One of the biggest errors this country ever made was to give corporations the rights of persons. Sadly, they do have the responsibilities of citizens.

A corporation is NOT a person. This should be one of the key issues discussed in the elections. Of course, our elections are now beholden to media corporations where billions of dollars are needed to campaign to pay corps for our PUBLIC airwaves to advertise. This should be another key issue for discussion.

Reminds me of some of the movies where machines with AI take over the world. A corporation is basically a MACHINE thats sole purpose is to make a profit. The machines are winning.

A corporation is NOT a person.

Google "Santa Clara County vs. Union Pacific Railroad" to see how the corporations gave themselves 'citizenship' and became like Zeus, all powerful and immortal.

Whoops! An error of multitasking the above entry was off subject and entered in the wrong discussion box! sorry all!

OVER-THE-TOP CONTROL OF SPEECH BY CORPORATIONS

Consider the extent of this problem:

1) Information that individuals do not even know about themselves, but is extracted directly from their personhood without consent, is marketed and protected under the guise of "commercial free speech".

That's one step past what used to be the worst case - information that is known about oneself extracted without consent and marketed.

2) In reverse, information about corporations themselves is concealed tightly behind a cloak of privacy created by the same commercial free speech rights used to suppress individual free speech.

For example, Monsanto sued milk producers and distributors who advertised their products as "hormone free" on the grounds that such language damaged the use of Monsanto's hormones by other milk producers.

So if John Doe the medical patient is taking hormone medicine, his detailed history gets opened up like a split watermelon and digested by the medical industry for commercial use.

But if John Doe the consumer needs information about what kinds of hormones are in the food products he consumes, and a food provider attempts to provide that information even as a mere notation of the particular absence of a particular substance, then the provider, and John Doe by implication, have violated commercial free speech.

So what's next? Will charges be brought as first amendment violations against those providing food products labeled as "no salt, no sugar, no trans-fats, no saturated fats, no anti-biotics, no factory-farm products and so on?"

Where are the conservatives and libertarians on these issues in the constant harangue about freedom and property rights? Why in these areas is the default position always "commercial rights trump individual rights"? Why don't they have to ask for the information? Who owns it in the first place?

And most essentially, why is the information owned and controlled by a "corporation as a person" treated so dramatically different from information owned and controlled by individuals as persons?

Perhaps the more accurate way to ask the question is, why is the information once owned and controlled by individuals now owned and controlled by corporations?

It would seem rational then that free speech would allow the reverse to be true. Who are these company's, their officers and directors, and principal stock holders. The aggregation and publishing of their legally mined information would seem fair play. Anyone looking to start a 501 (c) 3 corporation?

Check out the site below. It has information on money in politics.

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Under special interests, select "Pharmaceuticals" and look at the money.

While you at it, check out your congress people.

All of these kinds of questions can only be addressed at the U.S. Supreme Court. Citizens lost A LOT for perhaps a generation with the addition of Roberts and Alito during the Bush years. In fact, most citizens have yet to discover what all they lost--the bad decisions will be emerging for years to come.

This is the single biggest reason why a Democrat, any Democrat, is needed as president on 1/20/09 to appoint more "liberal" (that is, "respectful of citizens") judges for the next eight years. Watch below, and see if you find somebody try to tell you it doesn't matter. Then read the article again and ask yourself how important The Supreme Court justices and lower court judges really are to the lives of real people.

uhhhh
why do Corporations has "human rights"...
they copied the Freed Slaves..

SO THE Corporations WANTED "human rights"...

and the morally bankrupt US GOV'T LET THEM DO IT.

Hostile Takeover -
The Corporate Control of Society and Human Life
by Stephen Lendman
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/, April 25, 2006

Large transnational corporations are clearly the dominant institution of our time. They're preeminent throughout the world but especially in the Global North and its epicenter in the US. They control or greatly influence what we eat and drink, where we live, what we wear, how we get most of our essential services like health care and even what we're taught in schools up to the highest levels. They create and control our sources of information and greatly influence how we think and our view of the world and them. They even now own patents on our genetic code, the most basic elements of human life, and are likely planning to manipulate and control them as just another commodity to exploit for profit in their brave new world that should concern everyone. They also carefully craft their image and use catchy slogans to convince us of their benefit to society and the world, like: "better things for better living through chemistry" (if you don't mind toxic air, water and soil), "we bring good things to life" (for them, not us), and "all the news that's fit to print" (only if you love state and corporate friendly disinformation and propaganda). The slogans are clever, but the truth is ugly.
Corporations also decide who will govern and how. We may think we do, but it's not so and never was. Those national elections, especially the last two, only looked legitimate to most people, but not to those who know and understand how the system works. Here's how it really works. The "power elite" or privileged class C. Wright Mills wrote about 50 years ago in his classic book by that title are the real king and decision makers. He wrote how corporate, government and military elites formed a trinity of power after WW II and that the "power elite" were those "who decide whatever is decided" of importance. The holy trinity Mills wrote about still exists but today in the shape of a triangle with the transnational giants clearly on top and government, the military and all other institutions of importance there to serve their interests. These corporations have become so large and dominant they run our lives and the world, and in a zero sum world and the chips that count most in their stack, they do it for their continuing gain and at our increasing expense. Something is way out of whack, and in this essay I'll try to explain what it is and why we better understand it.
The Power of Transnational Corporations and the Harm They Cause http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stephen_Lendman/Hostile_Takeover.html

Thanks RuthK for posting www.opensecrets.org

It becomes immediately evident why corporate government has become dominant.

The courts have been a wholly owned subsidiary of the RICHFILTH since they started buying our political class in wholesale lots back in the '70's and appointed their own, properly vetted judges from the Federal District Courts to the Supremes. WE COUNT FOR NOTHING TO THESE PEOPLE. WE ARE MEAT FOR THE HAMBURGER MACHINE AND NOTHING ELSE. WE ARE FUNGIBLE TO THESE MONSTERS. Remember "fungible"?

Practice saying the following:

I have no legal standing in any court.
I have no Civil Rights in this country.
I have no rights of any kind that any RICHFILTH needs to consider. And yes, you might want to consider practicing this one as well,

The Former United States of America, the Last Genocidal Aryan Empire.

Munch munch.

dead o crat?
nah...................................................
they too cowardly.....

re first post @ 2:03pm

"..a democrat, any democrat..." yada yada.

the bush judicial appointments the poster complains of were seated after advice and consent by democrats. why should we believe that "a democrat, any democrat" would appoint someone even slightly to the left of the incumbents?

faith-based voting, rather than a clear-eyed choice based on consideration of the record, is a fool's game.

DanielDavid, the Republicans blocked Clinton's first choices for the Supreme Court as too radical. The Democrats swished through Bush's choices of Roberts and Alito even though we all knew how radical they were. They used the same verbal formula of promises to play nice that worked for Scalia, but their histories showed they were lying. Some Democrats even voted for them. Not one single Democrat stepped forward to filibuster either nomination. What's the use of electing Democrats when all they do is fall on their knees before the corporations?

What struck me in the above article is the $38 BILLION spent annually in marketing directly to consumers and the doctors. Guess who's paying for that. There was a time when doctors used the PDR instead of drug reps to prescribe. And still are in countries with affordable prescription drugs. The title of Greg Palast's book, Armed Madhouse, accurately describes this country.

ezeflyer, good post and link. One suggestion, study the cultures of Indigenous Peoples and you will discover a good model for cooperative community. Traditional Indians have it right, christian Indians generally do not.

To date there is insufficient idealism and hardship among the majority of Americans. No doubt it is in the near future.

Today Jefferson would cring not only at Big Pharma's abuse of the First Amendment, but also at the rampant abuse of the Copyright Clause and the general capitalist abuse of the spirit of the constitution and public institutions.

Jefferson would cringe at corporate personhood, and the corporation's perpetual existence itself, and of the standing army, and the banks.

The capitalists are so entrenched today in violation of the founding principles that Jefferson would call for nothing less than a revolution. The easiest is a boycott.

BeForKids,

Even though you don't much like me recommending Democrats over more Republicans, you and I are on the same side of caring about a lot of things. Your point above, for instance, about the outrage of us having $38,000,000,000 a year for useless marketing built into the prescription costs that us people pay is important and true. That alone is one reason I support the Democrats who are at least marginally against such things over the Republicans who are proudly not concerned about them at all. Those other countries managed to get better health legislation by working with whatever liberals they have against whatever free-market conservatives they have. Why not us too?

Daniel David, you use the word "marginally" and I use the word "lying" to describe Democratic behavior. CLINTON passed NAFTA after he lied to the unions and said he would fight it. He didn't, and that cost the Democrats the 2002 election. The union members stayed home. Gore told the Bush administration to fire up the toxic waste incinerator next to and upwind from the elementary school of East Liverpool Ohio after he lied to the residents and promised it wouldn't happen. Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table after she lied to the voters and said she would initiate impeachment hearings after the 2006 election. The Republicans tell us they're going rob us. The Democrats promise they won't and then they do. So which is worse? Either way, you get robbed.

Some one else made the same observation, and I've said it before. It's like a battered wife running back to an abusive spouse who is promising - again - to never do it again. Of course they will. Follow the money.

I can see voting for a progressive running on the Democratic ticket, but they're hard to find because the party is put out their candidacies as if they are forest fires. They do represent a threat to the corporate control of the Democratic party. And the idea of Nader2000 that we elect them anyway and then force them to behave like liberals sounds deranged or idiotic. Take your pick. The only way we could force them is to bribe them and we don't have that much money.

B Payne-Economist: Why in these areas is the default position always "commercial rights trump individual rights"?

In a functional society, legitimate collective/individual interests always trump "commercial interests". In a functional society, litigation serves mostly to select the legitimate collective/individual interests, and also to balance conflicting collective/individual interests.

The prevalence of "commercial interests" in a society simply testifies to its dysfunction. Legitimate collective/individual interests may benefit commerce, but this would only be coincidental. In a functional society, commerce may not decide anything that affects the collective/individuals. Commerce must take orders, be the servant.

If a business person has a "commercial interest" and an individual interest that conflict, a court may legitimately rule that the individual interest should prevail if the prevalence of the "commercial interest" violates collective/individual interests.

"about the outrage of us having $38,000,000,000 a year for useless marketing built into the prescription costs that us people pay is important and true. That alone is one reason I support the Democrats who are at least marginally against such things over the Republicans"

Is there any evidence the Evilcrats really oppose this?

After all, they all lined up and voted to protect big pharma profits from competition by blocking Americans from buying their meds from outside the US. They did this just last year. If such a bill had passed, that might have put some pressure on big pharma to cut costs and might have reduced this amount spent. By voting for big pharma and against the American citizens on this bill, what they really did was let big pharma keep spending anything they want on stuff like this and then passing the costs on to us who are barred by law from getting lower prices and thus have no choice put to pay whatever they want to charge.

With the Evilcrats, pay no attention to words. Just to actions. In this case, their action is completely opposite of what you claim about the Evilcrats.

The entire modern Evilcrat party is built on big lies.

They pretend to still be the Democratic Party of the days of FDR. That party was elected by a coaltion of workers and farmers and urban middle class all struggling to get by against corporate rip-offs and control of the work place. Since that was the coalition that got them elected, they at least occasionally fought for the interests of these groups.

Clinton, Gore and the DLC founders completely changed the make up of today's Evilcrat party away from that. Now it is a party dependent on big contributions to run and win. Essentially the basic structure of the Evilcrat party today is identical to that of the Republicans. They both represent only the class of Americans who can make big contributions and fund their consultant directed, ad-campaign-powered campaigns.

Of course, they can't say that they only represent the rich because they still need the votes of the old FDR coalition to win. So publicly, the entire party is built on the lie. They have to lie and pretend they oppose the Republicans and the rich and the corporations to some extent.

That's why with the Evilcrats, its very important to ignore the words and watch the actions. The actions, which always favor the wealthy class that funds their party, are what tell you the true nature of today's Evilcrat party.

to Daniel David.

Roberts and Alito are on the Supreme Court with the blessing and support of the Evilcrat party.

41 US Senators could have blocked either from being on the court by staging a filibuster. Plainly, the Evilcrats have never had fewer than 45 Senators during the Bush years. Therefore, if the Evilcrats had wanted to block either from the court, they clearly had the power and ability to do so.

When someone has the power to stop something and deliberately choses not to do so, then what happens can plainly be said to have had happened with the support of the person. Choosing not to stop something when you can is the equivalent of supporting that something.

Quit the BS that the Evilcrats are opposed to this. And the related BS that if we just elect the Evilcrats, then all will be right in the world. The Evilcrats spread the constant myth that Bush and Cheney are the sole source of the problems we have today. This creates the myth that just voting Evilcrat will solve the problem.

But, just like in 1992, what you'll find when you elect the Evilcrats is that they do just exactly the same things as the Rethugs.

Tell me this, name any action that the Evilcrats have done to change the concept of personhood for corporations? After all, the Evilcrats had control of the White House for most of the 90's. And they've had control of both houses of Congress both early in the Clinton years and late in the Bush years. And of course they had control of both the Clinton White House and the Congress early in the Clinton years. Given that power, name the specific actions the Evilcrats have tried to take to change this.

You can't do it because the Evilcrats are funded by the corporations just like the Rethugs and they aren't about to challenge the hand that pays them and to which they've sworn allegiance.

By contrast, here's what the Evilcrats have used their power to do.

-- Pass NAFTA, and WTO to create the trade rules that send our jobs overseas for higher corporate profits.
-- Pass Welfare Reform.
-- Pass the 1996 Telecommunications Act that created today media monopolies.
-- I think the repeal of the Glass-Steagal laws that limited the creation of big banking monopolies was also signed by the last Evilcrat president. That was a wise law that had come from the Depression era. And today's subprime banking crises stems from this
-- Most of the Evilcrats voted for the 'bankruptcy reform' bill that the bankers wanted when they saw the current crisis coming. Just to make sure we were all more screwed and their profits protected.
-- The Evilcrats passed a bill last year protecting big pharma profits by preventing Americans from shopping outside the US.
-- No major Evilcrat challenges to any of the Reagan\Bush\Bush tax cuts in corporate taxes. They may have raised them a few points early in Clinton, but certainly no attempt at all to put these taxes back up where they were pre-Reagan.

That's the short list that comes to mind quickly with no research. Now, where's that list of specific Evilcrat actions to limit corporate power and profits?

"A corporation is NOT a person. This should be one of the key issues discussed in the elections"

And you'll never hear these word from the Evilcrat nominee, be it Obama or Hillary. That tells you a lot about the nature of the Evilcrat party.

PS ... I forgot that it was the Clinton campaign in 1996 that shot all the holes in the post-watergate campaign finance reforms. The ever growing amount of corporate money in our politics is flowing in through the holes established by that 1996 Clinton campaign. Add that to the list of things that the Evilcrats have done to aid and expand corporate control of our government.

Poverty & Race Research Action Council from Cambridge, Massachusetts has this to say about "Corporate Personhood".

"We cannot control the tactics corporate leaders will use. But we can end the colonization of our own minds, what Edward Said calls our "ideological pacification," by helping one another dispel the absurd idea that today's giant corporations were inevitable and that there is no alternative to these global fictions ruling our lives."

This is a MUST read!

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/MPEndCRule.txt

Of course, the good doctors could just say NO, right? They could tell the drug dealers to get lost, yes? They can refuse to allow them on their premises, correct? They can go as far as having them arrested for trespassing, isn't that so?

If some scag offers you 2 crack rocks for $20 and you do not do crack, you decline. If you buy, it's not the dealer's fault. If some Merck scag offers you free anything, JUST SAY NO, or stop bitchin.

Up until a year ago, you could watch Disclosure's "Targeting Doctors" on line about this phenomenon (aired 2002). At the time it was broadcast, they said that, while it was illegal to sell the names and identities of the people who used the drugs to drug companies, it was legal to give information as to what doctors were prescribing what. They used the information to manipulate doctors into prescribing either their drug instead of another used for the same purpose or to prescribe more of their drugs. They invited doctors to "conferences" which were really thinly disguised free holidays and stuff like that.

This information was taken from "Targeting Doctors:

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/killerpillresearch/the%20health%20data%20main.pdf

Will look through better later - son wants computer.

RE: - Ronald Reagan is dead, yet his ghost, it seems, is running for president.

Why is he remembered so well? It seems that he increased government spending on the Military, cut taxes for the rich and services for everyone else leaving America in a big debt and, probably not in much better shape than you are now?

No one wanted to talk ill of him because he has Alzeimers. Then no one wanted to talk ill of him because he was dead. Now there is no excuse - time to make running on Reagan's reputation as popular as running on Bush's. Seems as if all the neocons are running away from Bush's record.

If we can't have Dennis, I'd rather have John.

Guess who they had on Mansbridge One on One today - Roland Martin to try to sell Canadians on Obama!

RE: - I'd like to return for more, but now I wonder about the ease of crossing the border?

Silent because it could be many things you are referring to. But will say that there is a movement among certain Governors and Premiers to have vamped up drivers licenses, which would be handier and cheaper than getting a passport.

The way to discourage this scam is not to visit a doctor in the USA, go to Canada or Mexico. I know you've all been brainwashed into believing only american doctors are any good but go anyway. I go to Mexico to have my teeth seen to at a 10th of the USA's price and have a change of scenery in the bargain.

If I was daft enough to ask for an appointment to see a GP it costs around $130, just work out how much that person is taking out of the economy at $13 a minute. Not a bad income for a pill pusher is it. Most of the doctors and dentists have very little concern for anybody nowadays, only lining their pockets at the expense of the sick.

I predicted in my first post above that there would be those trying to tell us there is no difference between what a Democrat and a Republican president will give you in Supreme Court nominees. And sure enough several have done so with forty-eleven other slurs of the Evilcrats, as they put it, to boot. Let's hope voters think better thoughts.

Good for you, COMarc! Well said. If people had listened to Ralph Nader in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess. And now we're stuck with the Democrats doing what they do best, losing elections. Here they are, in a can't lose year and what do they do? They put up Hillary, who won't get votes from the left or the right, and a black man in one of the more racist countries on the planet. At the same time, they marginalize the candidates who would interest the voters. Edwards was far and away the leader in match up polls, and Kucinich's positions had the highest favor with voters. But... that's what you get with a corporate controlled system (can't call it a democracy - it isn't).

By the way, Daniel David, I'm not saying the Democrats and the Republicans would put up the same Supreme Court candidates, but the Republicans will fight any progressive nominees (and win as usual) and the Democrats will give the Republicans anything they want (also as usual). Under this scenario, things can only go from bad to worse, and they have been. Sometimes breaking the cycle increases the pain, but it gives us the opportunity to turn around. I say we're running out of time for continuing to keep on doing the same thing.

kathyodat

BeForKids Impeachment is in the House Judiciary to impeach Cheney. Call John Conyers and ask him to move on it. Peace

McNeil, done that. Conyers is holding firm on refusing to bring forward impeachment. I know why, Pelosi will have his head on a plate if he does.

I've also been badgering my Congressman, Peter DeFazio, to sign on to impeachment, but Pelosi has made him a committee chairman and I'm sure she would strip him of it if he did so. His excuse: it's a waste of time (same as hers). Translation: If we stay away from it we can make the Republicans look worse than we look for the next election. Same with not ending the invasion. Politics. Life, death, and the destruction of our economy have to take a back seat to the elections. Doing the right thing isn't even on the table.

kathyodat

RuthK - Note that with the likelihood that the next President will be a Dem that Big Pharma has switched its money from the Repugs to the Dems. Which of the three leading Dem candidates is getting the most money from big pharma? Which of the three is getting the least!

RE: - Of course, the good doctors could just say NO, right? They could tell the drug dealers to get lost, yes? They can refuse to allow them on their premises, correct? They can go as far as having them arrested for trespassing, isn't that so?

Doctors with busy practices may take shortcuts and one of these shortcuts is an overreliance on drug company reps to keep them abreast of new treatment developments.

These drug company reps don't just walk in the door unsolicited - they are already providing drugs that the doctor uses - they just offer free samples or brochures on other drugs they want him to start using. If the doctor gets heart drugs from a drug rep and the drug rep finds out that he or she treats a lot of patients with arthritis well information and free samples of their line of arthritis drugs are in order. Even a free copy of a research article favorable to the drug (to make it look more credible).

Have you heard of the issue of Ghost writing research articles?

There are doctors who take short cuts in every country. The Provinces are working towards having a central body to go through all the research and decide which drugs should be covered. The thing is to keep smooch money out of such an organization, once formed, since its decisions can determined both which drugs will be covered by plans in the Provinces and, even for those drugs not covered, which can be prescribed in Canada and with what type of warning. There would be incentives for drug companies to buy the decisions they want.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/

RE: - A corporation is NOT a person. This should be one of the key issues discussed in the elections.

Even though the original persons decision was flawed (some say it is a fiction that it actually happened), there have been so many decisions based on this original decision that the legal precedence will be hard to overcome. One would need to be a lawyer to determine what one can and cannot do legally about that.

The other related issue is the power that NAFTA gives corporations over governments at various level (ie municipal, state, federal) - and Edwards, for sure, is talking about renegotiating NAFTA to put in more protections for workers and the environment and to water down corporate "rights" to interfere with government policy.

RE: - For example, Monsanto sued milk producers and distributors who advertised their products as "hormone free" on the grounds that such language damaged the use of Monsanto's hormones by other milk producers.

The difference between John Doe and Monsanto, whatever laws are in place, is that Monsanto has much more money to spend on their legal team. John Doe loses, not just because of what laws may exist, but because he doesn't have the money needed to present his case properly.

Finally, unlike John Doe who doesn't try to influence the law until he is sued by Monsanto, Monsanto has more foresight. Monsanto knows that a John Doe wanting to advertise hormone-free milk is only a matter of time, so they start the fight ahead of time. Monsanto spends their smooch money getting judges and politicians elected who are more apt to rule in their favour than against their interests and lobby to get laws in place that protect their interests before those interests are challenged. That said, Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser did win a partial victory against Monsanto.

RE: - Perhaps the more accurate way to ask the question is, why is the information once owned and controlled by individuals now owned and controlled by corporations?

Because of a loophole in the law - which, according to Robert Weissman, the government is trying to get rid of and the corporate interests are trying to prevent them from getting rid of. The loophole said that one could not give personal information on patients, but nothing about what drugs which doctors prescribe. Thus, as long as one did not give any identifying information concerning the patients themselves (ie their names and addresses) one was well within the law. The corporations, for obvious reasons, don't want this law amended.

The question is whether the existence of this loophole, was an oversight in the original creation of the law or intentional. If it was intentional, it was to let corporations do what they want while giving the impression that the law was only about protecting patient privacy.

Think of it, what Congressperson wants to be on record as voting against a law seemingly protecting patient privacy! Appearance is everything in politics (or, at least, more than it should be).

RE: - All of these kinds of questions can only be addressed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Who appoints the US Supreme Court justices and what criteria do he/she use to make the selection - merit or bias?

RE: - Corporations also decide who will govern and how. We may think we do, but it's not so and never was.

Maybe it is time to get all this corporate smooching out in the open. During the Brian Mulroney-Ronald Reagan era, Franz Strauss gave money to Karlheinz Schreiber to travel the world and elect Conservatives. What was Cheney and papa Bush doing then? Did I tell you that Schreiber was also trying to secure government contracts for Thyssen? Did I tell you that Reagan's close personal friend, Mulroney admitted to taking cash in envelopes on three separate occasions?

RE: - about the outrage of us having $38,000,000,000 a year for useless marketing built into the prescription costs

Didn't I hear somewhere that the drug companies spend more money on marketing a drug than they do actually developing the drug? So how much are we really paying for the creation and production of the drug compared to having it rammed down our throats every time we watch American TV? Canadian TV allows a company to either name the drug or say what it is for but not both in the same commercial.

RE: - And you'll never hear these word from the Evilcrat nominee, be it Obama or Hillary.

Why is everyone counting out Edwards? He may not be perfect, but out of all the Dems and Repugs who have a chance, I trust him a bit more than the others!

RE: - But we can end the colonization of our own minds

You mean that the mentality that escape from this mad reality is futile? No one is going to be our great saviour, but the alternatives we (meaning you Americans) have to choose from are not identical triplets either.

RE: - I predicted in my first post above that there would be those trying to tell us there is no difference between what a Democrat and a Republican president will give you in

And they sound so much like they are like us. I wonder how many of those who use the phrase Evilcrats are really Repugs trying to discourage potential Dem supporters from voting!

Then again, I am dead certain that those two guys walking around in NH with those "iron my shirts" signs were plants by the Clinton campaign. Any show of blantent misogyny in the public eye tends to make voters gravitate towards Hillary Clinton. And the woman were favouring Obama over Hillary before this happened.

BeForKids,

Indeed you're right, "if people had listened to Ralph Nader in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess."

Not enough listened. They didn't and they won't. They are listening to Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Paul (a little bit), and to Barack, Hillary and John. You're gonna get one of those, not somebody else. Ralph Nader is still alive and (unfortunately) only marginally relevant. Ronald Reagan is dead, yet his ghost, it seems, is running for president. I don't know why as many as half the citizens want to re-elect Ronald and we barely hear mention of Ralph at all on the street. Doesn't seem fair. But it is reality. I advocate based on who is on the ballots with any chance of actually being elected.

GOOD POINTS: BPAYNE, RT DRURY, BE FOR KIDS & CO MARC (6:19 PM posting).

PISTON BROKE: I, too, had some dental work done in Mexico. I heard about it while living in Ojai, Cal and decided to drive down. My sister lives in La Jolla so I stayed with her, parked the car on the US side of the border, and took a taxi to a place recommended: The "Washington" Dental clinic. The first thing I looked at was the water and it was purified. All the help wore gloves. I wanted to get a vibe for the place before committing, but when the dentist recognized which tooth was giving me problems before even taking an xray, I felt good. I ended up having to have 2 caps extracted (gold) so the rest could be porcelain, but it cost me $1200 for 6 caps! And the work is quite good.

I'd like to return for more, but now I wonder about the ease of crossing the border?

The medical field has really turned itself over to the extortion of drug companies and HMOS or insurance companies. Everything in the US now nakedly serves mammon, the profit motive over its stated ideals. Isn't the medical axiom to heal and harm none? My favorite author to make important exposes on these influences is Dr. Robert Mendelsohn. His books: "Confessions of a Medical Heretic," and "MDeity" are very compelling reading.

There are many conditions that can be healed with dietary changes but very few doctors speak about this. The US diet (fast food, in particular) is soaked in transfats and absolutely devoid of actual nutrients. People feel hungry and get bloated on empty calories but look like blimps. The coming recession will alter this. Nature has a way of remedying things, acting to regain that all important balance, the staple of sustainable life on any and all scales.

Why is anyone surprised that we live in a "corporatocracy"when the supreme court endorsed the notion that corporations are endowed with "personhood" and that "money equals speech"? Stack the court with Fascists and Voi La.

My 90-year-old mother used to wear a T-shirt that read:

"Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.
Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person."

She always did have exquisite taste in clothes.

WmC -- Very cool that your genes came from the deep end of the gene pool.