The narrative that dominates american polity in our time is that capitalism = democracy. It is sold to the american people every day by the media in advertising and much entertainment. Of course democracy - in which the people serve in the government (not just royalty or "gods" (divine right of kings)) - evolved in ancient greece. capitalism is the child of the enlightenment - at least - smith published wealth of nations in 1776.

supporting corporations is not one of democracy's jobs as the american people will realize as they forfeit more rights to companies. just look at the bankruptcy law of 2005.

Posted at September 27, 2007 11:21 PM in response to It's About Power, Not Ideas

snooker or be snookered

the american huckster business ethic.

greed blinds people even to transparency.

like all bullies, the big boys on wall street strut about their self-made success until their ponzi scheme flops and they cry to daddy fed for a bailout.

remember the short happy life of

"long term capital management"

V A N I T A S

Posted at August 24, 2007 1:05 PM in response to A Brief History of the Credit Debacle

deleted- see above

Posted at August 10, 2007 5:23 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

The big money types in the US will rein in their chest-beating - self-made-capitalist - HEMAN - hypocritical cant long enough to ask American taxpayers for a break "to keep the system solvent". Like happened with Long Term Capital or Chrysler and so on. It's when the little guy needs a break that the tough get going. Seems like the bankruptcy laws were changed just in time to protect banks from the housing crisis. Gullible Democrats supported it - since Greenspan must have seen this coming.

Bullshit and jive

Posted at August 10, 2007 5:20 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

"The people" are our elected representives. That the constitution treats the legislative branch before the executive is significant. The people's proxies make the laws, the executive carries them out. The President is commander in chief of the military, not of the country. Congress holds the responsibility to maintain our democracy. George Bush is a usurper - if only for his use of signing statements. He lies to our county about the rationale for the Iraq war. He uses the Justice Department as a political weapon, trying to disenfranchise about half the county from impartial justice and fair elections. Bush should be impeached. If Republicans in Congress don't recognize his crimes, they can be held responsible at the next election.

Conrad Skinner

Posted at August 9, 2007 6:29 PM in response to An Alternative to Impeachment: Transitional Justice for the Bush-ites

You're so right.

Setting impossible conditions to divide the "good" from the "bad" is consistent with Bush administration policy. Poor kids can't get government subsized health care because that violates free market principles. So punish them.

In the Palestinians' case Bush punishes all Palestinians for the policies of Hamas (who he, through free elections helped bring to power).
He belatedly supports Fatah for what reason now? To prolong the conflict? Fighting fire with fire ensures the destruction of Gaza and the West Bank. Bush the inhumnitarian.

The real reason for his setting impossible conditions of course, is to reinforce divisions that will (falsely) justify attacking Iran. Israel's just installed Nobel Peace Prize winner Perez as President. Bush must make sure this conciliator has no chance with Palestinian/Israeli conflict resolution. With Peres in office it may be harder to enlist Israel as a proxy aggressor against Iran.

Posted at July 16, 2007 4:13 PM in response to President Bush throws more matches at the Middle East

President Bush, in commuting Libby's sentence has used his high office to pervert the law and sentencing rules for two political purposes; to protect his office and the Vice President's from exposure of wrongdoing and to placate members of his party who claim "there was no crime". Unfortunately the losers in every criminal case and many civil cases in our country claim "there was no crime" and have to live with the verdict. That Bush makes exceptions for his allies when he is charged by oath with upholding the Constitution is dictatorial and is his impeachable offense. Of course the huge difference with Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich is that it was made as he was leaving office not while in office for political expediency.

Posted at July 5, 2007 7:01 AM in response to Dershowitz's Chutzpah

The Roberts court, in its conservative majority decisions follows that most numbing of legal "precedents":

Posession is nine tenths of the law.

Remind the people of that come the next election.

Connski

Posted at June 28, 2007 9:42 PM in response to Supreme Court Undermines Racial Integration- What's Left?

don't more people see this decision as another right wing attack on public schools? if schools remain segregated and poor neighboorhoods have poor teaching and poor discipline, conservatives will have more firepower to argue for vouchers and "school choice" for those who can afford it. who is left behind? poor families who don't have enough income to afford private school with the supplemental voucher cash. (unless someone subsidizes certain private schools)

secondly:
please no one argue that as Roberts puts it, not discriminating against discriminators levels the playing field.

and Thomas' "the constitution is color blind"....talk about red herrings. does that mean congress AND THE COURTS don't redress injustice? I suppose because the constitution doesn't mention gender that women shouldn't have the vote. what nonsense these "strict constructionists" spout.

connski

Posted at June 28, 2007 3:01 PM in response to Supreme Court: Have We Already Lost America? Thank you, Ralph.

don't more people see this decision as another right wing attack on public schools? if schools remain segregated and poor neighboorhoods have poor teaching and poor discipline, conservatives will have more firepower to argue for vouchers and "school choice" for those who can afford it. who is left behind? poor families who don't have enough income to afford private school with the supplemental voucher cash. (unless someone subsidizes certain private schools)

secondly:
please no one argue that as Roberts puts it, not discriminating against discriminators levels the playing field.

and Thomas' "the constitution is color blind"....talk about red herrings. does that mean congress AND THE COURTS don't redress injustice? I suppose because the constitution doesn't mention gender that women shouldn't have the vote. what nonsense these "strict constructionists" spout.

connski

Posted at June 28, 2007 2:51 PM in response to Supreme Court Undermines Racial Integration- What's Left?