User talk:Corps And Fourteenth Amend. 2012

Capitalism and Morality
Capitalism and Morality are two subjects that should always be addresed simulataneously. Many of the Founding Fathers were post Enlightment scholars and were eager to free themselves of the tyrannical rule of many kings in Europe. They were men of rational thought and sought to establish a nation that was devoid of many of the trappings of European monarchies. Capitalism was the economic philosophy that many of the Founding Fathers followed, but is our current "free market" capitalism the future they envisioned. While the Founders most likely had a wide range of views when it came to the topic of morality they tried to protect the people of the United States as best they could with such lines as "all men are created equal". But were statements like these enough to protect the people from the greed that rests on the back of the double edged sword called Capitalism.

Corporations Provide Advancement for Education
Corporations hold an important place in society. They have access to creativity, resources, and motivation that can further societal goals. Government doesn't have the ability to be a risk-taker or creative because they have the people to answer to. However corporations have the advantage of being able to take risks, because they just have their investors to answer to. With this ability, for-profit schools like Pheonix can try out new educational paradigms and push the boundaries of what we think education is supposed to look like. The problems that american schools are facing today can be solved through the inventive nature of corporations.

Occupy LA & Corporate Personhood
On December 3, just two days before Occupy L.A. was evicted by police, the General Assembly of the occupation passed a unanimous resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/brooke-jarvis/la-and-occupy-la-agree-its-time-to-end-corporate-personhood (EW)

The Other Side of What Corporations Provide
In response to a previous post about some of the positive things that corporations provide I would like to share this topic about some of the mindless garbage that corporations also provide. I think there has been a mistaken assertion that if you come out against some of the illegal and immoral activites that many corporations engage in that you are somehow against capitalism or free market economies, which couldnt be further from the truth. I think that corporations having the ability to operate with reckless disregard for human life and liberty just so they can make shareholders happy and increase their bottom line profits is insanely disrespectful to fellow man and counterintuitive to acheiveing real harmonious interactions between fellow human beings.

"Government doesn't have the ability to be a risk-taker or creative because they have the people to answer to. However corporations have the advantage of being able to take risks, because they just have their investors to answer to." These statements highlight exactly why we are in the current position as a scoiety that we find ourselves. Corporations know that governments have to, atleast in America they do, they have to give the appearnce that everybody no matter how big or small rich or powerful black or white has the same say if they choose to participate in government by voting and other various activites. Because governments are supposed to be governed by representatives whom are duly elected and supposed to represent the best interests of the community in which he ran for office. Corporations on the other hand only have to answer to their shareholders and usually this "answering" is nominal and really means that corporation have to keep making their shareholders enough money to not realize that this is all one big scam. And why are these "investors" so important, they are just groups of ordinary people who through various routes acquired enough capital to invest some of their "disposable income". Yet these investors are the only check and balance on the corporate entity which can exist forever, acquire vasts amounts of wealth and escape any actual criminal liability by paying fines or corrupting politicians and laws to be in their favor. So while corporations do provide a service they provide this service at a severe cost to us all. While we sit back and twiddle our thumbs corporations and their vast amounts of wealth power and influence continue to push the envelope on how openly they can corrupt our government and monopolize the messages that we receive through the media which is one of corporations biggest tools of control. Imagine if you or I had the money power control and capability to flood the minds of Americans with ideas of equality and restraint, and imagine if we had these capabitlites for over a 150 years through corruption of the political process. America might be a very differnt place, however corporations that preach excess and consumerism have been the puppet masters pulling the strings so instead we get things like this:

"Forget M.I.A’s Bird-Flip, Worry About Pop’s Sexual Moral Decline It’s hard to believe it’s been eight years since Janet Jackson’s ‘Nipplegate’ and the Superbowl has been seriously lacking a good scandal until now. Yes we all love a spot of moral outrage and thanks to naughty M.I.A’s, ahem, ‘finger malfunction’ during Grand High Priestess Madge’s Egyptian-Greco-Roman Superbowl spectacle, under the terms of M.I.A’s contract, she now faces a fine to the tune of hundreds of thousands levied by the United States’ Federal Communications Commission. Ouch. Given the track was mimed and pre-recorded, evil side-eyes should be thrown at other parties for allowing this to happen rather than M.I.A herself. In a playground-esque blame game of ‘I didn’t do it, he did!’ the NFL finger-pointed at NBC, “The NFL hired the talent and produced the half-time show,” they cried! Whilst NBC are framing the NFL, “There was a failure in NBC’s delay system. The obscene gesture in the performance was completely inappropriate, very disappointing, and we apologise.” M.I.A’s camp just blamed nerves. Right. Cue Operation Damage Control. Sure the bird-flip was pretty ill-judged – but when you book a provocative performer like M.I.A what did they expect? Given the utter degeneration and hyper-sexualisation of our current crop of female pop performers (Rihanna, Katy Perry, Gaga et al - you know who you are) in terms of debasing, offensive, inappropriate performances, M.I.A.’s middle-finger salute was little more than a cheeky nose-thumbing. Now don’t panic, I’m not gonna get all Daily Mail on your ass wailing, “Won’t somebody please think of the children??” I’m no prude right-winger but this moral outcry over a daft rebellious gesture serves only to illustrate how Western society’s collective moral compass is seriously askew. If we can froth and pant and seethe over a one second gesture yet simultaneously, gluttonously, ravenously consume toxic pop imagery damaging to impressionable young girls then I have to wonder what the hell is up? The Parents Television Council accused the NFL of booking “performers who have based their careers on shock, profanity and titillation. Either the NFL and NBC will take immediate steps to hold those accountable for this offensive material in front of a hundred million Americans, or they will feebly sit back and do nothing.” I do wonder, how many of it’s members have taken their daughter to a Nicki Minaj concert. The recipe for an archetypal MTV music video now goes a little something like this: take one large slice of hooker-ish attire, mix throughly with a dollop of gyrating and crotch-flashing, add a splash of ghetto-chic, serve it up with S&M overtones and optionally season well with some dark, satanic symbology thrown in for good measure. Yummy! A new pop star’s contract is more Faustian pact than record deal and it frightens me how dumbed-down and culturally-opiated the West has become to accept this as the norm. Music videos are a hypnotic portal of lethal influence: the current pop landscape is awash with over-sexualisation, dehumanisation/transhuman, mutilation/ritual and militarization /police state themes. Clever purposeful programming to debase and disassociate us from social norms. The age-old retort of, “It’s not the pop star’s fault it’s the parents for letting them see it” is moot. That there should be parental responsibility is not in doubt – it goes without saying – but is it possible for parents to police the TV, internet, radio and magazine stands at all times? I think not. This imagery is omnipresent, pervasive and corrosive whichever way you look. Anyway, all the above aside, Madge’s turgid Gimme All Your Luvin’ song was frankly more offensive than M.I.A’s mid-finger-flip. Madonna’s talent has always lied in hijacking a subculture before it permeates the mainstream and intelligently bringing it into our consciousness. For all her commendable gymnastic ability (homegirl sure worked those moves) her last few albums have been a case of idly rent-an-already-huge-star rather than appropriating a bubbling-under trend making it your own. It’s literally a case of cool-by-association ‘If I can’t beat ‘em nowadays, I may as well rope ‘em in to make me cred.’ Madge now appears more lazy coat-tail rider than the radical pop-pioneer she once was. Maybe she only has herself to blame? After all, she flaunted those overtly sexual vibes in a pop arena first (albeit with subversion and wit) thus opening the floodgates for the new blood to follow, pushing her sexual agenda – both worryingly and potentially – to the point of no return."

At the celebratory event of American and global consumption and decadence called the Superbowl which is an extravaganza of commercial marketing and influence we got more of the message that corporate America wants to propagate- "Do what thou wilt"

In Reply to: Goldberg: People Inc
In Response to Johna Goldberg, At the offset of 2012 Corporate Personhood stormed the streets of Los Angeles as Occupy movements spread across the country demanding their rights and speaking out against corporate personhood. This OpEd http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/17/opinion/la-oe-goldberg-corporations-20120117 was featured in the LA Times and I would like to respond. It is suggested that corporate personhood is only a legal standing granting corporations certain rights. Mr. Goldberg readily admits that if corporations were in fact persons in the literal meaning some of our officials and businessmen would be murders and convicted felons.

As Mr. Goldberg would lead you to believe corporations enjoy some type of partial personhood status in the law. The last time in American history we gave partial personhood to a group was to the African American community as we transitioned out of slavery. The difference between these two situations lies in that for African Americans partial personhood was a handicap that helped disable their rights in society, however for corporations partial personhood is used as an advantage. Corporations ruin lives, are the proximate causes of deaths, and separate the classes helping the rich get richer and the poor remain poor. Yet, they are afforded legal protections and are not held liable for these crimes as the individuals standing behind these corporations are excused for making so called business decisions.

Mr. Goldberg mentioned that corporations are not able to vote in an attempt to dilute the notion that corporations are persons in the literal meaning. However, absent going to the ballot I would argue that corporations largely in part influence the outcome of elections. As individuals the constitution affords us the right to vote, but not necessarily the right to have your vote counted. This means that every vote casted is important since in the end there is a level of un-surety surrounding exactly which votes will be counted. With super pac’s being able to collect unlimited amounts of corporate donations/funds to back a certain political party, and the high employment rates of government officials who have formerly worked for and created relationships with corporations it is impossible to say that corporations do not have voting power in the United States.

Mr. Goldberg expresses the importance of corporate personhood to protect corporations from police invasion. However, I think that corporations have enjoyed this privacy liberty interest long enough. There is no sense of corporate responsibility to the public, in the worst circumstances corporations are fined for their bad behaviors. But when you are receiving government subsidies that equate to those same million dollar fines there is no recourse for the public, and no encouragement to corporations to take different actions. If corporations are in fact persons as Citizens United would suggest then they should be held liable for the hardships and crimes they are responsible for like any other individual in society. We send illiterate youths to jail every day for crimes they do not fully understand and trying to feed themselves and their families. Yet, we allow educated majority white men to get away with crimes they fully appreciate, break laws intentionally, and market hazardous products without any true punishment as they hide behind their “legal status” as corporate persons. (EW)

BONKERS BANKER IN CALI
This post is in response to an article that I recently read. The article which i will post later in the writing details an incident at a restaurant in Newport Beach, California where an obviously arrogant and egocentric banker left one of the most disgusting displays of non empathy and gross hypocrisy known to man in recent history. I post this article because of the sentiments expressed by this banker and by many people in postions of authority like the Atlanta Police Dept. who expressed similar sentiments about the 99% and Occupy Wall Street when I was recently home. The audacity of a "banker" to tell someone to get a real job after leaving a paltry tip really struck a nerve with me. Here is this woman who works in a food service industry and not as a franchiser or upper level management but on the "frontlines" actually serving the people who keep the business well in business. This woman doesnt get to hide her mistakes behing a "business judgment rule" and she is not allowed to pre contract her liability by incorporating or forming as a partnership. "Bankers" and the corporations they "finance" are able to operate because they can take hard working people's money and either hold the money in "safe keeping" or as we learned from the 2008 financial disaster gamble with these people's money with the knowledge that if they took too many risks the government would use those same hard working taxpayer dollars to bailout these risky actions. Banking isnt a real job instead it is a way to control prices and "classes". If people were allowed to exchange value in a wide range of ways(instead of cash or their equivalents which banks just so happen to provide these services for)then people wouldnt be slaves or indentured servants to their debts and debtors(banks and corporations). Banks charge interest in order to make sure that basically the person who borrows remains indebted to them with no real way of making it out of the "hole" they dug. Bankers play games with money which means nothing unless we the 99% continue to believe in the value of the green paper they hold over our heads(federal reserve BANK controls how much money is printed and the rates at which we repay on the money they print-fyi there is no oversight of the federal reseve dont ya feel great :). I wonder what "real job" this "banker" would have if people stopped banking with him or if the way we exchanged value in this capitalistic society. Here is the article:

Just when you may have thought the ongoing battle between the 99% and the 1% was dying down, it may have been reignited. A wealthy banker left a $1.33 tip on a $133 lunch at the True Food Kitchen restaurant in Newport Beach, California.

To add insult to injury the word "tip" was circled on the receipt, and the banker wrote "get a real job" on the bill. The picture of the receipt was taken and uploaded to the blog Future Ex-Banker by a person who was dining with the anonymous banker. As expected, the blog received a lot of attention and has now been taken down. The author of the blog wrote, "mention the 99% in my boss' presence and feel his wrath. So proudly does he wear his 1% badge of honor that he tips exactly 1% every time he feels the server doesn't sufficiently bow down to his holiness."

People online who had a chance to see the blog post before it went offline and those who have been made aware of it on social media outlets are outraged. One person called the tip a "tale of greed and contempt," and another referred to it as "arrogance personified." The Web's general reaction to this story is eerily similar to an almost identical 1% vs. 99% scenario that took place last fall. In Washington state, a waitress received a tip of no money and advice scrawled on the receipt that told her she could "stand to lose a few pounds."

Corruption & Corporations: The Murdoch Family
As with any other legal idea or regulation Corporate Personhood did not mean a lot in the minds of millions of American’s who had not seen the realities of what corporate personhood meant for corporations and their corruption. One of the first examples of how serious this issue is and the protections this provides for corporations played out with the Murdoch family and the NewsCorp scandals. While internationally they were held to a different legal standard, this type of scandal is what corporate personhood enables. Millions of Americans are informed by a media outlet under the control of the Murdoch family among millions of other people in the world. When privacy violations began to emerge on behalf of the corporations, executives and officials stepped down from their esteemed positions but were not reprimanded by the law. The corporations still carried on their daily activities, and the billion dollar empire the family has built was in no way injured by the mediocre fines and settlements that were paid out. Here we have a billion dollar family who controls one of the largest media outlets in the world, who are allegedly tapping into phone lines and invading the privacy of thousands of people then printing their personal business. In other news a student was held guilty this past week for invading the privacy of his college roommate who committed suicide; and is facing deportation. However, James Murdoch who was the Chairman & Chief Exec of NewsCorp during the privacy invasions and police corruption is still walking amongst the billionaires, and enjoying his seat of the NewsCorp Board of Directors essentially still making decisions for the corporation. Where is the justice? Because of corporate personhood billionaires like the Murdoch’s who have enough influence to corrupt police investigations, invade the privacy of the famous, and pick and choose what to report to the general public are committing all types of heinous crimes with no recourse for their actions in American courts. The Murdoch family and their views effect the public daily as they report and indirectly advocate for their own political and social views through general publications. Outside of the news and publications the Murdoch family highly influences our politics as well donating millions of dollars to the Chamber of Commerce, Republican Governors Assc., and other political groups and candidates. The thought that the same individuals overseeing corporations that are violating privacy rights, and bribing the police are the same individuals funding our politicians scares me. However, corporate personhood has allowed this to become the reality of our governmental influence from outside wealth. While the Murdoch family is only one of the families whose personal and business views and decisions effect our every day lives, they are one of the most influential and one of the best examples of how corruption in corporations, politics, and the law intertwine. (EW)

Interesting article on the 14th Amendment & Corporations under a racial perspective http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf
(EW)

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroluem OpEd (EW)
The SCOTUS has agreed to take on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum in an attempt to define the scope of corporate personhood and human rights. The court has released the issue in the case as such, Issue: (1) Whether the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a merits question or instead an issue of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) whether corporations are immune from tort liability for violations of the law of nations such as torture, extrajudicial executions or genocide may instead be sued in the same manner as any other private party defendant under the ATS for such egregious violations; and (3) whether and under what circumstances the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. While I commend the court for taking on the case and attempting to define a legal standard for corporations social responsibility I am not convinced that the court will decide on the right side of the argument. In a number of previous decisions corporations and the individuals running corporations have escaped prosecution and indictment for their “business decisions”. While the United States is very active in the international community as a country we thrive off of the goods being produced out of a lot of the countries who are committing human rights violations. Further a lot of Americans have taken on the attitude that it is the home country who has a duty to protect their citizens from such demeaning practices, taking the light off of the economic pressures states are put in trying to compete or survive without the help of American government and corporations. American corporations are intricately connected to our political agenda, economic status, and social well being. Allowing these corporations to be excused from liability when they are engaging in acts that equate to or aide in violating individuals human rights they should be held responsible not only as an entity but individually for the role they play. Under criminal law the acts would be those of co-conspirators each which would be individually liable. However, because of corporate personhood protections the individuals who are making the decisions to aid and abet governments in their torture and extrajudicial killings (as in Kiobel) are not being forced to take legal responsibility and instead their actions, are being supported by their companies as they climb the corporate ladder. The SCOTUS has the opportunity to change the face of human rights and corporate responsibility in this case, lets hope the right decision is made in spite of our legal precedent.

Big Business & Big Government = Match made in Heaven
Lets start with the premise that Governments are supposed to govern and businesses are supposed to be busy doing the business of whatever service or trade or field the entity is in. If everything goes according to plan the governments are supposed to provide an environment in which the people who run the businesses can do so on a fair playing field and the people who run the businesses can produce capital and develop resources in a way that is fair to the people who buy or use their products. What happens when these two separate entities interests' become comingled and roles and responsibilities are blurred. I believe the answer is the current state of affairs that we have in modern day America, where government and certain big businesses have essentially become partners in a corporation, and we the people are the lowly grunts who are around for the ride but cant actually do any of the riding. We are left to sit on the sidelines and hope that one day if I swindle and hoodwink enough people like the CEO's and Congressmen of today that maybe we can get in on the action. This post is actually inspired by the presentation by one of our fellow classmates on the lack of privacy that we have just in the area of cell phone data and usage. His presentation was an exercise in recognizing how intertwined government and big buisness has become. In order for the government to be Big Brother that it is whereby seemingly all our daily movements are being tracked monitored and recorded for reasons that are not usually disclosed they need the technical and physical capabilities to do so. Now if we remember the premise we started with its that governments are supposed to govern(whatever that means cause it is different depending on who you ask)how would they develop the capacity and know how to actually carry out its Big Brother aspirations- here comes Big Business. Big Business, for example(oil,banking, telecommunications i.e. cellphones and agriculture), all of these industries in some way are dependent on the economic, social, and political considerations that Big Governments have to take into account when deciding which laws to pass and which policy should govern. Now if you wanted to make sure that your products or services had the best chance of being bought or used because thats what ppl are in business for to get ppl to use whatever they are selling, wouldnt it be in your interest to somehow merge with the entities that control or influence the environment in which you can do business. YES. But the bigger question is who does this really benefit? If governments are supposed to be for the people and businesses are supposed to be catering to those who buy their products why dont the people receive the bulk of the benefits. Because if we take a closer look at who actually benefits its not us the people. Corporations and the subsidiaries get access to an unlimited amount of data with which they predict consumer trends and increase their profits by targteing specific areas and demographics while simultaneously granting the government the capability to track, monitor, and invade upon all citizens lives. Corporations and governments assure us that they can be trusted and have our best interests in mind when they make their decisions about us but do they really. Take a look at what new CIA director Petraeus has to say about this new capability and why plus how the CIA plans to use this marriage of government and business to his advantage.

New technologies are making the work of CIA Director David Petraeus a whole lot easier. According to him, the advent of wireless and web-connected devices has caused citizens to bug their own home, effectively allowing the spy agency to collect a wealth of information with great ease. If that wasn’t enough, people now readily share the most (in)significant details of their lives through Facebook, which now displays all of this information in a very convenient time-line. Another concept that is brushed upon in this article is cloud computing. Touted as the next big thing in computer technology, cloud computing is about storing all of your data in “remote secure servers” – ultimately eliminating the need for computer hard drives and storage devices such as USB sticks. While this technology sounds very convenient, it is set to cause a drastic change in the world of computing: In just a few years, almost all of the personal files, pictures and data of computer users across the world will be stored in gigantic servers that will be owned by only a few mega-companies. Apple already has a system called iCloud that automatically copies the contents of iPhones and iPads (including pics, contacts, etc.) to a remote server. As Pertraeus himself says, all of this information is now “located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled” by the CIA – and whoever else. Here’s an article about Petraeus love of new technologies from Wired.

CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher More and more personal and household devices are connecting to the internet, from your television to your car navigation systems to your light switches. CIA Director David Petraeus cannot wait to spy on you through them. Earlier this month, Petraeus mused about the emergence of an “Internet of Things” — that is, wired devices — at a summit for In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital firm. “‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies,” Petraeus enthused, “particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft.” All those new online devices are a treasure trove of data if you’re a “person of interest” to the spy community. Once upon a time, spies had to place a bug in your chandelier to hear your conversation. With the rise of the “smart home,” you’d be sending tagged, geolocated data that a spy agency can intercept in real time when you use the lighting app on your phone to adjust your living room’s ambiance. “Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,” Petraeus said, “the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.” Petraeus allowed that these household spy devices “change our notions of secrecy” and prompt a rethink of “our notions of identity and secrecy.” All of which is true — if convenient for a CIA director. The CIA has a lot of legal restrictions against spying on American citizens. But collecting ambient geolocation data from devices is a grayer area, especially after the 2008 carve-outs to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Hardware manufacturers, it turns out, store a trove of geolocation data; and some legislators have grown alarmed at how easy it is for the government to track you through your phone or PlayStation. That’s not the only data exploit intriguing Petraeus. He’s interested in creating new online identities for his undercover spies — and sweeping away the “digital footprints” of agents who suddenly need to vanish. “Proud parents document the arrival and growth of their future CIA officer in all forms of social media that the world can access for decades to come,” Petraeus observed. “Moreover, we have to figure out how to create the digital footprint for new identities for some officers.” It’s hard to argue with that. Online cache is not a spy’s friend. But Petraeus has an inadvertent pal in Facebook. Why? With the arrival of Timeline, Facebook made it super-easy to backdate your online history. Barack Obama, for instance, hasn’t been on Facebook since his birth in 1961. Creating new identities for CIA non-official cover operatives has arguably never been easier. Thank Zuck, spies. Thank Zuck. - Source: Wired

Corporate Liability & Personal Responsibility (EW)
Months after the emergence of Occupy Movements across the world and public backlash to corporate personhood many corporations still seem to be financially stable and growing. In 2011, with the decisions of Walmart v. Duke being released Walmart still had a 3.4% Net Sales increase. In comparison to other like stores in the U.S. there Net Sales were only 1.5% behind leading competitors. What does this mean? While we are taking to the streets and demanding an end to corporate personhood we are directly contributing to the success of these corporations. Without customers corporations cannot sustain business operations, fund the top legal teams to defend their irresponsibility, or contribute in the political processes. It can be suggested that those who are shareholders, employees, and customers of corporations indicate some level of approval of individual corporations actions. While the Walmart v. Duke case was argued over a decade Walmart’s Net Sales have gradually increased year by year. Over the years Walmart has consistently increased their number of locations both internationally and domestically in the face of sexual discrimination charges. Americans are starting to take a stand but the question is which Americans? Is it the same individuals who flood the aisles of Walmarts around the country. While we are consumed with corporate responsibility we have completely disassociated it with personal responsibility. While Walmart Supercenters may be the most convenient that is because we as consumers have made them the most popular megastore. When we hear about things corporations are doing we depend on the justice system to make them pay for their wrong doings instead of taking action ourselves and refusing to fund corporations who participate in scandalous behavior. As we have seen the Supreme Court and modern law promote individual responsibility but no corporate liability for torts and criminal offenses. As a functioning society we have to do more to change corporate liability by exercising personal responsibility in our shopping and investing.