[GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook

[Caroline Yacoub]

It might keep them from buying Congress, but it can't keep them from buying the 
media.




________________________________
From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
To: Caroline Yacoub <carolineyacoub at att.net>
Cc: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com>; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" 
<sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:48:38 PM
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook

On 1/3/2012 9:40 PM, Caroline Yacoub wrote: 
So Spencer, you don't really believe that the amendment, as it now stands, would 
hurt small business? I don't have much expertise in the business world, but I 
can't read it and feel sure about that.

      I think the net impact will more likely be positive.  Major corporations 
today provide the money that elect the politicians, who then spend a substantial 
portion of their time trying to enact verbiage written by lobbyists for their 
major contributors.  This would not work if a critical mass of the electorate 
paid directly for serious investigative journalism that would tell them in more 
detail how this works and would make it clearer to the electorate which 
candidates would actually legislate in the interest of the bottom 99%.  The 
business model of the commercial media is selling behavior change in their 
audience to advertisers.  The 1% does not what the public to know exactly the 
many ways in which they get welfare, and they can retaliate against honestly 
liberal media.  They know they do not need to feed the mouth that bites them.  



      I'd be surprised if passing that amendment would have an immediate, 
dramatic effect.  However, it would make it more difficult for the 1% to buy 
congress and continue the current massive transfers of wealth from the 99% to 
the 1%.  



      Spencer 



Caroline
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
>To: John Thielking <pagesincolor at yahoo.com>
>Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
>Sent: Tue, January 3, 2012 9:33:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] I Now Have 2 Community Pages On Facebook
>
>Hi, John, et al.:  
>
>
>       It is in the best short term interest of the venal 1% to claim that 
>repealing corporate personhood would hurt small business.  I don't know if that 
>is what is happening, but I would expect that Citizens United and similar 
>organizations would be paying people to write messages on Facebook with claims 
>like, ""SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web sites) of their property 
>(their domain names and access to their sites) without due process".  Big money 
>in politics today is often spent (a) doing focus groups to find out what kinds 
>of arguments against it resonate with people, (b) following that with sample 
>surveys to pick the strongest of several likely candidates, then (c) circulating 
>that message in a variety of ways, often concealing the source.  
>
>
>
>      The concerns about SOPA and NDAA are real, but I the primary impact on 
>small business I see from repeal of corporate personhood is that it would 
>deprive the 1% of certain tools they now use to increase their wealth and power 
>at the expense of small businesses.  
>
>
>
>      (more on your Facebook page citing research that social mobility is lower 
>in the US, where the power of corporations has grown substantially over the past 
>125 years, than in much of Europe, which reportedly does not have corporate 
>personhood.)  
>
>
>
>      Spencer Graves
>
>
>On 1/3/2012 8:44 AM, John Thielking wrote: 
>Folks,
>>
>>I now have two community pages on Facebook which may be of interest to you.  
>>Check them out if you like/if you have time.
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>John Thielking
>>
>>Small Businesses Are People TooA prime example of the contradictions within the 
>>movement and the need to think over carefully the MTA Section 1 is the case of 
>>the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA would deprive small businesses (ie web 
>>sites) of their property (their domain names and access to their sites) without 
>>due process (big businesses could merely petition a judge claiming violations of 
>>copyright and the sites would be shut down for a minimum of 5 days before a 
>>hearing could be held to present evidence). Some in the Occupy movement are busy 
>>protesting this unconstitutional move by Congress, while at the same time 
>>pushing for passage of MTA Section 1 which would make their claims of 
>>unconstitutionality of SOPA moot. So which is it? Do you support rights for 
>>small businesses or don't you?
>>
>>
>>And 
>>
>>Peacemovies.com
>>The final post for 2011: Go to www.peacemovies.com/offhollywood.html for a quick 
>>peek at the possibilities of legally streaming content for "free" that is often 
>>of higher quality, more original and almost always less violent than the typical 
>>Hollywood fare. If you like what you just streamed, please donate generously to 
>>the site that provided the content. Thanks.
>>Peacemovies.com: The Off-Hollywood Pagewww.peacemovies.com
>>non-violent movies, family entertainment
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>_______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss mailing list 
>>sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org 
>>http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss


--  Spencer Graves, PE, PhD President and Chief Technology Officer Structure 
Inspection and Monitoring, Inc. 751 Emerson Ct. San José, CA 95126 ph:  
408-655-4567 web:  www.structuremonitoring.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120103/3a7e3a59/attachment.html>