On the Marx Brothers: A Short One

It is interesting that the Right is now writing to compare the Obama Administration to that of Rufus T. Firefly's in "Duck Soup." I say it is interesting because the film was meant to reflect a hawkish, right wing government. Such behavior landed the brothers on the black list during Joe McCarthy's Psycho Hour, which hampered their careers. I guess this is just another drop in the hypocrisy ocean for the Right.

Everyday Now Opposite Day; The Past Remains in the Future

Recently, I have been watching the shenanigans being pulled by Republicans at both the federal and state levels of government. The hypocrisy is nothing new, either for them or their political polar opposites. It seems, though, that the Republicans have declared permanent Opposite Day in America.

First they want discussions about healthcare reform to be televised and then they don't. First they decry the Dem healthcare plan because it has a public option and doesn't just "reform" the current healthcare system and then, when shown that the plan does not have the latter and "does" the former, they say they still don't support it. Obama cuts taxes like Republicans want and they say he doesn't. They say Obama is too soft on terrorism because he gives suspected terrorists due process, something George W. Bush did...but Bush was right and he is wrong. They say he is a socialist because of TARP (Bush's plan) and the buyout of the auto companies (Bush was pushing for this on his way out). The stimulus funds, according to the Republicans, are bad economics and harmful to Americans but there they are, smiling with those giant checks like the idea was theirs. Facts, even when placed under Republican noses, seem not to bother them or affect their worldview.

A friend of mine once said that people should define themselves by what they are for rather than what they are against. I agree. The Republicans currently define themselves as "Against Obama," even when going along with him is in their favor. And this put me in mind of a song Groucho sang in "Horse Feathers." As "Just Wait Till I Get Through with It" was George W. Bush's, "I'm Against It" belongs to the Republicans. Enjoy.



As for the past remaining in the future, I have just some lyrics to print. As M.A.S.H. was set during the Korean War but was really about Vietnam, this song was written about WWII but was really about Vietnam. Now, it seems it's about Iraq/Afghanistan. I bet Pete Seeger wishes his songs were outdated:

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.

We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.

Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!

We are called Legion, for we are many.

Yesterday I watched the documentary The Corporation, which I have been meaning to watch for some time. I guess it worked out well in that it was timed to follow the Supreme's Court's supremely ridiculous decision to allow corporations unlimited freedom to contribute to political campaigns. Of course, this Supreme Court is not the first to treat the corporation as a person but it grabbed that precedence and ran with it.

With my limited understanding of latin, provided by my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word "corporate" comes from the latin root "corporare" which means, among other things, to be given a body. In other words, the group of people who form the corporation are "given a body" in the legal sense, allowing them to make decisions as a group which affect the group. So, in this sense, the legal decision makes sense. When the corporation makes a bad decision, the corporation is responsible. When the corporation succeeds, all involved succeed.

And that is fine from a legal sense in terms of business. But how much do the bill of rights apply to the corporation and can the rights enjoyed by the members of the corporation be extended to the corporation as a whole?

Okay, the First Amendment. Free speech obviously belongs to the corporation. They can say what they like, within bounds, and no one should limit that right. They can petition the government for redress of grievances, which they should be allowed to do, as necessary. The Second Amendment seems to make the case for Xe (neé Blackwater) but let us nip that in the bud. We have a militia. We don't need coporate militias. The Third Amendment is kind of out-dated but I guess it protects them from having to house soldiers in their corporate offices. The Fourth Amendment applies. You can't raid corporate offices without a court order, well and good. The members of the corporation deserve a trial by a grand jury for capital crimes as per the Fifth Amendment, no one would argue about that. The Sixth also applies since corporations get a trial by jury. Same with Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten.

I guess.

But think about it:

Corporations have the right to free speech but they can't lie. A cigarette company can't print a label on their cigarettes (anymore) that says they are good for you. A beer company can't run ads that say beer will make you thin. Of course, they find ways around this problem but the fact remains that they, like us, have to obey the law. Sometimes. Occasionally.

While some corporations are trying to have their own armies a lá the computer game Syndicate, it is not and should not be a legal entity...unless you are Blackwater...or Triple Canopy...or any other company who employs a mercenary army. This is not what is meant by the Second Amendment. Corporations may bare arms...but only on casual Friday.

The Third seems unnecessary in today's world but I guess it does count for corporations. Like Halliburton. I guess if anyone tries to sue them for electrocuting soldiers in the shower, they can just say they weren't supposed to have to house soldiers anyway...

The Fourth counts and I can't refute it. We need the rule of law. Even when dealing with jerks. I feel the same about detainees in Guantanamo.

But for the last bit...

When has an entire corporation, executives and stockholders and all employees, been held responsible for a crime? Do we have courtrooms and prisons big enough to hold an entire corporation? Usually, when a coporation is being investigated, it is one or two executives and not the entire corporation. But that means that decisions made on behalf of the corporation, whether helpful or harmful to the corporation, are done by individuals and not by the corporation. If we cannot treat the corporation as one body in criminal investigations, we must question whether we can treat it as an individual in terms of political campaigns.

Giving corporations presents three major problems which make the political landscape even more desolate than it was previously. First, people are already distrustful of corporations. Giving them unlimited power to affect the political process is only going to fuel the belief that our government is beholden only to the moneyed interest. Which I guess is good...because it is. Corporations can blame bad press for peoples' beliefs but, really, it's their own fault. You can't act like a dick and then get mad when people call you a dick and don't invite you to parties. Often, people say, "The corporation's only job is to make money for its shareholders." Well, my only job at work is to provide behavioral services to clients on my caseload. Often, I help with other clients pro bono because it's what good people do. They go above and beyond. When you do this, people can often be forgiving of other failures.

Second, our Constitution prohibits persons who are not citizens from voting or attempting to affect political outcomes in the United States. This is a good idea. What is good for another country may not be good for ours. But what happens when a corporation in the U.S. but whose parent company is in another country begins to attempt to direct the course of American politics? In whose interest are they then acting? These entities may be benign but is that a risk we should be willing to take?

Finally, the corporate interest in this country already abuses the loopholes they have. Instead of tightening the loop holes, the Supreme Court has widened them and given corporations a blessing on behalf of the people to do as they will. Where is the stopping point? If each individual is given a vote in the United States, should a corporate person be given a vote? Should members of that corporation be given two votes? Where does it end?

Luckily, Congress has set about trying to correct the action, proving the usefulness of checks and balances. Let us hope that the outcome is one that favors the individual and not the corporation.