Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  wtf? (4.00)
    I thought there were two horrendous possible aspects of any Bush nominee:

    a) being a radical theocrat on social issues

    b) being a corporate whore

    These don't generally overlap.  For example, there's a lot of money in the porn business (including softcore which is what most of television is) so a good corporate whore supports it.  It's quite hard to get the worst of both worlds and so we didn't expect that.

    Instead we got a consummate corporate whore.  Who are we to say that's better than to get some social bigot?  

    Personally I'm more afraid of the corporate whores.  Look at how entrenched Jim Crow was in the 50's and the relative ease of dismantling those laws (if not the social attitudes behind them) in the 60's, because there just wasn't that much vested financial interest in keeping them.

    It's a lot different with, say, the corporate personhood doctrine, which all the money in the world is behind.  

    I think all the theocratic frothing against flag burning, marriage equality, etc., is not that threatening.  Attitudes toward that stuff change as communication technology improves and society gets better interconnected (e.g. we can talk to each other on sites like this without being filtered by corporate intermediaries).  

    Much scarier is putting the corporate types in charge of society.  They're in a position to attempt controlling all human communications and they're trying to do exactly that (look at the attempt to ban public wifi, to slip the broadcast flag through again after it's already been defeated multiple times, etc).

    I don't see it as a slam dunk for Reid at all, to pick a corporate slob over some social reactionary.

    •  how do you know all of this ? (none)
      •  Uh, read the news (none)
        Then read history. It was not so long ago that robber barons roamed the earth. With them came the attitude that the masses should be passive and obedient, because that makes things much easier for capitalists and their ilk.

        The rest simply follows from observation. The corporatists are just acting from their self-interest, much the way anyone else would. But when you're on a first name basis with the movers and shakers, and when your stake in things is that huge, you can shape things to suit your interests far more effectively than anyone else can. Also, since they make money in ways which are completely alien to the majority of the population, the fulfilment of their self-interest does not result in a society aimed at furthering the greater good.

        Who on Earth else would be pushing for corporate personhood, anyway?

        •  okay so you don't have any specifics to this (none)
          circumstance or even to this person.
          •  Those who fail to learn from history... (none)
            Besides, this is the classic Bush tactic. What specific information do we have on anything?

            Are you actually going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt? On what basis?

            •  I am trying to get a bead on the basis of how (none)
              y'all intend to fight this without being able to even define what you are fighting besides saying "it's bush" or that she is a "Corporatist" These aren't arguments or even a means to drum up passion because they are just general statements. I asking you to, if you feel she will be detrimental, to go out and define precisely in what ways other than jargon because right now that's all you are giving me.  I am trying to play in part the devil's advocate because all day today all I 've seen is a bunch of hate her on principle stuff, and that's not going to be good enough to win here. You will probably lose either way- but at least lose one step forward with two back rather than just two back. Do you get my meaning?
      •  Didn't you ever see the movie rollerball? ;-) n/t (none)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site