US Constitutional Issues – Page 22

Corporations Are Using Free Speech To Undermine Regulations

There is a Corporatist supremacy movement operating below the radar in America. US Corporations are using the First Amendment to undermine the corporate regulatory fabric that has been built up since the founding of the Republic. You know about the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which said that corporations were legal persons entitled to free speech rights. You remember last year’s decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, where the Supreme Court decided that the mandate in Obamacare requiring corporations to pay for some of their employees’ contraception is a violation of the company’s First Amendment right of religious expression.

Here are a few examples you may not know about:

On April 14, 2014, a federal court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment free-speech right not to tell anyone if they’re financing “war and humanitarian catastrophe” in Congo. The court decided that although corporations can usually be required to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” but, in this case, that this principle is limited to government efforts to protect consumers from deception.

The regulation was an obscure provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) that requires companies to inform the public if their products use conflict minerals. In the case of conflict minerals, the Act’s goal is to let consumers know if the products they are buying are helping to finance war.

To the court, that provision of Dodd-Frank is unconstitutional, because “it requires an issuer to tell consumers that its products are ethically tainted, even if they only indirectly finance armed groups.”

This is part of a growing Corporate movement to use their rights of Free Speech under the First Amendment to escape regulation, and it has been steadily winning victories in the federal courts.

Another case: In 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), released a rule requiring businesses to put up an 11”x17” black-and-white poster notifying employees of their rights under federal law. Beneath the official NLRB seal and above the phrase “This is an official government poster,” it informed employees that they have the right to join, or not to join, a union, and that they cannot be coerced into doing either.

The National Association of Manufacturers sued the NLRB and In May, 2013, the US Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit struck down the NLRB’s rule on First Amendment and statutory free speech grounds. The Court said it did not matter that the “speech” in question was a non-ideological poster that stated US law. And it did not matter that the rule placed no constraints on companies’ speech or on the free flow of information. The Court held that the act of compelling a company to “host or accommodate another speaker’s message” was enough to violate its free speech.

Over the past few years, corporations like Nike, Verizon, Google, and the credit ratings agencies like S&P and Moody’s have been crafting (and winning in court) with innovative new First Amendment defenses to blunt all sorts of “government intrusions”.

What’s going on? The right of free speech was closely connected with the defining idea of government by “We the People“. James Madison explained that in his view, “free communication among the people” is “the only effectual guardian of every other right.”

From the Country’s founding until late in the 20th century, the courts didn’t rule that the First Amendment protected very much of corporate speech. But now, Corporations are busy collecting a portfolio of First Amendment case law that establishes that corporations have a First Amendment-protected right to avoid much of government regulation. If this continues, it will change our society:

• There will be no corporate transparency
• No way to enforce workers’ rights
• No way to compel companies to protect investors or shareholders

Most financial regulations will cease to provide meaningful value to consumers.

Perhaps we have to ask our Courts to remember Justice John Marshall, who wrote in 1819, “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.”

All of the regulations that helped foster a strong economy and a strong middle class during the 1940’s through the 1970’s are now being weakened through a Corporatist revolution, enabled by our courts.

America is looking at the start of another period of unfettered capitalism. The rise of the Corporatists is at hand. We have reached the point now where we have government of the Corporation, for the Corporation.

What are you (we) gonna do about it?

Forget the Supremacy Clause, What about the Sanity Clause?

“Go sell crazy somewhere else” – Jack Nicholson, 1998, “As Good As it Gets”

Some bad ideas return constantly to the public stage. People try to rewrite the US Constitution, or re-litigate the issue of states’ rights, whenever the existing law seems inconvenient to them. This is another example.

Nevada is considering “The Nevadan’s Resource Rights Bill (NRR) AB408”, which if passed, would declare that all federal lands not used for military, etc. should be owned and controlled by the state of Nevada. That is not inconsequential, since 85% of Nevada’s lands are owned by the US Government. Who is behind this bill? None other than Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who doesn’t recognize the supremacy of the US Government. His issues with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were well-covered last year.

Back then, The Atlantic reported that Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993, and owed $1.2 million. Bundy does not recognize federal authority over the land where his ancestors first settled in the 1880s, which he claims belongs to the state of Nevada. His governmental issues go much farther than just the BLM:

I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada…I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.

OK. Now Bundy is proposing a bill to get Nevada’s land back. The Nevada-based Ralston Reports quotes from a Bundy email call to action:

The natural resources of America are being stolen from the people and claimed by the federal government…If we lose access to the land and natural resources, we become beggars to those who control access. Without doubt this is the greatest immediate threat to the individual person and people as a whole. More lives, liberties and property can be taken under this threat than any other we see.

Bundy’s big problem is that the Constitution says he is wrong. His bill in the Nevada legislature is just another attempted attack on Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. For those who took US government way too long ago, here is what it says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So, when state law is in conflict with federal law, federal law must prevail. There have been many claims that state laws conflict with federal laws. In those lawsuits, The Supreme Court looks at whether the state law directly interferes or is in conflict with federal law. The US has won the vast preponderance of those suits.

But, maybe to Bundy, the Constitution, like the Bible, says only what the reader believes it says.

Enough civics for today. Bundy and supporters have no idea how the nation they profess to love so much actually works. They seem to have no idea what the Constitution, which they say they revere, actually says.

They are “patriotic” only to point that patriotism will justify whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it. The Bundys are about to re-litigate over a settled constitutional issue, 170 years after the fact.

Just keep this in mind: No matter how wild and crazy you and your friends get on your Las Vegas weekend, you will not be the craziest person in Nevada when you wake up with your hangover.

It’s well past time for the government to nullify Bundy’s attempted nullification, and make him pay the $1.2+ million he owes the US taxpayers.

Is Compulsory Voting a Problem, or a Solution?

At a town hall event in Cleveland last Wednesday, President Obama (nearly) said the US should make voting compulsory, like it is in Australia. Eleven countries, including Australia, Brazil, and Singapore, enforce compulsory voting laws. Another 11 have compulsory voting laws, but don’t enforce them.

The response to Obama’s suggestion was predictable. Fox News host Andrea Tantaros along with her fellow panelists on the show “Outnumbered” on Thursday, bashed Mr. Obama’s suggestion, saying:

Do we really want everybody voting? I don’t think so.

Co-host Melissa Francis said:

If you’re not engaged enough to vote, please don’t…Stay home.

Meanwhile, another co-host, Harris Faulkner, argued that mandatory voting would be un-American because our military:

Fought for our right to decide for ourselves.

Whatever that means. The Wrongologist does not support mandatory voting, but not for the vacuous reasons you might hear on Fox News.

Compulsory voting raises questions. First, is voting a right or a duty? If it is a right, then participation in elections is voluntary. If it is a duty, then participation should be mandatory. In countries where voting is considered a duty, voting is compulsory and is regulated in their constitutions. Some countries impose sanctions (like a fine) on non-voters.

Second, what would happen if all citizens voted? Studies show that turnout increases quite a bit. A Harvard study indicated that there are secondary gains as well:

• Compulsory voting could reduce the role of money in politics. Political parties would not spend as much money on their get-out-the-vote efforts since high turn-out would already be ensured and would be fairly inelastic
• It might increase political awareness and engagement. Compulsory voting would change the ways in which candidates and political parties develop campaign strategies. For example, it might lead to fewer negative campaigns featuring attack ads
• Compulsory voting might increase government’s relevance by bringing in groups that are underrepresented among today’s voters, since the population that shows up for US elections is whiter, older, richer and more educated than the general population

But, America is a place where our “right to be left alone” is foundational. Would being legally compelled to vote deprive anyone of a part of their liberty? Yes, if you believe voting is a right, not a duty. And how big would that “deprivation” be, compared to what we have already lost of our 1st and 4th Amendment rights since 9/11?

Perhaps the final question is: Isn’t one goal of a representative democracy to maximize voter participation? Today, registering to vote isn’t easy for every American, but it ought to be. It shouldn’t be the job of the individual election boards to say who is worthy of registration.

It should be the state’s responsibility to issue every citizen a voter registration card. If the state wants to maximize voter participation, it should mail a voter ID card to each of us. How we would deal with those of us who slip through the cracks would need to be worked out.

We have seen the way that barriers to voting emerge. They create enough of a hurdle that a significant percentage of voters fail to clear it. It is not a terrible thing to demand that we have eligibility requirements for voters, but they are often enforced inequitably, and are enough of a nuisance that a significant minority will end up not voting. For the past decade in America, many individual states have been raising barriers, because barriers to voting confer partisan advantage. With mandatory voter registration, the state’s job would be to reduce the barriers to the lowest possible level.

It is arguable if citizens should be compelled to vote, or not. Wrongo believes that is the individual’s business. Yet, as voter participation drops, a self-selected minority determines who runs the country. They then set policy that primarily reflects their interests.

That isn’t the kind of society we need. We should want our country to see all citizens as full political equals, not just in theory, but in fact. The more that barriers to voting rise in America, and the further voter participation falls, the less we resemble that ideal society.

So, issue a universal voter registration card. Move voting to the weekend, or have an entire voting week. Make it frictionless, so it’s not a big effort. Go and vote, say hi to the neighbors, and then go home to view the results.

It wouldn’t be the end of the world.

Monday Wake Up Call – March 9, 2015

Today’s Wake Up is for a few people and their terrible ideas. Sadly, they reflect the current state of our nation. The Selma march to Montgomery was about voting rights, voting rights that became codified into law in The Voting Rights Act of 1965. This photo taken during the march to Montgomery on March 25, 1965 shows a young black man in white face making the point about what it took to be a voter in Alabama in the 1960’s:
Charles Fentress Jr., The Louisville Courier-Journal

But, despite all of our progress, open (and covert) hostility to civil rights and minorities are still with us, even at the Selma commemoration. You have to look no further than South Carolina’s black GOP Sen. Tim Scott for proof. Sen. Scott (R-SC), was an honorary co-chairman of the Selma trip. He is the only African-American Republican in the Senate. He said voting rights and the commemoration of Selma should be “de-coupled”:

The issue of voting rights legislation and the issue of Selma, we ought to have an experience that brings people together and not make it into a political conversation…

We should “de-couple” civil rights from the struggle that necessitated it? He wants warm and fuzzy, because that’s the only way some lawmakers can stay busy disenfranchising whole groups of Americans, and still smile when they attend the commemoration of the Selma march.

Taken to its limit, what Sen. Scott wants us to do is to now pretend Selma isn’t about voting, because that means the Voting Rights Act was unnecessary. And that makes the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Shelby County (Alabama) vs. Holder, which effectively gutted the main provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the right way to look at the state of voting rights in America today. Sadly, that’s all wrong.

An example of overt hostility was shown by a billboard, within sight of Mr. Obama and the Edmund Pettus Bridge where he spoke on Saturday. The billboard depicts KKK founder and Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest with the Confederate Flag in its background:

It is hard to see, but under the image of Forrest is his motto: “Keep the Skeer on ‘Em.”

Indeed. This brings home to us again the William Faulkner quote, “The past is not dead; it is not even past”. In fact, it is all too present. Time to wake up, America!

Here is Barenaked Ladies doing “Brian Wilson”. Many know that Wilson, the key singer-songwriter of the Beach Boys, had a nervous breakdown in the mid-1960’s at the height of the group’s fame. He later took to his bed for 3 years. Wilson had a psychiatrist, Dr. Eugene Landy, who took advantage of him and his money, and is mentioned in the Ladies’ song.

America, you are now “lying’ in bed just like Brian Wilson did”. Republicans are your Dr. Landy. Wilson said that he cured himself by trucking in sand to his house for inspiration. America, get your sand! Here is “Brian Wilson”:

Interestingly, Wilson later covered the song in 2000, on his album, “Live at Roxy Theater”.

Your Monday Hot Links:

Lockheed Martin claims it now has the ability to generate cheap energy from nuclear fusion with little waste or global warming. Lockheed calls this “Compact Fusion” and says it can build a reactor small enough to fit on a truck that could provide enough power for a city of up to 100,000 people. Invest at your own risk.

A Google research team is developing a model to measure the trustworthiness of a web page, rather than how many hits it gets. The system, not yet live, would count the number of incorrect facts within a page. The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the Internet. Facts that the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings. Searching for web sites based on their truthiness? We’ll see.

A cyber-attack in late December involved a smart refrigerator. C/NET reported that 100,000 devices sent upwards of 750,000 spam emails. Consumers have virtually no way to detect or fix infections when they do occur. So, your fridge could have spam two ways…

Like humans, apes make irrational economic decisions. New research suggests that choice biases, such as loss aversion, might be evolutionarily ancient. Oh, and they found that male apes were much more susceptible to bad decisions than were female apes. It’s not your fault, its evolution that’s to blame when you buy an RV without telling your wife.

New York’s Lincoln Center paid the heirs of Avery Fisher $15 million so they could name Avery Fisher Hall after David Geffen. Fisher’s family had threatened to sue if his name was removed, so Lincoln Center, looking to raise $500 million, really wanted to take Geffen up on a $100 million donation in return for naming rights. So, they paid up, and now there’s going to be a David Geffen Hall in New York.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 8, 2015

March is Wrongo’s favorite month, because it has March Madness™ and Daylight Savings Time.

Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the Selma march. On Jan. 14, 1965, newly elected Alabama Gov. George Wallace said in his inaugural address in front of the Alabama State Capitol:

Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people… I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny…and I say…segregation today, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.

On March 7, 1965, the first Selma to Montgomery march began and ended with the events of “Bloody Sunday,” when 600 civil rights marchers, asking for the right of black Alabama residents to register to vote, were attacked by state and local police with billy clubs and tear gas at the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

On March 9, 1965, another march by 2,500 this time, including many who had come from other parts of the country, was led by Dr. King and others to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where a court order prevented them from going all the way to Montgomery.

Finally, on March 21, 1965, Federal District Court Judge Frank Johnson ruled that the march could proceed and, the 4-night march began in Selma. 8,000 started the march, but only 300 were allowed to make the entire 54-mile trek to Montgomery. Let us return to March 25, 1965, and read some of Dr. King’s words to the nation that day:

I know you are asking today, “How long will it take”?…I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because “truth crushed to earth will rise again.” How long? Not long, because “no lie can live forever.”
How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

On to a busy week in the laughable. The ACA was on trial in the Supreme Court:

The DOJ cites Ferguson, MO police for institutional racism:

Netanyahu and the Republicans see things the same way:

Hillary’s email flap may or may not be a big problem, but it reminds America of Bill:

Some folks seem to be changing their minds about Hillary after the email flap:

Is Snowden the First, or Last of His Kind?

Wrongo and Ms. Oh So Right saw “CitizenFour” a few days after the Oscars. It is interesting that the Academy recognized both “American Sniper” and “CitizenFour.” The former bagged one Oscar, for Best Sound Editing, while the latter won for Best Feature Length Documentary. One made big bucks, the other is already on HBO. Both celebrate heroes, one a tool of the Global War on Terror, the other a whistleblower computer geek who saw that the War on Terror was compromising our Constitution.

Laura Poitras accepted her Oscar, but Edward Snowden couldn’t, because of that little “treason” thing.

As Kunstler says: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

He [Snowden] appeared to know exactly what he was doing, and with quiet, unshakable moral commitment. And then he disappeared down the gullet of America’s modern times nemesis, Russia, where he continues to taunt with his very existence, the NSA gameboys, lizard-lawyers and puppet-masters who cordially invite him back home to face, ho-ho, our vaunted justice system. Of course any six-year-old understands that they would love to jam Snowden down some federal supermax memory hole as an example to any other waffling NSA code-jockey having second thoughts about reading your grandpa’s phone records.

Snowden is a much more interesting hero than the sniper, Chris Kyle. The documentary follows Snowden, who was hiding in plain sight in Hong Kong in the spring of 2013, after he stole over 220,000 files belonging to the National Security Agency. Glen Greenwald, Barton Gellman, and Laura Poitras later began revealing to the public the extent to which the American government was spying on everyone’s electronic life while ignoring that pesky US Constitution, and setting the USA on a track towards becoming a police state.

Listening to Ed talk, you’re pleasantly surprised. He gets the concepts, he articulates them beautifully.

Towards the end of the movie, one of the characters (Greenwald?) makes an amazing statement. He says:

What we used to call liberty and freedom we now call privacy. And now people are saying privacy is dead.

Is that what we’re all fighting for? Liberty? Is that a concept that unites the left and the right in America?

You’d expect people to be up in arms about “CitizenFour” but the truth is they just don’t care. That’s our government’s job. If we don’t let the agencies run wild, ISIS will attack Kansas. So we suspend your rights for a while. That’s right, the head fake of fighting “terrorism” has caused us to let our First Amendment freedoms go down the drain, and if someone like Snowden blows the whistle, they are a traitor, or a pariah.

Snowden sparked a debate about how to preserve privacy in the information age—and whether such a thing is even possible. If Snowden hadn’t come forward, the steady encroachment of the surveillance state would have continued, and most people might never have known about the government’s efforts.

There’s something hollow in the soul of America today. Right and wrong used to matter. But now, the government works to keep the average person off balance via subterfuge and fear. And very few of us grasp the facts, even when they’re staring us in the face.

So, we’re dependent on lone wolves to help us see. Snowden says he’s only the first, that the government may get him, but others will follow in his wake. Really?

Once upon a time, “CitizenFour” would have incited a national debate. Now it’s just grist for the mill, Snowden’s character has already been assassinated by the main stream media, and his Oscar-winning movie will come and go.

All of the political debating about immigration, DHS funding, taxes, and ISIS are the sideshow. The main event is how they’ve got our number and we’re already living in 1984. And you believed it couldn’t happen here.

The truth is it already has. We need more Snowdens. People who will say, as Snowden did:

There are things worth dying for.

Today’s Reason for Rejecting Conservative Republicanism

Yesterday, we highlighted an effort by a county Republican Party organization to establish Christianity as the state religion of Idaho. Turns out, that idea was smack in the mainstream of Republican ideas: A national poll of Republican primary voters conducted by Public Policy Polling finds that 57% percent of these voters support establishing Christianity as the national religion, while 30% oppose making Christianity the nation’s religion. Well, this means that 57% of Republicans hate America plain and simple. They want to turn our nation into something out of the Dark Ages.

A number of red states have passed statutes forbidding the implementation of Islam-based sharia law in their states, but Republicans apparently have no misgivings about turning the US into a Christian theocracy. The poll’s cross-tabs reveal that support for making Christianity the official religion is strongest among supporters of Mike Huckabee (94%), Rick Perry (83%), and Ben Carson (78%).

Now the poll was small, only sampling 316 Republican primary voters. Sample sizes of 300-600 are the norm for national telephone pollsters. While 316 is on the low end of that, PPP says that its margin of error is ± 5.5%, so some will say that it can’t scale up. However, PPP has been very accurate in the past.

The same poll also found that 66% do not believe in global warming, and a plurality (49%), do not believe in evolution. So, not only do they wish to establish a national religion, but it appears that their version of Christianity is one that is at odds with the scientific consensus in climatology and biology.

These data were buried deep (starting on page 14 of 47) in a report about how Scott Walker leads in the national eye test competition among Repubs.

Here’s a repeat of yesterday’s reminder: The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. There’s a reason that our Founding Fathers wanted to establish a strict separation of Church and State, and the poll results bear out that wisdom. If things were left up to today’s Republican primary voters, we’d already be a theocracy, perhaps as self-righteous and intolerant as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The ignorance of our Constitution displayed by the poll results speaks to a voting populace that simply doesn’t care about tolerance, multicultural diversity, and most certainly, not about religious freedom.

America ought to be better than this. Instead, a significant portion of the electorate would be perfectly happy to turn this into a Christian theocracy…a recipe for tyranny by these good, God-fearing Christian patriots.

Our Founding Fathers lived at the end of a 300-year period where Europe had been racked by wars of religion, fought between adherents of various “Christian” sects, and they were only a little over a hundred years removed from the English civil wars of the mid-1600’s which were strongly influenced by religion. The colonies themselves mirrored Europe’s religious division, Anglicans in Virginia, Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland, and many German religious refugees in New York and Pennsylvania. They had darned good reasons to not want any religion to be given preeminence.

And today, we see religious violence in Asia (Burma, India, and China) and in the Middle East. Why would we want to revisit that here, in a nation that knows better?

From fear of Jihadi John, to fear of immunizations, to denial of climate change, it doesn’t seem that Conservative American Christians are comfortable with the idea of critical thinking; it seems to require too much of them. How would atheists, or non-Christians of all stripes survive under the US Christian state? Luckily, that would take a Constitutional Amendment, which could prove very difficult to enact.

How did Conservatives, noted in the not-so-distant past for a fierce commitment to logic, become such prisoners of their various religions?

Monday Wake Up Call – March 2, 2015

The lands surrounding the Mansion of Wrong remain deeply snow-covered, and we picked up another 6” of snow last night. Where is Spring? In other weather-related news, February 2015 was officially the coldest February on record here in the Nutmeg State. So, let’s turn to Pete Seeger for a lovely Wake Up song about snow, with a gentle political message buried inside. Here is “Snow, Snow”:

Sample Lyrics:
Snow, snow, falling down;
Covering up my dirty old town.

Covers the garbage dump, covers the holes,
Covers the rich homes, and the poor souls,
Covers the station, covers the tracks,
Covers the footsteps of those who’ll not be back.

In news of the stupid, a branch of the Republican Party in Idaho voted to take up a measure to declare the state is Christian. The Idea was to bolster what supporters called the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of the US. The proposal was that Idaho be “formally and specifically declared a Christian state,” guided by a Judeo-Christian faith as reflected in the US Declaration of Independence. Jeff Tyler, a member of the committee and backer of the draft resolution, said:

We’re a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian Party.

It’s possible that the county Republicans had never heard of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, which says…”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”…Oh, and that applies to the states as well.

Well, when the news got out of Kootenai County, the county’s Republican Central Committee decided to shelve the measure, Now, Republicans will tell you it was just a small splinter group, and the resolution was going nowhere, so the US Constitution was never in danger from Republican religious extremists. Perhaps the more realistic way to look at it is that the Constitution is safe for the moment, until another, larger Republican extremist group comes along.

Here are your Monday hot links:

A study of frozen ice cores from the Tibetan Himalayas shows that international agreements on phasing out the use of toxic organic pollutants are working. It’s cheaper to take an ice core sample than it is to place air quality sensors everywhere and monitor them.

In the US, just three out of ten workers produce and deliver all of the goods we consume. Everything we extract, grow, design, build, make, engineer, and transport – down to brewing a cup of coffee in a restaurant kitchen – is done by roughly 30% of the country’s workforce. Another 30% of us spend our time planning what to make, deciding where to install the things we have made, performing personal services, talking to each other, and keeping track of what is being done, so that we can figure out what needs to be done next. The rest are kids, elderly and out of work. Which 30% are you in?

Last week, the Muslim World League, a Saudi-backed alliance of Islamic NGOs, held a three-day conference in Mecca on “Islam and Counterterrorism.” The conference’s organizers cast their mission as developing a coordinated campaign to promote a moderate, peaceful vision of Islam that disavows the violence and apostasy that ISIS thrives on. They also think only Muslims can solve the ISIS problem.

You Tube makes no money. The Wall Street Journal reports that while YouTube accounted for about 6% of Google’s overall sales last year ($4 billion), it didn’t contribute to earnings. After paying for content, and the equipment to deliver speedy videos, YouTube’s bottom line is “roughly break-even”. You Tube has 1 billion users per month. By comparison, Facebook generated more than $12 billion in revenue, and nearly $3 billion in profit, from its 1.3 billion users per year.

An abandoned Walmart is America’s largest 1-floor library. This is an old story, but worth checking out if you missed it. The architect firm of Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle transformed an abandoned Walmart in McAllen, Texas, into a 124,500-square-foot public library, the largest single-floor public library in the United States:

Did Chicago Police Run a “Black Site”?

“At any given moment there is a sort of all-prevailing orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss some large and uncomfortable fact”. − George Orwell

The Guardian is reporting that the Chicago police have used a “Black Site” for years:

The Chicago police department operates an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site. The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units.
Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights…

Spencer Ackerman of The Guardian reported that alleged activities there included the following:

• Detainees were kept out of the official police booking system
• Persons in custody were often shackled for long periods of time
• Attorneys were denied access to their clients
• There were frequent beatings, causing head injuries

If this is happening in Chicago, then could other cities also be operating illegal detention sites?

A series of US Supreme Court cases over the past 100 years have codified the rights of suspects under our system, but they may not have protected many suspects in Chicago. The Atlantic interviewed Tracy Siska, executive director of the Chicago Justice Project and a criminologist who wrote a story for The Guardian on military interrogation tactics in the city. Siska spoke about the Homan Square abuses of Constitutional rights: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

What used to happen at Homan Square is that prior to a year ago, if you get arrested and you get brought down anywhere in any district, you would not pop up in the city computer as being arrested until they processed the police report, which could take anywhere from an hour to 15 hours.
If they “arrested” you, then they have to report it. But if they don’t “arrest you,” nefarious things could happen and they could interrogate you without a lawyer. And they would move you around from district to district. So [for example] if the family shows up or the lawyer shows up and they say you aren’t here but you are, they’ve denied you access. But if they say you’re at [district] 17, then move you to 15, and then 12, they can question you without counsel. At Homan Square they don’t process paperwork about your arrest. You’re just gone. No one knows.
At some point they have to do the paperwork and prosecute you. After they get your confession, you wind up back in the paperwork.

One implication of Siska’s interview is that the Constitution-shredding actions of the Chicago PD ended in 2014. Again, according to Siska: (emphasis and brackets by the Wrongologist)

About a year ago, [the rule changed]…After arriving at a CPD facility, [officers] have 20 minutes to one hour to put you into the system, and you appear on the system city-wide. Any officer anywhere in the city can find where you are. And anywhere they move you to, every time you move, [officers] have 20 minutes to one hour to put you in so you show up on a computer. Each time you move, your right to phone calls and Miranda rights starts all over again.

Belated exposure of the possible Constitutional abuses at Homan Square proves once again − as if we need more proof − how deeply the police forces in the US have been corrupted by the military-industrial complex and by our political enablers. It shows the extent that policing has become more like an occupation army (as it has been perceived in minority communities for a very, very long time).

There is no evidence that any loss of Constitutional rights, no matter how appalling, will wake up a solid majority of people in this country anytime soon. Like the Orwell quote says, we have agreed not to discuss some very important things, like Constitutional rights in our cities.

Not just that. We had a $4 trillion war based on lies that we didn’t discuss. We had a $1 trillion dollar financial meltdown. Not discussed. We learned that the NSA “collects it all.” Ho-hum.

“Mistakes happen”, and we just move on, talking about “50 Shades of Gray”. Americans have made their screwed-up priorities quite clear. They’ve given up on reality and have decided to go with fantasy.

The Republican Revolution is De-evolution

De-evolution, or backward evolution, is a term in biology that describes the fact that a species can change from a more complex form into a more primitive form over time. So noted. Now on to the commentary below:

America used to have smart, effective Republicans, but alas, not recently, and not in the lifetimes of younger voters. In line with this de-evolution of Republicans, consider Paul Krugman’s take down of what he labels the Charlatan Caucus, a group of supply-side voodoo economists that Scott Walker had to court this week: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

On Wednesday…[Walker] did what, these days, any ambitious Republican must, and pledged allegiance to charlatans and cranks.

Krugman reminded us that the phrase, “charlatans and cranks” was originally coined by Republican economist Gregory Mankiew, who served as George W. Bush’s chief economic adviser. Krugman is speaking about Gov. Scott Walker’s appearance at a New York dinner featuring supply-siders’ Arthur Laffer (of the Laffer curve), CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, and Stephen Moore, chief economist of the Heritage Foundation. More from Krugman: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

Bowing obeisance before the high priests of bunk – like questioning climate change, evolution, and the current president’s American bona fides – has become a “right” of passage for Republican presidential contenders. Clearly, to be a Republican contender, you have to court the powerful charlatan caucus.

In Krugman’s view, with these economists, reality always takes a holiday. Ideology takes precedence. He cites:

• Mr. Moore published a 2004 book titled “Bullish on Bush,” asserting that the Bush agenda was creating a permanently stronger economy.
• Mr. Kudlow sneered at the “bubbleheads” who asserted that inflated home prices were due for a crash.
• Mr. Laffer wrote in the WSJ in 2009, “Get ready for inflation and higher interest rates”. What followed were the lowest inflation in two generations and the lowest interest rates in history.
• Mr. Moore publishes articles with lots of bad numbers. According to Krugman, Moore’s numbers are consistently wrong; they’re for the wrong years, or just plain not what the original sources say. And not surprisingly, his errors always make the case he wants.

But the supply-side ~~economists~~ charlatans continue to have a big influence on Republican politicians. The NYT also reports that the University of North Carolina’s Republican-appointed Board of Governors is closing several academic centers on its campuses dedicated to studying poverty, climate, and social change. That couldn’t also be about ideology, could it? More from The Times:

It’s clearly not about cost-saving; it’s about political philosophy and the right-wing takeover of North Carolina state government…said Chris Fitzsimon, director of NC Policy Watch, a liberal group…And this is one of the biggest remaining pieces that they’re trying to exert their control over.

OK, 29 of the 32 university board members were appointed by the Republican Legislature since 2010, but that doesn’t make the decision about politics?

It’s similar to Scott Walker’s Wisconsin, where our friend of education is cutting the University of Wisconsin’s budget by $300 million. Mr. Walker saw Mr. Laffer’s curve, and bought it. It hasn’t worked out so well for him, since he now has to refinance a $108 million debt payment, increasing the state’s borrowing costs by $19 million over the next two years. The re-fi is a result of Walker’s $600 million tax cut in 2014, which will ultimately lead to a $648 million deficit over the next two years. But, in the big Republican wet dream, he will be president by then, and blame his successor for Wisconsin’s fiscal debacle.

And there is Gov. Sam Brownback (R-KS), whose aggressive tax cuts were heartily cheered on by Republican economists, but which have driven his state into a deep fiscal crisis. North Carolina’s Republican Gov. Pat McCrory has also tasted the charlatan Kool-Aid, but isn’t quite there yet, although he’s working on it.

Back to Krugman. He concludes:

So what does it say about the current state of the GOP that discussion of economic policy is now monopolized by people who have been wrong about everything, have learned nothing from the experience, and can’t even get their numbers straight?

Current-day Republicans seem to have abandoned the idea that there is an objective reality. What are you going to believe, Right-Wing doctrine, or your lying eyes? These days, Right Wing doctrine wins.

In America, there has been a steady drumbeat by conservatives against education. Conservatives really believe in education…but only if it’s the privatized, de-evolved kind.

You can’t have a bunch of people looking too closely at facts, because as is well-known, reality has a liberal bias.

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Category: US Constitutional Issues