Slashdot Mirror

Corporations aren't citizens. Corporations have no rights. Corporations are constructs of the government that exist at the whims of the government.

Within just a few decades, appointed judges had redefined the "common good" to mean the corporate use of humans and the Earth for maximum production and profit -- no matter what was manufactured, who was hurt or what was destroyed. Corporations had obtained control over resources, production, commerce, jobs, politicians, judges and the law. Workers, citizens, cities, towns, states and nature were left with fewer and fewer rights that corporations were forced to respect.

While we like to tell ourselves that tribal ancestors had a hard, short, brutish life, early contact with American natives tell quite a different story; that where the Spanish could expect to live to the ripe old age of 42, native peoples could expect to live to their 90's and some, even older, oweing to a extremely varied (largely but not exclusively) vegetarian diet; a diet consisting not only of staples available on the land but also of crops of corn and grains, meat from domesticated animals, gardens containing a dozen varieties of fruits and vegetables.

With regards to disease, there is no evidence that native populations experienced disease to any worse degree than did Old World populations; and the long life spans would seem to indicate that whatever diseases they did experience, they were sufficiently able to deal with.

And as for injuries experienced 'on the job' so to speak.. take a look at current statistics indicating how frequently people are physically injured these days. An 'easier' life doesn't necessarily mean fewer broken bones.

* Sidenote.. I really am a moron because I never save my research on this subject since it seems to come up so infrequently. I always end up doing it all over again whenver someone asks.. so before someone feels the need to 'attack back' so to speak [a common occurrance on Slashdot, apparently.. I will be visiting far less often, once this thread dies], try doing your own searches because my Google-Fu on this subject is somewhat lacking. The best resources I've read on this subject aren't online yet.

They still do it; not always with good consequences.

Probably several times the cost of building those nuclear plants, maybe by a twentyfold ; certainly much more than paying interests for the construction costs of dams and hydro plants.

But I already know who's going to pay for this : the damn French tax payer is. Certainly not the Swiss, who buy the electricity cheaper than they sell it back to the French.

Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
                    Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

                            The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does infant mortality and miscarriages count? Child deaths and miscarriages apparently spiked around TMI after the accident there. -- Granted, it's not as dramatic as Homer's kid choking on a radioactive nugget, but the numbers were very statistically significant.

In other words, you don't have to go as far as wood river.

If you want to get technical about this.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CAofUSAPA.html

This is a good step by step list of exactly what amendments have been weaked or destroyed.
They include
first,fourth, fith, sixth, and the right to privacy.

>I wouldn't be suprised that there aren't a few former Spetznaz and other skilled former USSR special forces soldiers who are earning more than a few extra dollars as "technical consultants" helping Al Queso et al build better mouse traps that blow up Humvees...

Al-Q terrorists was trainded by CIA to fight Soviet army in Afghan War.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast /TerrorInUSA/Anatomy.asp
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/link scopy/RSblowback.html

Now U.S. troops in Iraq and Russian troops in Chechnya has problems with this Al-Q fighters.

>They now make several different (and suprising...) models, including one that has an IR seeker head (hint: Blackhawk Down).

RPG with IR seeker head does not exist.

>Much like how Russia is a US "ally" in the War On Terror (insert ominous music), yet is more than willing to sell (and help build) nuke stuff to Iran (hey, weren't they doing this with Iraq too?).

Where is Iraq nukes? Show us plz.

Dunno... place a checkmark beside all that apply.

You're right in what you say - the US is (for all their talk of "t3h fr33d0mZ!!!!!1111!") far closer to becoming a fascist state than the Netherlands currently is.

Read The 14 Characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt - the USA hits every single point square-on, with the possible exception of point 5 (rampant sexism), although the paper goes on to clarify "opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy", so maybe half a point then.

However, by instituting a system such as the Netherlands', they make it much easier to start monitoring their citizens and restricting civil liberties in the future - all you need is to not stop updating the database after the child passes 18, and you've got some of the scariest bits of 1984 right there.

Short version: The US is far further down the track, but the Netherlands just massively upgraded how fast they can catch up.

I expect that they don't. They probably know that what's only in your head is still safe from subpoenas.

Yes indeed! Engage "Operation Northwood". It's about time our government instigated a terrorist attack on its own citizens and then falsely lay blame on a boogeyman/patsy in order to establish a pretext to invade and occupy a foriegn nation.

If my house falls over and kills 4000 people, I am liable. If my company (Toxico) falls over and kills 4000 people, I am not liable, due to, IMHO, government fiction. This is wrong. If a bad company is bankrupted by civil action, the

This isn't the problem. Limited liability is actually a very good thing. Without limited liability it would place a much higher burden upon investors and therefore less people would be inclined to invest. And it could potentially be enough risk that investment generally didn't happen. That'd make it extremely difficult for people to create new businesses and that'd generally be bad.

The *problem* with our system (where our system == the US system) is that we do not extract sufficient reward for this mighty benefit that we give companies and investors. In fact we go so far as to treat companies as individuals with nearly all the same rights. But corporations get this huge benefit over your average person. If some imaginary business owner doesn't incorporate they can't limit their liability. Today they'll just go ahead and form their limited liability corporation for some small fee and be done with it. It'd be better if there were some trade offs involved where society gets some benefit out of the advantages it's providing to the business owners.

Because corporations shouldn't really be individuals those restrictions could include things like restriction (or elimination) of political speech, providing some free or discounted services to the government and/or societies most helpless, etc... The balances there could change over time as societies needs change - but it's always a choice for the corporation. They're trading the investment & legal benefits off for restrictions and stipulations of their business (they continue to be able to act independently & freely, of course). The best part though is that this could help free up many of these restrictions that are now getting applied to individuals as well.

your first link doesn't work and your second only shows sales of arms.. which certainly aren't the whole story. Also, by the figures you've presented the US sold a total of 200 million dollars in arms to Iraq.. how does this refute my statement (which for clarity I repeat here: "maybe the people of Iraq before *you guys* gave him millions in support, training and, according to some, bological weapons capabilities...")

Here is some other info for you to chew on:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.htm l
http://www.sundayherald.com/42648
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/armIraqP2W.htm l

You're kidding yourself if you think your government wasn't complicit in keeping Saddam Hussein in power during the 80s.

your first link doesn't work and your second only shows sales of arms.. which certainly aren't the whole story. Also, by the figures you've presented the US sold a total of 200 million dollars in arms to Iraq.. how does this refute my statement (which for clarity I repeat here: "maybe the people of Iraq before *you guys* gave him millions in support, training and, according to some, bological weapons capabilities...")

Here is some other info for you to chew on:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.htm l
http://www.sundayherald.com/42648
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/armIraqP2W.htm l

You're kidding yourself if you think your government wasn't complicit in keeping Saddam Hussein in power during the 80s.

It's petty. There's a real difference between appointing a contributions bagman Ambassador of Micronesia, and punishing people at this petty level.

This is an administration that rewards loyalty over competence, and it's reaping what they've sown. Note that this thread isn't even about how John Bolton is getting nominated for jobs he's manifestly unqualified for because he helped shut down the Florida recount.

For quite some time, the US has drawn a distinction between politics and getting work done (hackery versus wonkery). That distinction has vanished in this administration; it's all being run by the Now, you're getting expensive taxpayer-funded staged photo ops, where the ungood are unwelcome.

There are those of us who believe that scale matters. America executes criminals, but beat cops don't shoot litterers.

Actually, the basis for 9/11 was set down in Operation Northwoods, and furthered in the 1970s at US military bases in Germany as military personnell were instructed to investigate ways that 100+ story buildings (changed to specify the twin towers in 1977) could be taken down with airliners. One of the proposed plans specifically included "Middle Eastern"-looking men with boxcutters.

You realize that You (no matter where you live in) are one of the real reasons for the iraq war. Every human in this planet who thrives on a petro driven economy is a part of this problem - and short term solution. Read the article in the link and do some homework. Stop believing propaganda on TV. GWB was just a tool.

• The pristine condition passport "found" at ground zero
  
• The phone calls made from the jets, which were a) not technically possible to make and b) the eye "witnesses" said they had red banadanas, when Al Qaidas colour is green. That just would not happen, it would be like the US going to war under a red hammer and sickle.
  
• Flight manuals and a copy of the Koran found at the airport. Excuse me, but if you've been training for an operation for several years, you don't carry papers with you on the drive to the airport that would incriminate you if given a random stop/search by the local authorities.
  
• A dozen other reasons that I can't be bothered to go into, such as the lack of video evidence of anything, despite the airports and the Pentagon being some of the most monitored places on the plannet.
  

The whole thing reeks. And the response of those in charge on the day is inconstistent with every standard operating proceedure in place.

Sounds way too much like Operation Northwinds to me, where the US intended justify an unprovoked war against Cuba, in order to "protect itself from terrorism".

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight. - US Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1962

They are corporations which hold a license to exist granted by US through our representatives. A. License. To. Exist. Not a right. They have no rights.

1.5 million was an estimate I found but did not verify. After some more investigation I am also convinced this figure is taken from the air. But there is research to support a number quite a bit higher. It's the same problem as with nearly all statistics. It's always the way how you calculate it.:

Gofman's criticisms of "dose rate effectiveness factors" (reducing risk estimates to bring them in line with the results of animal studies) and his suggestion that the risk of cancer may be relatively greater in the low-dose range than in moderate and high-dose ranges have sparked controversy in the past and will continue to do so in the future. For instance, Gofman predicts that approximately 400,000 Europeans and Soviets may die of cancer due to fallout from the Chernobyl disaster, a figure far higher than "official" estimates.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/BoAS.html

Or the original text:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp24F.ht ml

Bottom Line from Our September 1986 Estimate of Chernobyl's Cancer Consequences
EUROPEAN USSR: 212,150 fatal + 212,150 non-fatal.
NON-USSR EUROPE: 244,786 fatal + 244,786 non-fatal.
OTHER: 18,512 fatal + 18,512 non-fatal.


My original point is that while it's not an easy way to kill a lot of people it's pretty scary when you stuff it in a plane and drop it in the center of a major city...

1.5 million was an estimate I found but did not verify. After some more investigation I am also convinced this figure is taken from the air. But there is research to support a number quite a bit higher. It's the same problem as with nearly all statistics. It's always the way how you calculate it.:

Gofman's criticisms of "dose rate effectiveness factors" (reducing risk estimates to bring them in line with the results of animal studies) and his suggestion that the risk of cancer may be relatively greater in the low-dose range than in moderate and high-dose ranges have sparked controversy in the past and will continue to do so in the future. For instance, Gofman predicts that approximately 400,000 Europeans and Soviets may die of cancer due to fallout from the Chernobyl disaster, a figure far higher than "official" estimates.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/BoAS.html

Or the original text:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp24F.ht ml

Bottom Line from Our September 1986 Estimate of Chernobyl's Cancer Consequences
EUROPEAN USSR: 212,150 fatal + 212,150 non-fatal.
NON-USSR EUROPE: 244,786 fatal + 244,786 non-fatal.
OTHER: 18,512 fatal + 18,512 non-fatal.


My original point is that while it's not an easy way to kill a lot of people it's pretty scary when you stuff it in a plane and drop it in the center of a major city...

MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. v. BECKWITH, January 7,1889

"we admit the soundness of his position, that corporations are persons within the meaning of the clause in question."
This gave corporations privileges like freedom of speech and due process.

From Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers "Of the 14th Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, 19 dealt with African Americans, 288 dealt with corporations." America - home of the free.

Yes, its totally off topic.

Unfortunately you're about a century behind the times. After the passage of the 14th Amendment, the railroads repeatedly got before the Supreme Court, arguing that since the amendment didn't specify "natural" persons, it granted full civil protections to corporations as well. In 1886, they got their way, and the situation has gradually deteriorated since. This is why corporations can sue on First Amendment grounds. More info, or just google it.

In a truly free market you get to hand your wallet to JP Morgan or any of the other robber barons that used to dominate America.

What do you mean, used to ...? Why the past tense?

* Prescott Bush and Union Bank
* Savings and Loan Scandal
* Ken Lay and Enron
... and so on.

-kgj

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
-- Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864
[Source ]

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
-- Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864
[Source]

From Maj. General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket:

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war -- even the munitions makers.

I'm sure the chicken hawks will find a way to discredit his service...

A number of advocates of Taiwan independence argue that the Instrument of Surrender of Japan was merely an armistice, a Modus Vivendi in nature, which served as a temporary or provisional agreement and always would be replaced with a peace treaty afterwards. Thus Instrument of Surrender of Japan did not transfer title of Taiwan. It was when Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951 did the sovereignty of Taiwan return to the people of Taiwan, based on the principle of self-determination provided by the UN Charter. Moreover, some people believe this Treaty made an undetermined cession of Taiwan which put Taiwan sovereignty in trust by the Allied power until today. It makes interpretation of Taiwan's political status more complicated.

Although these interpretations of international law challenged the legitimacy of the Republic of China before the 1990s, the introduction of popular elections in Taiwan means that except for the most extreme Taiwan independence supporters, supporters of the popular sovereignty theory no longer see a conflict between this theory of sovereignty and the ROC position of the R.O.C. being the sovereign government of Taiwan, Kinmen, Penghu and Matsu. In fact, Chen Shui-bian has often promote the popular sovereignty theory by emphasizing it in his speeches.

What's sad is how well Lincoln predicted it.

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

'The prejudices of the people'? I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if they can come up with any recent examples of this.

These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel.

To answer those who won't read the link as to why he uses the term 'capitalists', in regards to Lincoln's time: "this is invariably in the context of a nation where NO MORE THAN ONE MAN IN EIGHT is a Capitalist or a Laborer, ie, where 7/8 of the population are "self-employed" on their own farms and homesteads."

I know that nuke plants aren't maintenance free. I felt that was a given ;). But I felt that I needed to mention that solar plants still require maintenance.

The previously features christmas tree sized low maintenance reactor
Well, the nuclear portion is maintenance free, at least.

My estimate of costs came from comparing the build costs for an australian mirror plant with the south african pebble bed. And I assumed linear, as in it takes x plants at y dollars each to reach the USA's annual production.
PBMR: $100 million per 110 MegaWatt "Module" (.9mil per MW)
Solar 1:$2.1 Million for 180 Kilowatts (11mil per MW for an admittably small plant)
Solar 2:$3 Million per Megawatt?

Well, it's not exactly "order of magnitude", but a factor of three is still quite a difference.

If we're stealing their oil, precisely why are we paying for it? That kind of goes against the definition of stealing, don't you think?

Before the war (the first gulf war), Irakis (Ok, Saddam) could choose to not sell its oil. Now, they can't.

Before the war, they can choose its price. A price of 100$ per barrel would be -much- better for their economy. Can they do it anymore ? No.

Before the war, they could choose what currency they accepted for their oil. In fact, Saddam even switched to the euro. Immediatly after the invasion, the irakis "choose" to return to the dollar. Maybe will you find this link interesting : http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

So, I am sorry to disappoint you, but the goal of this war IS the oil. You "pay" for the oil, but YOU fix the price. Irakis are not free to use their natural ressources and, yes, i call this "stealing". If your puppet prime minister would try to change this, I think there is little doubt he would be rapidely removed.

Do you have a link for the Chernobyl affecting farms in the US comment?

This page mentions a Star Tribune article from May 17, 1986: "Since radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear accident began floating over Minnesota last week, low levels of radiation have been discovered in . . . the raw milk from a Minnesota dairy." A search at startribune.com's archive seems to confirm that such a story ran, though I didn't shell out the cash to actually download the article.

Also note this story from earlier this year: "14 farms covering 16,300 hectares of southwest and central Scotland are still subject to restrictions on the movement and slaughter of radioactive sheep".

Yes, it's true that Chernobyl was the result of very stupid behavior and that modern reactor design makes such an accident pretty much impossible (at least, in theory). That doesn't change that the accident affected an area a lot larger than a few square miles.

Not that I don't believe you, I just think you believe everything you hear that fits your world view.

I try to keep the BS filter running strong and run everything - including the claims of both foes and fans of electric generation from nuclear fission - through it. Do I have some bias? Sure. It's part of being human.

Welcome to the fascist state. Please depost all money in the corner and do as we say.

14 characteristics of fascism.

On the other hand, there might be a funnier outcome to the current fall of the dollar value : just imagine that the OPEC countries decide to use the Euro instead of the dollar as a reference currency... Now *that* would be fun :-)

There is a well-thought-out "what-if" on just that scenario at by Richard Clarke (update) with the horror story further expanded at at this Canadian site.

A "real fun" scenario is, if the OPEC nations follow Iran and begin demanding Euros vs. dollars for oil, then there is a real possibility for US==banana republic (which it is beginning to resemble quite closely) economically, once the Saudis and Japanese and Chinese cash in all their dolloars for Euros. See a rather detailed analysis of how we got into this mess from Morgan/Stanley.

Here's one possible source for the reference:

The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).
...
Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.

This is a small snippet from something I ran across here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

That page assumes a 0 dose equals 0 risk philosphy, which is incorrect.

Why? You haven't explained why this should be the case. Making analogies to completely different things is just silly.

Fact:
A single photon of (UV or gamma) radiation can cause cancer. The chemical processes involved, such as the formation of thymine dimers, are well understood.

Fact:
Radiation dosage is the number of photons per unit of time and unit of body mass.

It is quite reasonable to believe that radiation dose is proportional to cancer risk.

Radiation hormesis is not accepted as fact. In fact, there are a good number of people which consider it to be psuedoscience.

And there is signficant evidence to the contrary, both summaries from respectable sources (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the National Research Council's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation)

So, if you want to believe this Luckey guy, go do so. But most experts in the field do not - and I'm listening to them.

A very interesting article regarding the 1876 presidential elections.

But since someone brought it up... I remember Greenspan playing a key role in helping that bubble burst. You know, Mr. Irrational Exuberance himself. The guy raising interest rates with the stated purpose of 'slowing down the overheating economy.'

He also stood by and watched Clinton sign away depression era laws in 1999 that had been on the books for decades. Yeah, that's him on the far left. These laws separated banks, securities firms, and insurance companies for a reason. Imagine a bank invested in the stock market. Not only is this a risky investment for a bank holding *YOUR* money, but suppose it provides a conflict of interest. The bank is also dispensing investment advice. Banks might mislead investors in order to bail themselves out of a bad investment, no? Well guess what happens next...

• In 2002, Accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted of a single charge stemming from its lackluster auditing of Enron. That action forced Andersen, one of the largest and most respected auditors in the world, to go out of business.

• There was plenty of blame to go around. Corporate executives had cooked books while lining their pockets. Analysts at investment banks had recommended stocks they knew were dogs in a quid pro quo that ensured banking business from those same firms.

Which brings us back around to the real reason for our failing economy. Gross mismanagement of tax laws, banking regulations, and the federal budget by congress and the president. And not just this congress and not just this president. You don't get a 7.4 Trillion dollar national debt overnight. That, friend, you cannot blame on me or the terrorists.

In support of your statement...
When Corporations Wield the Constitution

Hope you feel safe, 'cause if you gave up all those rights for ... whatever it was you got, then you just got angloed down, mi amigo.

Unfortunately, we have sold our sacred God-given HUMAN rights to the highest bidder. When congress talks about individual rights, they are referring to corporate rights and investor rights.

When I first started to get into politics, I looked at the Libertarian party and said "That's what I'm all about. Complete and total freedom." The more I looked into it however, I realized they were referring to corporate rights.

It's a very sad thing to realize that we have sold our soul. But, I think more and more people are starting to wake up, and I think if enough of us do that we can bring awareness to the rest and change the laws and redeem our American values based on individual human rights.

See the following links to learn more about this and find out what you can do to help change it.

POCLAD: Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy
http://www.poclad.org/

Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation.
This is a history of corporate law in America.
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/TCoB.html

I feel the same way about paying the state to censor my, and my neighbors', media choices. And I've been to the Netherlands many times, among many other countries across the world, so I have an informed opinion of the superior degree (maybe the highest) of civilization there. But in America, we just celebrated two weeks ago our victory over the British opressors. Dutch people had a great hand in that victory, from the Amsterdam financiers in negotiation with Ben Franklin, back to the New Amsterdam cultural influence on New York and beyond. And most of the people who peopled our new country took the risk of immigration to leave behind tyranny, even genocide. America's example inspired many people who stayed under oppressors to rise up, or just grow out of oppression.

But America is influential in many ways, from liberation to slavery. We created artificial people, corporations, in the 1800s, and they are now first-class citizens all over the world. We once led the way in overthrowing the European tyranny of governments over people, and now we are the battlefield for overthrowing the tyranny of corporations over people. Transnational corporations make this battle as transnational as the last wave of revolutions was national. People joined together are as much a match for corporations as we were for governments. A nation with millions of people who believe we are free, and who fight for freedom, is a powerful ally - don't give up on us lightly.

Part of that is because the US dollar tanked. I've read that in the EU gas has risen 2-4% so while it's gone up in the EU it's not nearly as bad as the US.

You should try reading William Clark's essay. It's about the US dollar vs the Euro being used by oil producing countries.

Wal-Mart is a corporate entity. IBM is a corporate entity. They aren't human in the first place ~.

Maybe you're not old enough to remember what happened in Germany in the early 1940's, but this was the common consensus of just about everyone at the time. People seriously thought, "This kind of thing would never happen here, our government would never show their true face and prune out all those with [insert difference here]". Similarly, today Americans believe that "our government would never imprison people based on their race, because we live in a free land, and our goverment would not get so currupt." They probably don't remember the internment camps after Pearl Harbor, and most of us are unaware that our current administration is planning more such camps right now: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
Such an ID system allows Big Brother easier access to these taxpaying, legal, citizens whenever public fear is hightened.

When we look at the history of our states, we learn that citizens intentionally defined corporations through charters -- the certificates of incorporation.

In exchange for the charter, a corporation was obligated to obey all laws, to serve the common good, and to cause no harm. Early state legislators wrote charter laws and actual charters to limit corporate authority, and to ensure that when a corporation caused harm, they could revoke its charter.(link)

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 1886.

The link between radiation and cancer has much to do with the increased mutation rate of DNA caused by radiation, which is natural since most cancers are caused by changes in the DNA of a cell. I find it difficult to see why you try to deny this?

It is too bad, but I guess because of the Soviet Union and the turmul in the years after the Soviet Union disintegrated, there has not been done real studies on the wildlife of Chernobyl. (There has been done many studies on the radiaton effects on humans in Chernobyl.) But since all life is related to DNA, there is no doubt that the animals and plants in the area has been seriously affected. Can you show any scientific study that has shown no impact on nuclear radiation on wildlife, we would like to hear about it. And remember, radiation is one thing, but plutonium is one of the mosth leathal chemical poisons in its own right, so if the radiations doesn't get you, the radioactiv chemicals is there for you to worry about the. Again, it is quite natural that plutonium and other radioactive isotops made in a nuclear plant are poisonous, since because they don't excist naturally in nature, organisms have not evolved protections against them.

Well, it's not exactly what you are looking for, but in 1886 the Supreme Court used the fourteenth amendment to give corporations the same legal rights as citizens.

You can read about it here.

With regards to what the founding fathers had in mind vis-a-vis corporations, Thomas Jefferson himself said this:

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Proof enough for me that they saw this train wreck coming. Also, don't forget that up until the '70s, the tax-rate for rich folks was really high stemming from a post world war ii emphasis on "shared sacrifice." Post WWII, for at least a decade or two, the top tax rate was 90%!!! Interesting, eh? Good luck in your search!

---macshune

I found many more documents on that. It seems many people talk about that everywhere in the World except in the US.

Amazing how people from foreign countries know usually better on the way the US works economically than most US citizens do :)

Here is the best document I found:
Click here.

Many more thanks to Google:
Click here.