Daily Topics - Friday - January 22, 2010

Daily Topics - Friday - January 22, 2010

"Anything Goes Friday"

bankster imagesQuote:  In the confrontation between the stream and the rock, the stream always wins - not through strength but by perseverance. -- Jackson Brown

Hour One - "Brunch With Bernie" Sen. Bernie Sanders www.sanders.senate.gov

Hour Two -  Why we need the Consumer Financial Protection Agency - Professor Elizabeth Warren Chair,  Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP www.cop.senate.gov

Hour Three -  Ralph Nader nader.org Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Personhood

Comments

DDay (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#1

I wrote a piece this morning that I thought would end up on this page. Somehow it ended up on Highlights of the Show Jan 18 thru 22. Daily topics doesn't boot until later...lately. I hope some will be interested enough to find it. It is too long to re-type here again. It recounts this past week. I think it is worthwhile...you be the judge. The Revolution has begun! Will true patriots join the battle?

streamer (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#2

Remarks by Senator John Kerry on His Opposition to Judge Roberts' Nomination for Chief Justice.

Below are Senator John Kerry's full, prepared remarks on the floor of the Senate today on the upcoming vote on Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States.
http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=246192

"In addition to what I do not know, what I do know about Judge Roberts is very troubling. I know that in the early 80's while he worked in the Department of Justice and White House Counsel's Office, Judge Roberts took an active role in advocating on behalf of Administration policies that would have greatly undermined our civil rights and civil liberties.

For example, Judge Roberts argued against using the "effects test" to determine whether section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was violated. Instead, he believed an "intent" test-requiring proof of a discriminatory motive-should be required, regardless of the fact that many victims of discrimination would be unable to prove a real discriminatory intent and therefore unable to enjoy the protections afforded by the Act. In some cases, the effect of Judge Robert's intent test meant that disenfranchised individuals had to prove the motive of long dead officials who crafted the election rules. That is a foolish standard when it comes between citizens and their constitutionally protected right to fair representation in our democracy. "

"
Now, some may argue that Democrats should vote for Judge Roberts because he is the best nominee we could expect from the Administration. I cannot vote to confirm the next Chief Justice of the United States simply because the next nominee to the Court may be even less protective of our fundamental rights and liberties or less dangerous to our national security. Frankly, I am not sure how I would make that determination given the limited record before me. Some may argue that Democrats should vote for Judge Roberts because of his resume. I, however, do not think that should be the test. A Supreme Court Justice needs more qualifications than an impressive resume. They need compassion and sensitivity. They need an understanding of the consequences of their decisions and how they further our democratic traditions. "

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#3

DDay,

I think the link to the page you mentioned is no longer available. Can you find the page thru your computer's "history" and post the URL?

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#4

Alan Grayson Discusses his 5 Bills on Countdown

Video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olb...

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#5

Rep. Alan Grayson's new petition website:

www.savedemocracy.net

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#6

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on SCOTUS Ruling

Video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olb...

Nels (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#7

Well we have about one week left for Jan 2010. I'd say pound for pound its proving to be worse than 2009 (and I thought 09 was a terrible year).

Mark K (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#8

Does yesterday’s Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited campaign contributions by corporations and unions mean the death march of democracy as we used to know it? Will the two-party system soon become a thing of the past? Obviously corporations have much deeper pockets than unions, so it would likely mean that members of both parties will to have to slave to the will of corporations on some level. Perhaps the two-party system will survive only in terms of social philosophy and foreign policy, but on economic policy parties will do only do what the corporations tell them is in the country’s “best interest.” The distinction between country and corporation will be blurred yet further. And what else should we expect? Did anyone hear Scott Brown support regulation of the financial industry? I didn’t, and the people who voted for him certainly were not thinking about it. Is this what foolish people deserve to suffer? In any case, the decision made a mockery of logic, because just because the owner of Wal-Mart gives all his money to Republican candidates hardly means that the majority of his low-wage, non-union, low-benefit employees support Republicans.

In other developments yesterday, John McCain now says that the Democrats have no alternative but to listen to the Republicans; frankly, I am only aware of one definition for the words “no” and “nothing,” but if he knows alternative meanings from an alternate universe, I wish he’d explain them to us.

Mark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#9

I had something to post yesterday, but was sidetracked when I was informed I had to take a new “recurrent training” course that the airline cooked-up to replace the one I just took two months ago. Besides having only marginal relation to the work I do at the airport, the software maddeningly featured a photo of a lavatory waste guy (who works for a different vendor) posing as if he was actually working, and not in hibernation somewhere which was his usual posture. One portion of the course discussed human failings that effected efficient work habits, and how to counteract these failings. One of the “Dirty Dozen” was “complacency.” When I completed the course and resumed my usual laborings, I observed one effect of complacency; out on the ramp, a gaggle of emergency vehicles, police, and Port of Seattle “observation specialists” surrounded a disabled little tug and a behemoth of a lousy airline food catering truck; apparently the tug had been “T-boned” when the driver turned into the onrushing truck he didn’t know was behind him, and was apparently seriously hurt. The fact of the matter is that since there are no mechanical traffic signals and few defined “roadways,” the ramp often resembles an ant colony after being stepped on; “common sense” and self-preservation are the principle guides to one’s driving behavior. Not that there is a constant danger of accidents from this apparent chaos; they rarely occur, but accidents are bound to happen when one becomes “complacent” in such an environment.

The election placing a Republican in Ted Kennedy’s senate seat could also be said to be the result of complacency. Who would have thought that the Kennedy seat would go to a man who was in direct opposition to everything Kennedy stood for? Obama and the Democrats apparently didn’t do their own polling to see what trouble they were until too late. They probably thought “Hey, that’s Kennedy’s seat. Only an insane voter would vote for a Republican.” Well, they forgot one thing: Ted is dead (forgive the pun). It isn’t his seat anymore, and no one from the clan seems prepared to carry on. Martha Coakley was, as they say, no John Kennedy, or Ted Kennedy for that matter. She just thought she was someone who was entitled, and those “independent” voters “showed her”—and Obama and the rest of the Democrats—that they wouldn’t be ignored, if only for bigoted, irrelevant reasons rather than actual understanding of the issues. If this can happen in the most “reliable” of blue states, then complacency is something the Democrats can ill afford going forward. They can’t afford to continue to appear weak and confused.

Thom said the Massachusetts’ vote was a “perfect” storm of disaffection from teabaggers and union members, although it can be argued that teabaggers always were—and still are—anti-Obama fanatics with no real agenda except to be anti-Obama, while it is difficult to believe that union members would be so naïve as to vote for someone who is for more tax cuts (and who, pray tell, would be the beneficiaries of those cuts?) and “little” government that would be completely emasculated against the power of the corporate oligarchy? Has it come to this, where in a reliably “blue” state that hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972 should fall for the same tired old failed line that Republicans have been feeding us since the 1920’s? Or perhaps did all those Irish-American voters get over their brief glimpse of racial harmony and suddenly remember their long-time racial prejudice?

The Republicans have been pushing a simple-to-understand line for voters who don’t want to think too much about what government is doing as long as it doesn’t intrude on their lives or make it noticeable worse. Obama and the Democrats have failed to simplify their message for simple people; clearly they should have proposed mentally-undemanding concepts like a $500 billion dollar infrastructure restoration program with specific projects, financial regulation that used existing regulatory powers instead of stumbling through senate roadblocks, and proposed something like Thom’s Medicare E. But because the senate health care bill is so convoluted and incomprehensible, and the fact that in taking so long to germinate people naturally assumed it had to be terribly flawed, that many people just don’t know what it all means. Since people are suspicious of what it all could mean, those with health care coverage and like it have a difficult time caring about people who don’t have insurance (how many of you encountered someone who asked you for a quarter, but you said you didn’t have one, even though you had a pocketful of change?). The “me generation” hasn’t quite exhausted itself; that may be why even though it is too early to know the effects of the stimulus package or how exactly the current senate health care proposal (if passed) will precisely effect people’s health care options, negative assumptions are being made in response to “What will it mean for me” instead of “my” country.

Meanwhile, blows from both the right and the left have left Obama teetering in the ring, having been given the kind of advice that may be Bill Clinton’s secret strategy for destroying the man who ended his wife’s presidential aspirations (because Bill “owed” her for the humiliation he put her through). The attacks from both sides clearly have had their effect; if the left had chosen to bite their tongues and throw their unqualified support behind the health care bill (like the now MIA Randi Rhodes was apt to do), would Democratic and independent voters have a different opinion on the “success” of the Obama agenda? Maybe. The truth is that there has been little more than hand-wringing to counteract the incessant attacks and misinformation from the right. No doubt with some justification the progressive left is disappointed with Obama and senate Democrats; but is outright discouraging voters who would then abandon the Democrats only a year into Obama’s term the right strategy? If Obama and the Democrats listen to the mendacious likes of McCain—which they may very well do if they continue to listen to Clinton and his allies, then the silver lining progressives hope for may well become a silver bullet.

streamer (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#10

I am not satisfied with all the punditry about the "lessons of Massachusetts" It is the perfect example of blind men describing an elephant. There were many factors --Lefties say it was a referendum on Obama because he is not progressive enough. Righties say it is a referendum on Obama because he is too liberal. Pollsters say it is about opposition to health care on both sides (strange because Mass already has a functional universal health).

to paraphrase Paul Weyrich

"It isnt about the issues. It never was about the issues. To the extent that a candidate can obscure the issues the better they do. "

We all know Coakleys campaign was moribund as everyone notes and Browns was energetic.

Even if not the media would never let her get traction
Scott Brown has intimate media connections - his wife is a popular Boston news anchor Gail Huff 10-15 yrs --totally integrated into the Boston media establishment. His daughter Ayla is a big local media star as a singer (American Idol) and as a starting basketball player with Boston College. She has a HUGE following among young people. Coakley was trashed constantly on talk radio--trashed for jailing sex offenders and trashed for letting them go for instance.

Then there were the demographic factors with low minority turn out and huge suburban turnout. There was the craving for the leadership of a strong truck driving handsome WHITE man.

The last thing the election was about was about issues.

The

Nels (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#11

Last night (as I tossed and turned in bed) I had an epiphany of sorts.

I've have heard time and again how Obama's been playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers.

When I first heard it, it sounded clever, then after awhile I thought well which side of the board is he playing?

Now I realize, its great that he's a great chess player and all, but you don't use a shotgun to kill a fly, you don't bring a foil (no matter how great a fencer you are) to a gun fight. So perhaps Mr. Obama needs to get back to the checker board and stop all that "King Me!" talk coming from the republicans.

Frank Feuerbacher (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#12

The Supreme Court decision
* If corporations are persons, will they next get the right of free association and will this lead to the invalidation of anti-trust laws?
* When corporate money floods in to buy ads won't this 1) drive up the cost of the ads 2) fill up the available time slots for the ads. Both of these will have the consequence of squeezing out human speech. If the time slots are limited Media corporations will be in the position of choosing who's ad will run.
* Will media corporations next argue that they can refuse to run ads because it is counter to their political views?

I was surprised to read that the ACLU supported the decision. I would like to hear their argument.

Is there a legal (not practical) possibility that the federal government could create laws of incorporation that supersede state laws?

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#13

Is it legal to fly the flag at half mast without federal endorsement? If so, that's what I will be doing from now on. (Maybe even if it's NOT legal!)

Nels (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#14

Good-Bye Air America. A noble concept, yet poorly executed. I thank them for shining a light on progressive talk radio. If not for them, I as so many others may have never found such programs like Thom's.

In short, in a lot of ways I would say they did succeed in their original mission; showing America that there is an alternative to the right wing sound machines.

TAJ (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#15

While reading about the recent Supreme Court travesty, I found out that the ACLU wrote a friend of the court brief in support of the Citizen Untied vs FEC. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commi...
I am outraged that the ACLU would support corporate personhood and not support natural persons. What were they thinking? Did the ACLU think they would have the same cash to dump into elections as Exxon? They say they have 500,000 members (499,999 as I just cancelled my membership this morning) so there is no way they can compete with big corporations. I also found out that unions wrote a friend of the court brief. Thanks guys for contributing to this abomination.

Contact the ACLU and voice your displeasure with their actions.

Nels (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#16

@Quark, perhaps you may want to fly your flag upside down, I believe that is the appropriate way to signify that you believe our country is in distress.

rewinn (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#17

About the demise of AAR, let's look at where the actual talent is now:

Thom Hartmann - still on radio; new books coming out all the time.

Ed Schultz Show - still on radio, and now on TV (Schultz was never on Air America)

Randi Rhodes - still on radio

Stephanie Miller - like Schultz, never on Air America, and still on radio

Al Franken - now in the Senate

Rachel Maddow - now on TV

New progressive talkers are cropping up, e.g. Norman Goldman. Progressive talk radio stations continue, e.g. AM1090 Seattle KPTK.

Air America had a bad business model. Radio insiders tell me they were staffheavy, focussing on writing rather than entertaining, lively "talent". IMO this might work for the corporately funded NPR or Saturday Night Live, but radio is all about the on-air talent most of which (you'll note from the list above) ran their own operations or graduated to the Senate. It's worth noting that, unlike Fox, AAR didn't have a wealthy backer willing to loses millions of dollars for nearly a decade before turning a profit. AAR brought some nice publicity to progressive radio and its alumni include 1 more successful senator than Fox, but its departure just makes it another American in economic trouble.

It was a good experiment but nothing lasts forever.

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#18

Air America Files for Bankruptcy

I forgot to mention that AirAmerica stopped regular programming yesterday and will officially cease to exist on Monday. How ironic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60L39K20100122?type=politicsNews

Ellie Wilder (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#19

Angie Coiro in San Francisco is pretty good too.

TAJ (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#20

Rewinn

A slight correction, Herpes and bad Supreme Court decisions may last forever.

DDay (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#21
Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#22

Nels,

Thanks for that. 'Will do!

BTW, 'sorry for the reiterating of the AAR demise. Nothing was posted (or at least no other related post showed on my computer) when I wrote that.

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#23

Thanks, DDay.

slingshot (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#24

Does anyone have a link to, or the name of the article from the Financial Times that Thom was quoting from on yesterday's show (Thursday the 21st, Jan.)?

Dwane (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#25

Re: Credit card interest rates. I heard Australia requires credit card institutions to pay interest to consumers who overpay their credit cards at a rate set a few points lower than the interest rate they charge consumers. Can we do that here?

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#26

'See y'all later. My FBI profiler friend and I are off the the gym. ('Trying to maintain OUR little corner of the world...)

rewinn (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#27

TAJ: "Herpes and bad Supreme Court decisions may last forever."

Wah-ha! let us laugh through the pain.

Our strategy for the future may lie in playing off one corporation against another. That's how we Little Folk grind down the Great.

TAJ (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#28

Obama and the Democrats should go for broke with healthcare, carbon tax, bank reform, and wall street reform, etc as the corporate cash floodgates will be open for this next election cycle. They are doomed regardless of what they do.

DDay (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#29

Yesterday should be remembered. Without drawing the attention of the public, we will wake up one day soon and realize that this was the day when freedom died a little. Complacency will allow freedom to bleed out.
The right handle or hook will serve to memorialize what has been lost and what is at stake.
Black Thursday, Black Jack Day, One Twenty One, The Feast of the Fascists, Freedom Lost Day, Corporate Coup Day, Freedom for Sale Day, America for Sale Day. There must be better ideas out there. We need to light the torch of freedom. Publicity is the coin of this realm. Are the Tea baggers better than us? Will the Progressive Left remain flaccid and impotent politically? Rahm thinks so. If we can't unite around this issue then perhaps we can't unite over anything important.

Karl (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#30

FED Chairman Nomination process- I don't think Obama could choose Stiglitz or Warren.

It is my understanding that the President’s choice of FED Chairman nominees is limited to a List of Candidates provided by the FED Board?

Does anyone else know about this?

rewinn (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#31

SCROTUS = Supreme Court Republicans Of the United States (...heard on Stephanie Miller)

Rick in Canadia (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#32

Thom,
Looking from up here in Canada;
Scary stuff. As if voting machines and slams at Acorn etc. weren't enough to get the Republicans back in power as they believe is their right..
Now your Supreme Board of Directors has opened up the floodgates for propaganda spending.

So if they are adding the word 'Republican' so it is now SCROTUS, what would you call a quorum...?
I hear that to make corporations 5/5 of a person they had to find a few tenths somewhere else so African Americans and Progressives are down to 3/5 ths.

A few questions?
Will this money be deductable as a 'cost of doing business'? Would they then have to defend the spending as 'reasonable' or 'necessary' to the business?
If it is deductable then you are helping them out with tax dollars.

If there is attempt to counter this with regulation or some sort of amendment, I assume companies are now free to spend whatever they want to counter that..
If they do, are there any rules to make public who spent the money and how much?

The timing of all this is spooky; Mass. election, Health Care tanking, now the ruling.. It isn't hiding things; it is 'Shock and Awe'.

I can only hope that Pres. Obama takes this as a sign and opportunity to do what he needs to do however he needs to do it. If the Republicans can go through all this and have people forget or ignore their sleazy methods, there should be nothing to stop the Democrats. I say 'should'.
Faint hope? It might be when companies can now describe to the elected officials all the ways they can destroy them with spending..

Good luck, I'm going back to CBC for a while.
Some day soon we will kick out our little neo-con Harper. Hopefully it will be before he stuffs our Supreme Court like he is doing with the Senate.
Is that what it is all about? If so I hope Pres. Obama can hang in long enough to appoint some justices that are as progressive as Roberts et al are Corporatist.
Rick in Canadia

Rick in Canadia (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#33

Hey, it just struck me;
Canada and the US;
We are both governed by Minority Conservative Governments.
Sad,
Rick

mathboy (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#34

Karl,

Under "Chair of the Federal Reserve" on Wikipedia:

"As stipulated in the Banking Act of 1935, the chair is one of seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System who are appointed by the President from among the sitting Governors."

rewinn (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#35

HAITI UPDATE -

West LegalEdcenter put together a free continuing legal education program for Monday, Jan. 25 to address some of the legal issues surrounding the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti.

"Haiti Crisis Update: Current and Emerging Legal Issues" will be live at 3 p.m. Eastern on Jan. 25 and available as an on demand audio program afterward.

SEE
http://legalcurrent.com/2010/01/21/free-cle-emerging-legal-issues-from-h...

The panel of speakers will detail the policies and procedures put in place by
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of State that will impact Haitian nationals currently in the U.S., U.S. permanent residents
stranded in Haiti, and Haitian orphans who are in the process of being adopted
by U.S. citizens.

The goal of the CLE is to ensure participants that they are in the best position
possible to assist those in need of immigration advice as a result of the
ongoing tragedies in Haiti. The program also will address the emerging issues
regarding infrastructure rebuilding.

mathboy (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#36

For Thom, I think the term "obiter dictum" applies to the mention, without a decision, by the Supreme Court concerning corporate personhood in the Santa Clara case. But don't take my word for it.

harry ashburn (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#37

I think the reason Air America failed is the shows were as boring as right-wing talk radio. Thom's show is the only talk radio show I've ever heard that I consider interesting and entertaining. Randi Rhode's voice to me is like chewing on tin-foil. I get tired of Alex Jone's ranting. I even got bored with Al Franken's show. I guess the difference is that Thom is so much more knowledgeable than the others that he can respond to any challenge with facts instead of bluster and bravado.

Sarah (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#38

Re unlimited corporate political spending:

I"m on a public radio email list & I just got the following message (name of poster & station deleted):

------------------
One of the many emails I get from trade organizations [...] mentioned today that the Supreme Court's decision to basically gut campaign finance restrictions should mean an additional $500 million in new advertising for media outlets.

My personal feelings about the issue aside, I'm not above taking in a fat new stream of possible revenue considering the overall fiscal state of things.

But are non-commercial stations essentially left out in the cold on this one? Just how much political advertising (a.k.a. "underwriting") can we legally run? I was under the vague impression that we couldn't run any, but I'm no expert on this.
------------------

This is just so wrong that I can't even begin to express my disgust at what this person is saying: Not only is the sellout of our political system to corporations not a problem, but it's positively a great opportunity for public radio stations. Just think of all the money that stations can make by running the latest advocacy spot from Walmart, ExxonMobil, or United Health.

The founders of the public radio system (not to mention the founders of the country) must be rolling in their graves.

Fair vs Free Trade (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#39

President George Washington’s first act was to put a protective trade barrier around the United States. He did this by imposing economic tariffs writes Charles Walters (2003) in Unforgiven. This practice bore elements consistent with current sustainable local economic development. The direction parallels a fair trade strategy. This is localization vs globalization.

Read more at Suite101: Haiti Failed by Free Trade Could Benefit From: Sustainable Local Economic Development http://globalization.suite101.com/article.cfm/haiti_failed_by_free_trade...

DDay (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#40

Jay Leno was right when he said that we get the government we deserve.

DDay (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#41

We should memorialize today... the day after.....we can call it Stunned Duck Day.... it describes nicely the reaction of the victims of yesterday's crime.

Rick in Canadia (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#42

'Shock and Awe..Sh*t
Feh!,
Rick

Nels (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#43

As far as the Supreme Court decision, I say to corporations this. "No representation with out equal taxation!"

Fair vs Free Trade (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#44

Conan Obrien needs to surprise everyone tonight with a huge donation to a charitable causes ie Haiti perhaps. Write. blog today - for Conan to do this rather than waste money on horses watching football coverage wrapped in mink.

Dave in CA (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#45

Yesterday's Supreme Court disaster was the cherry on top of the cake that dooms our democracy. The big corporations already had the media, the military and the government on the backs of We the People.

We can no longer allow big corporations to do this, now that their human rights have been upheld by the Bozo Court of, by and for Corporations.

Time to Unite to Strike. All organizations of We the People, the right and left and center, religious and progressive groups all over the country must become involved int he process and to help form the New Order.

We have the means still (the Internet), the number (the 99% against the top 1%) and the money, all together. There is no other way.

glenn N (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#46

if corporations are persons, then they must declare if they are male or female. then male coporations cannot merge with other male corporations, and female corporations cannot merge with female corporations, or the institution of marraige would be threatened.
if corporations are people, can they run for office? AIG for president in 2012!!!
if corporations are people, can I sleep with victoria secret, inc tonight please?

mstaggerlee (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#47

A part of the "corporate personhood" issue, that I have neither considered previously nor seen mentioned here, was pointed out to me by my brother last night. In order that a corporation may be sued, indepednently of the corporation's stockholders, it MUST be defined, in the legal sense, as a seperate entity from its individual and collective stockholders. Thus, legally the corporation and its stockholders are distinct, giving the stockholders some level of separation/protection from liability due to wrongdoing by the corporation.

I'm no lawyer (and neither is my brother) but it seems to me that it must follow from the above that there must exist some legal declaration of the rights and responsibilities of a corporation, seperate and distinct from the rights & responsibilities of the stockholders, the board of directors, etc. This is likely defined by the several states, which individually define the laws of incorporation.

I haven't had the time to fully think through all the implications of the above vis a vis yesterdays SCROTUS decision (thanx, rewinn!). Are there any lawyers among this group of misfits that can help clarify these issues for me?

Quark (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#48

Has anyone mentioned the possibility of impeaching John Roberts due to his obvious lies during his hearings? Would it do any good?

Bill (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#49

Time for Unions to throw off their political hats and get back to basics. Those basics are fighting for what Workers and Americans need and have a right to expect.
So borrowing from our European Partners do what Unions have always done well.
"STRIKE" as in "GENERAL STRIKE"
EVERYBODY WALKS
Pick a Thursday and every worker walks of their job and takes to the streets. and stays off their job until the following Tuesday morning.

For workers who will struggle with financial burden the can apply to unions and charitable Organization for financial help. UNIONS can use their political action and strike funds to help these workers.

Rick in Canadia (not verified) 4 years 34 weeks ago
#50

Glenn, Re; Victoria..
Sorry, you couldn't afford her.. the banks are lining up for a gang merger..

If they are people, they all need colonoscopies..
If they murder, that should bring new meaning to 'capital' punishment..
Cheers,
Rick

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Right through the worst of the Bush years and into the present, Thom Hartmann has been one of the very few voices constantly willing to tell the truth. Rank him up there with Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, and Paul Krugman for having the sheer persistent courage of his convictions."
Bill McKibben, author of Eaarth
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
Robert Greenwald, political activist and founder and president of Brave New Films
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Hartmann combines a remarkable piece of historical research with a brilliant literary style to tell the grand story of corporate corruption and its consequences for society with the force and readability of a great novel."
David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World and Agenda for A New Economy