The dark 1970s film Taxi Driver depicts an aimless young man distintigrating rapidly as he fixates on a plan to assassinate a political candidate. In an improbable twist of fate, he ends up doing something of a good deed. There will be no such neat wrapup of the real life violence on Saturday, January 8, in Tucson, Arizona, when a distintigrating young man took aim at a Congresswoman and shot six people to death, and wounded 19, including his target.
A big German drug company is betting that women will buy a pill that will make them want to have more sex. The logic is twisted: trying to get people to want to want. The company says it has collected evidence that many women are unhappy with their libido. Whether or not this is true, the safety trials are under way.
Anonymity on the World Wide Web is both a boon to free expression and a bonanza for boors, who abuse their freedom. Personal blogs are easy to set up, and almost all issues-oriented web sites allow readers to post comments freely under phony names. Is all the shouting and name-calling helping to destroy what rational debate we have left?
Is it possible that the teabaggers are something more than a mixed bag of established far-right groups, offered up under a catchy name? Is it possible that they are a spontaneous outcry against big government? Although the national news media is taking them very seriously, I don't think so.
At first, it amusing that Pat Robertson said that the earthquake in Haiti last month was god's wrath for a pact with the devil. But considering that Robertson has a huge following, and that disasters always prompt an outpouring of prophets warning about the price of sin, one has to wonder why naïve beliefs persist despite all evidence to the contrary.
The justices of the nation's top court expanded an election-law case over the financing of a movie pillorying Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign into a sweeping rewrite of the laws that restricted the political activity of corporations large and small.
Judgment Day is coming to the newspaper industry. The New York Times has decided to make online readers pay, according to New York Magazine. The paper, deeply in hock, is trying desperately to find its way in a world that in quick succession was turned upside down by television, and now by the Internet. Will the readers buy it?
Something was bothering me when I read the stories about Harry Reid's faux pas in race relations. Weren't the Republicans just blowing smoke to confuse the public on an issue they are losing: health care?
Was it necessary for Oprah to batter down the walls of individual privacy for Google to charge in and classify and categorize all of us for the sake of more efficient advertising?
A sense of déjà vu surrounds the health care debate. For the 15 years since the Clinton health care reform flopped, the problem has grown worse, but lobbyists and conservatives of both parties are out for blood again
A former insider, now outside, looks at the trouble in the news business with a fresh, unbiased perspective.
A fascinating collection of portraits and interviews with ordinary New Yorkers with extraordinary passions.
Technology consulting, specializing in natural language processing, artificial intelligence, data mining and machine learning.
The Last Round RSS Feed
Keep up with the Last Round with your favorite RSS reader. New
articles are posted on an irregular schedule. Just click on the
icon, and subscribe. Or copy and paste the link below.
How many lawyers does it take to dismantle the Constitution?
Would you be surprised that you need only five, with the proviso that they are old, smart and accomplished, and managed to live lives that put them on the Supreme Court.
Think about this. If you were trying to construct a new government in a perfect world, would you give effective absolute power to five lawyers — even lawyers in such a rarified position? What if the citizens were able to vote, yes or no, and whether or not they wanted to submit to a committee of five lawyers? What would the outcome be?
Our government is structured so that five men have almost absolute power in the country, since they and they alone can decide what laws conform to the Constitution. Five are, of course, a majority on the United States Supreme Court with its nine justices.
As I remember it from high school, the Supreme Court is supposed to be a very cautious place that operates in the upper reaches of legal theory, carefully considering the issues in a hermetic world defined by the issues in specific cases. The idea is that these old lawyers will defend the Constitution from radical ideas that have wafted into fashion on the wings of contemporary politics but that they will be flexible enough to allow a reasonable amount of change. When political alignments and moods change, the court's behavior has on several notable occasions enraged one side or the other. Think of FDR's New Deal, partially blocked by the court in the 1930s, desegregation enabled in the 1950s, abortion rights enabled in 1970s. You see the court cuts both ways.
Compared with some of the old landmark cases, the issue in this case sounds arcane. The court took a dispute over a cheesy political ad bashing Hillary Clinton that was masquerading as a movie documentary and decided to clarify the free speech rights of corporations, which the five conservative majority justices decided were no different than the rights of a guy shouting on a soapbox at the corner, or a lonely blogger uploading an essay on the Internet in the middle of the night.
For very good reasons, Congress has written laws for 100 years restricting the free speech rights of corporations when it comes to political campaigning and lobbying because of the danger of the enormous power and money corporations can use to influence and distort politics. As far as anyone can tell, corporations have amassed a huge amount of power in politics without help from the Supreme Court. With this decision, there's no limit.
The four minority liberal justices wrote a strong dissent to the ruling. Corporations are not people, they wrote. Here is one passage in the court's legal prose:
"Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters."
Newspaper editorials were eloquent, dropping their normally careful tones. Here's a bit from the New York Times:
"The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money."
Right on! A corporation is obligated by law to act in the financial interests of its stockholders, while human beings operate from a tangle of mixed motives that are occasionally more lofty than financial.
The critics are accusing the conservative majority justices of politicizing the court, of advancing the cause of a plutocracy over a democracy. They argue that the justices had no good reason to expand the issues in the case and upend more law than the little nonprofit political hit squad that made the Hillary Clinton movie ever challenged.
Why did the majority do it? Was it because they were appointed to their jobs by Reagan or one of the Bushes? I think that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, slipped and told us why:
"On certain topics corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors or fallacies in speech of all sorts, including the speech of candidates and elected officials."
Yes, five men from the law schools of Harvard and Yale are used to knowing better. They are philosophically predisposed to suspect that some people, including corporate executives, are a little more equal than the rest of us. I wonder if the justices wondered about the future. Did they imagine that some day, the wise corporations might decide that the Supreme Court itself had become a political inconvenience? I also wonder how these five kept a straight face when they kept mentioning that this freedom for corporations to speak is also extended to labor unions. In the dim past of the 1950s and 1960s, it was common to hear big business and conservative Republicans talk of the dangers of labor's political muscle and its political action committees. But organized labor was strong then; but now that unions have been decimated, the conservatives are championing their right to speak.
In the end, it's unsatisfying to do all this whining. What next? What's to be done now? Because of the sweeping nature of the court decision, Congress cannot simply write some clarification about the rights of corporations. There is a procedure for amending the Constitution, but an Amendment, such as those that abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote, is a very difficult undertaking. And, of course, a political movement that tried to do such a thing would expect to encounter a massively financed opposition by big corporations.
In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy also suggests the remedy in the best tradition of conservative philosophy. Quoting the Federalist papers, he writes: "Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak, and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false."
He's got a point there. Although in light of the whole decision, his lip service to democracy is hollow, the citizens do have an obligation to put some effort into the political process and to work in defense of democracy. This issue is more important than dinner table conversation where everyone hates what they are expected to hate. The excellent Times editorial seems to agree, and tries to rally "members of the public who care about fair elections" to mobilize behind new laws. The paper is sure that Obama would join them in an effort.
This is the hard part. It's hard because whether people want to hear it or not, they bear some responsibility for their fate. Whether or not federal law imposes some limitations on corporate political involvement, big business already has tremendous political muscle through lobbying. In fact, the big corporations already have so much power, no one can be sure the court's decision will make the situation worse. And the people could use a lot more help from the establishment news media, which seems to be so horrified by the decision.
The timing of the decision is exquisite. The politicians and lobbyists are in the middle of two very large issues that the corporations are extremely interested in: health care and financial regulations.
On health care, most attention is focused now on how the Massachusetts Senate election has doomed health care reform. In fact, the health care legislation was barely alive before. The voters didn't seem enthusiastic. Let me focus on two reasons why.
the bills were all too friendly to the health and insurance industries. The sad fact is that the Democrats are almost as cozy with the corporations as the Republicans. Think back to one year ago, when Obama's choice to lead the new White House's initiative was a former Senator, Tom Daschle, a man who made millions from health care corporations after he left his Senate seat by giving speeches and the like.
The amazing thing about the incident was that Daschle's ties to the industry were never covered in the media until January 2009, when conservatives nailed him on a failure to pay income taxes. Months before the tax issue came to light, he made a report to the Office of Government Ethics detailing his ties to the industry. The only people talking about that report and the conflict of interest it exposed were a collection of odd groups, both public interest and conservative. Until the Republicans found the tax issue, there was not a mention of this in the major media outlets.
a silent majority of the public already has a good deal through their employers and no matter what they say about how rotten the system is, they don't want to rock this boat.
I often ask people who have full-time jobs how much their health insurance costs, and they can recite to the penny what is deducted from their paychecks. Hardly anyone knows how much the employers pay or how much of a tax break the employers get to give them this freebie. Nor do they know the huge cost to society — by which I mean the taxpayers — for the rickety, inequitable system we have now. They are doing just what Justice Kennedy said they should do: They are letting the corporations that know best take care of things for them.
On financial regulation, there is a similar ambivalence. It's easy and it's fun to blame the Yuppies on Wall Street. The big investment banks are indeed the major villains. But it's true that we the people gave them all the room to maneuver as we've steadily removed regulatory restraints on the industry, Republicans and Democrats alike, since the 1970s. In the late 1980s, the public and the media had a clear demonstration of what happens when bankers have all the freedom they want. I refer to collapse of the savings and loans, which cost the nation hundreds of billions to fix up. This time, the damage runs to trillions.
And so people who would be bored to death by a discussion of banking regulations cheerfully refinanced again and again without the slightest hesitation about the unlikely event that housing prices would turn down. Now that they're stuck — or under water as the bankers like to say — they want to punish the head of the Federal Reserve for not watching out for them. If people want to improve financial regulation, I suggest that they first look up the records of their senators and representatives, and call them to account.
There's a pervasive feeling that people have a surly contempt for politics but are otherwise passive. This Supreme Court decision makes it more important than ever that people try to understand the world around them. The health care mess, the financial meltdown, they both happened when restraints were on corporate political involvement. What's next?
Posted on 23 January 2010
© 2010 Barry Schiffman