New Plan: Transfer to a different law school

Just pretend you work at or attend a law school, and you've been happy there. Then, for $30M, the board sells the naming rights, and your law school becomes Francisco Franco School of Law, or perhaps Tony Soprano School of Law.

George Mason University just announced that they are renaming their law school for that divisive, arrogant runt Antonin Scalia.

Oooooh, I'd be so fucking angry if I was associated with that law school. But now we know what the Kock-aligned rich do with some of their extra money. It might interesting to see how well ASSL will be doing in a few years. I predict a precipitous drop and then a name change.

"Please don't buy my school."

Image: alienseries.wordpress.com

Short: Textbook example of secret campaign donors

Here's a great example of what they've gotten from the Citizens United decision. This Politico article shows how Joni Ernst, the newly elected senator from Iowa, got a huge helping hand from an organization called Trees of Liberty. You can easily skip the first portion of the article and scroll down to where they discuss Trees of Liberty.

The story is chilling. Trees of Liberty pretended to be a social welfare organization, but it spent most of its funds on advertising. It avoided being called out as a political organization by pulling "down the television ads just before the calendar reached the one-month election countdown."

The only good news is that Trees of Liberty is a 501c(4) organization, so those secret donors weren't able to deduct their contributions. That's not much consolation when a few fabulously rich people can flood our political system with money, and 'liberty' means their liberty to do so.

When the Tree of Liberty was a tree, not a slush fund.

Image: bostoniansociety.blogspot.com

Charles Koch complains of collectivists

As Jonathan Chait says, the Wall Street Journal loves to give editorial space to any self-pitying billionaire. Two weeks ago, it was one of the Koch brothers.

He wants to share with us the principles that have shaped his life. But instead of identifying riches and privilege as what shaped his life, he pretends that it was simply "dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom."

That's one error in argumentation that he makes. Another is his use of the term 'collectivist.' He correctly defines collectivists as "those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives." However, Koch also labels those who engage in character assassin as 'collectivists.' So, Glenn Beck, Joe Arpaio, Sarah Palin, and millions of others must be collectivists too. Who knew?

Collectivists also "do not have good answers." That described Mitt Romney on his fiscal plan. My, my, so Mitt is a collectivist. And we know that collectivist is a gloss on 'communist,' so Mitt must be a communist. Will wonders never cease? In case you think I'm twisting the logic of how Koch uses the term 'collectivist,' I am. I'm using it broadly and in an exaggerated way to show that's how Koch uses the term too.

Koch also regales us with tales of what an upstanding environment record his companies have. My first impulse is to greatly doubt this, but let's see if there are any facts (which are definitely more trustworthy than my knee jerk reactions). Google was so helpful again. Politifact gave Koch a "mostly false" rating on his claim. You can also read about various infractions, fines, and climate-change denial activities if you want to.

Koch is concerned that we create "opportunity for all Americans." Does he honestly think that's possible? Can all Americans enjoy the opportunities he had? Oh, Charles, please get real. Very few were born with your wealth and connections. Too many are born in places with poor education, poor infrastructure, and very few job opportunities. It's laughable that you don't notice this.

Koch isn't alone among the rich who think success is available to anyone and everyone. Decades ago, I had an epiphany while watching William Buckley talk about life in the ghetto or the choices made by poor women, or some such. It suddenly struck me that Buckley knew perhaps 10% of what it was like to live in the ghetto. Nonetheless, there he was, pontificating. I wish I could be spared all the rich-from-birth white men up on their high horses telling other people what to do. Even if they have good ideas, they haven't earned any credibility in knowing what life is like for most people.

Can we please shut off their bloody microphones already?

Image: bustergammons.blogspot.com

The Rich should be worried

The Rich is this country are doing well, unlike many of the rest of us. Many of us in the middle class suffer from lack of jobs, insecurity of future decent-paying jobs, and diminished prospects for us or our children. The working class has their prospects diminished too.

But it's the Rich who are moaning the loudest on some days. Perkins infamously wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he feared a Kristallnacht against the wealthy. To me, this seems like an overreaction and bitching about taxes going up on the wealthy, but those taxes still aren't terribly high. Romney paid only 14%, so a rise to 20% (the new capital gains rate) hardly seems like a major hardship.

I wish the Rich had more to worry about. The kings of financial firms should be sweating in non-country-club cells while federally appointed special masters hunt down and liquidate their assets. People are rightly pissed at the execs at Wall Street firms, GE and other huge companies that play the tax code like squash, energy giants like the Koch brothers, hedge fund managers and clients, and the foolish, spoiled rich like Sheldon Adelson who think they can buy elections.

People like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Apple execs, Oprah Winfrey, and George Lucas don't have anything to worry about. They created great things that we all enjoy, and got rich in an honest way. That's not true for the others. The GOP may have labeled them "job creators" but that's proved disgustingly hollow.

Americans aren't mobs, rebels, or robbers, yet some Rich are stupidly worried. The U.S. has never had a French Revolution-style uprising, much less one like the Russian Revolution. Even in the midst of the Great Depression, the poor continued to let the Rich be rich. Little Orphan Annie adored Daddy Warbucks instead of wanting to whack his head off, and that reflected the general population.

So why are the Rich so worried? I don't care. They have a lot more resources to slow or soften their fall than I do (as I have much more than the average American). If need be, I'll live on much less and I won't bellyache like these Rich.

We are all facing living with less. Why do the Rich think they have the brunt of it? Nothing could be further from the truth. So why the angst? In this column (and an earlier one) a leftish pundit tried to figure it out. This is what rang true to me:

It is that mix of insecurity, a sense of the brittleness of one's hold on wealth, power, privileges, combined with the reality of great wealth and power, that breeds a mix of aggressiveness and perceived embattlement. . .

But over the last few years (since 2008), I think there's been a pretty dramatic growth in what we'd call Tea Party politics in that set - extreme conservatism . . . the kind of feverish mindset in which you could write with a straight face that progressives might be building toward some sort of mass wealth confiscation or internment or even extermination.. . .

Image: bradblog.com

Extra. Wealth concentration is normal. No surprise that the powerful try to maintain their power.