ACLU for...

[Barry Gold]

I've been looking over a bookmark that lists major court cases that the
ACLU has taken on.

+ Opposed the Palmer Raids
+ The Scopes trial
+ Fought against the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII
+ Brown v. Board of Education
+ Won a victory for the rights of students in public schools
(Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969)
+ Roe v. Wade
+ Won Smith v. Collin: the right of an American Nazi group to hold a
demonstration in a park in Skokie, IL
+ Fought off attempts to teach Creationism and "Intelligent Design" in
public schools
+ Got the CDA and various versions of COPA struck down
+ Challenged DOMA

If corporations are to have the same rights as legal persons, that
should include the right to run for and, if elected, hold office in the
United States.

The ACLU was "born" (incorporated) in the US and is over 90 years old. I
respectively wish to propose ACLU for President. Get your bumper stickers...

[Fred Brown]

"Barry Gold" <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n91h9c$qhd$1...@dont-email.me...

> I've been looking over a bookmark that lists major court cases that the
> ACLU has taken on.
>
> + Opposed the Palmer Raids
> + The Scopes trial
> + Fought against the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII
> + Brown v. Board of Education
> + Won a victory for the rights of students in public schools
> (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969)
> + Roe v. Wade
> + Won Smith v. Collin: the right of an American Nazi group to hold a
> demonstration in a park in Skokie, IL
> + Fought off attempts to teach Creationism and "Intelligent Design" in
> public schools
> + Got the CDA and various versions of COPA struck down
> + Challenged DOMA
>
> If corporations are to have the same rights as legal persons, that should
> include the right to run for and, if elected, hold office in the United
> States.

Corporations are composed of people. The members of Citizens United
incorporated
for the obvious legal reasons any business incorporates. Legal protection
for the individual
shareholders. If GM was not a corporation and a major defect was found in
thousands of
it's vehicles each of the thousands of GM shareholders would have to be sued
individually.
Just because a group of people incorporate does not mean they surrender
their right to
political free speech.
Unions and corporations have always been able to contribute to political
campaigns.
Haven't you read about union members complaining that their dues go mainly
to Democrats
and not Republicans?
Read the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law.
What irks Obama and a lot of politicians is that Citizens United give
individuals and groups
a political voice that was pretty much stiffled by McCain-Feingold. The
reporting requirements
alone required a platoon of lawyers experienced in campaign finance law. The
other thing thak
irks them is the groups that claim IRS 501 (C) (4) status because they
promote social welfare
and don't have to report their doner's names. Social welfare being an
abstruse concept has
never been precisely defined giving these organizations wide latitude.

[Barry Gold]

On 2/5/2016 9:05 AM, Fred Brown wrote:
>
> Corporations are composed of people. The members of Citizens United
> incorporated
> for the obvious legal reasons any business incorporates. Legal
> protection for the individual
> shareholders.

False to fact in the first paragraph. CU isn't a business, it's a
501(c)(4) "nonprofit". Congress created this category for civic
organizations and neighborhood associations. It is supposed to be
"primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of
the people of the community". CU has extended that concept by taking the
whole US as its "community", and promoting a particular political
viewpoint: "reassert the traditional American values of limited
government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national
sovereignty and security."
http://www.citizensunited.org/who-we-are.aspx

One of the open questions is just how much of their expenditure is
actually "the promotion of social welfare" and how much is, in fact,
politics. The Obama administration has chosen not to go there, but if I
were running things I would take a close look at (audit) not only CU but
a variety of other organizations -- both "conservative" and "liberal" --
that seem to spend most of their money on political issues.

The main benefit gained by contributors to Citizens United is anonymity.
A for-profit business must disclose the names of its stockholders,
unless it qualifies as a "closely-held" corporation. But a non-profit
like CU does not have to disclose the names of its members (if a
membership corporation) or donors.

I can see two viewpoints on this question.

On one hand, people (natural persons) have a right to speak anonymously.
The Supreme Court has said so, and I think they are right. If you hold
an unpopular point of view, you have the right to promulgate it without
putting your name on it, or under a pseudonym(*), so you don't get
fired, have crosses burned on your lawn, rocks thrown through your
windows, etc.

Logically, if corporations have the same free speech rights as natural
persons, they should _also_ have the right to speak anonymously.

OTOH, those rules were designed to protect ordinary people, who may be
at the mercy of employers, mobs, etc. Large corporations, people who can
afford to make political donations in the $millions, should be able to
weather the storm from unpopular opinions. They can afford security (and
usually already hire some). And I think the public has _some_ interest
in knowing who is trying to influence elections.

The balancing act between those two interests -- privacy vs. an open
(and aboveboard) market of opinions -- is not an easy one, and I don't
have an answer that really satisfies me.

(*) As long as you don't pretend to be another real person

[Barry Gold]

On 2/5/2016 9:05 AM, Fred Brown wrote:

> If GM was not a corporation and a major defect was found in thousands of
> it's vehicles each of the thousands of GM shareholders would have to be
> sued individually.

Actually, probably not. Even before the creation of corporations, there
was a concept called a "silent partner". A group of people can form a
partnership, with one or more actually managing the business and the
others only investing money. The partners who don't take a hand in the
business operations are "silent partners" and not liable for the actions
of the partnership. Except, of course, that they can lose their original
investment, which is also the case with a corporation: if you buy stock
in IBM and they go belly up, the money you paid is gone, never to
return. (Not that that's likely to happen any time soon. IBM is no
longer the market-dominating giant it once was, but they are still a
profit-making company with Earnings Per Share of $13.62 and a
Price/Earnings ration of 9.35.)

What's important about a corporation is that it can own property, sue
and be sued. If you have a partnership, any property it owns -- land,
inventory, etc. -- is jointly property of the partners, not of the
partnership itself. The partnership has no legal existence.

Likewise, if you owe money to a partnership and don't pay, the
partnership can't sue. Instead, the partners have to jointly sue.
Usually one partner will sue on behalf of the others, but that still
means all the partners have to sign the papers. Can be difficult if some
of the partners are geographically remote, or if one of the partners has
gone senile or is otherwise uncooperative.

This arose with the LASFS. It started out as an informal membership
organization with no legal existence. Just a bunch of people who met
somewhere, paid dues, and had fun. Then Paul Turner got the idea that
we should own our own clubhouse instead of having to meet in somebody's
apartment or in the rec building of a park or renting space from some
organization that _did_ own a building.

Over the years -- and several treasurers, culminating in Bruce Pelz who
started running auctions and other activities to make money for LASFS --
we accumulated enough money for a down payment on a building. But it
turned out that LASFS (uninc) could not own land. It also could not
obligate itself to pay back a loan.

So LASFS had to become the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.
with articles of incorporation, by-laws, a Board of Directors, etc. It's
still going, although we have some financial difficulties caused by the
fact that organized SF fandom is shrinking. More precisely, existing
fans are dying faster than new fans come in to replace them. The average
age of fandom is increasing by approximately one year for every two
calendar years that pass.

At one time, LASFS meetings were mini-conventions, with attendance in
excess of 100 for normal meetings and approaching 150 for elections and
other special events. Nowadays, we're lucky to get 50 people to show up
(and pay dues, buy stuff at the auction, etc.)

Pity, but that's the way things go. Maybe someday the LASFS will be
unincorporated again, and meet in people's living rooms or some such.
And then someday it won't exist any more, after everybody who cares
about it dies. Sigh, it could even happen in my lifetime.

> Just because a group of people incorporate does not mean they surrender
> their right to political free speech.

That last is true.

[Fred Brown]

"Barry Gold" <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message

news:n92okf$8ud$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 2/5/2016 9:05 AM, Fred Brown wrote:
>>
>> Corporations are composed of people. The members of Citizens United
>> incorporated
>> for the obvious legal reasons any business incorporates. Legal
>> protection for the individual
>> shareholders.
>
> False to fact in the first paragraph. CU isn't a business, it's a
> 501(c)(4) "nonprofit". Congress created this category for civic
> organizations and neighborhood associations. It is supposed to be
> "primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of
> the people of the community". CU has extended that concept by taking the
> whole US as its "community", and promoting a particular political
> viewpoint: "reassert the traditional American values of limited
> government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national
> sovereignty and security."

The "social welfare" concept is quite broad due to the fact that the term
"social welfare" has never been narrowly defined. Different courts have
given different interpretations of the phrase.

> http://www.citizensunited.org/who-we-are.aspx
>
> One of the open questions is just how much of their expenditure is
> actually "the promotion of social welfare" and how much is, in fact,
> politics. The Obama administration has chosen not to go there, but if I
> were running things I would take a close look at (audit) not only CU but a
> variety of other organizations -- both "conservative" and "liberal" --
> that seem to spend most of their money on political issues.

501 (C) (4) organizations cannot advocate for or against a candidate, they
can advocate for or against a political issue like ObamaCare or the TPP.
These are thing that concern the community.

> The main benefit gained by contributors to Citizens United is anonymity. A
> for-profit business must disclose the names of its stockholders, unless it
> qualifies as a "closely-held" corporation. But a non-profit like CU does
> not have to disclose the names of its members (if a membership
> corporation) or donors.
>
> I can see two viewpoints on this question.
>
> On one hand, people (natural persons) have a right to speak anonymously.
> The Supreme Court has said so, and I think they are right. If you hold an
> unpopular point of view, you have the right to promulgate it without
> putting your name on it, or under a pseudonym(*), so you don't get fired,
> have crosses burned on your lawn, rocks thrown through your windows, etc.

Certain politicians on both sides of the asile want to know who is speaking
out against them. There have been several attempts since CU to craft
legislation prohibiting anonymous political speech both at the state and
federal levels.

> Logically, if corporations have the same free speech rights as natural
> persons, they should _also_ have the right to speak anonymously.
>
> OTOH, those rules were designed to protect ordinary people, who may be at
> the mercy of employers, mobs, etc. Large corporations, people who can
> afford to make political donations in the $millions, should be able to
> weather the storm from unpopular opinions. They can afford security (and
> usually already hire some). And I think the public has _some_ interest in
> knowing who is trying to influence elections.

And we are seeing what happens to people who speak out with unpopular
opinions on our college campuses.

> The balancing act between those two interests -- privacy vs. an open (and
> aboveboard) market of opinions -- is not an easy one, and I don't have an
> answer that really satisfies me.

The Founding Fathers had an answer, the First Amendment. If you don't
like what someone is saying, stick your fingers in your ears. <G>

[Fred Brown]

"Barry Gold" <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message

news:n92qup$i1h$1...@dont-email.me...

3 out of 3 ain't bad. <G>

[MajorOz]

For decades, I was the only person I was aware of that was both an ACLU member and an NRA Lifer.

Then....somewhere in the (IIRC)90's, the ACLU issued a statement that, in their opinion, the second amendment, UNLIKE THE OTHERS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, did NOT apply to individuals.

So I quit.

...I have heard reports, but have been unable to verify them, that they have since waffled and tried to back pedal.

[Barry Gold]

Barry Gold wrote:
>> Logically, if corporations have the same free speech rights as natural
>> persons, they should _also_ have the right to speak anonymously.
>>
>> OTOH, those rules were designed to protect ordinary people, who may be
>> at the mercy of employers, mobs, etc. Large corporations, people who
>> can afford to make political donations in the $millions, should be
>> able to weather the storm from unpopular opinions. They can afford
>> security (and usually already hire some). And I think the public has
>> _some_ interest in knowing who is trying to influence elections.

Fred Brown wrote:
> Certain politicians on both sides of the asile want to know who is
speaking out against them. There have been several attempts since CU to
craft legislation prohibiting anonymous political speech both at the
state and federal levels.

> And we are seeing what happens to people who speak out with unpopular
> opinions on our college campuses.

Not that much, really. They get yelled at, but when colleges -- at
least, government-run colleges, try to restrict free speech, the courts
intervene, as they should.

The whole "safe space" thing, "trigger warnings," etc. is just too
stupid for words. The whole idea of college, university, etc. is to
provide a place where ideas can compete and everybody gets to talk. As
you said below, if you don't like what is being said, stick your fingers
in your ears.

I've heard about -- but not seen definitive proof of -- campuses and
departments where a Conservative viewpoint will get you low grades. But
I suspect that (for example), if you submitted the modern equivalent of
John Maynard Keynes's doctoral dissertation at the University of
Chicago, you wouldn't get your PhD.

Or, how well do you think a paper (or classroom argument) defending
same-sex marriage would go over at TCU, Bob Jones University, SMU, etc.?

The reason I mention lack of proof is that I have no idea how
well-reasoned the "Conservative" viewpoints are. A lot of what I see on
the web is purely circular reasoning. One reason for coming here is that
_some_ of our Conservatives (most notably Oz and Kevin) can actually
construct a logical argument.

One Conservative in our local club (who, like too many Conservatives,
reads only Conservative sources and believes everything he reads there)
entered a discussion about GMO grain and monarch butterflies. He
said(*) that GMOs are not responsible for the severe decline in monarch
butterflies in the midwest.

Strictly speaking, he's right. It isn't the GMOs themselves that are
causing trouble for the midwest monarchs. It's the herbicide (Roundup)
that is used to inhibit weeds and allow putting the crop rows closer
together.

Most insects depend on some sort of camouflage to protect them from
predators. But monarchs have a distinctive and highly visible pattern on
their wings. That pattern is a warning to birds that might otherwise eat
the monarchs.

Monarch butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed plants (if there are any
available). The caterpillars eat the milkweed and store cardenolides,
which are poisonous to birds. A bird eats a monarch butterfly and
discovers that it tastes bitter. The bird also gets quite sick from the
cardenolides and other alkaloids that the caterpillar derived from the
milkweed.

Thus, birds learn not to eat monarchs, and the majority of the migration
either survives or dies of something other than predation.

Roundup kills milkweed, so the monarchs must lay their eggs on other
plants. That results in mature butterflies that don't have the milkweed
poisons in their cells, and don't poison birds. So the birds eat the
monarchs and only a small portion of the monarchs survive the annual
migration.

And _that_ is the problem with GMO grains and monarch butterflies:
Farmers buy GMO grains so they can use Roundup to kill weeds --
including milkweed. The result is monarchs that don't poison birds, and
the loss of almost all of the yearly migration to predation.

You can't depend on only one point of view. You need to do research. If
this guy's level of research is typical (he's a first-level manager at
the LA DWP), then there may be other problems with Conservative research
at the college level.

(*) Presumably parroting either a Conservative web page or Monsanto itself

[Kevin C]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 1:55:04 AM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
> I've heard about -- but not seen definitive proof of -- campuses and
> departments where a Conservative viewpoint will get you low grades. But
> I suspect that (for example), if you submitted the modern equivalent of
> John Maynard Keynes's doctoral dissertation at the University of
> Chicago, you wouldn't get your PhD.

> Most insects depend on some sort of camouflage to protect them from
> predators. But monarchs have a distinctive and highly visible pattern on
> their wings. That pattern is a warning to birds that might otherwise eat
> the monarchs.

I've seen this. It's under Professor Quirks, which is a filing cabinet in itself. So it was that, with a certain professor, we noticed English papers written from a conservative viewpoint received lower marks than those with liberal viewpoints. I know someone who had a serious disagreement with a professor mouthing off shear,unsupported BS, and she called him on it because she was there and knew. From that point he attempted to make her time in his class hell. He gave her the lowest mark he could halfway justify - a high B - and though she thought about formally contesting it, she said to blazes with a few points.

It was something we knew happened, but we knew other stuff that happened. too. My worst professor wasn't the English professor who dinged conservative views. No, it was the alcoholic professor who let booze get the best of him, and was let go the year after I graduated. We knew of another, a brilliant man, who lived in his office like it was an apartment. I had another who purely hated Iranians (it was a long time ago, when Iranians could go to college in the US) and would pressure them out of his class. And so forth and so on.

From what I'm hearing from those in college today it hasn't. And some departments are more outspoken than others.

Most students suffer through it because confronting a professor seldom turns out well. And woe to the student when a parent tries to step in! Yes, I saw that happen from the sidelines. It was like watching a slow motion train wreck.

> Roundup kills milkweed, so the monarchs must lay their eggs on other
> plants. That results in mature butterflies that don't have the milkweed
> poisons in their cells, and don't poison birds. So the birds eat the
> monarchs and only a small portion of the monarchs survive the annual
> migration.
>
> And _that_ is the problem with GMO grains and monarch butterflies:
> Farmers buy GMO grains so they can use Roundup to kill weeds --
> including milkweed. The result is monarchs that don't poison birds, and
> the loss of almost all of the yearly migration to predation.

The problem with this theory is that a well maintained field was never overrun with weeds even before GMOs and Round-Up (tm). The solution before herbicides was to plow or hoe. Plow or hoe a lot. Pre-tractor era saw many row crops plowed nearly to harvest. Tractor cultivation put a limit on this because after a certain size you can't get the equipment over the crops.

The tractor era saw a shrinking of row distance. Originally you had to have the rows further apart to allow a horse or mule to walk between them. Corn was planted on five foot centers. But since you couldn't run 2+ row equipment through the field, anyway, it made sense to plant them closer, both for efficiency and to help keep down weeds. You can only plant them so close for dry land farming, though, because they suffer through lack of water and nutrients.

But if you can afford irrigation, you can provide the needed water. And you can add enough fertilizer to supply the needed nutrients. This also makes fields so think with crops that it further helps crowd out weeds.

So why mess with GMOs and Round-Up (tm)? Because you still have to cultivate the crops to a certain point, and just how close you can squeeze in crops depends on the type of crops. The GMO/Round-Up (tm) combo means you can cultivate less, saving both diesel and wear and tear on equipment. This especially works well with no-till, which is just what it sounds like.

All this means is that unless a field is fallow, there's not going to be much milkweed available between the rows, whether GMOs and Round-Up (tm) is used or not. Along the field margins is another matter, but not in the field itself, no, not if the farmer is diligent.

[Cindy Wells]

On 2/6/2016 12:54 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

> Roundup kills milkweed, so the monarchs must lay their eggs on other
> plants. That results in mature butterflies that don't have the milkweed
> poisons in their cells, and don't poison birds. So the birds eat the
> monarchs and only a small portion of the monarchs survive the annual
> migration.
>

Roundup isn't the only herbicide that kills milkweed. 2,4-D does a great
job, as well. 2,4-D gets used in the grasses (wheat, corn, etc.) after
planting. Roundup got used prior to planting. The GMO lets the
herbicides get used in-crop.

> And _that_ is the problem with GMO grains and monarch butterflies:
> Farmers buy GMO grains so they can use Roundup to kill weeds --
> including milkweed. The result is monarchs that don't poison birds, and
> the loss of almost all of the yearly migration to predation.
>
>

What actually happened is that farmers made more of their land
productive and started controlling for weeds in the ditches and fence
lines. This keeps the weeds from spreading back into the crop grounds.
Thus there was less and less milkweed for the monarch butterfly larvae.
The needed solution isn't restricting GMO seeds; it's leaving more
ground with "native plants" and working the rest with a higher
productivity crop.

Cindy Wells
(we've got a few sections that we're trying to return to the natural
state. One area has been planted for "quail habitat"; it's a work in
progress. We're even trying to the small sections of native grasses to
reseed. However, we're in the minority and don't farm for maximum profit.)

[MajorOz]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 10:10:34 AM UTC-6, Cindy Wells wrote:
> On 2/6/2016 12:54 AM, Barry Gold wrote:
>
> > Roundup kills milkweed, so the monarchs must lay their eggs on other
> > plants. That results in mature butterflies that don't have the milkweed
> > poisons in their cells, and don't poison birds. So the birds eat the
> > monarchs and only a small portion of the monarchs survive the annual
> > migration.
> >
>
> Roundup isn't the only herbicide that kills milkweed. 2,4-D does a great
> job, as well. 2,4-D gets used in the grasses (wheat, corn, etc.) after
> planting. Roundup got used prior to planting. The GMO lets the
> herbicides get used in-crop.
>
> > And _that_ is the problem with GMO grains and monarch butterflies:
> > Farmers buy GMO grains so they can use Roundup to kill weeds --
> > including milkweed. The result is monarchs that don't poison birds, and
> > the loss of almost all of the yearly migration to predation.
> >
> >
>
> What actually happened is that farmers made more of their land
> productive and started controlling for weeds in the ditches and fence
> lines. This keeps the weeds from spreading back into the crop grounds.
> Thus there was less and less milkweed for the monarch butterfly larvae.
> The needed solution isn't restricting GMO seeds; it's leaving more
> ground with "native plants" and working the rest with a higher
> productivity crop.

That's that tack that Audubon and the butterfly folks are taking. There is also a growing movement, through schools and wildlife assns (including hunters groups) to plant milkweed.

>
> Cindy Wells
> (we've got a few sections that we're trying to return to the natural
> state. One area has been planted for "quail habitat"; it's a work in
> progress. We're even trying to the small sections of native grasses to
> reseed. However, we're in the minority and don't farm for maximum profit.)

I think you are just across the line from the some lands that MO is encouraging to become part of the "wildlife prairie project"...or a similar name. It has done very well for a couple decades in bringing back, not only quail but prairie chicken and glade flowers.

[Fred Brown]

"Barry Gold" <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message

news:n9456q$i2p$1...@dont-email.me...

> Barry Gold wrote:
>>> Logically, if corporations have the same free speech rights as natural
>>> persons, they should _also_ have the right to speak anonymously.
>>>
>>> OTOH, those rules were designed to protect ordinary people, who may be
>>> at the mercy of employers, mobs, etc. Large corporations, people who
>>> can afford to make political donations in the $millions, should be
>>> able to weather the storm from unpopular opinions. They can afford
>>> security (and usually already hire some). And I think the public has
>>> _some_ interest in knowing who is trying to influence elections.
>
> Fred Brown wrote:
> > Certain politicians on both sides of the asile want to know who is
> speaking out against them. There have been several attempts since CU to
> craft legislation prohibiting anonymous political speech both at the state
> and federal levels.
>
>> And we are seeing what happens to people who speak out with unpopular
>> opinions on our college campuses.
>
> Not that much, really. They get yelled at, but when colleges -- at least,
> government-run colleges, try to restrict free speech, the courts
> intervene, as they should.

Yes, but it takes several years of litigation to get a favorable court
ruling.
And either a fat wallet or intervention by a rights group that will take up
the court fight.

> The whole "safe space" thing, "trigger warnings," etc. is just too stupid
> for words. The whole idea of college, university, etc. is to provide a
> place where ideas can compete and everybody gets to talk. As you said
> below, if you don't like what is being said, stick your fingers in your
> ears.
>
> I've heard about -- but not seen definitive proof of -- campuses and
> departments where a Conservative viewpoint will get you low grades. But I
> suspect that (for example), if you submitted the modern equivalent of John
> Maynard Keynes's doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago, you
> wouldn't get your PhD.

It was either in TX or CA where a student was expelled by a professor
when he wrote a paper contradicting her position on women's rights.
She claimed that his paper made her feel "unsafe" and she callled the
police on him. Saw the article the other day and now can't find it.

Going back to an earlier comment on money in politics, one of the SC
justices
made a comment to the effect that no matter how much money is spent it's the
voters who ultimately decide.
The 2010 election, and going back to 1994, proves that.
That's kind of reinforced by a recent Gallup poll showing Bush going from a
+27 to a -1 favorability rating.
The Right To Rise Super PAC backing Bush raised more than $100 million
last year and spent some $60 million promoting Jeb Bush and tearing down
his opponents. Bush and other PACs spent some additional $80 million and
Bush is still in the toilet.

[Cindy Wells]

On 2/6/2016 11:34 AM, MajorOz wrote:

> I think you are just across the line from the some lands that MO is encouraging to become part of the "wildlife prairie project"...or a similar name. It has done very well for a couple decades in bringing back, not only quail but prairie chicken and glade flowers.
>

There are several wildlife/prairie areas on both sides of the state
line. Our quail habitat area was planted after discussing the area with
the KS Quail Initiative. The other sections had some native grasses
(little blue stem) in the fescue parts. So we use some selective mowing
to try and keep that going stronger than the rest.

Cindy Wells
(Our first attempt at the improvements fed a lot of other birds in the
neighborhood.)