Are Corporations people or governments?

Several challenges to the Affordable Care act are reaching the Supreme Court. If I didn't think the court were corrupt I'd be confident the court would decide them sagely. But the Supreme Court is hopelessly partisan and hopelessly corrupt so I have no confidence that the corrupt members of the gang of five will do the right thing. Even so the case, to me is about corporations as government not corporations as "persons" and if corporate government is tyrannical (for private, separate advantage of the governors [see "definitions" post]), then it is because corporations are not only businesses but they are local governments to their employees and property, and it is their governing power that is being argued at the Supreme Court, not their mere "artificial" personhood. If an employer can deny employees medical benefits based on their own religious beliefs, then they are doing so as "masters" or government, not as mere business-persons. Businesses serve the commons and operate in markets. They have no business imposing their beliefs on anyone, much less their employees. Or denying them medical benefits based on those beliefs. But that is my argument, and by my argument corporations should obey "separation of church and state" in administration of their business. Maybe a religious corporation can apply their religious beliefs as a religion.

And the idea that corporations should have complete impunity to impose tyranny on their employees ought to be repugnant to everyone. The CEO's want to be "King" and we let them get away with it.

To Keep it simple, stupid, that is it for this post.

Further reading:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/06/corrupt-court.html

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-corrupt-decision-blind-to-corrupt.html

Snowy Mountains and the deserts

It's always snowed in the mountains.

I remember as a kid watching the clouds pass overhead in the desert.

The storms would kick up dust, but no rain.

.

I remember that dust, one time,

like a tornado chasing my father's car home.

Oh, yes no rain reaches the desert floors,

but in the mountain it rains, and it snows!

.

Up in the mountains it would rain, (or snow)

and when that rain fell

or the snow melted in spring,

long silent rivers would grow.

.

They call those rivers Arroyos,

in the language of Spain

and when there is no rain,

they seem curvy roads leading down to a plain.

.

But those plains, those salt flats

are long dead seas,

and when it rains they fill to the knees.

And long sleeping frogs, fish and bugs,

wake up to feast,

their sleepy thirst finally slaked.

.

The water doesn't last long,

and much of it is salty,

but while there is water,

the desert is healthy.

.

What had been dry and brown, alive with sounds,

bursting with colors and green all around.

The blue sky above, and life everywhere,

where shortly before all had seemed so bare.

.

I remember desert storms as a good thing.

Christopher H. Holte

Lincoln the Marxist!!!

Lincoln the Marxist

I'm still reading about the circumstances around Lincoln's 1861 State of the Union Speech. But the text itself shows that:

a; "class" distinctions were mostly an invention of the wealthy, and
b; Lincoln didn't truck with permanent class distinctions.
c; The issue of capital and labor is directly tied to that of slavery.

In December of 1861 near the beginning of the Civil War Lincoln gave a State of Union speech which included this often excerpted portion. I imagine real Marxists (I'm not one) like it even more than me:

From Infoplease: http://www.infoplease.com/t/hople ist/state-of-the-union/73.html

"It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government."

People like to think that class warfare started with the Marxists and reached it's culmination with the Bolshevik Revolution. But the reality is that property, including capital, and labor have been at odds with each other for most of human history. The reason why slavery was an important issue was because it represented the ownership of people and their labor as property. Ending slavery was important, not only to slaves, but to working people in general. And fighting the efforts of capital to not only exert economic power but to rule policy through politics and law are directly connected. And Lincoln in this speech explains why.

"It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

(Read more: State of the Union Address: Abraham Lincoln (December 3, 1861) | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html#ixzz2l7wRUNPa

This is how our masters would prefer us to be. If we are slaves they don't have to pay us. If they can find willing slaves (like Robots) they can fix us in the position of slaves, or even worse, freeze us out of the parts of the economy they control. And we have to reject that premise in order to fight the policies.

"Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer...."

Unless their freedom is taken away from them. More importantly people have a natural right to own the means to pursue happiness, to have a property in the commons necessary for commoners such as us to survive. Thus the arguments of those who would make capital king are bankrupt and groundless.

"Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless."

If we are enslaved it is tyranny and usurpation, not a natural or humane logic. Lincoln is here stating a fundamental, a natural, an inalienable right.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

But of course capital has fought back with the argument that capital is the "job creators" and that people will not work unless capital pays them.

"Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them.

Thus one can see that the slave owners were fundamentally, capitalists.

The Vision of America

But the vision of America is of a vast middle class of people who are both capitalists and laborers, who own their own capital goods (tools, buildings, offices, etc...) and are not either slaves nor mere hired hands:

A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

And that class is nurtured by government that doesn't favor capital over labor and that doesn't penalize labor with evil policies, mandated minimum wages, and by giving capital ownership over the commons.

"Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

And so Abraham Lincoln shows the basis of the Progressive movement. We aren't Marxists. We don't see a laboring class that will suddenly "rise up" and seize the "means of production" as some abstract concept. We see ourselves as both capitalists and laborers, working class and capable of doing better. We see the American Dream as the right to not be fixed in place by oppression of any sort.

(Read more: State of the Union Address: Abraham Lincoln (December 3, 1861) | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html#ixzz2l7wRUNPa

Is Beauty for the World?

Is Beauty for the world to see?
Or is it a secret only for me?

I enter my secret garden and tred lightly
but I still leave broken things behind.
How can I let in armies, if I'm unkind?

Would that secret garden, not be a secret;
and folks take off their jackboots at the door,
and put on winged sandals to walk the floor.

When I open up my secret garden to the world,
I risk barbarian invasion.
Incoming blind, destructive,
turning my garden to a dusty swirls.
All the beauty in my secret garden,
trampled by unthinking boots.

But is that garden really mine?
I claim it with my effort and mind,
But keeping it a secret breeds barbarian children,
who clamor at the door.
"Let me in! Let me in!"
I want to see this beauty once more.

Let's teach our children to grow up,
and take off their shoes, put on slippers,
and leave them at the door.

Christopher H. Holte

Faulty Assumptions and Verification

Paul krugman today writes in his article "Macrofoundations (Wonkish)"

"John Quiggin has a fun post debunking the notion, all too common among economists, that macroeconomics — the study of inflation, depressions, and all that — is somehow flaky and unworthy of the field’s grandeur, that only microeconomics, derived rigorously from rational behavior, is real science. Keynesian macro, in particular, is often regarded with intense distaste, and a lot of economists would like to ban it from the field."

Some Economists have come to that conclusion because of dogmas that haven't worked and their unwillingness to deviate from faulty assumptions, which are microeconomic assumptions:

"Quiggin points out, rightly, that almost all microeconomics depends crucially on the assumption that the economy is at full employment; this assumption is false, but what makes it not too false in normal times is the existence of stabilization policies, monetary and fiscal, that usually produce fairly quick recoveries from slumps. Macro is what makes micro work, to the extent that it does."

Every rational endeavor depends on observation, assumptions and verification. When assumptions are faulty, the results will be faulty. That is why we verify, debate, argue and sometimes have to change our minds. Krugman continues:

"I would add that macro is the only reason anyone listens to all those microeconomists who think they’re being rigorous. To see why, we need to think about the history of thought."

Because of the unwillingness to challenge authority, or even verify authority, science and scientists keep getting stuck. The unwillingness to verify has allowed dogma and faulty faith to substitute for reason, due to reasonable seeming theories turning out to be faulty:

"If you go back to the state of American economics in the 1930s and even into the 1940s, it was not at all the model-oriented, mathematical field it later became. Institutional economics was still a powerful force, and many senior economists disliked mathematical modeling. When Paul Samuelson published Foundations of Economic Analysis in 1947, the chairman of Harvard’s economics department tried to limit the print run to 500, grudgingly accepted a run of 750, and ordered the mathematical type broken up immediately."

And he continues:

"So why did model-oriented, math-heavy economics triumph? It wasn’t because general-equilibrium models of perfect competition had overwhelming empirical success. What happened, I’d argue, was Keynesian macroeconomics."

The thirties were a catastrophe not only for the nation but for mainstream economists like Von Mises, Hayek, and their classical counterparts all over the world. Their response to failure was to double down on their theories, but others challenged those theories by trying to examine assumptions and model out cause and effect.

"Think about it: In the 1930s you had a catastrophe, and if you were a public official or even just a layman looking for guidance and understanding, what did you get from institutionalists? Caricaturing, but only slightly, you got long, elliptical explanations that it all had deep historical roots and clearly there was no quick fix. Meanwhile, along came the Keynesians, who were model-oriented, and who basically said “Push this button”– increase G, and all will be well. And the experience of the wartime boom seemed to demonstrate that demand-side expansion did indeed work the way the Keynesians said it did."

Of course the reality of the models is that they too are based on assumptions, and the underlying assumptions are either things that can be held fixed, or they tend to blow up the models. Sometimes we can hold a variable fixed for calculation purposes, but we always have to be aware of the assumption and treat it as a modeling risk. Still, Keynesian concepts worked within the realm of those assumptions. Krugman continues:

"It’s not an accident that Samuelson, even as he was raising the math level of microeconomics, was a key figure in the triumph of Keynesian economics. Nor was it at all an accident that his intro textbook, in its 1948 edition and for a long time thereafter, started with macro, and only got to micro later. The perceived success of macroeconomics did double duty, establishing the bona fides of a model-oriented approach and also suggesting that full employment was not too bad an assumption — given the right monetary and fiscal policies."

Given the right monetary AND fiscal policies. Without responsible officials, again, the assumptions blow up. Krugman continutes:

"Oh, and economists who are upset that the public seems to judge the profession by its success at macro diagnosis and prediction are missing the point: it has always been thus, and purists who disdain macro are making mock of the only reason anyone takes them at all seriously."

So much for "praxeology." He continues:

"The academic enterprise of economics as we know it, in other words, rests on a macro foundation, and in fact a Keynesian foundation — and economists who denounce all of that as witchcraft are busily sawing off the branch they’re sitting on."

Of course the other reason the micro-economists folks don't like admitting they depend on macroeconomics is that most of them are conservatives who feel "in their bones" that the old classical assumptions always hold. That is why they jumped all over Friedman's ideas and monetarism. It was classical economics with a monetary stick they could wave like a magic wand.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/macrofoundations-wonkish/?_r=0

Stochastic Disease Reality Versus propaganda points

A friend shared with me an article in German. My German isn't that good, but thankfully Google translate is much better than older translation routines and so I can share it. The article is titled[http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/837196.verharmloste-strahlenfolgen.html]:

Ärzteorganisation IPPNW kritisiert UN-Bericht zur AKW-Katastrophe von Fukushima

Google Translates this as:

"Medical organization IPPNW criticizes UN report on the nuclear disaster in Fukushima"

The article summary tells us:

"The medical organization IPPNW submitted on Friday criticized the Fukushima report of the UN Committee on the effects of radiation."

Essentially IPPNW notes that almost all our officials and their employed experts make their reports based on outdated assumptions and inadequate data largely because the scientists are forced to rely on unclassified and deliberately downplayed propaganda points about the effects of radiation in generating "stochastic" [statistical] disease. In the Russian roulette of radiation effects, the odds are worse for people than officials -- burdened by secrecy laws and a punitive nuclear security state -- will admit. "The United Nations Committee on the Consequences of Radiation (UNSCEAR)' annual report on Fukushima" was characterized by the "The organization International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW ) as:

"targeted misinformation to the public."

They protested the reports claim that UNSCEAR's claim that:

"no apparent increase of cancer in the affected population could be expected , which may be associated with radiation exposure."

... is misinformation. IPPNW disputes the claim that:

"Although UNSCEAR admits an increase of cancer cases indicates,...that this would not be noticeable in the statistics because of their small numbers."

The IPPNW Angelika Claussen, chair of the German section, protests this finding saying:

"this statement is untenable.

And she notes how previously "very rare thyroid cancer was diagnosed in 18 children exposed to radiation in the region, with another 25 suspected of having this disease", while the normal "long-term average" in the area "indicated only one previous case expected." The IPPNW report is protesting that the UNSCEAR report underplays the massive risk of "stochastic" effects from radiation exposure in the form of increased risk of cancer. And the IPPNW investigators found that authorities were blocking systematic health checks and excluding sub-contractors from the measurements.

The article points to a failure to collect blood samples. It notes:

"they had to find in their journey through the mainly affected areas that the authorities block systematic health checks with blood [checks] 'spot.' Where this would have made on your own doctors , a significant accumulation of radiation- induced weakening of the immune system probably had been found . The pediatrician Alex Rosen , deputy chairman of the German section of IPPNW criticized , because even in the UNSCEAR report , especially the poor data base . Had been used mainly to the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA), the operating company TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear authorities , although particular TEPCO repeated manipulations and inconsistencies were noticed . There are no data received from independent measurements in the report. Is also ignored , that in work in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant after the disaster were used to a considerable extent employees of subcontractors that do not appear in the statistics.

So IPPNW is protesting deliberately left out data, and "manipulations and inconsistencies" in data collection and reporting. The report under reports the impact of radiation on the immune system and on Leukemia incidence. The article continues:

"How bad it is with the independence of UNSCEAR , has for Rose mere fact that the main radiation leukemia " expert " is a scientist who worked more than 30 years in the nuclear fuel manufacturer British Nuclear Fuel and also as a retiree or for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield operates."

This is not to impeach him as a science, but it does point to his probable partisan bias against admitting stochastic risks and that the man cannot possibly be a trained expert on Leukemia.

"Rose also sees shortcomings in other scientific methodology which partly goes from outdated assumptions since the 1950s . So it incorrectly assumed in the report of a threshold dose below which there will be no radiation damage. The radiobiological research has shown that such a threshold does not exist. In addition, embryos and fetuses were in the dose -response relationship simply equated with children , although in these the immune system is not yet fully emerged and they are particularly sensitive to radiation because of increased rates of cell division . In addition, an Australian study has 680 000 children in whom a CT scan was performed , compared with non-irradiated one million children. The absorbed radiation dose while about 4.5 millisievert ( mSv ) per 100 000 children have caused nine additional cancer cases. Such studies simply ignored the UN Committee , criticized Angelika Claussen , although UNSCEAR run out of loads comparable in Japan . But instead of a long-range evacuation had increased only in Japan, the annual allowable radiation exposure limit for children to 20 mSv."

So it is likely that embryos and fetuses are more susceptible to radiation than even small children.

And worse, instead of evacuating affected areas, Japan just raised the exposure level allowed for small children, expectant mothers, and others -- with predictable if "stochastic" results. Which the world governments are now denying.

[One] problem the IPPNW believes exists is the fixation on th[os]e [cancers] triggered by radioactive iodine thyroid exposure, although it is known that large quantities of radioactive isotopes with half-lives of around 30 years much longer-lived radioisotopes of cesium -137 and strontium -90 leaked continuous with leaking cooling water escape into the sea. Chronic exposure to these radioactivity can lead to leukemias , lymphomas and solid tumors.

Thyroid Cancers due to radioactive iodine are only the tip of the stochastic iceberg, as strontium and cesium poisoning initiates leukemias, lymphomas and solid tumors in affected populations. The IPPNW predicts:

The IPPNW expected in the coming years 10000-20000 additional cancer cases in Japan based on the determined by independent measurements of radiation levels around Fukushima. According to the roses is still a conservative estimate that emanates throughout Japan for one additional cancer case per 10 mSv lifetime dose of radiation.

10,000 to 20,000 future cancer cases; leukemia, lymphoma and solid tumors, in addition to the already expected thyroid abnormalities and tumors. And that is the real conservative estimate.

I believe the article gives the Atomic Energy and UNSCEAR scientists more credit than they deserve. Secrecy laws forbid them to tell the truth or they lose access to funds and contracts -- but I believe that makes them cowards, not merely blind, but cowards, because minimizing the effects of a deadly disaster makes them mass murderers or accessories to mass murder.

We did it to ourselves in the 50's and 60's. The Russians did it to themselves and the rest of us with Chernobyl and other disasters. Someday we'll see the real statistics on the effects of open air testing on our population.

Corrupt judges on the Supreme Court

When Sandra Day O'Conner retired CNN came out with an article talking about the relatively low salaries of Supreme Court Justices. http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/01/news/newsmakers/salary/ and they claimed:

"But one thing they won't get a chance to do is make a boatload of money in the process."

If only. 

It is true that they should make a really good salary, and they do, but do we really want their salary to be competitive with corporate Americans. The article continues:

"Whoever replaces O'Connor will undoubtedly have one of the finest legal minds in the country. He or she will also have a paycheck of less than $200,000 a year, compared with an average of over $5 million for corporate executives.

You can look up their salary, it's up to 223,000$ now and the articles will still tell you it is fixed, not that much, etc.... But that turns out to not be true. It might have been true for relatively honest people like Sandra Day O'Conner, but it is not necessarily even true about them. So we get the advertizing about our saintly judges (from same article):

'There is a motivational force that is not money," said Paul Hodgson, a compensation specialist at the Portland, Maine based research group the Corporate Library, in explaining why people become civil servants. "If you're a lawyer and you're not motivated by money, that would probably seem like the most important job there is."'

Sure, we are supposed to play the violin for them.

"Hodgson said the compensation discrepancy is especially acute for Supreme Court justices because, unlike many other high-level public employees, their lifetime appointment means they will most likely not return to the lucrative private sector."

But this becomes meaningless if they are able to break judicial ethics rules and receive outside compensation From the Private sector as these rule changes made possible. Paying officials too much makes them vulnerable to ego inflation, but paying them too little or giving them license to make unlimited outside income makes them susceptable to bribery!

Actually the compensation discrepancy is an issue because every time the government fails to pay officers the officers make up any discrepancy (real or perceived) with corruption. No wonder Kennedy ruled in a case that applied to lower courts that:

"That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy"."

But Kennedy and the other Judges exempt themselves from those rules!

Bribery is defined! under title 18 as:

" directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official...or ...give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent— "

And all this to:

"(A) to influence any official act..."

Bribery isn't just piling a heap on goods on a desk. It also takes more subtle forms such as making deals while playing golf. Or simply attending the same functions and paying ones wife! Are we to believe that the Supreme Court can exempt itself from the appearance of corruption?

So the Heritage foundation doesn't employ Clarence Thomas' wife in order to influence Clarence Thomas? When the Supreme Court made it's Massey ruling, which it cited in it's corrupt Citizens United decision, the mere appearance of possible corruption, and not even a smoking gun of evidence of such influence was enough for them to rule that the Judge should have recused itself. So how do we excuse Clarence Thomas? We shouldn't. Open Secrets notes:

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, made headlines last month for failing to disclose years' worth of income his wife had earned -- including more than $686,500 between 2003 and 2007 from the Heritage Foundation."

Heritage Foundation campaigned for Thomas to get on the Supreme Court, and now they reward him, directly, by employing his wife. This isn't just the appearance of corruption. According to Title 18 a case can be made this is the reality. Pay in such a case can be presumed to be indirect gift for the sake of influencing his decision making. Of course with our Supreme Court Justices they were selected, groomed, and rewarded on the basis of such influence over a long period of time. One can say that these corrupt organizations pretty much created them in the first place. So it's no wonder the Supreme Court pretends that just because there is obvious influence and association between organizations like Heritage foundation and the Judges and politicians they create and maintain, and the wealthy individuals who pay Heritage Foundation to promote their personal seditious and corrupt purposes -- that just because there is the appearance of corruption (which is what they were saying in the Citizens United Case) doesn't mean there is the reality. Oh, no Thomas' hiding his wife's income was just an accounting error!

But of course though one can look up the disclosure statements of Supreme Court Justices, one can't know whether they are corrupt or not unless they disclose their income.

Open Secrets reports a relatively modest list of "outside incomes" for the Justices for instance:

Rank	Name	Grand Total	Member Total	Spouse Total	Dependent Total
1	Stephen G. Breyer	$46,812	$46,812	$0	$0
2	Antonin Scalia	$45,655	$45,655	$0	$0
3	Clarence Thomas	$26,955	$26,955	$0	$0
3	Samuel A. Alito	$26,955	$26,955	$0	$0
5	Anthony M. Kennedy	$26,500	$26,500	$0	$0
6	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	$23,000	$23,000	$0	$0
7	Elena Kagan	$15,000	$15,000	$0	$0
7	John G. Roberts	$15,000	$15,000	$0	$0

But do you see Clarence Thomas' spouse reported, no? All of them have net worth in the millions.

Rank	Name	Minimum Net Worth	Average	Maximum Net Worth
1	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	$5,415,015	$14,265,007	$23,115,000
2	Stephen G. Breyer	$4,760,058	$10,647,529	$16,535,000
3	John G. Roberts	$2,680,039	$4,542,519	$6,405,000
4	Sonia Sotomayor	$1,225,010	$3,477,505	$5,730,000
5	Antonin Scalia	$1,885,023	$3,142,511	$4,400,000
6	Clarence Thomas	$715,014	$1,317,507	$1,920,000
7	Elena Kagan	$600,017	$1,080,008	$1,560,000
8	Samuel A. Alito	$380,006	$740,003	$1,100,000
9	Anthony M. Kennedy	$330,004	$515,002	$700,000

Oh well. So we aren't talking "quid pro quo" corruption are we. We are talking influence cultivated over a period of years; such as Kagan's involvement with Goldman Sachs, or the Gang of Five and the Federalist Society.  Maybe some of the influences are benign. Kennedy gives speeches for the Annenberg and Colonial Williamsburg foundation. But Thomas' relationship to the Heritage foundation is a scandal, and he doesn't ever recuse himself from decisions where his opinions just happen to match theirs.  So the point? Separate and privileged access are the heart of corruption, and denying that is itself corrupt. There are two kinds of corruption, one is legal corruption, and the other is when a process is degraded. In the second sense, the mere appearance of corruption is itself corrupt.

This article is a follow on to an earlier post on "Corruption, Racketeering and the Supreme Court: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/corruption-racketeering-and-supreme.html

Related Posts:

A Corrupt Court, Tuesday, June 26, 2012: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/06/corrupt-court.html

A corrupt decision blind to corrupt access and influence October 8, 2013: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-corrupt-decision-blind-to-corrupt.html

Corruption, Racketeering and the Supreme Court, Wednesday, October 16, 2013: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/corruption-racketeering-and-supreme.html

Corrupt judges on the Supreme Court. October 23, 2013: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/corruption-judges-on-supreme-court.html

Corrupt Court and Undue Influence and access according to Founders, Thursday, March 27, 2014: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/03/corrupt-court-and-undue-influence-and.html

The Expected Corrupt Decision by a corrupt court, Saturday, April 5, 2014: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-expected-corrupt-decision-by.html

Is Quid Pro Quo the only kind of corruption that Government can regulate. April 5, 2014: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-quid-pro-quo-only-kind-of-corruption.html

Undue influence and Dependency Corruption or why the Supreme Court Decision was so corrupt, April 21st, 2014: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/04/undue-influence-and-dependency.html