[mythtv-users] OT: SCOTUS decision

R. G. Newbury newbury at mandamus.org
Mon Feb 22 02:47:37 UTC 2010

On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2010, at 8:01 PM, R. G. Newbury wrote:
>> That's NOT what SCOTUS said. And Obambi is alleged to be a lawyer. a
>> Haaavad grad no less so one would expect that he could actually read
>> the decision. Of course, although we know GWB's marks were at Yale and
>> Harvard, for all we now know it appears that Obambi probably failed
>> lunch.
>> SCOTUS did NOT say that corporations have protected free speech
>> rights. It said that American citizens can use their corporations to
>> express their free speech rights. It was exactly the misrepresentation
>> by Obambi which caused Justice Alito to react.
>> Foreign owned (or controlled) corporations do not have those free
>> speech rights wrt election advertising. And now that the FEC has been
>> told to keep its nose out of a large area, it might decide to
>> concentrate its efforts on its proper mandate.
> With all due respect, that's only one reading of what the decision
> means. Anyone who tells you the long-term implications of this is, at
> best, making an educated guess. What it *actually* means is going to be
> hashed out in a series of future court cases, and there's no real way of
> knowing how they will shake out. One issue may be figuring out just what
> counts as a "foreign" corporation to begin with, in this era of
> multinationals. Generally I think fears over foreign influence of
> elections are overblown but I don't think it's as cut and dried as you
> make it out to be.
> A lot of us find the idea of corporations having the same rights as
> actual persons highly unsettling, because it's not a balanced playing
> field. Corporations can live forever and amass enormous amounts of
> wealth. Since the Supreme Court has also ruled that money = speech, that
> essentially means that corporations have the power to shout down the
> rest of us whenever they care to. I don't see this decision in the same
> apocalyptic terms many people do, but I do see it as another step down
> the road to oligarchy.
> That said, it would be a bad thing, but ultimately there are other
> problems that will probably do us in sooner. We're a nation divided. We
> always have been -- the rift between the North and the South has never
> healed, for example, it just gets expressed in politics instead of in
> gunfire now. Over time we've gradually become so polarized that it's
> become politically impossible for us to solve the problems that face us.
> We can't even work out a way to repair our bridges before they fall
> down, much less take on bigger problems like health care and our
> long-term structural deficits. I think as a nation we're doomed to
> decline as government becomes bound up by the ossified political fights
> that make it less and less effective every year.
> Heck, one of the reasons I don't fear foreign influence over elections
> is, what would it accomplish, exactly? Our political system is no longer
> *capable* of making sweeping changes. You might argue they'd undermine
> American values, but what values? We don't really stand for anything
> anymore; we torture and detain people without trial just like dozens of
> other countries. Our one remaining source of national pride is that we
> have the largest military in the world and can kick any other country's
> ass.

YES! NO! Maybe. Whatever.
Wrong list, wrong topic, unanswerable, and you are a pessimist.
As to your last 2 sentences: You don't do that to citizens, you do it to 
terrorists. That you do it at all, means that adults are conducting the 
war against terrorism, and not flakey idiotarians. That the fact that 
you do it, is a source of major chest-beating and wailing is in fact a 
damn good sign that the moral heart of the country is still good. Think 
of the implications if this conduct was waived off as 'regrettable but 
necessary, move on, nothing to see here'.That conduct is standard 
operating conditions for Russia and probably about 120 other nations 
which persist in calling themselves 'civilised'. Think also of the fact 
although the USA has the largest military in the world which can kick 
any other country's ass, there are only a few countries which actually 
fear that they might get kicked. And that is because we ALL know that 
the USA won't do that just because.

I live next door. We don't worry that you will invade. We do get pissed 
about trade barriers etc. but that is not nationalistic warmongering. 
It's just business trying to get an advantage. We have our own little 
chestbeaters too. Lotsa whingery going on that Canadian troops in 
Afghanistan might have turned over suspected terrorists to Afghani 
police *who might have beat them up a little*. Well DUH. S**t happens. 
THe Afghanis did not shoot them out of hand.

I like America. I have worn a crossed-flags lapel pin every day but 
about 3, since 9/11. And a big problem both our countries have is that 
the Gramscian march has made us all feel guilty, and feel like 
hypocrites when reality forces us to do things which we are morally 
entitled to do, and which match what the other side does...but of course 
we are not *allowed* to do that! We have to stop thinking we are doing 
wrong when we fight by war rules. The whineys want us to fight by civil 
rules, while the bad guys can use war rules.

And now its late on Sunday, and the damn USA hockey team is leading 
Canada 4-2 in the third! Amazing bloody game. Some of the best hockey I 
have watched in YEARS!

The Russians and the Czechs don't stand a chance whichever team they meet.


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list