Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
Mark you have really done great work this time! Stephanie Riggio has channeled the Disney-sentimentality schtick so perfectly it makes me wonder if Pinocchio was the cover version.
Now let me suggest a few follow-ups in the same vein:
How about a rendition of Jiminy Cricket's "Give a Little Whistle" as a theme song for our precious K street lobbyists?
"When you need some inlfuence and there's no time to lose,
Give a little whistle!, Give a little whistle!
And always let your conscience be your guide!" (etc)
A perfect tribute to the inherant contradictions of the emerging Tea Party could be "Send In the Clowns". This song would also work as a tribute to the pointless last two years of Barack Obama's efforts a bi-partisanship.
Finally, an Elvis-like rendition of "My Way" as a tribute to America's first village idiot as President,filiao George W. Bush.
I'm surprised that Fiore defends ObamaCare like it really works for the people. . . I doubt it can EVER work correctly for the people since it was created by bureaucrats. Didn't we even hear the politicians in this administration admit that there are problems with it (like the demands for all the 1099s; the sky high insurance rates being charged even before ObamaCare kicks in for Adults? I'm not seeing any plus's here. Oh sure, your kids can be insured up to age 26 on 'your' policy, but isn't there something about them having to already be on your policy to enjoy that bonus? Look; this administration says 'why can't we just fix it - not repeal and replace it? Well, I must ask the same question, why didn't you think of that before you created ObamaCare? Why didn't you just fix the insurance we originally had? After all, some people thought it was better than this one. It just needed tweeking, like mandating insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.... lower costs.....etc.
Fiore seems to be going in the wrong direction lately with their political cartoons.....I'm wondering if they've turned progressive? What's Up?
Why is it that most of the people who crusade against "ObamaCare" seem to have no idea what it actually involves? If we eliminated private insurance and provided full coverage to everyone as a public service, we'd save a ton of money while eliminating any more worries about not being able to get care or about going bankrupt. Virtually every other country has done something like this, including staunchly capitalist ones like Taiwan and Singapore.
But the recent law does NOT do this. It only puts a few extra regulations on insurers (who will probably come up with ways around them -- they're good at that) and threatens the rest of us with fines if we don't buy their highly defective product. "Why didn't he just tweak the existing system" is a profoundly stoopid question, because that's exactly what he did do.
Fiore is a he, not a they, by the way. And progressive isn't the wrong direction, unless you really want to see the public left to the mercy of big-money interests.
How is this related to the video?
The Corporations have learned that they can make and sell their products offshore and they don't need us anymore. Workers are screwed on a regular basis. I think if they are human they should also get the demands of being human like responsibility and jail time when they damage workers and the Country. Thanks , Mr. Fiore!
Sadly, Mr. Fiore acts as a propagandist FOR the rulers of this nation... the people BEHIND the corporations... by echoing the popular lie (oft droned by brain-dead liberals and social democrats) that corporations are entities with wills that make decisions, set policy, buy and control politicians, etc. It's hard for me to imagine how ignorant such a view is. Corporations have no more consiousness than a hammer. Both are TOOLS. In the case of the corporation, it is the most refined and sophisticated TOOL of ORGANIZATION those who exploit and rule have yet to devise. But corporations are JUST TOOLS. It those who WIELD those tools... the people... the GROUP of people... the CLASS of people... who wield those tools... who are making the decisions and setting national and international policy in their interest, via the government they created and control.
In the movie "The Usual Suspects" one of the characters says "the most clever thing the devil ever did was convince people he did not exist". Well, I've never had any belief in the idiotic superstition known as religion, or the specific abrahamic nonsense about "god" and "devil". But that line was quite insightful: One of the smartest things the ruling class of this country ever did was convince [most] of those they exploit in it that they don't exist (and that said exploitation just doesn't occur). Sadly, Mark's cartoon just re-enforces that clever lie.
MG anonymous, you are, obviously, a corporate tool or out of touch with reality.
Unfortunately, Mr. Fiore still believes that just because he watches MSNBC instead of FOX NEWS he gets the "real" version of events. You can tell this quite easily when it comes to his depictions of the "nasty taliban threat" (these days also known as "any civilian" to people who care more about truth than propaganda).
But than again Mr. Fiore should do a bit more than just repeat and parody most of the propaganda that's on the news.
Which is not easy for most Americans in his mindset:
- Read WikiLeaks? Evil! Assange is clearly a terrorist to undermine freedom and democracy! And, of course, its only his personal ego-show.
- Watch Al Jazeera? Evil! Muslim extremist television! Al Quaida-news network!
- Watch Russia Today or read Ria Novosti? Evil! Godless communist-soviet-propaganda!
- Watch at least BBC-News? Evil! What do the decadent Europeans know about OUR problems?
You see, that's why although he deserved his Pulitzer he's still just one of those mild-mannered and pseudo-academic critics who don't change SQUAT in this country.
First you say that corporations don't buy off politicians and set the national agenda, then you say they do.... this makes no sense.
He probably would say "the government controls the news presented by the major news corporations"
If so, then it does make sense.
Ukelele Ike sings about corporate heart's desire... If they only had hearts.
When I started watching this, I thought it was going to be an attack on crony capitalism. Alas, it is an attack on free speech and freedom of association.
For those of you who are constitutionally illiterate, the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
On this last point, if you want to reduce the problem of rent-seeking and crony capitalism, the only way to do so - without violating the First Amendment - is to reduce the size, scope, power, and financial resources of the federal government. If there is less power, money, and influence for our political class to peddle, there won't be nearly so many lobbyists going to Washington with hat in hand, begging for alms. Here's an alternative cartoon illustrating this point - http://townhall.com/cartoons/chuckasay/2011/1/27/78291
And yes, this problem is endemic on both sides of the political aisle.
- H. Roark
..Or change laws making it a crime for lobby groups to undertake the actions they do. Pressure should be from the people at the ballot box. Not full-time lawyers paid to do nothing more than push the interests of their corporate employers.
Either way, corporate profits are soaring, meanwhile the Average American has been treading water at around the same wages and standard of living as they had in 1973. The only thing satisfying us all is huge technological changes that make us appear wealthier (higher-end tech gets more affordable very quickly). We also have a huge and confusing media culture that distracts and misinforms the masses.
The constitution in that regards was mentioning people not corporations. Everyone knew then as now that corporations were not people. If anything we need more government to control these cronies and maybe even a few new amendments to the constitution regulating big business even more. Government is NOT the problem. Corporatism and unregulated capitalism IS.
You claim that "corporations [are] not people." Really? Have you ever witnessed a stapler, photo-copier, pencil sharpener, lathe, drill-press, or any other type of office machine, plant, or equipment "petition[ing] [its] Government for a redress of grievances?" Or paying the corporate income tax, for that matter?
A corporation is not an inanimate object. Rather, it is an amalgamation of free PEOPLE who have "peaceably assembled" in order to develop products and/or services they can sell at prices that are: a) Higher than the costs necessary to produce them, B) Lower than what their competitors are charging (all else being equal – e.g., cost of shipping, convenience, quality level, etc.), and c) At or lower than their customers' maximum willingness to pay (i.e., at or below the demand curve). Stated differently, a corporation is a group of PEOPLE who have freely chosen to work together (and/or chosen to pool their financial resources together) to achieve this end.
If you don't understand why corporations form naturally, perhaps you should take a few minutes to understand Ronald Coase's influential article titled, "The Nature of the Firm" (summary available at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm ).
Regardless of how or why corporations have evolved, the bottom line is that they are made up of free PEOPLE (i.e., employees and shareholders), and these PEOPLE have natural rights that no government has the moral authority to deny to them.
Are there corporate leaders (i.e., PEOPLE) who engage in legalized plunder by rent-seeking (i.e., crony capitalism)? Yes, of course there are! Just like there are plenty of left-liberals (i.e., PEOPLE) who engage in the same activity by imposing the welfare state on the rest of us. The true liberal (i.e., libertarian) understands that this type of behavior is an unfortunate flaw in our human nature (whether we care to admit it or not), and the only proper remedy is to reign in the power of the political class (i.e., PEOPLE) who sanction it.
Why is it that left-liberals believe labor unions (i.e., PEOPLE) should have First Amendment rights, but non-unionized employees and shareholders (i.e., OTHER PEOPLE) should be denied these same rights?
Be consistent! The First Amendment applies to ALL PEOPLE, regardless of how they have organized themselves.
Dear Mr. Roark,
I agree that corporations form naturally and I agree that they are generally formed by individuals joining together to form a group. However, while corporations may be comprised of individuals, as you very correctly pointed out, their main purpose is:
"to develop products and/or services they can sell at prices that are:
A) Higher than the costs necessary to produce them,
B) Lower than what their competitors are charging (all else being equal – e.g., cost of shipping, convenience, quality level, etc.), and
C) At or lower than their customers' maximum willingness to pay (i.e., at or below the demand curve)"
This is the big difference between corporations and individuals; while individuals have myriad considerations in making their decisions, including planning for the future, corporations only have the three interests you specifically mentioned. Take the example of a coal company, for instance. Right now, coal companies hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in tax breaks and government handouts. I am certain that you could get behind lowering this kind of government intervention which deflates the actual market price of a produce. Yet if the government were to propose eliminating coal subsidies it would be against that corporation's interests. Since the stakes are high (drastic increase in the expense of operating) a corporation or industry could spend hundreds of millions of dollars ensuring that a candidate who supported their position was elected. The sheer resources of corporations allow them to have far more influence than an individual person.
I'd like to address your First Amendment argument that corporations are entitled to the same speech rights as individuals. The first ruling to the effect that corporations have the same rights as people came in the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment (which, I believe you will remember, was originally intended to guarantee rights for slaves after the Civil War) in the 1886 and the case of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Santa Clara County sued one of the first American corporate giants, Southern Pacific Railroad, for back taxes. Southern Pacific argued, among other things, that corporations were “artificial persons” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that a State may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [emphasis added].” Therefore, argued Southern Pacific, government could not “discriminate” against corporations by calculating their taxes differently from those of human beings. Significantly, the Court expressly declined to rule upon this argument, instead deciding on very narrow factual grounds in favor of Southern Pacific. But somehow, an off the record comment by Chief Justice Waite to the effect that he believed the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations -- a comment that was made before Justice Harlan delivered the actual opinion of the Court -- was picked up by the Court Reporter and mistakenly included in the headnotes to the decision. The headnotes state that the Court decided that corporations were persons, even though the Court never ruled on that question. Although the mistake in the headnotes is now recognized, the damage was done. Santa Clara’s erroneous headnote became the basis of further Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate personhood, cases that were later cited by the Court in Citizens United.
So ... No, I don't believe corporate speech is protected. I do believe that individual shareholder and non-union member speech should be protected, just as I believe that unions should have similar restrictions to corporations. Corporations do not have the same complexity as a PERSON, but they can have far more resources than any individual. Given the disproportionate influence corporations can have through their sheer size and the depth of their capital reserves, allowing corporate campaign expenditures to compete directly with the free speech of people is downright undemocratic. A republican democracy such as ours is based on the rights of the individual; not the wealth of single minded interests.
I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments and I hope you have the opportunity to respond to this one.
Likewise, I appreciate your thoughtful and well-written comments.
Here's my question to you: Where in the First Amendment does it say that the rights listed are only reserved to INDIVIDUAL citizens? The word "people" is usually plural. And the phrase, "Congress shall make no law" means no law for anyone; regardless of whether it is one person or many.
Even if this were not true, at what point do you think Congress should restrict our First Amendment rights? Should it be the moment two or more people get together? After all, two people certainly have more resources as a group than each of the two individual members have when acting alone, right?
Please keep in mind that nowhere in the First Amendment are we guaranteed EQUALITY of speech measured in terms of equal resources. Rather, we are guaranteed equal protection of speech. Meaning, an equal opportunity under the law to exercise it. If speech were made equal in terms of resources, Congress would have to grant everyone a megaphone, newspaper ad space, airtime, you name it.
I don't want to live in an Orwellian world, do you?
Again, the problem with rent-seeking is endemic on both sides of the political aisle. The proper remedy is NOT to destroy liberty. Rather, it is to further liberty by taking away much of the political power being auctioned off by Congress to the highest bidder.
I know this would mean reducing the welfare state and numerous other social-engineering projects favored by left-liberals and social conservatives, but these goals could be achieved far more effectively through private means (e.g., charitable giving to feed the poor, rehabilitation programs to help those who are addicted to drugs, etc.).
If they pay the same tax rate as the average American and can go to jail for crimes then we can talk about it.
The stockholders of corporations do pay taxes on their income and can go to jail. If you have a pension you probably own parts of lots of corporations. If you work for a living you probably pay some taxes and I'm guessing that you can go to jail, just as Kenneth Lay went to prison. Businesses are not the enemy of the people. Corporations who find corrupt politicians who will sell their power and influence are the enemy. The "rich folks" who are so hated ARE paying most of the taxes.
Actually I might be tempted to limit the voice of large non personal organizations if it included labor unions. They aren't people in the sense that you use the term.
YOU NEVER HEAR ABOUT KEN LAY ANY MORE. I STILL DON'T THINK HE'S DEAD!
Is this animation only in reference to the Supreme Court's ruling a while back about corporations' right to free speech, or did something else related occur recently?
Meanwhile, Ms. Riggio demonstrates that her voice is as versatile as she is talented.
Gotta go... going to click on the banner here to find out who this "Ann Coulter" person is... presumably a columnist of a liberal bent....
Love it! Disney could be proud... Really!
CorporateLand: coming soon, or already here?
More information about formatting options