Spring Bright

artist/writer, springbright.org

About Spring

Areas of Expertise

Constitutoinal Law, bankruptcy law, Divorce Coaching & Law, Investment Banking & Business Development, Patent and Copyright Law, writing - non-fiction & advertising, Painting Drawing cooking, Care giving & management, Organic gardening, solar cooking

An idea worth spreading

Every child in America is our child. Their future is our future. If we foolishly deny them proper food, shelter, education and medical care that we can easily provide, we doom ourselves to a poorer, more limited American life. They will be our soldiers, teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, writers, care givers and workers of all kinds. We cannot afford austerity programs that ride on their backs. Historical disasters, revolutions and misery are caused by impoverishing the children of any nation. We have seen the fruits of austerity inflicted on the middle class: riots in England and Greece, civil wars in the mid-east, alcoholism and drug addiction in Russia. Our corrupt politicians have made businesses and the wealthy dependent on tax breaks, unearned and unnecessary subsidies, corrupt bankruptcy laws and the 'legal' theft of employee pensions. If we can afford to subsidize private planes and prancing horses, surely we can afford to feed our kids.

I'm passionate about

Criminal prosecution of business officers who knowingly hurt customers by selling dangerous, poisonous products or defraud workers & taxpayers by borrowing against or gutting pensions.

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Spring Bright
Posted over 1 year ago
How does the US Constitution deal with conflicts of interest by the Supreme Court?
Abortion is not a women's issue. Men often pressure women to have abortions, some beat pregnant women so they lose the child, and some rape women to force them to have their children. Your "little" rant is probably because I named two male SC Justices who have voted religion over the constitution. Perhaps it will calm you to know that I would also oppose Ms. Sotomayor deciding a religious issue if her religion makes her break the constitutional ban on "law respecting an establishment of religion." You have imagined that my comment is anti-male, when it is simply pro First Amendment. Our constitution is strongly anti government support of religion. I am curious as to what men's issues you think rise to the level of importance and controversy of abortion rights. Describing my world as little is a such a cute, traditional way of insulting women, but you are ignoring the most vocal opponents of abortion, who are themselves< tadah>: women. They should also recuse themselves from deciding the religious rights of other men and women. Many religious laws come before the court, but the question posed here was limited to abortion. A judge who does not recuse her or himself from cases where he or she is unable or unwilling to put the sworn duty to uphold the constitution ahead of all religious doctrine should be impeached. This applies to decisions about many religious questions, like falsely teaching kids that evolution is not proven, or providing tax payer money to religious schools or federal tax payer grants to religious organizations that force people they assist to listen to or agree with religious teachings.
Noface
Spring Bright
Posted over 1 year ago
How does the US Constitution deal with conflicts of interest by the Supreme Court?
Maybe they thought about it, but only as it affected men. The founding fathers never thought women would participate in the legal system except as chattels. When the Constitution was written, women couldn't vote, own property, open a business, use birth control, which was illegal in most states, and their earnings and inheritances were controlled by their husbands or male relatives. All legal decisions concerning the lives of women were made by men. The SC was not expected to have women justices, and though the Constitution's authors were brilliant, many owned slaves and considered women to be similar property. Dolly Madison's plea to her husband to "remember the Ladies" when writing the Constitution was ignored in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Women did not even have control over their children. Unless she had a midwife, when a pregnant woman's life was at risk, the decision to save her or the child was entirely up to her male relatives and male doctor. No one knows what the SC would have done with the Texas case of the brain dead, pregnant woman whose body was kept artificially breathing and fed for months to temporarily sustain an unviable fetus against the wishes of its mother, father and grandparents. They didn't hear the case, and never considered the long, ghoulish arm of Texas law. If the anti-abortionist movement is religious (abortion is not mentioned in the Bible) then religious Judges like Scalia and Thomas who think their religion is more "right" than their vows to uphold the Constitution, will ignore the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the practice thereof." Too bad we have no way to keep them from voting on religious issues like abortion. They have to voluntarily recuse themselves. Not much chance of that.
Noface
Spring Bright
Posted over 1 year ago
Is it part of human nature to have a hierarchy?
Certainly technology seems to be moving too fast for humans to keep up with, although kids growing up with it may be all right. It's massive disruptions like climate change that seem most pressing. We can see from the mega storms and flooding and droughts what we're doing, but so far we don't know how many volcanic eruptions are being hurried along by higher world temps and what other disasters are in store. I think Russian and US companies want to melt enough to open the northern passage by water and to access any oil, nat gas and minerals under the glaciers. Hopefully technology is aiming at the right problems, even if a lot of Americans are playing ostrich.
Noface
Spring Bright
Posted over 1 year ago
Should we view wealth hoarding as dysfunctional as any other form of hoarding?
Wealth hoarding may be a "dysfunction" but it frequently is also a crime and America could be better served by severely punishing the "white collar crimes" and "legal" manipulations of law and court that make it possible. Ask Bernie Madoff's many victims, some wealth hoarders themselves, who patted themselves on the back for finding a great way to profit without earning anything and you'll find they are far less pitiable and worthy of having our justice system fight for the return of their lost money than the many thousands of employees whose earned pensions have been "legally" ripped away from them in leveraged buy-outs used to enrich through stripping away of other people's money. Ask the thousands whose health insurance has been abruptly canceled so that corporate raiders could throw million dollar parties with money that should have paid their insurance premiums. Our current bankruptcy system so favors business over people that no jobs, pensions or other earned benefits are safe. We have a time honored diagnosis for self-aggrandizing personalities: Narcissism. Let's not give any further excuse to money hoarders than that.
Noface
Spring Bright
Posted over 1 year ago
Is it part of human nature to have a hierarchy?
We're messed up, but we're on a financial pendulum shifting back and forth between the good of people and unearned profits for business. Right now it’s cranked all the way over to give banks and schools every benefit versus students. A brief history of the Student loan debacle: 1) Banks got Fed to insure all student loans. 2) Banks got deregulated so they could loan more to lousy schools & students who might never finish or repay loans. (And home buyers who were never able to repay mortgages). Schools that were flooded with loaned up students raised tuitions. (Home prices skyrocketed) 3) Bush got bankruptcy law changed so student loans could never be voided. This should have taken a constitutional amendment, but no one’s challenged it that I know of. Bankruptcy is a constitutional right and also in the bible but most people don’t know the student loan restrictions are anti-biblical and anti-constitutional. And pro-business = anti-person here. 4) Great and lousy schools pushed more students into higher debt, driving tuition ever higher. 5) Students became poverty stricken forever. This piecemeal revamp of the student loan programs didn’t raise any pirate flags that would surely have flown high if all these changes took place at once. Student loans should again be voidable in bankruptcy and students whose educations were substandard should be able to sue shareholders, officers and directors of their schools, which shouldn’t be able to declare bankruptcy to avoid liability. That’s a pendulum swing I’d like to see.
Noface
Spring Bright
Posted over 1 year ago
Is it part of human nature to have a hierarchy?
Hello Huey, Don't you think our society still supports the interest of the group? We do still have schools, rules of the road, free emergency care for the poor, although tea partiers want a new order that seems only to value self-interest and competition in certain areas. They do not want to compete for votes. Even Gerrymandering is a group and not a self-interest, but the group is using it to manipulate other citizens for the benefit of that limited group. People are fighting for societal benefits, such as Obamacare and Social Security, which we all agreed to pay for so we could later benefit from them, but since that's where the easy money is for raiders, they're being targeted. Like leveraged buy-outs being legally permitted to steal people's earned pensions and worked and contracted for health insurance. Unfortunately the self-interested are very loud and stupid right now, and cannot seem to see that gutting the social contracts we have fought for for generations would impoverish American business and destroy our safety nets, thereby destroying our real safety. Creating a whole generation of desperate poor is a very dangerous thing, but there are a lot of childish and ill educated congressional boobs who have been allowed to control things they don't understand. Anyway, people in general know that self-interest quickly destroys social cohesion and then everything heads towards chaos. We have systematically allowed competition to dry up in business. There are only two real operating systems for computers, for example. And only a few airlines, a few oil companies, a few huge pharmaceutical giants, and the rules limiting media ownership have been trashed. What are we going to do about it?
Noface
Spring Bright
Posted over 1 year ago
Is it part of human nature to have a hierarchy?
You seem to be ignoring mothers and other women. They lead most cultures in myriad ways. Many cultures have very different systems of self government than despotism or rule by one "man", such as native American tribes, where there are leaders in different areas and counsels of elders. Women control the camps, including deciding when and where camps will be moved or placed. They also eject males who are disruptive or dangerous to children or abusive to others and provide medical care, among other things. One man or more might be followed as chief for war or raiding, another for inter-tribal relations, and there are usually tribal elders, men and women who are old enough to have the wisdom and experience to make tribal rules and decisions. This extremely simplified bit of info on tribal governance includes many cultures on the two American continents and worked well for thousands of years. Both men and women may be spiritual leaders and teachers. Someone who is good at making weapons or baskets will be the leader with regard to those activities if people want to follow them. Counsels of elders are extremely common. I wonder if there are subtle genetic differences between geographic regions that are reflected in governance. Like the difference between bonobos and chimpanzees.
Noface
Spring Bright
Posted almost 2 years ago
The survival imperative in evolution - Where does it come from?
The theory doesn't necessarily include the survival imperative. If you're just looking at Darwin, he saw the pattern of birds and other animals being changed by their circumstances so that some had long beaks that seemed to evolve with plants that grew deeper flowers in response to longer beaks or long tongues that let finches reach nectar. Whose survival instinct are you looking at? The plant or the bird? It's so much more complex and really has little to do with any battles between humans or fights over territory. The most important aspect of it that has been roundly ignored is chance. You can have a very strong instinct to survive and yet be wiped out by a volcano or a close impact meteor that kills off almost everything on earth, as in dinosaurs and most humans 13 thousand years ago. ' Those who survived were underground or just happened to be in a protected place and still young enough to produce young. And that is the fastest, greatest change our little planet ever experiences. So figure chance into your equations. You seem to be considering the very core of life, where perhaps survival is not a precondition, but an evolution from merely existing as anything we would define as being alive. If there is only one newly minted form of life in a vast world, why would there be any fight for survival or any need for DNA that codes for it? For some time, there would be enough for everyone, and then as shortages developed or as things got crowded, the need for an urge to survive might arise in some single celled beings, which would then have an advantage over the others who were just existing, and so on. How do you define "survival instinct?" And if no other form of life is able to or wants to compete for a certain niche, why would we need a survival instinct to make it?