evident obvious damaging impacts they well knew would follow, from further development of many-more like the East India combine --from which arose the UN-represented “tax on tea” --really the final straw igniting those flames of ‘76, still smoking throughout the developing world today.

Any revealing review of remarkable reversals by former (also-appointed !) Supreme Court “consensus” will show remarkable relation to the same ongoing antiprogressive action agenda. Researchers can start at almost any point in the spectacular spectrum of forward steps for the largest mass of Americans --our once-burgeoning “middle class”-- and find essentially significant situations reflecting long/term, corporate/controlled, massively funded manifestations of malign-intended influence actions.

The record is replete with evidence of far more than near-normal pursuit of private-gain as provided in corporate-charter requirements, in every state. That record also now mirrors multiple occasions for deeper, demanding, definite address to surrounding the real and pragmatic problems arising in fully-detailed descriptions of corporate actions and policies prevailing even in the face of national disgust and deterioration of trust.

Full, strong, continuing, highly costly corporate effort was demanded for more than 50 years to achieve even erroneous entry by a court reporter, distorting the involved Judge’s casual statement to achieve the falsity of a biased ersatz precedent.

Four parallel cases were all denied in that same year, seeking the same radical resolution --even then so recognized-- re “person as legal fiction” and “natural person” as human being with Heaven-conferred rights. There is today left not a whit of what is demanded for a legally-binding precedent in this precariously and preciously-guarded --and extremely costly ever since-- case reference used constantly to protect corporate claimed “personhood”.

That may well be what is now becoming well and truly recognized --even by Supreme participants-- and a major motivation to make sure every loose-plank is now nailed down, while there is still time: Before the New Revolution of broader and millions more- pervasive understandings and motivation for action can arrive.

For sure, too, that is the driving force --fear of fast-approaching informed-citizen/responsibility for all those millions-- driving the ever/present virus-cabal of “state’s-rights uber alles”.

Its new emergence NOW, in midst of many other impacts stemming from opportunistic political/social trends underway ever since ‘76, is highly significant. We fought a Civil War --with bloody consequences still felt everywhere-- to win for American democracy precisely the current probabilities of still more forward steps --never achievable as 50 separate small and competing entities, each with its own agenda and special interests at work to guarantee their private gain.

At 21, Henry Clay Ruark was Aroostook Editor for the Bangor, Maine DAILY NEWS, covering the upper 1/4 of the state. In the ‘40s, he was Staff Correspondent, then New England Wires Editor at United Press-Boston; later Editor for the Burlington, Vermont 3-daily group owned by Wm. Loeb, later notorious at Manchester, New Hampshire UNION LEADER for attacks on Democratic Presidential candidates.

Hank returned to Oregon to complete M. Ed. degree at OSU, went on to Indiana University for Ed.D. (abd) and special other course-work; was selected as first Information Director for NAVA in Washington, D.C.; helped write sections of NDEA, first Act to supply math, science, foreign language consultants to state depts. of education; joined Oregon Dept. of Education, where he served as NDEA administrator/Learning Media Consultant for ten years.

He joined Dr. Amo DeBernardis at PCC, helping establish, extend programs, facilities, Oregon/national public relations; moved to Chicago as Editor/Publisher of oldest educational-AV journal, reformed as AV GUIDE Magazine; then established and operated Learning Media Associates as general communications consultant group. Due to wife’s illness, he returned to Oregon in 1981, semi-retired, and has continued writing intermittently ever since, joining S-N in 2004. His Op Eds now total over 560 written since then.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Hank Ruark February 11, 2010 10:16 am (Pacific time)

Seaside Series Sidebar Op Eds in Seaside Series are written to initiate and propound dialog, with writer seeking to serve you still further via rapid response to Comments. That’s whole purpose of dialog as opposed to debate, since response renews and welcomes further informed statement citing reliable reference or documentation. Dialog seeks to explore, share and learn, for all participating in civil discourse leading to consensus. Debate seeks to “win by any means” , with confrontation as key weapon for “victory” over others. For those who are troubled by writer’s frequent and hopefully rapid and comprehensive further comment, that is WHY contribution from professional experience including many sources and massive remaining files from past years is put to work here --for your elucidation and even possibly your enjoyment-- particularly by participation in dialog.

Hank Ruark February 10, 2010 4:33 pm (Pacific time)

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and in which all too often we serve as unwilling instruments." Noam Chomsky = "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running and robbing the country. That's our problem.": Howard Zinn, from 'Failure to Quit'

Hank Ruark February 10, 2010 4:28 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Kindly note we have never yet seen any further links, sources or documentation from Shaw, permine 2/9:7:51 pm. No surprise: This is 48th such challenge, with never a reply containing reliable, trustworthy documentation yet.

Hank Ruark February 10, 2010 10:36 am (Pacific time)

J.S.: You wrote:"...but no one will be able to point out that his methods have had a positive impact on anything other than discussing the negative impacts of his unpalatable methodologies and why those methods need to be shunned." Au contraire, sir! There are many sources for documented review of both Alinsky and Chomsky work, with something far more significant than your continued denigration here with no documentation at all. IF you will IDself to Editor for direct contact, I will extract from files and PDF- pile here what is needed to set you straight once and for all. No charge: My pleasure.

Hank Ruark February 9, 2010 8:44 pm (Pacific time)

My decade in Chicago was 1970 through '81, with some visits since, and ongoing contact with large and wide- ranging flock of clients and friends...including some few still-leading and some-new media participants, educators and even politicians. So when I cite Chicago-news, count on it being "happening right now", with word from reliable sources sure to be involved in anything worth our time. Early years there were as publisher/editor of leading magazine in educational media field, which is one of city's most lucrative industries, with my own sidebar business, Learning Media Associates, in active contact with many well- established leaders.

Hank Ruark February 9, 2010 7:51 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Please note re Shaw et al that when challenged they evade and never put up links open to check, except for own propaganda sources where easy- read reveals real purposes. Then, too, when heat is on, as with Supremes horrendous sell-out to corporatism, they pursue any and all other side issues, defying and denying open, honest answering efforts which we make here for the record, even though we know and rapidly realize their always awkward action. So "toodle-oo-to-you,sir" !!

John Shaw February 9, 2010 6:56 pm (Pacific time)

I was born in Chicago and lived there for over 37 years, and am quite familiar with those community activist's there, especially with the failed policies that they have used in south Chicago. I agree that Saul Alinsky's works will be around for quite a while, but no one will be able to point out that his methods have had a positive impact on anything other than discussing the negative impacts of his unpalatable methodologies and why those methods need to be shunned. The south side of Chicago is one of the most brutal and violent places in this hemisphere. It was not that bad 50 years ago and has continued to worsen over time. Why? There has been tons of money dropped in this area and seems to have lined the pockets of those who claim to be helping. I went to your source "commondreams.org" and read through the website. Seems to be pretty clear what they are all about. Nothing common about their dreams, except playing the bait and switch when it calls others using propaganda. They are misinforming people about global warming, and have provided no scientific info that can be replicated for peer review, nor have the scientists they quote. Politically it is a done issue, it's over.

Editor: John, what is this really about? Have you what it takes to make your real point? Let's see, a race of people was owned a little over 140 years ago, and in the highly industrial land of friggin' Al Capone who was white as it gets, there has been a continuation of crime, can you name a place where things are different? I think it is always just a matter of scale. Pathetic white bigots drove this country long enough, don't you think it is a little ridiculous to regard CommonDreams.org as a propaganda site? They are about humanity, and I respect any group that stands up against the 2% of this country that possesses 98% of our wealth. I don't know who your heroes are, but I doubt they are actual humanitarians, probably a bunch of money grubbing CEO's, what else could your point be? Politically, the neocons and ridiculous Republicans are the done issue.

Hank Ruark February 9, 2010 3:54 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Corporate funds rallied from worldwide sources are being used to denigrate accurate global warming data now universally recognized as truth-in-action. This link will take you to latest report at reliable source CommonDreams.org: Climate Scientists Hit Out at 'Sloppy' Melting Glaciers Error http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/09-8 You will "see with own eyes" why the report is highly relevant to this 3-part Op Ed series on strong support for corporatism damages by the erroneous action of the Supreme Court.

Hank Ruark February 9, 2010 1:19 pm (Pacific time)

J.S.: Must note your Comment includes nothing but your personal feeling. To convert to "informed opinion" here,please file link to some other authoritative figure for what you claim;OR file bkgrnd enough of your own claims to authority. Re real Chicago situation, Alinsky impacts, happens I had whole decade in Chicago, with some close reporting and group process work, thus intimately meeting some of those directly involved. My own take on what you state is simple fact: Many, many more complex factors, situations, political actions, and national events dulled, slowed, in some cases defeated what Alinski and his followers were able to accomplish. But overall his success was such that his international reputation will easily survive what either of us now see, from our own very limited perspective, was the truth of both achievement and impact. That inludes widespread use of his workable methods --from which dissent is absolutely sure to arise from certain sources eager to denigrate him AND his methods still in use. Happens one such contact was with working youth seeking only chance at college they might ever get, via phonesales work at Time/Life Books for needed dollars, hard-earned. Also happens I helped set up and operate that training situation, and met with both workers and families in midst of Alinsky-impacted area. Have YOU ever had such a privileged close-up view of the area AND the people ?? So perhaps mine may be a bit more "informed" here than yours, for which we await any further documentation beyond unexplained feeling from any contacts you may have had, but have not shared here. If so, please lay 'em out, for us to know, share, and thus learn from, ongoing goal of this open,honest,democratic channel. You might include time, date and details of any close-work on site in Chicago... Fair enough, friend J.S. ? I note others castigating Chomsky continue to fail to put up other than b/button feelings first expressed. One claimed student status, precisely as if with Chomsky, but no further word when status was challenged. Further happens I've used some of his work in linguistic sciences, and have had contact with some working with him,but never directly with C.himself. Query to all in dissent: Why not cite source and send links if you have something solid enough to share here ?? We (read me-personally !) check each and every link so-sent, and report on its reliability or lack thereof, for further check by YOU !! Only one submitted turned out to be over-described and lacking characteristics of a reliable source, on its own statement of purpose.

John Shaw February 9, 2010 11:15 am (Pacific time)

Another way of seeing how well received the political writings of Noam Chomsky have been is to see how high profile people, like our elected officials, use his ideological viewpoints as something that could be put into action to improve our republic form of government, or using his analyses of various events as something to be used in policy, either domestic or foreign. Counting our president and our vice president, coupled with 535 members of congress, and across the time period (several decades) Mr. Chomsky has been actively sharing his political perspectives with the world, you will not find one person referenced above who has used Mr. Chomsky's political viewpoints in a positive way. I would also be shocked if a past or present state governor or a mayor of a large city (maybe in the Bay area of California?) have provided any positive talking points. Noam Chomsky makes for interesting readings, and he has no doubt interesting theories about many issues, but outside of the classroom environment, his political perspectives have no practical application to the kind of government that "We the People" have, and expect to continue with. Another individual of similar political perspective (I realize that is arguable) is Saul Alinsky, essentially a community organizer who failed miserably, as have his supporters. The proof I offer to support that last conclusion, just look at the south side of Chicago and see what it is now, and what it was 50 years ago. Intensive community organizing using the Alinksky methodology has worsened the situation there. Would Chomsky applications of his political ideology have similar results?

Hank Ruark February 8, 2010 3:32 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Madison: Your original words I copied here condemning Chomsky on basis of his ancestors' actions remains absolutely unacceptable to any American who believes in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. SO, sir, must ask whether you stand by that as written and challenged, or now see some need to remedy whatever mistaken impression it may have left among many here. Never met you except by written word, perhpas all too brief here for true impression so seek your very direct answer to that point, with clarity the only objective. IF indeed we are to take that route, how far back is it now demanded we go, to reach a level of purity or otherwise beyond which it is silly and perhaps impractical to pursuse such demand purity as we each are allowed to define it ?? OR is it,perhaps, that there is only one measure...and I'm supposed to know where it is and accept it without either qualm or question ? If that's how-it-is, how about defining the source for that universal well of precise proportional verity ??? Is it perhaps buried somehow in practical definition of political principle ? If so, what's yours ? Am I allowed to suggest we seek some consensus that it may well be wiser, and also even more moral, to allow some room for several points of view beyond your condemnation of world leader in --ironic note unavoidable !-linguistics itself ???

Hank Ruark February 8, 2010 3:14 pm (Pacific time)

J.M: Re Chomsky-link. alrady been there, done that, still disagree. Are you aware Wikipedia is written by contributors ? Must take that into account when using it as source. It is great but experience indicates warning well shared, too. How about something more solid ? Re "student"ref., were you actual Chomsky-student or is that general-use ref. to study-status ? Re controversy over global change, surely yoy not contending whole Earth not now in semi-plundered state ? Your links re this all seem to me to lead invariably to those pretending otherwise for dollar-gains completely obvious. Re Congressional action, how about bill designation in checkable format ? Appreciate your continued civil response and also your patience with inquisitive reporter never getting enough until facts spiked down...but generalities and passing open personal view simply no longer good enough on these major issues, esp. global warming with more than 100 nations already in action. Billions at state for energy companies makes highly likely heavy-propaganda perps at work as already proven re original data-leak --WHO do you suppose dug that out and why !!

Jerry Madison February 8, 2010 8:48 am (Pacific time)

I've been exposed to many of Chomsky's viewpoints, both as a former student, and also via my own curiosity. He certainly has viewpoints that I find too far out in the weeds for my tastes. He has many critics (peers) and I find these critics credible, or at the very least, worth reading to evaluate. There are many sources for Chomsky's critics, here is a link to one, but his list of critics who have similar academic backgrounds is quite extensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky In terms of "global warming" and it's new moniker, "climate change," there has been a continuous exposure of "bad science" being acknowledged during peer review of the climate data. Most good advice I've encountered is to follow the money. Congress has slowed down it's "Cap and Trade" agenda because they know that the "informed people group(voters)" is growing exponentially. Here are some recent links that demonstrate that the whole planet is drawing down on this distraction: "As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/ The Great IPCC Meltdown Continues It’s not just the threat of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035. Now another headline grabbing IPCC scare story is melting away. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/07/the-great-ipcc-meltdown-continues/ Bogus: The UN climate panel and the (false) rainforest claim. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece I could go on, but the media has been providing fresh stories almost on a daily level, not to mention references to professional journals that are disputing data collection and interpretive results. It's over. Also congressional democrats have introduced a bill to prevent the EPA to make new regulations based on this bad science.

February 7, 2010 12:36 pm (Pacific time)

Madison:
You wrote: "There is nothing in Noam Chomsky's political writings that does not call for the "dumping" of our government heritage and changing it to something closer to what the Soviet Union had. In terms of current scientific thought on global warming/change, well it's been refuted via fraudulent data."

You are in error on both statements, sir.
The first sounds as if you've read ALL of Chomsky, when your words indicate you have profound misunderstanding of what he has done, and what he has written.

SO, if you are indeed a scholar of his work, cite chapter-and-verse to show us precisely how/what you feel is so violently violating the American values you state he perverts.

Then you attribute entirely too much impact to the rather small and far from unusual facts of academic disagreement re "global warming", emerging from email and other privately shared information as the now well-proven scientific facts were originally addressed.

IF you can cite fundamental sources for your view other than those questionable by the close ties to private-gain opponents of what we now know, do so or accept the fact of your error here, sir.

Dialog in S-N is intended to be accurate, factually-based, open to dissent via similar error-free statement, but by honest intent devoted to sharing and learning by all.

Where error is openly shown we expect that fact to operate as intended for the protection and edification of all, not in any way to denigrate or even downplay the participation of anyone acting in good faith... and able to so demonstrate by reliable, tested, proven and acceptable source-references.

Hank Ruark February 7, 2010 12:21 pm (Pacific time)

J.M.: No question re historical accuracy, sir...we all know the facts involved in the horrendous outcomes of what perverted leaders did to what is still seen as one strong theoretical point of view. Fact you disagree should in no way disperse or disparage that fundamental truth,on full display in every level of wide world "informed opinion" and understandings. To attribute Chomsky's past or current actions to his ancestors is to strain any possible understandings of all that occurred then, and place blame on descendant unable to participate in what THEY did. THEN to assign his own work now to their influence is to defy and deny every changing influence over at least one generation, perhaps more in your view. Any sociologist or political expert will agree tha is the basic fact of life, which you seem not to understand. Are YOU trained and professionally prepared in these areas, sir ? Have you written or taught in any area of any of them ? YOUR statement cannot be characterized corrently other than your own "opinion" --in this case surely sadly or perhaps malignly misinformed or misinterpreted by your own words --to "teaar one off" vs someone whose views you do not share. IF you do not understand that approach and attitude it involves, then there's naught words csn ever do to remedy that failure, even in this open, honest, democratic S-N channel devoted, we hope, to dialog intended for sharing and learning rather than any and all distorted statements re world leaders far more accomplished than any of us commenting here. Re Reagan-ref., simple fact to substantiate that at times even a strong later-warrior re what you abhor was early-on caught up in conditions surely seductive at the time. Have you read DUTCH ? If NOT there's no better moment than now...it might help your very obvious blind-spot re what Founders propose in First and other key parts of our famed Constitution and Bill of Rights, fundamental to these very questions.

Jerry Madison February 7, 2010 8:25 am (Pacific time)

My comments on Noam Chomsky are entirely factually accurate, as is the reference made to his ancestors and the ideological leadership of that time period in Russia, essentially begining in 1917, which brought forth the bloodiest genocide in human history. There is nothing in Noam Chomsky's political writings that does not call for the "dumping" of our government heritage and changing it to something closer to what the Soviet Union had. In terms of current scientific thought on global warming/change, well it's been refuted via fraudulent data. I feel bad about what our ancestors did when they came here, unfortunately it is part of human history, literally in every place on the planet, throughout recorded history, and I imagine happening long before recorded history. I don't understand why the reference to Reagan?

Hank Ruark February 6, 2010 9:51 am (Pacific time)

To all: J.M. wrote:"...familiar with Noam Chomsky, does anyone out there think he backs the U.S Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our form of government, a republic? Or do you think maybe something else far removed from what we have? His political viewpoints/writings are familiar with many of those from whence his parents came from. None panned out very well, in fact, tens of millions died quite violent deaths over many decades when an attempt was made to foster the change they envisioned." That may help in your full understanding of my rather strong response. For the record, re former chief god of GOP, Ronald Reagan, see his authorized biography DUTCH, for several citations re his early leaning towards Communist philosophy, which is heart of this smearing reference re Chomsky. (Start with pp. 157-159, re Howard Fast, who should surely be seen as solid, reliable reference by direct experience with the working situation.) ISBN:0-394-55508-2 If we have learned nothing more in 20 centuries, it is that we cannot blame our mutual contemporaries for the political views of their ancestors. If we are to do so here for Chomsky, then perhaps we are also forced to look-yet-again at what our own ancestors managed in manipulating the removal of indigent cultures as they "conquered the West" in what has now become very questionable "Manifest Destiny" among most contemporary historians. Sorry, friend Madison, but reality bites back when one is forced to confront it. The best way to avoid such pain when it happens is to make sure of "informed opinion" rather than simple self-satisfying B/buttonism.

Ruark February 6, 2010 9:14 am (Pacific time)

J.M. et al: So, re Chomsky, we as true Americans must condemn anyone whose views, relating to their own predecessors, are now in conflict with ours ? That somehow does not seem to reflect Jefferson, Hamilton or others familiar to millions here and around the world. Chomsky position surely now invulnerable to any/such, with work well on record. Where's YOURS, sir ? Re climate and other points your last statement surely does seem to prevail. Have a good day and dig even deeper into that Pilgrim-days book of sureties.

Jerry Madison February 6, 2010 8:25 am (Pacific time)

My suggestion about this ruling is that like projected global warming, time will tell. There are strong opinions on both sides of each, so it will be the empirical evidence we shall see in five to ten years that will provide some more data to see how both are trending. My informed opinion is that we as a nation will be stronger and our climate will be reflective of what it has been over the eons, ever-changing as nature dictates. I hope my opinions have not insulted anyone. I also am familiar with Noam Chomsky, does anyone out there think he backs the U.S Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our form of government, a republic? Or do you think maybe something else far removed from what we have? His political viewpoints/writings are familiar with many of those from whence his parents came from. None panned out very well, in fact, tens of millions died quite violent deaths over many decades when an attempt was made to foster the change they envisioned. Some never learn.

Hank Ruark February 5, 2010 1:20 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Mike:
Your "principle" surely bars everyone who happens to jump far enough one way or the other to fall into designated square you have labelled" Just too much !" --with no possible potential cogitative cogency than badly-biased personal preference.
That denies entire tested, proven possibilities of true democracy via clamping down YOUR value-field and YOUR principle-pile as absolute and irremediable choices, barring those possibly made by any others.
There is a political name for that, but do not wish to smear honest, open, democratic S-N channel with it !!

So go hide behind bars in your self-built cage, sir, and watch rest of world go by as developing nations learn and share and progress beyond what we here allow ourselves to achieve, while clearing out the inverted radicals we keep finding subverting what our Founders left us as ultimate legacy.

Hank Ruark February 5, 2010 11:26 am (Pacific time)

To all:
Reporter returns with even more reality, right from Rudman mouth as GOPster leader.
Note realistic view of 1907 T-Act and put allathis in real perspective re 21st Century:

Republicans losing their way on campaign finance reform

By Warren Rudman
Friday, February 5, 2010

When I arrived in the U.S. Senate 30 years ago, I was a proud member of a Republican Party known for championing moderation in Congress, restraint in the courts and good-government reform.

In fact, the Republican tradition of campaign finance reform in which I stand dates to the trust-buster, Theodore Roosevelt. In his 1905 message to Congress, President Roosevelt proposed that "contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." His logic was straightforward enough: "If [legislators] are extorted by any kind of pressure or promise, express or implied, direct or indirect, in the way of favor or immunity, then the giving or receiving becomes not only improper but criminal."

The resulting Tillman Act of 1907 and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 were the first laws limiting corporate money in federal elections and requiring strict disclosure of campaign funds. With the rise of organized labor in the 1930s, Republican Sen. Robert Taft and Republican Rep. Fred Hartley extended the ban on corporate contributions to unions. Those laws were dealt a serious blow by last month's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That such a rash and immoderate ruling could come from a chief justice once committed to respecting precedent, and win praise from leaders of my party, is beyond my comprehension.
---------------------
THAT says it straight, from man who has "been there, done that" --now finds Supremes action "incomprehensible".
Read:DO whatever will SELL to malign minority meaning to mess up Obama any way possible via manipulation even if that demands denying "party principle" since it was first formed. (1905 !! TR Himself !)

Mike February 5, 2010 11:30 am (Pacific time)

From my reading of some of these comments below, I would certainly give more credibility to any member of the Supreme Court, regardless of how they vote on any issue, over Noam Chomsky. Regardless of his intellectual prowess and other achievements, he is not qualified to make a legally-trained assessment. Opinions are fine, but his politics are so far out in the really tall weeds I suggest that one take any search engine and put in "critics of Noam Chomsky" to get another perspective on this individal. Wow!

Editor: Noam Chomsky is an extremely respected individual followed by millions, are you suggesting that sources outside of the system, like the nation's top professors, should not offer input? Chomsky seems to have the same problem we have around here, an addiction to truth, I don't see that as outrageous, but proper.

Hank Ruark February 5, 2010 10:24 am (Pacific time)

Dallas:
Your cited quote from the NYT is irrelevant or displays your further confusion:
IF these two corporations are editorializing against Thomas et al action, when they stand to gain from further dollar influence, one must rememberin detail the mutual potential potent power they both have already displayed.

It was the NYTimes that forced, over legal objection, the full publication of The Pentagon Papers.

It was the WPost which led the eventual parade of wiser heads and national authorities vs the Vietnam War,now all too reminiscent of the Iraq attack chosen as a completely unnecessary "wasting war" by Bush.

Corporation format had very little to do with either famed action:
Values and principles generaly then reflected by then-virtuous leading American dailies were what really counted when the heat was highest.

But that's precisely what is now corrupted completely by this open invitation for fully illicit corporation purchase of governance itself via the multiplication of bag-man behavior carried out even more completely at legislative desk-side --far outweighing in dollars-delivered what is now already evidenced by "corporate campaign contributions" --very thinly concealed by that cover.

Hank Ruark February 5, 2010 9:47 am (Pacific time)

DALLAS: Honest presentation of your point re any Constitutional question demanded statement that Justice Thomas is part of the perpetrator group for this one. Your own link clearly states in headline, with full story content also then confirming fact of his defense of this decision he helped to shape !! What ELSE would you expect from him ? He can hardly attack something he himself did, too !! Quoting perp in defense of his action is distortion, pure and very UN-simple, as your own words show. Most will agree that is hardly honest, open, dialog. (See Seaside Series Sidebar herewith.) Re comparison of worldwide evaluation of Chomsky vs Justice Thomas, do you dare contend Thomas on same level, given Chomsky's wide-ranging work in areas determining both values and moralities --which is the question here ? His status in much wider and more challenging area of expertise has won him New Yorker designation as world's "most quoted" respected academic. Old game of "MY expert vs YOUR expert" plays awkwardly when YOURS is a perp himself ! Your participation here of value since it demonstrates principle of honest sharing and learning, as openly stated and always intended here. Follow for details as this one unfolds further to "see with own eyes" how world will receive and deal with this radical attack on Constitution by those pledged to defend it honestly and openly, without resort to obvious political pandering to already-failing party-points. ---------------------- Seaside Series Sidebar Op Eds in Seaside Series are written to initiate a dialog, with writer seeking to serve you still further via rapid response to Comments. That’s whole purpose of any dialog as opposed to debate, since response renews and then welcomes further any"informed" statement citing reliable reference or documentation. Dialog seeks to explore, share and learn, for all participating in an open, honest,civil discourse leading to democratic consensus. Debate seeks to “win by any means”, with confrontation as key weapon for “victory” over others. Distortion is commonly used if seen as advantageous. For those who are troubled by this writer’s frequent and hopefully rapid, comprehensive further comment, that is WHY contribution from professional experience including many sources and massive remaining files from past years is put to work here: For your elucidation and even possibly your enjoyment-- particularly by participation in honest, open, sharing and democratic dialog.

Dallas February 4, 2010 6:37 pm (Pacific time)

I thought it would be interesting to get a viewpoint of a Supreme Court Judge in this latest ruling. Getting an opinion from a constitutional scholar is far more valuable than one who is not. Is Noam Chomsky a scholar in this area? Here is some excerpts from a well know publication, New York Times, with a link at the bottom for further reading. “I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.” The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle. He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907. “Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp

Hank Ruark February 4, 2010 11:35 am (Pacific time)

Vic et al: You will know already I hold strong sympathy with your main point expressed here. Yet our pattern of strong central governance remains the only pragmatic choice in the 21st Century --and further strength will be demanded soon, too, inevitable with world trends now unmistakable. Then, too, history shows us what happens,again inevitably, with Southern "plantation attitude" prevailing over what all others long recognized as just as inevitable as what we now face --long after Civil War was required to decide our direction --still far from FULLY achieved--but working. Many other major/minor and some massive issues, points and problems remain; but fifty smallies working each on own, inevitably, will never now cut it in 21st Century vs strong central government as is norm now across the whole world. What we must do is surely to seize-again the original and proven sensitive-sensible set of solid democratic principles left us by the Founders as a legacy we've long neglected and allowed to be bought and (partially) paid for by the overwhelming dollar-power of corporate interests. We CAN now still do so --and I believe many more Americans every day are learning we are already moving in some correct actions to accomplish that objective --with THE VOTE as our key weapon when we protect it from abuse, distortion and perversion via strong dialog under the First Amendment --still the law of the land, despite its denigration via the Supremes, now about to suffer theit own come/uppance via Congressional remediation. Which, please note, is built into our system, ready for its use when required, IF we so CHOOSE by word-and-action with our ELECTED legislators. NO SYSTEM will ever save us IF WE DO NOT MAKE IT WORK !!

Dallas February 4, 2010 11:29 am (Pacific time)

VIC, For FYI the 2010 Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP. Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation, higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s. Maybe you recall that the Stimulus Bill last year was slightly below $800 billion, and it was rushed before anyone could read it so as to stop job losses, create new jobs and prevent the unemployment rate going over 8%. We have lost over 4 million jobs in the last year, and if any new jobs were "permanently" saved or created is matter of nebulous controversey, except for government jobs, plenty created here. Who pays for the latter jobs? That is, who creates the wealth to pay for those jobs? I am no military hawk, but do agree with the notion that the best defense is a good offense. We have enemies who are determined to kill us because we do not share their views, and that is the primary reason they want to kill us. Yeah I'm real glad we have a strong military force, though leadership is lacking.

Vic February 4, 2010 7:48 am (Pacific time)

I think any kind of reorganization that takes power away from the monolithic central government which has consistantly lied to, stolen from and beat down it's citizens would be an improvement. Over half our GNP goes to war and the military...what kind of military budget would separate states have? I bet it would be a great deal more realistic. Perhaps the military would once again be defensive rather than offensive, and not consume half of every dollar earned by the people. Would an individual state pursue war around the world or send billions in weaponry abroad? I think that there would be no shortage of people willing to protect and help their state in an invasion or natural disaster. The behemoth all-encompassing constant warfare Roman-style government the US has now has failed miserably. America could be the richest nation on Earth, yet instead, it is the most in debt nation in the world. And the pirates that have plundered our country and continue to do so in broad daylight demand more and tell us just one more war, just one more "bail-out", just one more looting of the nation and all will be well. And we obey..tighten our belts and send our kids off to fight for Boeing, DOW, Motorola, GE, Raytheon, and the oil companies so that the obscenely rich can get richer. Pathetic.

Hank Ruark February 3, 2010 6:45 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Jerry M: Nice to know you nail down dates and facts...even toppers like Reich make mistakes. BUT re his overall record do not believe one can pin down much of real import. Re messerger-shot, if one fires that kind of shell it often comes back around, as here. The statements I read there could be tolerated only if intention was to pervert and thus to smear --which for me destroys any further credibility. No excuses, and appreciate your further response. BUT re Constitutional convention you are dreaming, and reality will strike home without rebuilding the whole boat if we simply choose to use citizen power via VOTE to correct inequities, on which we probably are closer to agreement than may appear. Watch for next Op Ed which will take into account some of these same points. Meanwhile Reich remains a tested and proven public servant with solid record far outweighing what either of us can do to denigrate it via illumination of remarks. Time-bind here forbids same stuff from many manipulative masters of mind-shaping, as you will surely agree is the single worst situation we now face in debacle devouring both "political" parties, now self- reduced to perverted partisan perturbation rather than any realistic responsibilities for role the Founders reserved for them, presciently planning for what they knew pejoratively would inevitably follow. Check out last in classic early-American history for the full story.

Jerry Madison February 3, 2010 6:11 pm (Pacific time)

As I said below I enjoy Robert Reich's meandering viewpoints. He is a high profile personality, so certainly he must know that people will record his comments? That link I provided below goes directly to a recording of his statements. So please don't shoot the messenger. Facts are not always how one would like them, but it is important when they are irrefutable to bring light to them. In another interesting viewpoint by Prof. Robert Reich, a former economic advisor to President Obama, and Clinton Secretary of Labor, he claimed in his column at Salon.com that Fox News played a role in the conservative resurgence of 1994: "In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side." But Prof. Reich overlooked one minor detail: Fox News Channel’s first broadcast wasn’t until October 7, 1996, nearly 2 years after the 1994 vote. This is all in the public domain. I would add, that the ruling on Corporations has made me a bit queasy, but a Constitutional Amendment would best be served by pursuing a Constitutional Convention to address a whole range of issues. Getting all the fifty states and their legislatures on board would be quite a process to behold. P.S. My name is Jerry Madison and my childhood hometown is Salem Oregon.

Hank Ruark February 3, 2010 3:38 pm (Pacific time)

Reporter Brings S-N Still Another Informed Opinion: The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy By Noam Chomsky Feb.3/10 "In These Times" Jan. 21, 2010, will go down as a dark day in the history of U.S. democracy, and its decline. On that day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban corporations from political spending on elections—a decision that profoundly affects government policy, both domestic and international. The decision heralds even further corporate takeover of the U.S. political system. To the editors of The New York Times, the ruling “strikes at the heart of democracy” by having “paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.” The court was split, 5-4, with the four reactionary judges (misleadingly called “conservative”) joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds and maneuvered the court into using it to push through a far-reaching decision that overturns a century of precedents restricting corporate contributions to federal campaigns. -------------

Hank Ruark February 3, 2010 3:19 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Mac: No intention to deny voice you heard (as I did) OR what you think re his opinion. Old truism: It's YOUR "opinion" --and you are stuck with it"; surely applies to hcr also, on basis of words written and documented openly on this honest, democratic channel. Only point was and is the interpretation given his words and the context within which it was stated --understandable to you et al or NOT... IF anyone still believes the O-administration actually IS planning to seize healthcare changes for "socialist" or similar purposes (insert yr own political/slant, including fascism-coming rapidly !), there is little written words can ever do to remediate that sad situation. Yr participation appreciated here, sir, and suggest you follow carefully for further Reichism in AMERICAN PROSPECT, for which he is one of three founders. You will surely enjoy the other two also... At least it will ensure your wideawake reaction as more millions in nation begin the very painful political-change process now underway, due to deny/defy Far Right canny and cold distortions/perversions over past 30 years. That's basic point so far in this three-shot from Seaside, with Third still to come.

Mac February 3, 2010 12:50 pm (Pacific time)

Hey I went to the link http://prayerandaction.com/?p=5088 and that is Robert Reich's voice. I heard about this late last summer and verified it. I'm both on private insurance, medicare and the VA system (I'm retired military), and Mr. Reich clearly stated a very scary opinion on healthcare coverage. I'm not a member of any party, but I will go against any politician who agrees with Mr. Reich in this healthcare situation.

Hank Ruark February 3, 2010 12:15 pm (Pacific time)

Madison: Familar with link; one can find on it ties to others. Both repeat "We gonna let you die !" threat made to gullible oldsters, in lying propaganda from sources ID'd as Far Right, even beyond the benighted GOPsters who publicized now disproven words as if Gospel... For his whole career, I've followed Reich-statements and found them not only accurate but highly reliable. Reich I KNOW -your sources quesionable via direct check. So much for them, Madison. Now WHO are YOU ? WHY smear factual documentation here from noted national figure while hiding behind name we know not from Adam --whom we long ago learned NOT to trust.

Madison February 3, 2010 8:41 am (Pacific time)

I've always gotten a kick out of Robert Reich and the meandering positions he takes on various issues. In terms of his position on what the largest and most controlling Corporation that we have that impacts nearly every aspect of our lives, the growing U.S. government, the below link provides a clear warning from Mr Reich if we continue to surrender more liberty to the growing tentacles of this omnipresent government Corporation. This is an eye-popping thesis by Mr. Reich which should receive play in all of our schools and other public venues. Remember he was an incredibly powerful person in the Whitehouse years ago, and still today has many who follow his policy opinions. Maybe this is where the notion of "Panels" that impact fragile lives come from? http://prayerandaction.com/?p=5088

Hank Ruark February 3, 2010 8:14 am (Pacific time)

To all: Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland has introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court’s ruling. Joined by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the Edwards amendment will ensure that Congress and the states may prohibit corporations from spending their funds for political activity. Details and the petition, with form for adding your name, are available at freespeechforpeople.org.

Hank Ruark February 2, 2010 2:50 pm (Pacific time)

Any good reporter adds extra meaningful detail to his story rapidly when it is found. Here's some very relevant words from Robert Reich, whose right to speak on these issues is beyond challenge: (Last pgh from statement just-up on Internet.) "The real answer is to recommit ourselves to cleaning up democracy. Yes, I know: The Supreme Court’s recent grotesque Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which decided corporations are people entitled to First Amendment protection, complicates this. "But the goal is still possible to achieve with more public money for congressional and presidential candidates who refuse private funding, more constraints on lobbyists, tighter rules for who must register as a lobbyist, fuller disclosure, and tougher rules on the revolving door between public service and private gain. Yale’s Bruce Ackerman recently came up with another good idea: A $50 tax credit per person, which they can send to the candidate of their choosing. "Yet nobody seems to be talking about these sorts of reforms. They don’t appear on Obama’s agenda. True, they don’t generate lots of public excitement or appreciation, and they’re murderously difficult to enact. But without them our democracy doesn’t stand a chance." (This is hcr: SO--how the hell do YOU want to play this one ? Shoot the bottom out of the boat --OR concentrate on the real targets ???) Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama's transition advisory board. His latest book is Supercapitalism.

Hank Ruark February 2, 2010 2:36 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Ersun: Your response is dead-on sure- proof of why I "listen carefully" when I read here ANYthing you write. Far too few of would-be pundits make sure it is fact and not personal political pander-piling driving their stuff --perhaps as personal psychological misperception driven by our determined U.S. duality in demanding "decent education for all" -surely a requirement for any realistic working democracy--and funding it far less than we put up for entertaining sports, such as football now known to be major cause of a concussion/flood sure to fuel still further brain damage in the name of "sports". "College for every aspiring high school graduate" has long been within our CHOICE, if and when we CHOOSE to MAKE IT SO. Then there's that flat-fact of furious futility when one pursues something as basic for us all as "the minimum wage", in fifty states, when its real impact can come only when nationalized as pragmatically as "floor-and-up", per local and state real-needs, while protecting professionals and poor alike --as in "equal under the law." OR does one wish to pursue end-of-slavery "state by state for fifty years", AGAIN !! Yet corporate indenture is a flat fact-of-life for far too many millions today, still, to the disadvantage of millions of kids caught in resulting edge-of-poverty life-level --with resulting/proven and rising crime, social and economic problems, and the like... OR...but "enough is enough", esp. on long-exploded FIFTY smallies vs ONE biggie...even with biggie needing citizen club from time to time, too !! That's genius of Founders' famed Constitutional statement and the overwhelming reason for worldwide appearl: Flexibility allowing fully simultaneous solid guidance while injecting foundational and transformative wisdom with every "principle"-proposed.

Madison February 2, 2010 1:56 pm (Pacific time)

I agree that the voters are getting on board with the difference between campaign promises and how they have played out. The decision by the Supreme Court on corporations was done after the last three state elections. It would be interesting to see if the results would have been the same had the decision preceeded those elections. Alas, we shall see how future elections proceed, and if the electorate is still in tune with their recent voting patterns.

Ersun Warncke February 2, 2010 1:43 pm (Pacific time)

Thank you Henry for your continuing contributions to open and honest democratic debate, which must of course have all options on the table in order to be truly honest. The dangers of fragmentation that you point to are all too real. Not only does the "bag man" corrupt 50 divided legislatures more easily, but corrupts even more easily 300 million divided individuals. How many people are corrupted by convenience, by an 11 cent discount, and by a neon facade on a daily basis? The fuel with which corporate interests set fire to the constitution is nothing else but the labor, acquiescence, and subservience of the workers/consumers who are corrupted for even less than their harder bargaining representatives in government. Realization of this inescapable fact is a prerequisite to legitimate progress, which can never involve people demanding of others what they have failed to do for themselves.

[Return to Top]