Thursday, November 1, 2007

Why the Democrats are (Sore) Losers

I put the parenthetical in because they (the party's representatives, that is, not in general the voters) are sore losers, but more to the point, they are in general losers. They can't figure out what it is they're trying to do, and as one of those bleeding-heart liberal gun nuts it kind of irritates me.

So the Dems for all intents and purposes swept the 2006 "mid-term" elections. They did so on the promise of stopping the war in Iraq, which largely is something that the population of the United States wanted. And here we are, a year later, and what's happened? Nothing. I'm getting a little off track, but what do you call someone who consistently doesn't do their duty? Especially an elected official who makes a pledge and then does nothing? Yeah, that's the game, nobody actually expects elected officials to do what they say; that'd be so last-century. They're still losers.

Yesterday I read this great news that Nader is suing the Democrats. What I find particularly hilarious are the comments. Nader cost the Democrats the elections in 2000 and 2004, indeed. Nader is therefore to blame for the lives lost in Iraq. Indeed. So Nader is responsible for this, and not all of the 200+ losers that are our elected representatives in Washington? Nader is responsible, but Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom actually voted to go to war are free of blame?

What cost the Dems the 2000 and 2004 elections was the fact that they didn't put forth candidates that resonated with the population. If they could put forward a candidate that was worth a dam maybe they'd get some of the voters who don't see the point of choosing between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. So yeah, the Democrats are the big losers here, because they actually lost to Bush, but say they lost because of Nader? Bush got like ten thousand times the number of votes that Nader did. Blame him!

Ahh well, maybe they're content being losers. After all, it does somewhat guarantee that they won't have to actually make any decisions of their own, for which they'd subsequently be held accountable. It saddens me a little bit that the slate of Democrat contenders (at least, the ones that the press seem to care about, doing their bit for skewing public perception) for President are a bunch of nothings yet again, and it's amusing to me that the Republicans have a bunch of nothings in the press as well. There seem to be interesting candidates in the running, but the parties will never let those candidates win because that would ultimately upset their agendas. That, my dear friends, is what saddens me the most about our current political climate.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Liberty and Justice for All Corporations

Exxon really made headlines in 1989 when one of their tankers ran aground in Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil. For the sake of scale, that's as if every single person in the New York City had a gallon jug filled with oil, and just poured it into the harbor. They were subsequently fined $5B for the mess, in part due to their gross negligence; the captain was drunk so he left command to a junior officer who allegedly had no business being in command.

This was an environmental tragedy, to be sure. However, Exxon has been appealing the judgement pretty much continuously since it originally came down, five years after the spill. They have had some successes and some setbacks, but they keep at it; at this time they've gotten the fine down to $2.5B but they've now managed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case on the grounds that it's excessive and unconstitutional. For crying out loud! Unconstitutional! A corporation is protected by the Constitution?

I have to wonder what the punishment would have been for an individual, had they accidentally dumped eleven million gallons of toxic waste into the ocean. Into a habitat which is now destroyed. Into a habitat where lots of things used to live. Into a habitat from which many people drew their livelihoods.

Yet, what has Exxon had to do? Nobody went to jail. They had to clean it up, but then it was their mess in the first place. Now they're complaining that despite making almost $40B a year, that a $2.5B fine is punitive?

The Washington Post and Wired have some articles on this travesty of Constitution Law.

On top of all this, Exxon now says it's paying too much in taxes? Its $40B in profit isn't enough, it needs more?!? So, they'll make more money, while the taxes that they don't pay need to be made up somewhere else. Who'll bear the burden then? The taxpayers. That sounds like a good idea!

In some ways it's inevitable. Corporations now have full protection under the law as citizens, but they have none of the restrictions. They can engage freely in international commerce, for instance. (Ask any Mexican national how easy it is to work in the United States, for a contrasting view.) When they violate the law, spewing toxins into our environment and harming the people, they get fined, then they negotiate and appeal their ways out of the fines, and nobody gets personally punished. "Cost of doing business." If the fines are less than the profit to be gained, it only makes business sense to violate the law and bring on environmental catastrophe; shareholders expect nothing less. Individuals still can't pull these stunts, though, because there's an actual personal cost involved. The person goes to jail.

Perhaps it's high time we actually hold people accountable for their actions. I propose that a corporation doing an action that would lead an individual to jail should be jointly served by the board members of that corporation, and they should not be tried as individuals but rather as a collective acting together in a common interest. Further, fines levied against a company should be directly charged to the shareholders. This might make the shareholders interested if the corporation is doing Bad Things, and maybe then the shareholders would care.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Indivisible? Indeed.

The Pledge of Allegiance tells us that the United States is "One Nation, Indivisible." Yeah, right. One only has to look at the hot topics in the US political landscape that that statement couldn't be further from the truth.

The political system that is in place depends on the populace being divided. The issues that keep the population battling one another, the black-and-white issues ranging from gun control to abortion to the death sentence to gay marriage to prayer in schools are well-selected because they keep people talking in these boolean terms; good versus evil, right versus wrong, Republican versus Democrat. The focus on these issues drag us away from the real issues facing our country. In part, how are we as a society trying to make ourselves better? Do we care about jobs going overseas? Is the war in Iraq a good thing (polls say the population doesn't support it, but the politicians largely seem to think we need to "stay the course")? How about the obesity "epidemic" that's facing us right now? Certainly the growing girth of our future generation is something that could stand some consideration from our leaders.

Yes, engineered are the messages. The politicians are focused on one thing, they want to be re-elected. The way they get re-elected is to have a substantial marketing budget, and that budget comes from campaign contributions, consisting largely of corporate contributions. Therefore it only seems logical that the politicians on the whole would wish to please their corporate masters and deflect any public attention to what they're actually doing in their respective seats of government.

It's sickening to me. Thus, this blog. Welcome.