Companies are NOT People

The supreme court decision today that reverses half a centery of campaign finance reform for corporations is completely crazy. The arguments made in favor of changing restrictions that have been in place since 1947 are based on some of the most peverse readings of the constitution I have ever encountered. The argument that boils down to corporate personhood should strike every american as crazy. This is not a country by, of and for the corporations.

Current laws put limits on the ability of companies to contribute to financial campaigns and effectively limit companies right to free speech. Thats all well and good but can the strict constructionists on the court tell me where in the constitution it says that companies have the same rights as people? Companies should not be protected by the equal protection clause of the constitution. Here it is Section 1 of the fourteenth ammendments. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So the whole first portion of this section basically defines person and then says that people shall have equal protection under the law. WHERE ARE COMPANIES PEOPLE? Where? This interpretation of the constitution cheapens what it means to be human. If companies have a right to free speech why cant they vote. It is nearly the same language. Maybe what bothers me most is that it seems ideologically inconsistant for republicans to advocate individual freedoms when they are less concerned about people then they are about a piece of paper which represents a companies articals of incorporations. Companies are just paper. Sure people work for companies but companies themselves are not people. Its not right.

PBS has a great explanation of the history pertaining to corporate personhood. This is something that will anger the american people once/ if they realize what has happened. The people will be in favor of the Dems position on this. Maybe they will even be able to do something about it. Congress does have the power to further interperate this section through section 5 of the act. Individual rights are dead in America. Long Live Money.

RIP my Rights.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corprights.html

China's Changing Bank Policies

I'm just going to get it out of the way and say that, yes, I'm disappointed about Massachusetts. Keeping the Democratic majority was a vital aspect of getting things accomplished in the Senate this term, and for Scott Brown to assume Ted Kennedy's seat...it's a bit awkward. Am I stunned? No. Do most Democratic voters even realize an election took place? Maybe this morning, but who knows, there could have been a clam bake on the Cape that got in the way of heading to the polls last night. COME ON! Ugh.

But something that is coming to light on the periphery is that China has instructed it's banks to stop lending for the rest of the month, and to increase bank reserves to protect against failed loans. While this may be an effective method at curbing potential inflation, there are other ripples being created by the cutbacks. Not only have shares in major Chinese banks dropped, but the implication that China's government anticipates economic trouble stands. Namely, preventing asset bubbles in the stock and property markets is a pretty good indicator that such bubbles were expected on the horizon.

The Washington Post has reported that the chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission Liu Mingkang expects this year's total loans to drop by 22% this year, down from the record 9.6 trillion renminbi of 2009. And although some sources say the government has ordered a halt to all lending for the remainder of January, others insist that lending is being stopped only at banks that fail to meet government standards. Either way, the worry is there; too much money in the market leads to an overheated economy, and China does not want to go the way of the United States and Europe (as stated without subtlety here).

Although Chinese officials insist that the restrictions are minor, and that the 7.5 trillion renminbi lending target is still robust, I have my reservations. Naturally, only time will tell what the future is for international economics; how China's lending practices will impact the United States will have to wait until next week when some more answers surface.

The Great Dictators and the State of New Jersey

Now that the countless “year in review” articles about 2009 politics have concluded, two stories from one state still seem awfully puzzling. They both concern controversial world leaders with a growing amount of domestic support … and they both happened in the great state of New Jersey.

One is about an island between Camden, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That one involved none other than Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The other – taking place in much-different northern New Jersey – features the equally (if not more) eccentric Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi.

The latter story – being a bit bizarre, maybe even ugly, and all the while insightful into the high-strung world of small-town New Jersey (seen Anytown, U.S.A anyone?) – certainly does not make the Garden State look normal. To make a long story short, Engelwood, New Jersey’s mayor did not want Gaddafi there when the foreign leader was to appear at the U.N. (see http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57N53J20090824, and also - for somewhat of an international perspective - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/25/muammar-gaddafi-englewood-new-jersey).

Eventually, the Libyan leader backed out of his plans, and decided not to pitch his tent (literally) in the Garden State (see the New York Times for article and photos http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/nyregion/29libya.html. Additionally, for a hilarious article about what Gaddafi said before the U.N. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/23/gaddafi-un-speech).

The other story from New Jersey, however, has some more explaining to do.

You do not need to know much about Chavez to know that he can be impulsive, neigh downright careless in what has traditionally been an arena filled with tact and quiet reservation: international affairs. If you think that I am just making this up, I recommend taking the time to see for yourself how he megalomaniacalyl brought his country to the brink of war with neighboring Columbia while hosting his hours-long Sunday variety show on Venezulian television (available with excellent commentary – which helped me to formulate my opinion of Chavez – in the first part of a Frontline documentary through this link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hugochavez/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid).

Nevertheless, it seems odd that not more has been said in popular media about his announcement that CITGO would be giving an island (specifically Petty’s Island) to the state of New Jersey (see CNN’s coverage of this announcement http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/23/venezuela.island/index.html).

What I cannot figure out clearly are Chavez/CITGO’s motivations. On one hand, for Chavez the decision seems to have implied a certain degree of moralizing – according to CNN his decision was part of last year’s Earth Day, and to me the message is clear without being overt: Chavez is criticizing the United States and its environmental policies, and simultaneously allowing now-departing Governor John Corzine to take credit for improving the environment of New Jersey by opening up a new park. But this could only be proven had their been a more visible message from Chavez – just about anything that attempted to lecture the United States government in a public way but without making the bargain too difficult for Corzine to swallow. That has not happened yet.

Then, of course, on the other hand, there is the almost bizarre possibility that Chavez actually cares about the environment in and of itself enough to have made this decision. Some evidence does, in fact, point towards this direction – a press release from Corzine noted that “CITGO [i.e., Chavez] has agreed to create a $2 million stewardship fund to allow the Natural Lands Trust to manage the island. The company is setting up another $1 million fund to assist in establishing a cultural and education center. The eventual recreational development of the island will be limited to passive activities, such as trails for hiking and bicycle riding.” (http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/2009/approved/20090422a.html) $3 million dollars and property is pretty impressive for a company to shell out over ideals alone.

CNN (who, it should be noted, cut the CITGO lead and made it seem as though Chavez personally controlled the whole decision) also emphasized these details. Nevertheless, in two press releases from Governor Corzine’s office (which were characteristically propagandized like all public relations releases) the decision was not only made through the ‘brilliant’ leadership of Corzine – but represented a major contribution to the environment of New Jersey that … err … would not be completed until at least 2020! (http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/2009/approved/20090422a.html and http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2009/09_0002.htm).

In a larger way, the story has some interesting things to say about the nature of environmentalism, international corporations, and land use in the United States. English common law as well as the American Constitution both could not have foreseen the complexity of such an interaction: a major industrial corporation, lead by a socialist foreign leader, which owns a large amount of land in the United States, decides to donate that land to the government of a state while citing environmental concerns. If James Madison were a lawyer working on the case, he might have wished that he could have included some more things into the Constitution itself – i.e. a paragraph here concerning foreign influence over property in the United States, a sentence there implying where in our federalist system does the prerogative to environmental reserves lies, and also a footnote stating whether or not governors have any right to brag about receiving large land donations from ideologically dubious foreign leaders.

Adding to the confusion, although CITGO is in fact donating the land as well as millions of dollars, a number of seemingly hard-line demands were emphasized at their expense: “The state will assume no liability for cleanup of past pollution on the island. CITGO will turn the island over to the Natural Lands Trust to manage after the company removes petroleum facilities that include a tank farm and asphalt-blending operation. The DEP must certify that contamination has been cleaned up according to state standards. The cleanup terms will be covered under a separate agreement with the DEP,” (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2009/09_0002.htm) and “The DEP must certify that the cleanup has met state standards before the title can be transferred. The earliest the transfer can occur is 2020, which is three years following the expiration of a lease an active shipping terminal has with CITGO. This gives CITGO time to address any potential contamination at the shipping terminal property.” (http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/2009/approved/20090422a.html).

Well, it looks like we might need to wait ten years to see how this unfolds, but in the meanwhile I recommend asking everyone you know to try to explain the motivations behind this decision. Why would a money-bent industrial superpower like CITGO be so willing to give up the things it loves the most – money and resources – so easily and without a clear motivation?

My best guess is that CITGO simply expects that their Petty’s Island location will no longer be profitable by 2020. It would rather layoff workers, leave the area and still maintain face (perhaps majorly so) by spending money in order to make the transaction look like an altruistic one. The previously highlighted stipulations by the state of New Jersey are probably not much more than a reiteration of what is already the legal process for the removal of an industrial plant – i.e. return the land without oil tanks and pollution covering it.

Further reading: http://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/21/chavez-not-only-gave-obama-a-book...but-also-an-island-in-new-jersey , http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/venezuela_president_looms_over.html , http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/24/chavez_gives_island_to_new_jersey_freaks_out_governor , http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/1958

On The Success of Welfare Programs

Republicans will tell you that welfare doesn’t work, that it's government waste, and that the recipients of welfare are undeserving mooches which leach off the hard working in our society. However, the fact of the matter is, that when you sit down and look at data, it in fact does work. The purpose of a welfare program is to lift individuals in need out of poverty, or to provide them with government services so that they can live a more comfortable lifestyle. An example of this type of welfare is social security and medicare. Most people when thinking about welfare don’t consider social security and medicare. However, social security helps over 53,000,000 elderly and disabled people be able to live a more comfortable lifestyle and continue to contribute to our eceonmy. These people are either old and unable to work anymore, or are disabled and unable to work for the rest of their lives. This type of welfare consists of 95% of all government welfare programs.
I would also like to address a number of myths about welfare. The first myth concerns what welfare actually is. Welfare, according to Webster’s dictionary is any government assistance given to a person in need. This is often boiled down to stereotypes of individuals. Some might have you believe that welfare is government waste. That the typical welfare recipient is a person who is able to work but simply doesn’t want to because welfare provides them with such a luxurious lifestyle. However, this stereotype could not be more wrong. The purpose of welfare for individuals in need is to lift them out of the needy state. This is working especially well since President Clinton signed a republican welfare reform act in 1996. According to the department of health and human services, the number of welfare recipients has fallen from 5% to 2%. Furthermore, this type of welfare spending only consists of 1% of federal, state, and local budgets. Therefore, it is preposterous to argue that “welfare” spending is government waste. Furthermore, the stereotype that welfare recipients are simply lazy people who live off of welfare and breed like rabbits is also completely off base. Only the most dysfunctional welfare recipients do this. Firstly, the welfare reform act of 1996 places a 5 year limit on receiving government assistance checks and food stamps, anyone who receives welfare for over 5 years either has job that simply does not pay enough for them to live, or is unable to work for the rest of their lives due to a debilitating illness. Secondly, no logical person would EVER want to live on welfare checks and food stamps. Government housing is not luxurious, and welfare checks are unable to pay even the most basic bills.
However, an attack on welfare is not just an attack on the poor or elderly, it is an attack on us students. Anyone here who receives financial aid from the federal or state government through grants of student loans is a welfare beneficiary. According to the white house web site the federal government loans out $81 billion a year so that students can receive a college education. Imagine how different any campus would be if all of the students that receive aid were no longer able to come here because their form of welfare was taken away.

Of Southern Democrats and Yankee Republicans

Well this will dovetail nicely with Stephen's post on the recent gburg alum running for Congress. And yes, as to that I agree-- Connecticut CD-4 is winnable as a Republican district in its makeup....
As for the nation...Exploding underpants and healthcare aside this post, I figured I'd discuss a bit of my perspective on the interesting trends of American politics-- particularly regional party strength. As the post suggests I'm discussing the often discussed reversal of party fortunes from their respective areas of origin-- and explaining that much of the shift is more recent than merely the Conservative- Liberal alignments of the major parties since the 1960s, particularly at the Congressional level.



My thoughts were prompted by two news feeds I read the past few weeks, Blue Dog Dem Congressman Parker Griffith of Alabama switched from the Democrats to become a Republican. That district (though in Alabama, a red state since Goldwater won it in 64) has not been represented by a Republican since the post-Reconstruction era. This is augmented by the bleeding out of GOP seats in upstate New York, and the other story I read -- that with GOP governors finishing up their terms in Vermont, RI, and Connecticut- it is possible that all of New England may have Democratic Governors for the first time in the modern party system next year. The almost total allignment of the Deep South and midland-South into a Republican bastion and Yankee New England into the Democratic party is not merely the extension of the drift since the early 1930s-- FDR never won either Vermont or Maine-- in fact no modern Democrat other than LBJ had won Vermont until Bill Clinton in 1992...the last time the GOP won Vermont in a Presidential election- 1988 was also the year Bernie Sanders was elected to Congress-- so how have the regions polarized in recent years---

The origins of the "Party of the Common Man" basics of the Democratic party stem from the midland South region of Andrew Jackson-. For many generations, Arkansas, most of Tennessee (Eastern TN interestingly enough has been a defiantly Republican stronghold since the Civil War-- when it was a Unionist region, the rest of the South basically caught up with it) , West Virginia (it voted for Dukakis in 1988), and Kentucky were Democrat dominated either nationally or locally. Since the 1970s, along with the Deep South regions-- these midland and Appalachian states have become more populist Republican in representation--- though a hearty number of Democrat senators and Congressman have remained. Tennessee maintains 5 Democratic Districts, Arkansas 3 Districts, WV 2. and Kentucky 2 Dem Districts. Retirements and a bad 2010 climate have caused several of the Tennessee districts to appear ripe for Republican pickups, along with at least one Arkansas and West Virginia. Also, Senator Blanche Lincoln is endangered to lose her seat. It would appear that the traditionally strong moderate Democrats that make up these states' Dem Reps (only Memphis's Congressional district is a majority minority seat, like most secure Dem. seats in the South) are going to start going the route of New England GOP Congressmen. The Democratic control of state legislatures in these states has also in recent years been on the wane--- This region, I largely believe, was more disposed to Democrats (the racial political divide of the South is less apparent in this region, outside of the Tennessee areas along the Mississippi, there isn't a large black population) because of Bill Clinton's origins in Arkansas and his appeal to the working/middle class whites of Appalachia-- they were fond of him but appear to be seriously drifting at the Congressional level to where they've been at the Presidential level for the past decade. McCain won all of these states in such a bad year by a sizable margin--If current trends keep up-- I'm predicting that the most proportionate Democratic losses will occur here in 2010-- I wouldn't be suprised if Blanche Lincoln is unseated along with as many as 6 of the Democratic House seats from these four states (two Tennessee retirements look to be likely pick-ups for the GOP), along with the governorship of Tennessee.

Meanwhile, in New England the recent trends of the GOP's decimation are well known. Beyond the governorships of Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut (all retiring)--the GOP's Federal Representation in New England consists of Sens. Sue Colllins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Judd Gregg (retiring) of New Hampshire. The traditional New England Republican of recent decades-- rock-ribbed fiscal conservative, social moderate, and somewhat hawkish in foreign policy have been the chief GOP whipping-boy for recent Democratic gains--- in 2006 there were 2 GOP reps in New Hampshire, at least 3 in Connecticut, another Senator in New Hampshire, and 10 Republicans in New York State...there are now 2 in New York and the rest of the above are gone. As late as 1996 there were 2 GOP reps in Massachusetts (though the shrinkage of Mass's delegation and gerrymandering have rendered the remaining seats lock-step)

For 2010, the New England states, particularly the smaller ones, may offer a glimpse of whether or not the region is a Republican wasteland for a generation or so--- If Kelly Ayote--the Senate candidate running for Judd Gregg's seat holds onto it, that certainly the top objective--along with any of the open gubernatorial seats. There are opportunities (judging from polling) in the 2 New Hampshire districts and perhaps one or two in Connecticut. Rural New England moderates and conservatives are a fiscally conservative bunch, hence New Hampshire being narrowly won by George W. Bush in 2000, and being picked up by John Kerry by only a few thousand votes in 2004. Vermont, despite it's bloody-minded liberalism on most matters beyond deficits and guns, has somewhat of a demand for good fiscal management-- Screaming Howard was almost notorious among his fellow Democrats during his tenure as governor for being a budgetary hard-ass, which contributed to his general popularity. The Obama adminstration's fiscal policies may aid Republicans in getting back into the game.

There are also 2 Democratic seat Senate races up this term in New England. The first, Chris Dodd's seat in Connecticut I planned to engage in a long digression on his unpopularity and the very good chance that if former Rep. Rob Simmons (about as likeable a Republican as exists for deep blue Connecticut, and an excellent Congressmen who went to the mat for his constitutents to save the New Haven Naval Base, and was unseated by 86 votes in '06.) wins the GOP nomination, he'd unseat Dodd. However, five-term senators are usually unseated by either their own choice or the grave, if it looks like they are in for a very tough fight-- there's a high chance they'll retire rather than risk the humiliation of being thrown out. It seems that within a few hours of Byron Dorgan's retirement (and the extremely high likelihood of that Senate seat flipping Republican) Dodd either chose to call it quits, or was prodded to acknowledge his political prognosis by Dem insiders. With the entry of the very popular Connecticut Attorney General, the deep-blue seat looks relatively likely for a Democratic hold barring an utter unraveling of the party's standing.

The other senate race is in a couple weeks--a Massachusetts special election for the Kennedy Seat. The polls have Republican State Sen. Scott Brown closer than Mass. Senate race should be, this seat's last Republican was Henry Cabot Lodge. Jr in 1952 when he was defeated by yep...you got it...JFK. Martha Coakley, the Democrat, has run a very poor campaign judging from reports, and some members of the Conservative blogosphere are salivating over the faint possibility of an upset...I'm not optimistic for a win of course, but if Scott Brown keeps it within 10 points, that's a very good sign.

Will Gregory for Congress

I was recently looking through a Gettysburg College alumni email and as I was scanning through the recent alumni news one piece of news caught my eye. All it said was Will Gregory class of 2007 is running for congress, followed by a hyperlink to his website. At first I figured he was running for a state congressional position. I have heard of young people getting elected to local governments so I figured that must be it. So I clicked on the hyperlink and as it turns out he is running in the primary for the United States House rep from Connecticut's 4th district. I thought wow, he is definatly ahead of where I am going to be two years from now. The site looked really good. Easy to navigate but what really got me was the message. As it turns out he is a North Eastern fiscally conservative socially moderate republican. Just like me. Next I figured that he must not have a chance due to the political orientation of the district. This certainly had to be a bastion of north eastern liberalism. But as it turns out it surprisingly moderate. Prior to the 2008 Election the seat was held by Chris Shays, a moderate, who was well liked and well respected. So there is certainly a chance that district will elect a republican. He has been campaigning for a couple of months now and is starting to get noticed even though he is only 24 years old. Check out his website, I think it will impress everyone as it impressed me. I for one support Will Gregory. Now if I only lived in Connecticut.



http://www.gregoryforcongress.com/

Gitmo

Why is Guantanamo Bay not closed yet??? You guess is as good as mine, and its far past time that we close what has become a symbol of American aarogance and torture. There are two ways in which closing Guantanamo Bay could have negative national security implications for the American Public. The first threat is to our troops abroad, if after closing Guantanamo Bay we release and repatriate offenders then there is a significant threat to U.S. National Security. I will not be advocating that course of action this evening. The second threat is to American Citizens if we transfer prisoners from Guantanamo bay to other detention facilities within the United States and they escape. I will prove that there is no rational reason for concern about detainees escaping from a maximum security prison; this argument is a fear tactic which has become characteristic of the Republican party and my hope is that you in the audience will not fall for the irrational arguments brought about by fear and worry but rather will listen to sound logical arguments that make sense for the foreign and domestic policy for the United States. . Finally, I will also prove that leaving Guantanamo Bay open for use would have dramatic national security implications for both our troops abroad and the security of our homeland. I will draw from Democratic and Republican sources throughout my argument citing Republicans Colin Powell and former President George W. Bush as well as current President Barack Obama. The fact of the matter is that this debate is a simple one; it revolves around the closure of a detention facility which most Americans believe should be closed, a detention facility that both Democratic President Barack Obama and his challenger John McCain both supported closing as well as a slew of military hierarchy and former administration officials.
Let me begin by refuting the contention that there are no safe alternatives to Guantanamo Bay. If we were to place the detainees at Guantanamo Bay into a maximum security federal prison or a maximum security military prison within the United States it would be unreasonable to suggest that a prison break would take place at all. First, to posit that there are no reliable venues for these prisoners is absurd. The United States has 110 federal prisons and 13 military prisons around the world which house some of the most dangerous criminals in the United States and since 1999 there has only been one prison escape from a maximum security prison. Furthermore, Federal Prison Camps are mostly stand-alone facilities which are typically attached to a military or government complex. To suggest that not one of our 110 federal prisons is suitable for the transfer of 250 inmates is simply ludicrous. In To allude to the absurdity of this argument I propose this. Charles Manson, the famed serial killer is housed in a California State prison. Why is it that we don’t transfer Manson to an off-site facility since he is dangerous and might escape? However, if we do decide that the 110 federal prisons are not suitable for transfer then why don’t we pick another one of our off-site facilities. The United States currently maintains military detention facilities in Peurto-Rico, Iceland, Guam, Diego Garcia, and Naples. Surely if the 110 federal prisons are not suitable one of those off-sit facilities would provide a safe distance away from the American people.
Furthermore, the converse of the resolution is true, and leaving Guantanamo bay open creates national security implications for the United States. Guantanamo Bay and the torture practices which took place there have created a symbol for terrorist recruiting groups throughout the world to rally around and use as a recruiting tool. In 2008 officials discovered a video which was being used as a recruiting tool for Al-Quaeda and other terrorist organizations. The two-hour video included sections on Muslim humiliation at Guantanamo Bay. The closure of Guantanamo Bay will make the United States safer from terrorism by symbolically displaying to the world that we are committed to human rights and will provide one less tool for the terrorists to used to radicalize. Furthermore, the treatment many of the detainees were exposed to at Guantanamo bay has radicalized them. According to the foreign policy institute, a majority of the detainees at Guantanamo bay were innocent of any crime and were eventually released back to their home countries where many of them then went to fight with Al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups because they had been radicalized by the treatment they received or witnessed others receiving at Guantanamo Bay. Closing Guantanamo bay does make America safer. I am not the only one who believes this, in the final stages of the Bush Administration former President George W. Bush discussed the need to close Guantanamo bay because of the stain it had left on America’s image, furthermore, Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, Robert Gates, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Mel Martinez are some of the many Republican lawmakers who agree that closing the facility is safer for the American people.