I can't believe you brought up 9/11. You, of all people, can't have fallen for the current administration's BS that it's all about 9/11? Why do you think they are still in power and why do you think we are in the mess we are currently in? Rule by fear.....

That is the only reason McCain is the presumptive republican nominee -- even acceptable to the republican party.

On the off chance that this posting is being read by a government agency...you have not yet overturned the first amendment.

Iwan - No, no. Puhlease. I'm not scared. I'm not sitting here worried about future terrorist attacks nor watching the homeland security color codes and trying to wear a matching outfit. It was just a convenient date to use, but maybe I should have said "Post-Bush Crime Syndicate Era" and "we need a new way of politics and politicians in order to recover from it".

Yeah, they're using the fear factor to bolster McCain, but people are tired of fear, republicans and this Administration. Out of all the Republican nominees McCain won because out of all the nominees he was the most tolerable. Which isn't saying much.

I would hardly consider Obama a political outsider and I doubt he really stands for a change from the is-it-two-or-is-it-one? party status quo. But I am MORE sick of dynasties.

One of the biggest things I want to change is the government's intervention into business. Let businesses which are failing fail. Don't bail them out; bailing them out is taxation. Let business take care of its own. If a failing business could conceivably damage the economy or infrastructure of the country, REGULATE it before that can happen.

Along the same lines, I would like to deny business the rights of individuals. I don't know constitutional law, so I don't know where or how to do it. To be honest, I don't know why they have these rights to start with. But, basically, I'd make it so only individuals (humans, NOT corporations or LLPs or whatever) could donate money for political purposes. It has to come from a person and therefore that person is held responsible for it.

Likewise, corps/etc shouldn't have freedom of speech, people do. I think if a person is directly responsible for what they say, they might be more careful with their statements. (e.g. I know for sure there was fear when CEOs had to start signing their financials.)

I'm babbling now. Don't mention the war. I did once but I think I got away with it.

Poz - even better, I too am tired of the dynasty. I wouldn't mind a third or fourth party choice, frankly. But I'm not sure that's going to happen anytime soon.

Have you seen a movie called The Corporation? You should. Anyway, the 14th amendment helped corporations a long way towards equal rights. I just found the website and a quote from the movie, "..the 14th amendment was passed to protect newly freed slaves. So, for instance, between 1890 and 1910, there were 307 cases brought before the [supreme] court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations, 19 by African Americans..."

*sigh*

I'm with ya.

Hmm.....CF, I still think they got to you.

Consider, why didn't you say, "what politics should be *now*"? The past is imaginary, as is the future. Only the present exists....

People may be tired of the war, but I doubt that they are tired of fear. I think McCain won because of his strong stance / history with war and protection. He is a hawk (as is Hillary, BTW).

As far as amendment 14 and the rights of businesses....

Poz, businesses are supersets (or subsets?) of the citizenry. Making a law that affects a business in turn affects the people working there. Pretty much as simple as that. It would be like making a law that singles out individual persons.

As far as the other stuff you say....sounds like you are a Regan Republican! -- well the first paragraph is a bit paradoxical, but prevent gov't intervention is definitely Reganesque, whereas in the same breadth (writing) you say 'Regulate'. What on earth do you really mean?

Perhaps you are wingeing about the Bear Stearns bailout? Economically, they had to do it. And unfortunately, by doing so, the government is setting yet anohter example of how people are not responsible for their actions.

Maybe I am being contrarian of late, but what the heck have you guys been drinking?!

burbon

Tequila in lemonade.

No paradox unless you take binary views of what I said. I suggested my general guidelines: I do NOT think that government intervention is a good thing, on the whole. I DO think that regulation is required for an equitable, safe, and fair market. I don't consider regulation as the same thing as active intervention. That's probably a semantic argument; Perhaps one of degree or approach.

Yes, economically, they had to do the Bear Stearns bailout. OTOH, I don't think the mortgage products which precipitated their demise are on the up-and-up. That kind of stuff should be regulated. Proof of this is that supposedly smart financial people didn't understand the instruments they were buying. (Or so I read somewhere, sorry no linky.)

Businesses are supersets of the citizenry? Not any more than a bus is a superset of the citizenry because people are on it. Sure, making a law that affects business affects the people who work there. Agree 100%. I don't get your point.

Hey I also believe crazy shit that'll never happen and might not work: raise the estate tax ("death tax" to you repubs) to the maximum one can short of citizen uprising and greatly simplify tax code. The former for distribution of wealth, the latter because everyone should be able to understand their taxes. Blah blah blah.

There is this explanation of the subprime issues. It is worth watching all the way through to the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_qK4g6ntM

Poz, the point is that you can't make it so that corporations are not regarded as individuals in terms of constitutional law because a corporation is made up of people (I guess).

So, let's say you made it so you have individual donations only. Well then if I got a group of people together to raise money, which I, as an individual were to donate, would this be legal in your world? What's the difference between this assembly and a corporation? The corporation is making a donation in the best interest of the people that work for it. As would any PAC or even neighborhood coalition. As would any individual.

Looking at it, you may be violating the first amendment - freedom of assembly, if you don't allow groups to pool their resources and make a donation.

Besides, you'd have to overturn 100 years of precedent, so that ain't gonna happen (if we're lucky, since you never know with this group of justices).

Oh, and I have to stop watching "Frontline" -- just too irritating. It's almost 5 years since "Mission Accomplished" and the republican front runner wants to keep us there for 100 years if necessary? Powell was right "you break it, you bought it."

And this discussion is best had, in person, over a single malt scotch.

Diet cherry poop and salty lemonade.

I still don't get it, Iwan. And yes, I agree this is a discussion that would best be served in person with single malt scotch.

CF, what point exactly... I will try and clarify?

Why corporations are regarded as individuals when it comes to rights?

Iwan - I totally understand why corporations are treated as individuals, the history, etc. The argument you're using as to why you think it would be bad to reverse this trend doesn't compute.

That's it then.

I was not arguing why it would be bad to reverse the trend. I was just trying to explain why it is (imho) the way it is. Though, it would in fact, be bad probably as a violation of at least the first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments.

Iwan - er, but I knew why it is the way it is. Industrial age, 14th amendment, etc. :-) I do recommend that everyone on this thread see The Corporation. It basically takes you through the DSM description of a psychopath and relates it to the behavior of corporations with the obvious conclusion that corporations are psychopaths, so why aren't we more upset by what they do when we are when individuals are psychopaths?

um....bourbon?

Iwan - yes, please!

OK, I said I should stop, but I did it anyway. I just finished watching "Frontline -- Bush's War".

Let's decided to go beyond indignant frustration at the administration. Go beyond wingeing about the mistakes that were made, the strategies that should have been employed, the people that ran and are currently running things poorly.

Let's stop talking about "Change we can believe in". Stop looking forward towards (what the heck is Hillary's slogan? -- without one, she surely is in trouble!).

Let's think about what we are prepared to do about the situation we're in. Are we prepared to do the hard things? To do what we believe in? To do what we think is right? To make a sacrifice for the future of the country?

I am not talking about voting. We already do that. I am talking about making policy, architecting a better future, becoming part of the process, the machine, the wheels that turn under the president and in the hallowed halls of government.

I am talking about running for office (town council, school board, state senator, congress person, whatever) or working for the candidates and being appointed to a position within the government. Actually doing something about what we think is wrong with the way things are.

Yes, it is hard; so why even try? But that is the easy way out. Getting a degree in engineering is hard. Getting a master's is hard. Training for an Ironman is hard. Running a marathon is hard. Leaving your home to work on the West Coast is hard. Raising cats, children, and being married is hard.

You really want to change the world? Maybe it is time to take on another hard challenge.

That is what I am thinking about...

Well said, Iwan.

Iwan - Well said.

I just want to make sure that you understand that I'm not going to be made to feel bad about complaining about our government. Discourse about our government is a part of the process and important. Writing letters to our congresscritters and the like is a part of the process and important. Voting is important. And you and I agree that these are things we already do.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how to take it to the next level. Especially because I hate the feeling of helplessness I have about the problems I see. I'm not entirely convinced that running for office is for me. There is a lot that can be done behind the scenes. However, the people who actually make the laws are the people in office. I haven't quite figured it out. I really like my representative in the House and I've thought about volunteering for his organization. I'm also thinking of volunteering for Obama (especially if he wins the nomination). But then does that really count as a part of being a change agent to the ills I see in our government? I don't know. Another route is the old, rich white guy route: Join a PAC. Money talks and does affect policy as much as I don't want it to.

This just in....

Poz, could be that McCain is your man. He, unlike the democratic candidates, is not in favor of bailing out the home owners with mortgage problems.

The question is, how does he feel about corporate bail-outs?

CF, Absolutely not. I am not trying to make anyone feel bad, just musing how to take it beyond what we already do. It was just a thought.

You should get involved in Obama's campaign if you really believe in it. Consider that if he wins, many of the staff appointments get made from the campaign staff -- it is your way into the machine. (Perhaps you could be a member of internet technology advisory staff or wherever your interest and talents may lead you?)

Iwan,

I have been in a bourbon mood for a while. The small batch bourbons are quite good. Of course, I will never abandon the single malts. Just variety is good.

Iwan - McCain's Poz's man. hahaha.

mess - can i join?

CF hit the nail on the head. I understand the corp/person thing academically. I'd like to see it reversed, and don't think that it violates inalienable rights to do so. But, IANAL.

And as a non-politician, I don't have to be consistent. So there!

Jenn,

Of course you can join. We have an open membership policy.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/120658650589950.xml&coll=7

that last wasnt the intended link. This one has a bit more commentary and references. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/03/zippy-cheats-tr.html

poz - that's freakin' horrible. *sigh*