Post-Roe Thoughts...Especially for my Progressive Friends

 

Until this week, Roe v. Wade was one of the most poorly reasoned, and poorly written decisions in American jurisprudence.

 I am not commenting on the outcome – the constitutional right to an abortion “up to some vague point,” but to the legal reasoning behind it.  The majority in this 7-2 decision was actually split four ways, with one ‘majority’ opinion and three concurring opinions.  They all disagreed as to the reasoning behind their decision, and one even doubted that the decision meant what it said. On a personal note – and I will come back to this – only Justice William O. Douglas, whose one-man concurrence insisted that the court find an inherent 9^th Amendment Right to Privacy, made constitutional and historical sense.  Unfortunately, he was just one among nine, and his reasoning was not adopted.  Instead, the Court ran with an esoteric “equal protection” and “due process” jargon with little precedence to support it.  We were poorer then for it, and even poorer now. 

That Roe was a disaster from the start was recognized by most honest liberal jurists.  When it was revisited in Casey v Planned Parenthood, the majority gutted Roe’s baseless assertions that the US Constitution provided different solutions for different trimesters of pregnancy, and narrowed the decision to recognizing fetal viability as a dividing line. Even The Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsberg criticized the reasoning behind Roe, even late in her life, while on the bench.

I have said for years that while I am pro-choice, Roe was such a poor decision that it would be – and should be – overturned.  Liberal friends who look only at results and not legal process  just dismissed me as “impure” on the issue.  Well, friends, the inevitable is now upon us.

If Roe was a poor decision, Dobbs vs. Jackson W.H.O. is even worse.

The initial criticism of Roe in the opinion is valid.  The subsequent invalidation of any right to privacy is an unmitigated disaster.

The entire Bill of Rights of the Constitution is based on privacy rights as against the government.  The Freedom of religion, the prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures, the arcane 3^rd amendment prohibiting quartering of troops in one’s home – are all based in the notion of *privacy.*  Several critical Supreme Court decisions have noted this – such as in the 1971 (pre-Roe) Wisconsin v. Yoder, which gave Amish parents the Constitutional right to home educate their children. It was hinted at in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), a birth control access case, and again in Loving v. Virginia (1967) (Interracial marriage).

But Roe (1973) said these “privacy rights” were not a 9^th Amendment Right, but somehow connected to general liberty interests in the equal protection and/or due process clauses.  And now that Roe is toast, so is everything else.

So how do we react?

Forgive my brutal response: If the last few days of social media reactions are any indication of the future, progressives will make the same mistake they make in every election cycle, and then wonder why they lose time and time again: they will shoot every potential ally with strident, nasty, interest-group politics.

A scroll through my feeds shows the same ‘flavor’ memes over and over:

"It’s the damned Men."  “If men could get pregnant,” “If men had to pay,” “If men had vasectomies…”

Men are not the Enemy here, folks.  In fact, according to a 2022 Pew Research survey, men support abortion rights at nearly the same rate as women.

"It’s the damned churches!" “Tax the churches!,” “Abort churches,” “We’re not a Theocracy!” the aggrieved snarl.

However, the same Pew poll found that the *majority* of Mainline Protestants, Black churches, Catholics, and Orthodox *support* abortion rights.  Only Evangelicals oppose them. We often forget that the entire 1960s civil rights movement was organized *in churches.* The same-sex marriage legislative movement was spearheaded by the Episcopal Church in numerous states, including New Hampshire, one of the first to legalize same-sex ceremonies.

Nancy Pelosi took *no time* at all ‘marrying’ the horror of the Court’s anti-choice decision with its position striking down New York’s clearly unconstitutional gun laws.   Guess what Nancy – there are millions of Americans who are pro-2^nd Amendment AND pro-choice.

Progressives, listen up:  I AGREE with you that we need to fight to secure reproductive rights.  I’d also like to see us fight for Privacy rights across the board.

 But you don’t make allies by directing your vitriol against men, or churches, or gun-rights activists, or any other “impure” illiberal group into which you decide to pigeon-hole people.  Politics is a not a forum where you win by systematically pissing off those who are, or could be, allies, because you only see them as “parts of a group” rather than as unique, rational, thinking individuals.

Now is the time to THINK, my friends…not a time to show the world that you hate everyone and everything who doesn’t agree with you 100% on a laundry list of litmus tests.

Somewhere is a young, white, gun-owning, church-going blue collar male who just paid for his girlfriend’s abortion.  He’s grateful that chapter is behind them, as is she.  He should be your ally.  But through interest group politics and strident, demeaning attacks on anyone in a “group” you perceive as an enemy, you have effectively neutered him as an active ally.

Congratulations.

 

Uvalde, the "Incident Command System," and the American Deference to "Authority."

So this post is a direct response to the horror in Uvalde.  It has nothing to do with guns. 

It has to do with the soul of America since 9/11.  

After 9/11, there was a serious effort at the federal level to design a 'system' to respond to tragedies, of any variety: dam breaks, hurricanes, mass shootings, attacks using airplanes - you name it.  As with most federal 'systems,' it was borne of an honest and well-meaning desire to "make things better," in the wake of the chaos on the ground after the attacks on the World Trade Center. For those of you unfamiliar with the system that emerged from that effort, it is called "Incident Command Management System."  It is a system that has been implemented nationwide.  If you are a police officer, fire fighter, local civil defense manager, national guardsman, red cross worker, or in any way considered a Responder, you have been through this training.  I received mine as a member of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary.

The idea of ICM is to designate "who's in charge," and what the action priorities should be in a given incident. The events, as they unfolded (or didn't) in Uvalde is a direct result of this system.

A primary focus of ICM is to designate a lead agency as "in charge" of a local incident. This means that all other agencies who arrive to assist at an emergency take their orders from the lead agency.  In Uvalde, the lead agency was the local policing authority.  Why did SWAT teams and first responders in Uvalde stand around doing nothing for an hour?  Because they took their orders from the lead agency. They followed ICM protocols - until they finally broke ranks and entered the school.

Another focus of ICM is the prioritization of response.  In the ICM hierarchy, *containing the problem* takes precedence over *assisting the victims.*  In other words, in a hurricane where live wires are down, getting them shut off takes precedence over helping those on the scene who have been electrocuted.  In a situation of a failing dam, preventing further collapse takes precedence over rescuing those trapped under water.  In a school shooting, containing the shooter takes precedence over rendering aid to the wounded or endangered.

With that in mind, can you see how Uvalde unfolded?

There is a third priority, one that is more problematic than the first two.  And that is the absolute prohibition on what is called "Self-Deployment."  Self-deployment refers to individuals simply doing *what needs to be done* at that moment.  NO ONE is permitted to "self-deploy;" an EMT (or any ordinary citizen) who is capable of rendering aid to a victim is *prohibited* from doing so unless they have received specific orders from the Lead Agency chain of command to do so.

Parents who were ready and willing to storm the school were prevented from doing so by the police.  Why?  *NO SELF-DEPLOYMENT.*  The real heartbreak here is that we, the American public, actually conform to the orders issued by The State, time and time again.  The parents who *did* ignore orders and rescued their own kids at the school engaged in precisely the behavior that we ALL need to engage in.  

Putting the gun issue aside, the question here is the official response (or lack of it) and how it happened the way it did.

It happened *precisely* the way it is designed. Good, anguished, law-abiding parents questioned it, but ultimately conformed.

That conformity must END.  The worship of the state must END.  The blind belief in "authority" must END.

Trump (The Devil) Went Down to Georgia (Thanks to Charlie Daniels....)

 

The Devil called down to Georgia
He was lookin' for some votes to steal
He was in a bind 'cause he was way behind
And he had written the Art of the Deal

When he came across a State Official
Doin’ his job and keepin’ notes,
And the Devil jumped on the White House line
And said, "Boy, I want them votes!

 

"I guess you didn't know it, but I'm a hard-ball player, too
And if you'd care to take a dare, I'll make a deal with you
Now you count pretty good numbers, boy, but give the Devil his due
I'll bet a pardon of gold against your soul

'Cause I know I'm better than you"

 

The man said, "My name's Bradford,

I speak for Georgia’s Crowd,
But I'll take your bet, you're gonna regret
'Cause the numbers here are sound.

 

Raffensperger, take that call, but hold your ground real hard,
'Cause Hell's broke loose in Georgia and the Devil deals the cards
And if you win and stand up tall, you’ll safeguard every poll,
But if you lose, the Devil gets your soul

 

The Devil opened up his case and he said, "I'll start this show"
And insults, lies, and pressure came at Brad to bring him low
And he made some implications that poor Brad committed crimes,

And a band of demon Senators joined in, to spread the slime

 

When the Devil finished
Bradford said, "Your numbers aren’t there
We’ve counted all votes faithfully,

and you’re full of hot air

"We counted in Atlanta, in the ‘burbs and by the sea

In Savannah, down in Macon, Marietta, and in Lee,
The votes have all been counted, poll workers have my thanks,

We re-checked, and we’ve Certified, and you’ve run out of pranks.

 

The Devil bowed his head because he knew that he'd be beat
The efforts in the Senate were now doomed to see defeat,
Brad said, "Devil, just come on back if you ever wanna try again
But it’s said and done, you son of a bitch
You’ll be heading for the Pen!

The Demonization of Guns Contributes to Mass Shootings

I’m 59 years old, and I grew up in an age when guns were just another normal tool around the house, like chainsaws and drills and car jacks.  I was 8 or 9 when I fired my first BB gun, aiming at cans set up on a log.  High Schools still had marksmanship teams, and younger kids all played with cap guns and water pistols.  I learned safety rules and respect for firearms at a young age.  And to be clear, this was not in some rural southern hill town – it was in a suburb of New York City. 

And while there were always – and will always be – news incidents of crimes committed with guns, the societal understanding was that the majority – nay, 99+% - of gun owners – were responsible citizens, your neighbors, and the outrage was focused on the criminal.

Fast forward to today, and the climate is extremely different.

The message one hears in a constant repetition in both traditional and social media is that guns are bad. Guns are dangerous.  No one needs guns.  Grade school kids who engage in the simple activity of drawing a gun in class are reported to the principal’s office as a possible danger.  Just this morning I read a Twitter post from someone who commented that anyone who opposed gun control was a “potentially dangerous person,’ and the author wished to cut all ties with them. Dick’s Sporting Goods and other retailers have curtailed firearm sales.

Rather than sponsoring marksmanship clubs, schools are gun-free zones.

I am still a gun owner.  I have lived in rural Vermont, New Hampshire, and western Massachusetts for the last two decades.  And even though there is a right to carry and few restrictions on firearms in NH and VT, I have rarely seen anyone carry.  In fact, if I see one person every few months carrying a firearm, it’s a lot.  Young people don’t play with toy guns, much less learn and practice with real ones.

Restrictions on carrying have increased to the point that it is nearly impossible to legally carry in large cities like New York and Chicago.  Guns are no longer seen as a useful tool, but something to be tightly regulated and controlled.  Gun Free Zones -  schools, parks, private malls, Town properties – are everywhere.

And yet, in spite of the increase of controls on firearms over time, we live in an era where mass shootings by troubled individuals seem to dominate weekly – or daily – news cycles.

Some of the more strident statements – by both politicians and the general pro-control public – are overly shrill  (and I’m being generous.)  Gun owners are stereotyped and characterized as uneducated, scared, or racists.  It isn’t hard to find online posts linking firearm ownership to “toxic masculinity,” white nationalism, or small-penis-compensation. 

“Gun manufacturers have blood on their hands.”  “The NRA has blood on their hands.”  “Children are being sacrificed on the altar of the Second Amendment.”  All of these statements showed up in my Twitter Feed and Facebook page today. Still another woman wrote, “If I see you carrying a firearm in public, I’m calling the police, because I don’t know that you’re not a terrorist.”

The message has been very loud, and very clear:  Guns, and those who carry them, are Bad.
This message was given moral support when President Obama referred to fearful people who “cling to guns and religion.”  It was in full display when Hillary Clinton employed the word “Deplorables” describing certain segments of the population.  It is reinforced every time John or Jane Doe write a screed about anyone who opposes gun control being an [expletive.]

What I am suggesting here is that the strident, virulent attacks on firearm ownership have had their intended effect: while there are many guns in the country, a falling percentage of Americans own them, use them, or carry them.  It’s no longer socially acceptable.

On the other hand, it has had a terrifying unintended consequence.

Guns are now ‘counter-culture.’ And therein lies the danger.

An entire generation of young people have now ‘grown up’ without casual firearm exposure, practice, or use.  They hear from their friends, teachers, neighbors, entertainers, and media influencers that guns are bad, gun owners are bad, gun manufacturers are bad, and they are unnecessary to have. 

In short, “only bad people and idiots need guns.”

The problem here is that young people – especially troubled young people – gravitate towards anything they’re not supposed to do or have.

The story is as old as time itself.  Teenagers smoking cigarettes in the boy’s room.  Smoking pot.  Boys growing long hair.  Wearing only a White T-shirt (scandalous when James Dean did it, and indicative of a bad boy, a rogue, a rebel.)  Listening to Ozzy Osbourne and exulting in the superficial satanic symbols on the album cover or in the lyrics. Sporting a Confederate flag in some far-northern town.

For the vast majority of teens and young people, this is normal – a phase of rebellion that almost all go through to some degree or another.

But we don’t live in a perfect utopia, and there will always be a subset of young people who exist in a darker place.  They feel different, ostracized, and outcast.  In short, for one reason or another – bullying, income level, learning disabilities, unsupportive living arrangements – they are Angry. Or Hopeless.  Or Outcasts. Or all three.

And they embrace the moniker of “rebel.”  They take pride in taking on the persona of being that outcast, of being that rebel. Heck, If I’m an outsider, I‘ll be the best damned outside I can be.

And if destruction is on their mind, what better idol - what better symbol of being society’s outcast – than a gun?

The demonization of guns and gun culture has caused a simultaneous drop in the use of firearms as a normal tool within general society (with the resulting degradation in the ability to protect oneself), and in increase in its symbolism as something bad.  When you’re a desperate outcast who can no longer shake the feeling of being “on the outs,’ what better item to grab to “stick it” to those who have put you ‘on the outs?’

Restrictions on guns have increased, while mass shootings (rare as they statistically are) have increased.  The Average Jane or Joe shies away from firearms more than in the past, while the image of that tool has become a symbol of the Bad Boy, the counter-culture, and the loner.

If we continue to demonize firearms as we have, don’t expect any law or regulation to change a thing: we have a sent a message to troubled young men that if they feel like outcasts, a gun is a perfect match for them.  And just like restrictions on pot, steroids, cocaine, alcohol or any other prohibited or restricted product, guns will becomes magnets for those who troubles began long before they thought of acquiring one.

Getting Started in Crowdfunding Investing

[Note: I am not an owner or employee of any of these firms, and no one asked me to do this.  I am providing this solely as information based on my recent personal experience using the Platforms]

For a bit over a year, federal law has permitted just about any John or Jane Doe to invest in Business Start-ups or expansions, an activity usually reserved for the wealthy or "accredited investors."  Today, often in increments as low as $100 to $500, individuals can get in on the ground floor of a new venture.  These investments may take the form of actual stock equity (which can not be easily traded or sold, and are not listed on a stock market); convertible notes (loans which convert to equity, or stock, if certain conditions are met); and revenue sharing, which acts as a loan paid back not over a specific time period, but as a function of the revenue received by the company.  The goal on these revenue sharing agreements is to pay back the investor anywhere from 1.2 times to 2.0 times their investment (although I have seen one shooting for 3x investment).

And of course, like any company, all investment is at risk and you could lose everything.  No one, of course, is hoping for that, but it is a possibility.

All of the platforms below are simply web-based platforms designed to 'match' potential investors with companies seeking to raise funds.  Once the investment is completed, the investor deals directly with the company they have invested in and the platform has no further intermediatory role between you.

Each Platform, with small exceptions, is structured, visually, in a fairly uniform format, so getting familiar with one makes the next one easier.  In no particular order, the five that I have found easiest to use are these:

1.  START ENGINE - This is the largest of the five I am including. s of this date, 68 active companies are listed, representing a broad variety of industries. They provide an excellent, clear tracking of the status of your investments during the process, and are active in sending emails announcing news and updates. If you need to cancel an investment, they are efficient and no-hassle. Each company has a very visible "Terms" button which explains clearly what kind of investment is being offered, with some minor exceptions. Unlike many platforms, they actually permit the use of credit cards (Use with Caution!) to make investments.

2. NEXTSEED - Next Seed is small (7 active companies), with a heavy emphasis on "mega-bars" and drinking/entertainment venues.  Of all the platforms, it provides the *clearest* indication as to the 'terms of the deal' and the hoped-for returns. The Chat function with the platform is efficient and helpful.

3. WEFUNDER - Another large platform, there are 45 companies currently raising funds. There are an excellent set of FAQs for new investors that should be read thoroughly. The site features many tabs to search for precisely the type of company you wish to invest in (tech, main street, software). On the down side, the terms of each deal are not big and bold: they are printed in fine type at the bottom of each company's icons in just a word or two. By clicking on a company icon, you can see the terms in more detail.

4. MICROVENTURES This is actually a partnership (not entirely explained) using First Democracy FV as a bridge between Microventures and Indiegogo, a respected company which adds some credence to the viability of the fundraising companies; there are 7 companies currently listed.  Some of the companies have very clear terms of the deal, while others take a little more digging.

5. FUNDANNA - Whereas many crowdsourcing platforms steer away from start-ups involved in the cannabis industry, Fundanna focuses on such companies. The 6 companies listed have *very clear* terms, and have done a good job explaining their business plans and approach to their businesses, with extensive information for the investor. One gets the impression that Fundanna is a small operation: the website has a few glitches, and is not entirely intuitive, and the chat function is not always on...but when responding to email, it is clear that they are giving highly personal responses rather than pat answers. One nice touch is that they actually accept old-fashioned checks in addition to bank withdrawals for payment. 

I have used all five of these of that platforms, and will continue to do so as I seek to diversify my investments, which currently include a race horse, a vertical farming operation, an organic dairy, a cannabis growing facility, a boxing club, a Brazilian liquor company, and a sports bar.

In addition, some states have set up Non-profit platforms (Such as MILKMONEY VT) to assist local in-state businesses, and which are often only open to in-state residents.

Happy Investing!  Be smart and be cautious, but know that you CAN get in on the ground floor of the "Next Big Thing!"

Gov. Scott - NO New Firearms Control in Vermont!

Dear Sen. Nitka,

I am a resident of Chester, and am writing to you regarding the proposals in the Senate regarding increased firearms regulation. I am extremely concerned for the ramifications of some of these proposals. PLEASE hear me out.

I am a retired teacher, who chose to move to Vermont - in spite of the financial burden on retirees compared to other states - precisely because of the life style here.  I am a fairly liberal gay man who, more than once, has found myself a target on the streets of New York and elsewhere.  To protect myself, I carry a firearm, because I am my own best line of defense when these incidents occur.

I used to live in Massachusetts.  In spite of currently being in the US Coast Guard Auxiliary out of Station Burlington, with Homeland Security Clearance, having NO criminal record of any kind, and having been fingerprinted with the FBI no fewer than 11 times (for Coast Guard work and during the adoption of 6 children and foster care of three others) - the background check and license I requested there TOOK EIGHT MONTHS to process (even though the law there said 60 day maximum).  No one should have to wait that long to exercise a Constitutional right to protect themselves!  The background check there was a total disaster. I moved to Vermont for several reasons, but paramount was the fact that it is the safest state in the union, and I don't have to beg for permission to exercise my right to self defense.

In a vacuum, Universal Background Checks seem to make sense, to weed out those with criminal records and mental health issues, and that seems to be driving this initiative, but there are terrible unintended consequences:

1) The majority of people with criminal records are non-violent offenders, most for drug offenses, and many with marijuana convictions - ironic, considering we have just legalized marijuana in Vermont!  A background check will not only flag these people, but will disproportionately affect minorities who are caught up in this system (and yes, I have an inter-racial family).  Progressives are appropriately trying to seal these types of convictions so that non-violent offenders can be re-integrated into society and get jobs - and yet this throws that entire effort into chaos.

2) As a teacher, I worked frequently with Veterans, many of whom return from overseas and are assisted with mental health counseling for PTSD.  These are men and women who know how to safely use firearms better than most - and yet, they are precisely the ones who will be caught up in mental health check.  Are we now going to require that physicians and counselors report the details of privileged patient-client information to a government database?

Similarly, the effort to raise the age for purchase to 21 is an insult to the people who we consider old enough to vote for you at age 18.  At 18, they can join the military and carry military-grade automatics, and they can be trusted as armed police officers in our Towns...but they would not be able to purchase a hunting firearm in a state with a long, proud history of hunting?!

I realize that in the wake of the tragedy in Florida, people are emotional and looking for "government to do something;"  and yet, this is precisely the time when legislators make poor choices.  The 'crisis of the moment" lead to the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, and it lead to the Patriot Act and FISA courts - both examples of terrible losses of Constitutional Rights as a result of an emotional reaction to tragedy.

I am asking you to OPPOSE any effort to restrict the firearms laws here in Vermont.

Thank you,

Thomas T Simmons

The Investment Series....

Many years ago, when I first began teaching, I made a decision that most of my fellow teachers did not understand: I opted out of the state Retirement System.  I gave up a guaranteed pension for life after 20+ years of service.  Instead, I chose an Optional Retirement plan, whereby I invested and controlled my own contributions.  Now that I've "retired," that decision is paying off.


Now, rather than waiting for a monthly check from the state, I have taken my stash of cash with me, to use as I see fit. And having spent the last 20 years teaching Economics & Business, and working with young entrepreneurs seeking to start their own businesses through the Grinspoon Entrepreneurship Initiative, I am now entering a new phase of "work:"  using my accumulated retirement funds to invest directly in new and growing businesses. 

We're not talking stocks here: we're taking making loans and buying equity in small family businesses that are not traded on the markets. It is probably one of the most exciting and rewarding things I have ever done.

After planning for this for the past year, I have eight deals in various stages of closing.  And so today, I reveal my first investment:

Green Mountain Organic Creamery is a 20,000 sq/ft dairy processing plant located in Hinesburg, Vermont. GMOC was founded by Cheryl and John “JD” Devos, organic dairy farmers from Addison County, Vermont. Cheryl and JD own and operate the 200 cow, Kimball Brook Farm, which is capable of producing 3,400,000 pounds of milk per year. GMOC purchases its organic milk primarily from the Farm at fair market value prices and then produces and distributes certified organic, Vermont milk and value-added milk products (flavored milk, cheese, butter, etc.) throughout Vermont, New England, and New York.

"But...My ancestors came here legally!"

To all my 3rd and 4th generation-American friends who are complaining about immigrants who "broke the law" and came here "without papers"....how the hell do you think YOUR ancestors got here? And before you shout out, "They came legally and went through all the paperwork!," listen up.

No, they didn't. They didn't have paperwork. Your Irish ancestors who arrived in the "coffin ships" during the famine had no papers. Neither did your Greek, Italian, and German ancestors fleeing war.

Many did not know what day they were born on, because they didn't have nice pictoral calendars on their non-existent refrigerators. In fact, they were born at home, and had no birth certificates. They not only lacked a college degree, they lacked a high school degree. They had no social security cards or driver's licenses, because they didn't exist.

They arrived penniless. Paperless. With little knowledge of US government, the English language, or basic literacy. They arrived at Ellis Island, had an eye test and a TB test, and some official gave them an "americanized" name because most didn't know how to spell their own names so the immigration officers guessed.

The Dreamers you're bitching about now? *These people are no different than your grandparents and great-grandparents, folks.* It's just that now you've 'made it' so you want to close the door on the next wave who just want a better life.

Before you bitch about them, go into a quiet room and ask your great-grandma up in heaven what she would say about the immigration experience, the hope of America, and the heartbreak and obstacles she encountered. Ask her what she would have done if after being here 15 years, she was threatened with being
sent back to Europe. And ask her how *she* sees those threatened by Trump's reversal of DACA.

End of rant.

Why the 20% Tariff on Mexican Goods Could be an American Economic Disaster

In any basic Economics class on Trade, I ask my students why they don't raise their own sheep, harvest the wool, process it into yarn, and make their own clothes. I ask why they don't set up a greenhouse, grow their own coffee beans, and roast their own coffee. I ask why they don't chop down their own tree, mill it with the appropriate tools, and make their own door molding instead of running down to Home Depot.

Intuitively, students understand how ridiculous this is. They conclude that while they could, if absolutely necessary, do these things, it is highly inefficient. The time and effort needed to undertake these actions means would require so much of their effort that they would have to give up engaging in other activities - such as washing their clothes, going to work, or studying for school. They understand quite easily that it makes far more sense to do what they do best - wait tables, work at a retail store, stock items in a warehouse - and then use the fruit of their labor to purchase those goods they do not or can not make as efficiently (such as a T-shirt, a can of coffee, or a piece of lumber.)

That, of course, is the basis of trade: nations do what they do best, and trade for those items that others produce more efficiently.

Mexico is the United States' third largest trading partners. In spite of the social media comments by those who insist they don't buy Mexican goods anyway, we import - quite cost-effectively - billions of dollars of goods from Mexico annually. Beer. Washing Machines. Chevy and Dodge Trucks. Medical Equipment. The United States imports a total of about $295 billion per year from Mexico, including $74 billion worth of vehicles, $63 billion of electrical machinery, $49 billion in machinery and $21 billion in agricultural products. Mexico is the second-largest supplier of agricultural imports to the United States: tomatoes, limes, lettuce, avocados, and more.

Trump's current proposal is to pay for his wall with a 20% import tariff on Mexican goods. Applying this 20% tax to $295 billion worth of imports would result in an increase in prices to the tune of almost 60 Billion dollars annually.

How would this affect Americans?

Well, once again, let's break this down into understandable personal transactions.

Let's say that I have $100 in my pocket. I go to the store to purchase a tricycle for my child, and it costs $50. I can buy this tricycle for $50, and still have another $50 left in my pocket to spend elsewhere - a pizza for the family for dinner, a bouquet of flowers for someone on their birthday, and one or two new pair of blue jeans.

Now let's say that tricycle was made in Mexico, and now there is a 20% tax on top of that price. Instead of $50, that tricycle now costs me $60, and I purchase it. But wait, now I only have $40 left in my pocket instead of $50 - in other words, i have $10 less in disposable income than I had before.

Who loses? I have to give up some other purchase: either the pizza, or the flowers, or one of the pair of jeans. Some American business must lose out, because I no longer have the ability to purchase the same number of goods I could before.

Now multiply this times all the consumers in the American economy. With the tax, $60 Billion dollars less is available for spending in American businesses.

But it gets worse.

Let's say that, due to this new tax and my lower disposable income as a result, that I decided to skip buying the flowers at the local florist. If I *had* purchased those flowers, the ten dollar bill would not have sat in a cash register: the Florist may have used some of that to buy ribbon from a ribbon manufacturer, or to buy some vases in which to display flowers, or to pay their delivery man. And of course, that delivery man would then have used that income to purchase something for himself - perhaps a new windshield wiper, or a baseball for his child, or a ticket to a local performance.

And since I couldn't buy those flowers, none of those transactions took place.

And now, multiply that by $60 billion dollars which will no longer multiply throughout the economy.

The 20% tariff may be a great way for the President to buy political capital and 'pretend' that Mexico is paying for his wall...but the reality is that Americans will pay - over and over - as the economy takes a hit it can not afford to take.

----------------------

Thomas Simmons is a graduate of Hofstra University and Hofstra Law School, and has worked as an Economist for the last 30 years. He is the author of three college textbooks on Economics.

.

36 States: 3rd Parties Polling Greater than Margin Between GOP and Dems

But...but.....a Third Party Vote is a wasted Vote! How many times have you heard that plaintive cry during the 2016 election season? Or the usual follow-ups: "A vote for Johnson (or Stein) is a vote for (Fill-in-the-Blank: Trump or Hillary!)"

It seems that every strong Clinton supporter, and every strong Trump supporter (or, perhaps more accurately, every Anti-Clinton Voter and every Anti-Trump Voter) has been working overtime in the mainstream media and on social media to convince people not to vote for a third party in 2016. "After all, they won't win...and that will only help Candidate X win," they say. They don't seem to understand that even if there were no third parties, I would not vote for either Clinton or Trump.

And to be honest, many of them try to give me constructive advice: "Please, this is a two-party nation, and only one of the two major party candidates can win. Why don't you work within one of the major parties to make effective change instead?," they plead.

Because history has shown that won't work.

There are only two factors that motivate party policy.

The first is money. And sorry, I don't have enough to influence either party in that respect.

The second is votes - and more important, winning elections.

When they win, they assume they touched on the right issues in the right way, and ran their ground games in an effective and successful way. If what you want is more of the exact same nonsense that both major parties have handed out, then by all means, vote for a major party. They will assume that their win means they did everything correctly, and you can expect more of the same in the years to come.

When they lose, they must admit that they did something wrong, and begin the process of looking at polls and votes and voter turnout rates to see where they lost ground.

Want to send a message to the major parties to make them seriously examine what they have done this election cycle? FORCE THEM TO RE-EVALUATE WHAT THEY'VE DONE.

It is a Media cliché at this point to speak of 'blue states' and 'red states' and 'battleground states.' But the number of states on the edge is far bigger than anyone could imagine this year.

This year, in 36 states, polls show that the combined support for Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Green exceeds the margin of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. These states represent 358 Electoral votes: far more than the 270 needed to win.

The table below indicates the margin of difference between Clinton and Trump, and the combined 3rd Party support, as published by the Washington Post 50-state poll on September 6:

*Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral votes by Congressional District, increasing the volatility of the election in these states.

And, to further drive home the point, here is a map (courtesy of 270towin.com). Red states are runaway Trump, Blue states are runaway Clinton, and the Grey states represent those states where the 3rd Party support now exceeds the difference between them:

So there you have it.

Are the chances slim that a 3rd Party candidate will win the election outright? Yes.

Are the chances large that the 3rd Party vote might tip an election in some of these state one way or another? Yes.

Are the chances even larger that a party that loses a state - or even comes close to losing - will need to examine what they're doing wrong? ENORMOUS.

No, your vote for a Third Party is not a wasted vote; rather, it is the most significant way you have demanding change in the system.

Republicans - and Democrats - YOU are responsible for Trump

Both parties deserve blame for creating the rise of what amounts to a Fascist candidate for President.

For years, Republicans have promoted and courted – usually with a wink and a knowing glance – racial and xenophobic politics. Mean-spirited attacks on the poor, demanding drug-testing for those on financial assistance and efforts to cut food stamp benefits – have been laced with an effort to generate warfare against a tiny portion of the population, even while slavishly throwing trillions of dollars at industry and runaway military spending. The purposeful intention has been to create an “us-versus-them” philosophy, blaming the poor, immigrants, and every “easy target” as the enemy. Beginning with Nixon’s “southern strategy” in the late 1960s, the GOP has actively courted a base that sees enemies all around. “Family Values” has become a buzzword in campaign literature for blaming gays and single mothers for the nation’s ills. Memes designed to justify the Police State and marginalize minorities have been carefully constructed to tap the darkest feelings of fear in every working-class, blue-collar white man in America. YOU, Republicans, created this monster: by courting this phenomenon, you always believed you could rely on those votes, without ever thinking that the voting block you created would ever rise, pitchforks in hand, to turn against you. Well, my friends, the chickens are coming home to roost. Trump has seized on this fear, and launched a classic fascist campaign, blaming immigrants and the poor for the economic mess we are in, cheering physical confrontation at campaign rallies, and openly showing disdain for the First and Fourth Amendments. Your subtle – and not-so-subtle – history of using racial and ethnic warfare as a standard campaign tool has created a populace that is actually acting on their fears.

But Democrats, please do not think you have had no role in this. The GOP has courted these people, but you have enraged them. One only needs to peruse the facebook postings and newspaper Op Ed pages to see how your response has to take this group of the electorate and further marginalize them. Examples of elitist, nasty, and disdainful comments directed against southerners, poor whites, evangelicals, and those who have jumped on the Trump bandwagon are plenty. By viewing – and branding - this group of the electorate as stupid, uneducated yokels, and pick-up driving redneck gun-toters with small penises - you have done what the GOP could never do: you marginalized a group that already feels fear and marginalization, and added to their anger and feelings of isolation. You don’t win hearts and minds by telling people they are stupid. Rather than build bridges and show how your policies might actually benefit these people, you have chosen, in your words and actions, to treat them like sub-Americans.

In other words, the GOP has convinced these people that there are un-American enemies out there who want to destroy their ways of life. You have answered the call by confirming that you despise these people, and that you need to legislate against their wishes “for their own good.”

Sociologically, the two major parties have created a disaffected group of low-income and middle-income Americans who are reeling under economic pressures and feel alienated, taken advantage of, and ignored by government leaders. A powerless sub-class. And they have now found their voice in Trump.

Meanwhile, both parties ignore their fears and anger: Both parties have spent us into unending debt, both parties have propped up a corrupt Banking Regime, both parties have refused to fix a broken immigration system, and both parties have acted in the interests of Big Pharma, Monsanto, and crony capitalism. Even as I write, even the Democratic National Committee is moving to eviscerate the Financial Consumer Protection Agency.

The prospect of a Trump Presidency is scary. But more scary is the situation that both Democrats and Republicans have created by pandering for votes, by playing divide and conquer with racial and class politics.

The Trump phenomenon is the result of a classic failure of career politicians to lead. He is your creation.

A gay man defends his right to keep and bare firearms

Dear Kim Davis: This Christian Says "You're 100% Wrong."

Dear Kim, I know you are presenting yourself as a victim of persecution: persecution of religious folk who simply want to excercse their faith, persecution by a totalitarian judiciary that is imposing law on average citizens, persecution by a vocal and strident gay minority who are insisting on violating your sincerely-held beliefs, conscience, and deepest religious convictions. Think Again.

First, let me introduce myself to you. I am a Christian. I am a Gay man. I am an attorney who fully embraces the civil liberties enshrined on our Constitution.

Throughout your protestations, you have made fools of the majority of Christians in this country, you have made fools of the people of Kentucky, and you have employed a tortured and innovative interpretation of Constitutional Rights.

You, Madam Clerk, insist that you are being denied your right to live out your faith. I call Balderdash.

No one is telling you to marry a woman. No one is telling that you must engage in homosexuality. In fact, no one is even telling you that you should change your mind, your beliefs, or your most sincerely held religious convictions.

But when you are acting as County Clerk, you are not acting as Kim Davis - you are acting as an agent of the Government.

The First Amendment has a long, time-honored and cherished history in this country. It reads, in part (in case you haven't actually read it) as follows:

Amendent I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Amendment XIV: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Taken together, this is very simple: Under Amendment I, the federal government may not impose a religion upon the nation, nor may it prevent private citizens from exercising their religion. Under Amendment 14, the prohibitions imposed on the federal government are extended to State governments.

A lesson in civics, dear: Counties are administrative units of States. When you act as County Clerk, you are acting under the authority of the State - not as a private citizen. You are therefore bound by a Constitution which mandates that States must abide by the same rules as the federal government when it comes to citizen's rights. And what are our rights? To not have a particular religion and it's doctrine 'established' as official policy.

As a private citizen, you may believe as you wish, protest as you wish, worship as you wish, and even campaign for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Marriage Equality.

As an agent of the State, you may not impose or establish a religious test on the citizens. It's very, very simple.

But I'll take it even further: As a Christian, you need to stop speaking for the Church, speaking for God, and making grand pronouncements about what you believe the Bible requires as if your position is Infallible In fact, dear, your statements are erroneous at best, and blasphemous at worst: you have presumed to speak for God on the issue.

Millions of Christians in this nation support same-sex marriage. Numerous denominations have endorsed same-sex marriage, ordination of gays and lesbians, and full GLBT equality. For you to presume to 'declare' what is or is not biblical, or Christian, or "God's Position" on the issue is the worst form of arrogance: you presume to speak on God's behalf. Shame on you.

Your approach is not supported legally, Constitutionally, or theologically.

It's time to retire from public life, consider the damage you have done to other Christians and Kentuckians by association, and reconsider your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing motivations.It's bad enough you have made a fool of yourself and a circus of Rowan County - but in addition, you have betrayed your faith, your God, your public trust, and your Constitution.

.

Gay Marriage: The Court's Four Choices

We are counting down the days to the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. I am not going to use this post to argue the cause for GLBT equality; rather, I am laying out the possible outcomes based on the multiple legal issues in the case at hand. Since news reporters will be tripping all over themselves to be the first to report, it is likely they will report the majority decision without going too deep into the nuances – and the nuances are important.

Although the case is called Obergefell v Hodges (an Ohio case), there are actually four cases involved: Obergefell v Hodges (Ohio), Tanco v Haslam (Tennessee), Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky) and DeBoer v Snyder (Michigan). These four cases are from the four states that comprise the 6th Circuit, the only federal circuit court that has ruled against finding a right to same-sex marriage.

Contrary to popular understanding, Obergefell, Tanco, and Bourke do not directly address the question of whether states must permit same-sex marriage; all three are cases where a valid same-sex marriage was performed in another state, and the plaintiffs are suing to have their marriages recognized in their new home states. Only DeBoer raises the issue of same-sex marriage within their home state Michigan, and even that case is a little tortured because the original suit was brought against a Michigan law forbidding adoption by same-sex couples, not the actual marriage statute; the complaint was later amended to address the issue of same-sex marriage in Michigan.

With that as background, the Justices have a wide variety of choices open to them. I present them from the narrowest to the broadest possible rulings:

1) Full Faith & Credit: SCOTUS could address the very narrow issue as to whether or not a state that prohibits same-sex marriage must recognize valid same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The precedents are somewhat divided here: interracial marriages must be recognized across state boundaries, but other marriages – such as that between cousins (which are permitted in some states, but not others) or between young people (state marriage laws vary, some permitting 16 year olds to marry, while one requires an age of 19) have been decidedly inconsistent. In a narrow ruling, the suits would be decided under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution. Even if the couples win, it would not require the states in the 6th Circuit to legalize same-sex marriage: it would only require them to recognize valid marriages performed elsewhere. This is the least likely scenario (but it is possible) and would happen only if Justice Kennedy felt it necessary to ‘slow down” the march toward GLBT equality. A win, but a disappointment, and the battle continues.

2) Gender Bias. Raised as a possibility by Justice Roberts, this approach would apply the existing law that outlaws discrimination based on gender without a compelling state interest. In oral arguments, Roberts asked, “If Sue can marry Tom but John can not marry Tom, isn’t this a simple case of gender bias?" This has several advantages: it would effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the US, while creating no new law or precedent; it is also a way for the conservatives to further the issue of same-sex marriage without specifying specific “gay” rights. This approach would probably have a decisive majority of 6-3, or even 7-2, with Roberts (and possibly Alito) joining in the majority. Since this is basic existing law, gender discrimination, no new law, no new rights or ‘protected’ status for gays would be granted. This could be 6-3 or even 7-2, which would add a sense of legitimacy to the court’s ruling, and would be the 'compromise' approach in an effort to gain the widest acceptance of the decision. To me, this is a very possible outcome.

3) Equal Protection Clause. This would immediately result in legal same-sex marriage across the country, and, by applying it to gays and lesbians, would create a new application of this clause. This approach has the advantage of a clear statement concerning GLBT marriage rights, but would be more controversial than choice #2 above; it would likely be a 5-4 (possibly 6-3) decision. This is the outcome most LGBT groups are looking for.

4) Heightened Scrutiny/Protected Class. This would be the most far-reaching approach, and would affect not only marriage, but every law in every state that discriminates against gays and lesbians (such as employment and job termination, adoption, etc). Under current US law, it IS legal to discriminate between groups if the government has a rational basis. So, for instance, a state may pass a law requiring 7 years of school for doctor licensing, 5 for dentists, and 8 for anesthesiologists if they so choose. This is the standard the 6th Circuit applied to the state laws in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky. However, if a group of people is found to have been the subject of ‘animus’ (hatred) resulting in discriminatory laws, then the government must go beyond a mere rational basis; they must prove a “compelling state interest” in order to discriminate. This is a very high standard, and laws almost never meet it. If the Court decides that gays and lesbians are to be considered a protected class, there are several ramifications: first, nothing might happen initially: the Court could send all four cases back to the 6th Circuit for a re-hearing under the new standard. Justice delayed. However, in the long-term, this would affect single every law in the nation that discriminates against gays and lesbians. It is the most sweeping choice; gays would win the most rights for the long term, and the decision (like Roe v Wade) would also generate the most controversy. It is highly doubtful that this could be anything better than a 5-4 vote…and in fact, somewhat unlikely, Justice Kennedy would need to go further out on a limb than he ever has to make this happen. the dissenting opinion would likely be vicious, and conservative political groups would have the most ammunition against the court.

Of course, the Supreme Court often surprises…and often the majority vote is fractured into majority and concurring and dissenting opinions, so elements of all of the above may actually be part of a very complicated decision.

Dear Chronically Late Student:

Dear Student,

I want to address your criticism and disdain over my “poor attitude” concerning your attendance habits. It is clear that you think I’m some sort of ogre for being annoyed at your constant lateness and cavalier attitude towards actually attending class, submitting work by the assigned deadline, or taking an exam at the appointed time.

Let me explain something to you.

This is a class called “Introduction to Business.” It is designed to expose you to the work habits, issues, and dynamics of today’s business world.

Now, I realize that I may be a little bit old-fashioned. In my day (yes, I hear your groans and see your eyes roll), if the train left the Long Island Railroad Station at 7:15am, I did not wander up to the platform at 7:17 and expect it to be waiting for me. And I knew that the excuse, “Sorry, I missed my train” was not an excuse at all. It was a cause for termination. You see, if I am expected to start work at 9:00 am – and if I expect to get paid beginning at 9:00 am – that does not mean I am combing my hair in the bathroom at 9:15 and then wandering over to the coffee machine and getting around to turn on my computer at 9:30. It means I am working at 9:00 am, so when a customer calls with a problem, I am prepared to efficiently and courteously assist them.

So you are correct, I am annoyed when you seem to think that it’s perfectly fine to wander into a 9:00 am class at 9:05, 9:15, or even later, because I should somehow be honored that you chose to show up at all. I don’t care that your gas tank was low, that you burned your toast, or that you didn't anticipate that the snow might cause slower travel times. You are interrupting the class and the flow of learning, and worse, depriving your fellow students of all the wisdom you have to impart on the subject we just discussed (The very subject for which you will demand personal tutoring and explanation just before the exam, at your convenience, of course.)

And that report that was due at the beginning of class on Thursday? No, it’s not “OK if I print it off after class,” or “give it to you tomorrow,” or “just email it over the weekend because my thumb drive wasn’t working right.”

Let me explain: When I worked in an office competing for government grants, we were given strict deadlines – to the minute – to submit our proposals. When a dozen competing proposals came in, had I sauntered in 5 minutes late with our proposal, it wasn’t “OK;” it meant I just blew a chance of securing a 5 million dollar contract for my office. And it also meant that I was incredibly disrespectful to my co-workers, because all of their work on the proposal was for nothing.

And yes, when the UPS man is rushing to pick up your line of next season’s designer clothing for the Fashion Show, and you aren’t ready because “tomorrow is good enough,” you just blew your chance to sell a line of clothing to every department store in the country – and 30 months of pre-planning just went down the drain.

How do you think your co-workers and employer will feel about that?

I suggest you learn this lesson NOW.

Yes, sometimes cats run out the door and get hit by cars. Yes, your child suddenly falls ill. Yes, flat tires happen.

That doesn't mean you get a “freebie.” What it means is that you learn that these are the things that happen in the normal course of life, and if you have a deadline, you plan to meet your deadline ahead of time – you don’t start the night before and then expect a free ride when nothing is ready in the morning. Rushing in at the last minute because it's "on time" is little more than "adequate;" it is the minimum to be expected. It's nothing special.

Perhaps you’re seeking an employer who is a little more lenient than I am.

Good Luck.

Better to learn this now than when your mortgage, auto loan, and kid’s soccer tuition depends upon your steady paycheck.

Planning on being self-employed so you don't have to put up with being told what to do? I got news for you: you will need to be even more diligent in your work, because your customers won't stand for the quality of delivery that you have exhibited.

So, call me mean, rigid, and old-fashioned. If I have presented you with a standard that requires you to grow and change – I have done my job. If you're not into that sort of thing, consider dropping the course while you can still get your tuition back.

I’ll bet that's one thing you will do on time…

Fascism and American Sports,,,

Let me say at the start that I truly enjoy sporting events, and teach a college course in sports economics. I have raised funds and brought many students to their first professional games: basketball, baseball, soccer. Growing up on Long Island, NY, I was a child of the NY Islanders Dynasty.

I also have reason to support military veterans, whether it be at the college at which I teach, or from a more personal perspective: My son is a Marine, my uncle was a Navyman, and I’m in the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

But I am also a student of history, and what I see occurring at sports stadiums today is frightening at best.

In his 2003 seminal essay, “The 14 Characteristics of Fascism” in Free Inquiry Magazine, political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt summarized the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. Some of these include:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – [the] constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, [and] songs….in public displays

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals...

Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding... Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment - The police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism.


Enter the Sport Stadium: the largest on-going collection of citizens in "public displays."

Now, I expect the National Anthem at the start of a sporting event. I look forward to it, to be honest. And I even appreciate the playing of other nation’s anthems when the match is international. But the trend is now towards something very unsettling – so unsettling that it’s reminiscent of the elements of Fascist Propaganda cited above.

The last time I went to a Mets game Citifield, I have to admit that I was a little uncomfortable when I was exposed to a “new tradition” in the 6th inning: the announcer required that we all stand, sing God Bless America, and participate in honoring ‘the veteran of the day.’ The fact that a stadium full of thousands dutifully rose as soon as they were told to, in order to honor the military, should cause some pause. In fact, it’s downright chilling.
I thought this was a one-time special event; I have since observed this ceremony multiple times, at multiple baseball stadiums. It’s now the norm.
This past week, the Washington Post revealed a ‘formal,’ paid relationship between the government and the NFL for much the same type of intertwining of the military state and sport.

As articulately expressed by www.FreeThoughtProject.com,

“The national anthem is a long, drawn-out, pregame event. There’ll be a flyover by the Blue Angels at the perfect, climactic moment. During a break in the action, some soldier returning from Afghanistan or any other foreign war-zone will be reunited with his family while the stadium erupts in deafening applause and heart wrenching sobs.

Well, hold off on purchasing those tickets just yet, because the Washington Post found something interesting this week. All this patriotic propaganda- the troop-salutes, the banner ads, even the community service events where troops and NFL teams “build or re-build” a playground together, come with a price tag.
Fourteen NFL teams were paid a total of $5.4 million by the Department of Defense to cover the nationalistic propaganda filling downtime during the games.”

That’s right: not some organic, groundswell of thanks to our vets; but a paid program by the Pentagon to create a pro-military groupthink at a captured audience. Think about that.

So yesterday, perhaps my sensitivity was on high alert, but what I saw at a Major League Soccer game was equally scary. Soccer – often thought of as the international, or even “un-American” sport – took its required worship of the Police State to yet another level.

In the wake of the murder of NY Police Officer Brian Moore – thousands of police officers from around the nation lined the highways of Seaford, NY for his funeral. It was portrayed as a show of “support” for the officer and his family – but of course, the majority of those in attendance wouldn’t have known him if they had tripped over him when he was alive. Rather, at a time when police wrongdoing is revealed daily on websites such as CopBlock.org, this was not a show of respect as much as a show of force: the Blue Line that protects its own, showing its muscle and demanding respect and awe from the public.

The start of the inaugural match between the New York Red Bulls and the New York City Football Club in Harrison, NJ, was launched with a moment of silence for the slain officer (I could argue that while police officers get such treatment, hundreds of innocent Americans slain by police get no such honor…but I won’t belabor that point.) But then the players entered the field – with black armbands. They didn't read, “Moore” – they read “NYPD.”

Yes, I have a problem with that.

At a time when there is a public relations war between the cops and the citizens they are supposed to serve; when police defiantly turn their back on the Mayor of New York City when he dares to criticize their tactics; when courtrooms have revealed the systematic and routine planting of evidence on innocent citizens; when military equipment and armaments are being distributed to civilian forces – yes, I have a problem with two sports teams being required by their league to “take sides.” When I was insolent enough to suggest so on a Supporters Club website, the post was removed by administrators with no explanation.

When I was merely 2 years old, none other than General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned,

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

BBC’s documentary “Fascism and Football” is described thusly: “A documentary on how the Fascist regimes of Spain, Italy and Germany made football an important pillar of their propaganda and the lengths they went to in order to control the sport…”

Sports Fans, take note: The next time the masses at the stadium is told what to do, and how to do it, and when to do it, in an effort to honor the Police State – be aware of how you are being used – and the history behind it.

Corporate Personhood - a Historical and Necessary Legal Concept

If you support the right to advertise contraception, even if it ‘offends’ some people; if you believe that newspapers need to be able to report on corruption in government; and if you think that big banks need to be prosecuted when they conspire to manipulate currency and commodity prices – then thank the concept of Corporate Personhood.

In the wake of the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby decisions, many people are just coming to see that corporations are often treated as ‘persons’ under the law, and are upset about it;  many believe it’s an invention of a runaway, pro-corporate court.

But nothing could be further from the truth.  The concept of Corporate Personhood – and of corporate rights under the Constitution – is as old as our Republic itself.  Having grown weary of trying to argue this point over and over in limited space on Facebook, I decided to put my thoughts into one longer blog post, and stroll through some of the critically important background relating to corporate personhood.

1. Freedom of the Press – Surely the founding fathers understood, when they penned that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom..of the press” (First Amendment) that they meant newspapers and corporate media, and not just individual reporters. Indeed, two of the most important decisions in this century protecting a free press protected a corporate entity: The New York Times.

In 1964, the New York Times claimed that the arrest of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Montgomery, Ala., was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. In response, Montgomery city commissioner L.B. Sullivan filed a libel action against the newspaper as a corporation.  The Court ruled, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, that even though some of the newspaper’s statements were in fact false, that the corporation was protected by the First Amendment.  

Seven years later, a second blockbuster case arose involving the NY Times: New York Times Co. vs. United States.

In 1971, as the nation heatedly debated its involvement in the Vietnam War, the Times obtained a copy of an internal Defense Department report detailing government discussions about the war. These confidential documents would become famously known as the Pentagon Papers. At the U.S. government's request, the district court issued a temporary injunction ordering the New York Times not to publish the documents, claiming that the publication of the documents would endanger national security. The Times appealed, arguing that prior restraint (preventing publication) violated the First Amendment. Once again, the Supreme Court ruled (6-3) in favor of the Times. 

Yes, the Corporation had rights under the Constitution, even as against government arguments of national security.

2. Freedom of Speech:  “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

In the 1970s, New York State enacted a law prohibiting anyone other than a licensed pharmacist from distributing nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, prohibiting the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and prohibiting anyone, including licensed pharmacists, from advertising or displaying contraceptives.

Population Services International was a North Carolina corporation that distributed birth control knowledge and services. The corporation sold and advertised contraceptives to New Yorkers  primarily through mail-order retail sale of nonmedical contraceptive devices, which was a violation of the New York law. 

In Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional: 

“The prohibition of any advertisement or display of any contraceptives that seeks to suppress completely any information about the availability and price of contraceptives cannot be justified on the ground that advertisements of contraceptive products would offend and embarrass those exposed to them and that permitting them would legitimize sexual activity of young people. These are not justifications validating suppression of expression, which are protected by Amendment I. The advertisements in question simply state the availability of products that are not only entirely legal, but also constitutionally protected."

The case is critical because it ruled that a corporation, Population Services International, had free speech rights. Without corporate personhood, New York State could have legally squashed advertising for contraception.

3. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

For almost 100 years, this right of  “the people” has been extended to corporations.

In 1924, the US Federal Trade Commission – acting on its own - demanded internal documents and private communications from the American Tobacco Co., and denied that any warrant or cause was needed.  In FTC v. American Tobacco Co. - 264 U.S. 298 (1924), the Court held,

“A governmental fishing expedition into the papers of a private corporation, on the possibility that they may disclose evidence of crime, is so contrary to first principles of justice, if not defiant of the Fourth Amendment, that an intention to grant [that] power to a[n]agency will not be attributed to Congress unless expressed in most explicit language…We cannot attribute to Congress an intent to defy the Fourth Amendment, or even to come so near to doing so as to raise a serious question of constitutional law.”

And so yes, your desk and office and items in your workplace are subject to the same protections that you have elsewhere…because 4^th amendment rights have been bestowed on businesses as well.

5. Double Jeopardy – most of us growing up watching police dramas know that you can not be tried for the same crime twice once you are acquitted.  It is the 5^th Amendment that offers us that protection:

[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .

Note that the wording is very specific: no person.

And yet, this too has always been seen as applying to corporations. 

In 1977, the Martin Linen Supply Company was brought up on charges for collusion, and after a trial by jury, acquitted.  The US Government sought to bring the same charges again, and in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the right against double jeopardy clearly applied to the company, and the suit was tossed. (United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co, 430 U.S. 564 (1977).

6. Due Process and Equal Protection – Two places in the Constitution address these rights.

The 5^th Amendment provides:

[N] or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . , and

Section One of the 14^th Amendment provides:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .

In general, these two clauses require that laws be transparent and equitably enforced by both the federal government and state governments. A law must be clear, fair, and have a presumption of innocence to comply with procedural due process; all have a right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner, the right to be present at the trial, and the right to an impartial jury; Taxes may only be taken for public purposes, property may be taken by the government only for public purposes, and owners of taken property must be fairly compensated .

The 14^th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War, and even though it clearly states ‘person,’ the same generation that adopted the amendment understood it to apply to  corporations. In  Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral arguments on a case by stating, 

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."  

 

7. The view that corporations are ‘persons’ within the meaning of the law is not just limited to Constitutional Law, but to statutory Law as well, for well over a century.  The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890  - which is still alive and valid today – was the first federal law to go after monopolization and corporate collusion. And yet, read this critical section:

Section 2: 

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felon.”

“Person.”  And for 124 years, we have understood that “person” also refers to corporations. 

In fact, just two weeks ago, it was reported that JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and the London Metal Exchange Ltd. were hit with a class action in New York federal court alleging they schemed to manipulate zinc prices by hoarding it in LME warehouses in order to artificially spike its price.

The suit against the corporations was brought under section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which addresses “persons.”

8. Finally – and perhaps conclusively – is the Dictionary Act of 1947 (Ch 388, 61 Stat. 633; commonly referred to 1 US Code Section 1.

It defines terms for US laws this way:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

words importing the plural include the singular;

words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;

words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

The notion of Corporate Personhood has been supported by almost every provision of American Constitutional Law and legal jurisprudence, and has been since our founding.  You may not like some of the decisions that rely on that concept, but, over the course of American history, the concept has carried out what the Constitution was designed to do:  enhance the rights of private entities, of whatever make-up, and restrict the power of government.

.