Besides the fact that "We are the 99%" is fairly vague, there are people invested in twisting the meaning (many of them are our elected officials). The most heinous example is the meme that 1% of citizens join the armed forces. It became obvious that the Occupy Movement isn't an anti-military movement when shortly after the meme came out a marine was nearly killed by Oakland PD.
Who are the 1% being protested against then? Technically it's the people making $380,354 or more a year. But in practical terms 95% of that top percent are not the problem. The Occupy movement is a direct response to the Citizens United ruling, so it isn't the fact that people make too much money. The Occupy movement is against using big piles of money to manipulate the political system. Only .05% do this so "We are the 99%" is a misnomer.
If rich people stuck to buying yachts and creating jobs there wouldn't be any beef with them. Think about that image in your mind of an Occupier. Does s/he have a hacky sack and a drum? What would they do with more money? This is clearly not a jealousy thing.
Seriously though the people being protested against are the aggressors. They have taken more than their fair share and fix the game so no one else can play. And they are in defensible. Most of the people we are talking about are not job creators. They are speculators. It is not healthy for the economy to create incentives to be part of this group because their wealth is the most susceptible to bubbles.
The 1% was hardest hit by the recession because their wealth is mostly smoke and mirrors. Their investments are numbers games without substance. When the bottom fell out of the economy many of them were underwater like any other american. Banks have more private jets and yachts to repossess than they know what to do with.
And that is the cost to the 99%. When a rich person fails the bank doesn't even want to deal with their property. Either they have lawyers that keep the assets tied up or the ticket price is so high that the bank doesn't want to bother trying to find a buyer for the liquidation (because they're unwilling to sell it for the amount it's actually worth without hurting the value of neighboring properties). So the banks recoup their loss by going after the middle class or what little the lower class have.
It's class warfare because the 99% are tired of having the bad decisions of the .05% being taken out on them.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Constitutional Challenge: the war on drugs
My wife has been watching Breaking Bad and there is a scene where the main character Walter is talking to his brother about Cuban cigars and how arbitrary the line is between legal and illegal. For some reason this scene threw some fuel to my passion against the war on drugs.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how a legal challenge to the drug war would go (because it's remotely possible that I will not be elected to congress). This may seem like an unlikely way to attack the war on drugs but people forget how much change Ralph Nader made as a citizen with a pack of like minded lawyers.
This is the approach I would take if I had a pack of like minded lawyers who would know if I am actually on to something here or not.
For the sake of the article I am only arguing for the legalization of marijuana because it clearly doesn't pose any public health risk outside of the fact that it is illegal/controlled by criminals. If precedence is set legalizing other substances can also be tested in court.
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed.
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
A while ago I had the idea that the 21st amendment should be applied to the war on drugs. But when I reread it I realized that it doesn't repeal prohibition as I remembered, it repealed the 18th amendment.
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished.
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Looking at the 18th amendment it is clearly Abolishing alcohol. I fail to see how I could make a convincing argument that it also should also apply to the prohibition of marijuana. But then I realized the argument shouldn't be made on the 21st amendment but on the existence of the 18th
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I was always told in Social Studies that the 21st amendment is the only amendment to overturn another, but it could be argued that the reason for the 18th amendment was passed to allow an exclusion to the limit of federal powers placed by the the 10th amendment. If prohibition was allowed by the exception of interstate commerce than why was it passed as an amendment?
If this ruling was passed in favor of my argument this would set drug policy back down to state level. Or that is my non lawyer understanding of it.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how a legal challenge to the drug war would go (because it's remotely possible that I will not be elected to congress). This may seem like an unlikely way to attack the war on drugs but people forget how much change Ralph Nader made as a citizen with a pack of like minded lawyers.
This is the approach I would take if I had a pack of like minded lawyers who would know if I am actually on to something here or not.
For the sake of the article I am only arguing for the legalization of marijuana because it clearly doesn't pose any public health risk outside of the fact that it is illegal/controlled by criminals. If precedence is set legalizing other substances can also be tested in court.
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed.
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
A while ago I had the idea that the 21st amendment should be applied to the war on drugs. But when I reread it I realized that it doesn't repeal prohibition as I remembered, it repealed the 18th amendment.
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished.
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Looking at the 18th amendment it is clearly Abolishing alcohol. I fail to see how I could make a convincing argument that it also should also apply to the prohibition of marijuana. But then I realized the argument shouldn't be made on the 21st amendment but on the existence of the 18th
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I was always told in Social Studies that the 21st amendment is the only amendment to overturn another, but it could be argued that the reason for the 18th amendment was passed to allow an exclusion to the limit of federal powers placed by the the 10th amendment. If prohibition was allowed by the exception of interstate commerce than why was it passed as an amendment?
If this ruling was passed in favor of my argument this would set drug policy back down to state level. Or that is my non lawyer understanding of it.
Friday, December 16, 2011
National Debt
I wasn't sure how to open a comic about National Debt to people who are not really into politics. I've been stuck on it for a very long time and I finally decided just to write what I was feeling the one day and hope it resonates as on topic http://www.nilvsdcbs.com/nationaldebt.html
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Arrrrr de media
As someone who has wanted to be a comic artist for their entire life, I know a thing or two about copyright law and intellectual property. So I was a little infuriated when I received this e-mail
Dear Mr. Ladendorf,
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding S. 968, Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act and H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. I sincerely appreciate the benefit of your views.
S. 968, and its House companion bill H.R. 3261, would allow the Attorney General to bring additional judicial remedies against websites dedicated to intellectual property right infringement. It would enable the Department of Homeland Security to share information which would facilitate the prosecution of copyright infringers existing outside the United States or which cannot be located. The measure would also grant limited immunity to victims of property right infringement to take preventative actions against infringing entities, such as denying them access to services. I will closely monitor this bill as it moves through the legislative process and in that context your views are very helpful.
I am a strong believer in protecting property rights, including intellectual property rights. The internet has unfortunately made it easier for certain types of intellectual property to be stolen by persons in jurisdictions outside the reach of American law enforcement. I also have concerns about the proliferation of criminal conduct on the internet, including internet viruses which can steal information or damage equipment. However, I want to stress that I am very sensitive to concerns about personal privacy, especially when the entity invading a person's privacy is the government. We should uphold the law, but I do not want to impose unforeseen burdens on the internet which could stifle the growth of the internet medium.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Hearing the views of all Missourians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important issues could impact the people of the Seventh district and the future interests of the nation.
For additional information regarding current legislation and my representation of the Seventh District, I invite you to visit my website at http://www.long.house.gov, and to receive my monthly newsletter, you can sign up on mywebsite.
Sincerely,Billy LongMember of Congress
This stance by Mr. Long is predictable because of his consistant genuflecting toward big business. This letter is misguided and misleading. This law does not protect business it gives them a nuclear option. Here are a list of my concerns
- The piracy threat is over stated. The music industry and others site how much they've lost to piracy based on how much material is being downloaded- not considering once that the people downloading media for free would have never paid for the media in the first place. Someone with a hundred thousand songs on their computer is unlikely to have bought 100,000 albums. And frankly the reason iTunes has done so well is because it's reasonably priced. The music industry has been ripping off the public for a long time and a very little portion of the price of an album goes to the artist.
-Intellectual property law insists on aggressive defense of property or it will fall into public domain. Because of how powerful SOPA is, it could very well FORCE BUSINESSES TO ATTACK THEIR CUSTOMERS who want to express their love for Properties by creating fan works.
-This letter's claim that SOPA would "allow the Attorney General to bring additional judicial remedies against websites dedicated to intellectual property right infringement" doesn't seem to be true. It seems like it will be used (or FORCE BUSINESSES to be used) to shut down sites dedicated to user content. The language of the bill is so broad it could shut down youtube because there are too many cover songs on it.
-Intellectual copyright law is used in a one sided manner. Companies that are built around media tend to misinform the public about what rights they have. An example is blurred out t-shirt logos on documentaries. That is fair use there is no reason to do it but film makers are so afraid of being sued it doesn't matter that they are actually PROTECTED by intellectual rights laws.
SOPA is frightening if you consider the way it is likely to be administered. Through search engines. How many people are going to face prosecution or have their business shut down because someone saw their image posted on a website without taking the time to see the context? If I'm writing a review of a book I am legally allowed to use the cover image because I am using it to create a new work.
There was a case famous in the comic community where a PARODY of the Starbucks logo was featured in a comic book that included the words "Corporate Whore". Starbucks sued and now the creator of the comic book is not allowed to make ANY LOGO THAT CONTAINS BOTH A CIRCLE AND A TRIANGLE.
That is not justice. That is abuse of power and it goes one every day. I can not go into a Kinkos and make copies of an image from a book even though by law I can make up to six copies. 100 if it's for teaching material.
-Lastly, from my understanding, SOPA is another attack on Habeus Corpus. The language I have seen implies that the Attorney General and Homeland Security have all these new powers without the requiring a trial first. The government can shut down someone's source of income without due process.
This will kill smaller media companies who don't have as much influence and will fall prey to the bigger companies who can afford a team of lawyers that specialize in using the government as a weapon as a way to kill their competition in the crib. Before they become real competition.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Why aren't Debates done in brackets?
On the news that Donald Trump's debate is off and Colbert is now planning a debate, thought I should talk about something that seems like common sense to me but seems to evade the main stream media.
Why can't we have primary debates be a series of one on one brackets?
Let's assume it's because they are incompetent not because of a conspiracy, at least for the sake of this blog.
Let's assume that the 24 hour news stations actually care about informing the public.
The best way to do that would be to have, not one debate, but a series of debates. Invite all of the candidates and randomly pair them up. give each pair a set amount of time. Audience votes for who wins each round. Half are eliminated. The other half keep going. You could even have the losers of the first round have their own division (wild card) and the winner of each division can then debate each other.
abracadabra everyone gets equal time. None of the drama. None of the favoritism. If each round gets the same questions there isn't any softballs.
It seems extremely strange that a sports obsessed culture wouldn't use this method as the default. It seems obvious to me and I don't care for sports, at all.
PS
The graphic above I randomly wrote down ten candidates. Then I used a dice rolling ap with two ten sided dice. Used the rolls for that to pick which two candidates would be together. Then for the eight remaining I used an eight sided and so on until all the candidates were paired up.
Why can't we have primary debates be a series of one on one brackets?
Let's assume it's because they are incompetent not because of a conspiracy, at least for the sake of this blog.
Let's assume that the 24 hour news stations actually care about informing the public.
The best way to do that would be to have, not one debate, but a series of debates. Invite all of the candidates and randomly pair them up. give each pair a set amount of time. Audience votes for who wins each round. Half are eliminated. The other half keep going. You could even have the losers of the first round have their own division (wild card) and the winner of each division can then debate each other.
abracadabra everyone gets equal time. None of the drama. None of the favoritism. If each round gets the same questions there isn't any softballs.
It seems extremely strange that a sports obsessed culture wouldn't use this method as the default. It seems obvious to me and I don't care for sports, at all.
PS
The graphic above I randomly wrote down ten candidates. Then I used a dice rolling ap with two ten sided dice. Used the rolls for that to pick which two candidates would be together. Then for the eight remaining I used an eight sided and so on until all the candidates were paired up.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Us against them (rant/draft)
Frustrated with current events but I only have half an idea here. This blog has been more cartoonist than political lately or I wouldn't even post it:
There are two disturbing possibilities about the recent vote on Defense Authorization Act. If you are not familiar, this is the law that takes away "innocent until proven guilty" if you are an American citizen accused of terrorism. Many Democrats like my own Senator Claire McCaskill voted for it though it seems exactly the kind of thing she would have been critical of if Bush was in office... anyways two disturbing possibilities for why Democrats voted for it:
1. That Senate Democrats will vote for anything to keep from looking weak.
It goes something like this "I know Obama will veto it. So it's okay that I vote for something horrible that will make me look strong on national defense."
The flaw in this thinking is that somehow being a weak coward will make you look strong. The problem is that support for it gives it momentum. If the bill gets enough momentum it could either accidentally become veto proof (super majority) or the bill become misinterpreted as popular and dissolves the will of The President.
2. It isn't one side of the aisle against the other- it's us against them.
If the Democrats in the senate are not really bad at strategy. Then it means that they are not actually worried that a Republican will come in next fall (or later) and abuse the law. They say they are worried about this scenario, but we can not assume this is true by their actions.
It is hard to believe any adult would gamble that one party or another will stay in power for a significant amount of time. Even with the lackluster selection of Republican candidates, Obama is far from unbeatable. Between the weak economy and the ability of unflattering information going viral-
polls are extremely volatile.
We are being told by both sides that the other side is going ruin this country. If they really believed that why would they pass laws to make it easier to ruin the country, when they know the elections could go either way? The answer is that they are liars. Either the feud is a fraud and they know that things will not change much based on election results, or the concern is just a way to coerce. The latter means that they know how much damage can be done, but are betting that they are immune to it and screw the rest of us.
Okay it's not that I entirely believe that these are the only two explanations but when the Senate is passing resolutions to congratulate the Cardinals for winning the world series- WTF? I don't even understand why they are bothering with this right now. Are we that worried that a potential terrorist will get a fair trial? Do they have secret information they can't share with us? Or is this an existential threat like the extraterrestrial exposure law (a flawed comparison but I'm going with it anyway).
There are two disturbing possibilities about the recent vote on Defense Authorization Act. If you are not familiar, this is the law that takes away "innocent until proven guilty" if you are an American citizen accused of terrorism. Many Democrats like my own Senator Claire McCaskill voted for it though it seems exactly the kind of thing she would have been critical of if Bush was in office... anyways two disturbing possibilities for why Democrats voted for it:
1. That Senate Democrats will vote for anything to keep from looking weak.
It goes something like this "I know Obama will veto it. So it's okay that I vote for something horrible that will make me look strong on national defense."
The flaw in this thinking is that somehow being a weak coward will make you look strong. The problem is that support for it gives it momentum. If the bill gets enough momentum it could either accidentally become veto proof (super majority) or the bill become misinterpreted as popular and dissolves the will of The President.
2. It isn't one side of the aisle against the other- it's us against them.
If the Democrats in the senate are not really bad at strategy. Then it means that they are not actually worried that a Republican will come in next fall (or later) and abuse the law. They say they are worried about this scenario, but we can not assume this is true by their actions.
It is hard to believe any adult would gamble that one party or another will stay in power for a significant amount of time. Even with the lackluster selection of Republican candidates, Obama is far from unbeatable. Between the weak economy and the ability of unflattering information going viral-
polls are extremely volatile.
We are being told by both sides that the other side is going ruin this country. If they really believed that why would they pass laws to make it easier to ruin the country, when they know the elections could go either way? The answer is that they are liars. Either the feud is a fraud and they know that things will not change much based on election results, or the concern is just a way to coerce. The latter means that they know how much damage can be done, but are betting that they are immune to it and screw the rest of us.
Okay it's not that I entirely believe that these are the only two explanations but when the Senate is passing resolutions to congratulate the Cardinals for winning the world series- WTF? I don't even understand why they are bothering with this right now. Are we that worried that a potential terrorist will get a fair trial? Do they have secret information they can't share with us? Or is this an existential threat like the extraterrestrial exposure law (a flawed comparison but I'm going with it anyway).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)