Mar 28 2009
Waiter! There’s a Monster In My Democracy
It’s about time to decide what a corporation is; I mean does it have constitutional rights? If so I’m thinking that since corporations are huge and individuals are not we could be mistaken about who owns who? Does it matter what the framers thought or should we decided today what corporate vs. individual Rights is all about? If corporations have the ability to bend the law and individual into their service, the individual to choose would be the legislator. Hmm, are our politicians simply employees? But not employees of tax payers but of huge corporate interests. Is the beast out of control? I would never want to sound alarmist, but isn’t there some pretty bad shit going down? Lets see, Um Banking crisis, two wars, economic stagnation of historic proportions, our constitution shredded by our last president, oh oh and the most truly ironic piece of politics you will ever see. The 1st black president of the USA won’t be attending the UN meetings on racism. That is some weird shit.
Corporate avarice has attached itself to America hubris and is a beast feeding on all of us. For years the US electorate has enjoyed the benefits of imperialistic foreign policy. Natural resources from around the world, not the least of which is oil have made the USA somewhere quite nice to live. The rest of the world doesn’t just believe we deserve more than they do. We have ways of persuading them through military intervention, IMF and World Bank Loans and from giving corporations rights that people don’t have. And in this process of building empire we have become acquiescent little nymphs of our corporate masters, the same masters that we created. While it is a beautiful irony it is no fuckin way to live. Corporations should exist to serve us and not the other way around.
For more on Corporate Rights vs. individual Rights http://www.ultimatecivics.com/?p=19 Chocolate, Gold, Rice and Empire; How the USA, IMF AND Word Bank work to better the lives of Africans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0W5oBYtrog
I”m not a big fan of corporations. Even in the capitalist Bible, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith, there is not one good thing said about them.
I’m glad Obama isn’t attending the UN racism conference. a lot of what goes on there is disingenuous and hypocritical bullshit.
Not many americans are fans of the UN its the one place we actually have to listen to other countrys complaints… But we still dominate the Security Council, so it does our bidding. But the reasons he isnt going are still lame
I’m all for listening to other countries and i support the UN generally but stuff like that “racism” i feel are way too politicized on an issue that shouldn’t be. I’m also a nationalist and reject any international treaties that infringe on our sovereignty. I know that kind of thining is going out of vogue, but consider me the last of a stubborn breed. This country, its people, and our Constitution are what matters to me most. But of course, as a nationalist, i believe ALL peoples and nations have a right to their own self-determination which is why I’m so critical of our foreign policy. We don’t have the right to tell others how to live their lives and we should NEVER commit military forces anywhere unless our security is at stake. And fuck “free trade” agreements too. That kind of bullshit is gutting our industries.
animal,
I’m not sure I understand how “racism” being politicized is an issue, racism is a political issue and the UN is a political organization. So I don’t understand the complaint. Also I don’t know what you mean by international treaties which infringe on our sovereignty, I mean when a “sovereign” nation signs on to a treaty, well, they signed it, the limits of the treaty represent the commitment of a sovereign nation how can it be defined as an infringement if the country signed on to it? Now as for our constitution, I think its somewhere in the dumpster out back of the White House so that fight would be one of recovery. Ok and free trade agreements are out for you as well. So no international treaties, no free trade agreements and we are going to trust a document that the last president trashed to protect our Rights. Sounds like you are presenting a pretty isolationist front and nothing solid to protect our domestic liberty. Well I think Washington pretty much agrees with your positions with the exception of the placing of value on the constitution. Not a very hopeful scenario.
“Well I think Washington pretty much agrees with your positions with the exception of the placing of value on the constitution.”
Since when WAshington been “isolationist”? If we were “isolationist” we wouldn’t have the de facto empire we have now. THat’s why people like me get labeled “isolationist” by politicians all the time because we dn’t think America should police the entire world. I’m all for having diplomatic relations with other countries, but we shouldn’t meddle in their affairs. I realize that some of my views seem horribly outdated to many people but I see the policies we have now to be any good. I guess I’m for fair trade, not “free” trade. But admittedly, trade is a secondary issue with me. I’m more concerned with how we use our military around the world. And i never said i was against treaties, jsut ones that infringe on our sovereignty. Some are good, like the landmine treaty. Others like the rights of the child i think are misguided.
“and nothing solid to protect our domestic liberty.”
Well, I’d say the constitution but no one seems to read that anymore.
” I think its somewhere in the dumpster out back of the White House”
We are an empire my brother nothing defacto about it but that doesn’t preclude protectionist policys or politically isolationist policys. As an empire we want to protect our status and increase it, we do that with-in the world not as part of it but as rulers of it to be served by organizations like the UN to have trade agreements that favor us and restrict those we deal with and we refuse to accept the ligitamacy of any organization that might try to stop us from doing whatever the fuck we wanna do, no ICC, the UN is toothless unless its doing our bidding, and our trade policy is quite protectionist, our political isolationism is not a matter of not dealing with the world but with dealing with them only on our terms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZTrY3TQpzw worth a watch if you are so inclined I posted it in the past but have no idea if you checked it out.
Yes, I saw the video. I particularly liked the part about the farmers in Third World World countries being screwed over by the US, which protects its farmers while preaching free trade.
I understand you now. You see isolationism as lording over the rest of the world and exploiting the third world and using intenrational bodies like the UN, the WTO, and the IMF for our own benefit, while I see it as (although i call it noninterventionism) keeping out of the world’s affairs except through diplomacy. My real beef is with the hundreds of military bases we have around the world and our constant use of military power and covert ops to maintain our hegemony and standard of living.
As i said before, i realize that my views on foreign policy died decades ago and that the nation-state is disappearing. i just hope and pray that what replaces it is not worse for all of us. There’s a good case to be made for working more closely with other nations with things like ICC and Kyoto in recognition of the fact taht the world is becoming interconnected. It would certainly be better than what we’re doing now under the circumstances. I would howl to the moon all day but we’re never going to close down those bases. Arrogance is the destroyer of empires.
Respect animal,
I think the subtlties of our differnces are less consiquencial than the things we agree upon. But politics is a dicey business and its easy to get lost in the forest when trying to define the trees.
“But politics is a dicey business and its easy to get lost in the forest when trying to define the trees.”
Tell me about it. The way i see it, EVERYBODY gets lost in that forest. Only ideologues (on both Left and Right) think they know the way but all too often get themselves and those who agree with them down remote and dark paths that are difficult to get out of.
But we all get lost in there, because that is one big motherfucking forest.
I would never make a good leader because the more i learn about political issues and history, the more i realize that i don’t know the answers but would govern on a case-by-case basis, and no voters wants to hear THAT from a candidate. It’s so much easier and nicer to vote for someone who acts like he knows what to do and promises you everything all the time even tho he delivers nothing.
animal,
Thats what good leaders do is decide on a cas by case basis, politicians dont, thats why so few politicians are good leaders.
“thats why so few politicians are good leaders.”
That’s so true. Bill Maher also brought up another good point in one of his books how if a politician changes his mind about an issue because of new evidence that has come to light or because that person has grown and developed (as all human beings do, or should), he gets labeled a flip-flopper. Apparently voters only want people who NEVER change their minds about anything. For instance, i used to be pro-choice and now I”m pro-life. that makes me a flip-flopper. I also used to support jailing drug offenders and keeping marijuana legalized. Now i oppose jail time for drug users and support rehabilitation instead (although i do think they should do community service, like help the poor or something) and i may yet support legalizing drugs entirely because our drug policies as is aren’t working. I’d never make it in Congress.
wow you dont think abortion should be legal. hmm hmm wow. Ok
oh wait , i didnt mean to conceed that politicians have minds.. they use polls to sublimate that need.
“wow you dont think abortion should be legal. hmm hmm wow. Ok”
I don’t want to get into an argument with you about that issue. I was only using it as an example. i hate talking about abortion because everyone seems to be so passionate about it one way or the other and it usually ends up being a waste of time. I should say that abortion isn’t that big an issue with me. I’m more interested in foreign policy and fiscal matters. I’m perfectly willing to vote for someone who is pro-choice if I agree with him and her on other important policies. It always amazes me that many pro-choicers and pro-lifers refuse to consider voting for someone who disagrees with them on that issue even if they are good candidates in many other ways. I don’t believe in one issue voting.
I did’t attempt to pose an argument to your abortion positon. Im simply suprised to hear you oppose legal abortion. As for why some people consider that a critical issue that can prevent their voting for a candidate, I would say its passion. Some people feel passionate that abortion is a crime and others feel that to restrict it is a crime and a regressive action that takes us backwards in terms of social progress. I also don’t think arguments about the issue tend to go anywhere productive. I just dont know how to look at someone like Rush Limbaugh and think abortion is a bad idea.
“I did’t attempt to pose an argument to your abortion positon.”
Oh I didn’t mean to accuse you of trying to force a debate on abortion. It’s just that whenever i bring up my views on that topic, most people usually do try to argue with me if they disagree. I do think it’s morally wrong but I’m sick of the crap that keeps coming out of both sides of the debate.
“I just dont know how to look at someone like Rush Limbaugh and think abortion is a bad idea.”
Don’t think that thought hasn’t tempted me into joining the pro-choice cause.