On American Imperialism
ta
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind
to ... It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison.
Truthfulness compels me to do so. I spent thirty-three years and four months
in active military service, and during that period I spent most of my time
being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the
bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected
I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all
members of the military profession, I never had an original thought until I
left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while
I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the
military service.
Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for National
City Bank boys (Citicorp) to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The
record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1902 to 1912. I brought
light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. In
China in 1927, I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way
unmolested.
During those years, I had as the boys in the back room would say, a swell
racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotions. Looking back on
it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do
was operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three
continents.
Originally published in Common Sense, November, 1935. Quoted in Felix Greene
's The Enemy, Vantage Books, New York, 1971."
. . . .
"Battle Hymn of the Republic (brought down to date...1900)
Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the sword;
He is searching out the hoardings were the stranger's wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on.
*****
In a sordid slime harmonious, Greed was borne in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom - and for others' goods and itch -
As Christ died to men holy, let men die to make us rich -
Our god is marching on. -- Mark Twain."
http://www.mmmfiles.com/archive/imperialism.htm
ta
goethe
"ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:W8Sic.79100$UC4....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Further Comment: V. Lenin knew that the only way communism was to work and
survive was for states around the globe and surrounding states around Russia
become communist. Of course, a tyrannical system such as communism would lie
solely on converting its fellow man to the same ideals in order to survive
and operate. What a ignorant and flawed method of structuring civilisation.
Now lets flip this on its head by replacing Communism for Capitalism and
Lenin for say Washington (or another). What we see is that, Capitalism is no
different to Communism, everyday millions of American dollars are poured
into converting countries to 'freedom' and 'democracy.
Again, I'll repeat it, what a ignorant and flawed method in structuring
civilisation, there is no plausible reason for countries not to trade and
have different ideals and systems of power. Economics is not bounded by the
ideals of the corresponding nation and should certainly not be passed
through trade.
Having successfully described that American Capitalism (Imperialism) is very
much like Russian Communism in that the need to convert nations to its
ideals or more, spread its ideals across the globe, we can safely let
Americans stand up and admit their position in the world. Once the world
sees America's true goals and its brutal means of acquiring these goals, the
World can stand up as a united front to stop such a corrupt ideal that is
poisoning the earth and turning countries against each other. Until that
day, we can only see the lies and deceit injected through mass media and
twisted perspectives filtering through to the human race.
I ask you to commit Americans, Nazi Germany stood up as a true force in its
day, where is your pride, if you don't mass together against your government
then you are for your government. Your ideal is of democratic nature, thus
what your government represents is what the people present, 'by the people,
for the people, of the people'??? - if you disagree then you are against
democratic ideals? or should you be classified as democratically electing a
dictator, like Germany did in the 1930s.
The main point is, what makes you 'just', what makes you 'right' 'moral' in
other words, so far you have claimed a righteous and virtuous stance in the
world, tell me where is your golden pillar that you all stand on?
J
Michael A. Clem
>"Major General Smedley D. Butler, United States Marine Corps:
>
>There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind
>to ... It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison.
>Truthfulness compels me to do so. I spent thirty-three years and four months
>in active military service, and during that period I spent most of my time
>being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the
>bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected
>I was just part of a racket at the time.
>
>Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil
>interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for National
>City Bank boys (Citicorp) to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
>half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The
>record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
>international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1902 to 1912. I brought
>light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. In
>China in 1927, I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way
>unmolested.
>
>
He was a gangster all right, but he was still deluded if he thought he
was doing it for capitalism. The very nature of his work wasn't to
allow free markets to operate, but to use his power to provide special
privileges for certain companies.
Ed Faith
Anticapitalists like to define capitalism, not in terms of institutions
and other elements such as rule of law, restrained government, property,
markets, money, contracts, and so on but in terms of people,
specifically capitalists, and not capitalists generally speaking, but
specifically *certain* capitalists, i.e., some small set of capitalists
who have been specially hand-picked by Marxists to play the role of
villain in the lurid dramas that they offer us as their contribution to
history and economics.
Matt
Ed Faith <e...@lucesolare.com> wrote:
> Anticapitalists like to define capitalism, not in terms of institutions
> and other elements such as rule of law, restrained government, property,
> markets, money, contracts, and so on but in terms of people,
> specifically capitalists, and not capitalists generally speaking, but
> specifically *certain* capitalists, i.e., some small set of capitalists
> who have been specially hand-picked by Marxists to play the role of
> villain in the lurid dramas that they offer us as their contribution to
> history and economics.
So says Ed Faith, running dog for his capitalist overlords...
One reason for this is that capitalism is more attractive when
considered as a large scale system functioning over a long period of
time.
If you scale capitalism down to a micro level (or actually much smaller
than micro, given the study of microeconomics), such that there is
little or no competition, and not enough time and space for market
trends to find an equilibrium, then capitalism can seem markedly less
appealing.
Hence the focus on the individual misdeeds of capitalists, or the focus
on life under a hierarchical corporation rather than life in a market of
corporate and non-corporate employers. Anti-capitalists love a Robinson
Crusoe-type scenario where you wash ashore on some guy's island, and he
effectively becomes your king, thus proving capitalism is authoritarian.
--
Matt
Immortalist
hodgepodge of freedoms and regulations, constantly changing because of the
lack of principles involved. A mixed-economy is a sign of intellectual
chaos. It is the attempt to gain the advantages of freedom without
government having to give up its power.
A mixed-economy is always in flux. The regulations never produce positive
results, because they always force people to act against their own
interests. When a particular policy fails, it is propped up by other
regulations in the hopes that more control will produce better results.
Sometimes the results are so destructive they must either be removed, or the
people must be violently oppressed to make them accept it.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_MixedEconomy.html
In economics and politics, a mixed economy is an economy which combines
regulated free market capitalism and a limited number of socialist
institutions and state ownership of some sectors of the economy such as
social security
environmental regulation,
labor regulation,
product safety regulation,
progressive taxation
public education
health care
Most democratic countries, including the United States, have mixed
economies. It is nearly impossible to have pure capitalism (the government
regulates nothing) or pure socialism (the government runs everything), but
the term mixed economy is generally used when an economy has reasonably
significant portions of both socialism and capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Mixed Economies
Somewhere between the complete laissez-faire capitalism of the market
economy and the strict central controls of the command economy lie the
territories of the mixed economies. In practice, every economy in the world
is some form of a mixed economy, but there are vast differences between them
in terms of how much of each economic theory they support. Generally,
however, mixed economies will have areas that are public (closest in
principle to the command economy) and areas that are private (most similar
to a market economy).
Private Sector
These are areas of a nation's economy that are left to the self-regulating
devices of the market economy. If the government is involved in this sector
at all, it is only to function as a referee (to ensure fair competition
between all competitors). In Canada, many areas of the economy are within
the private sector. A quick trip to the mall will expose us to competition,
profit motive, entrepreneurs, privately owned land, labor and capital, and
the laws of supply and demand.
Public Sector
These are areas of a nation's economy deemed too important or not profitable
enough to be left to the private sector. Governments in mixed economies
will get involved in the production of some goods or services in order to
guarantee essential services to all citizens or to try and encourage private
interest in the economy. In Canada, services like public transportation and
postal service are examples of areas deemed too important to all citizens to
leave to the instabilities of the marketplace. Recently, in a wave of
privatizations (selling public sector companies to private owners), services
like telephone companies, liquor stores and registry services have been
taken from the public sector and placed in the private sector.
http://www.cssd.ab.ca/tech/social/tut9/lesson_25.htm
-----------------------------
Heard at the Wharton School.
Man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a shepherd and a
huge flock of sheep. Tells the shepherd, "I will bet you $100 against one of
your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock." The shepherd
thinks it over; it's a big flock so he takes the bet. "973," says the man.
The shepherd is astonished, because that is exactly right. Says "OK, I'm a
man of my word, take an animal." Man picks one up and begins to walk away.
"Wait," cries the shepherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or
nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." Man says sure. "You are an
economist for a government think tank," says the shepherd. "Amazing!"
responds the man, "You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce
that?"
"Well," says the shepherd, "put down my dog and I will tell you."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two
equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four,
exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says
"Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question
"What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give
or take ten percent, but on average, four."
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question
"What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes
the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it
to equal?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
TOP 10 REASONS TO STUDY ECONOMICS
1. Economists are armed and dangerous: "Watch out for our invisible hands."
2. Economists can supply it on demand.
3. You can talk about money without every having to make any.
4. You get to say "trickle down" with a straight face.
5. Mick Jagger and Arnold Schwarzenegger both studied economics and look how
they turned out.
6. When you are in the unemployment line, at least you will know why you are
there.
7. If you rearrange the letters in "ECONOMICS", you get "COMIC NOSE".
8. Although ethics teaches that virtue is its own reward, in economics we
get taught that reward is its own virtue.
9. When you get drunk, you can tell everyone that you are just researching
the law of diminishing marginal utility.
10. When you call 1-900-LUV-ECON and get Kandi Keynes, you will have
something to talk about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ECONOMISTS do it at bliss point
ECONOMISTS do it cyclically
ECONOMISTS do it in an Edgeworth Box
ECONOMISTS do it on demand
ECONOMISTS do it risk-free (in reference to the risk-free interest rate)
ECONOMISTS do it with a dual
ECONOMISTS do it with an atomistic competitor
ECONOMISTS do it with crystal balls
ECONOMISTS do it with interest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Economists do it with models"
Heard at the LSE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Econometricians do it if they can identify it.
Applied econometricians do it even if they can't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Economists do it with Slutsky matrices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Economists do it discretely AND continuously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Economists do it on Leontief's table.
Heard at the Bocconi university in Milan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Econometricians do it with dummies"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Morry Adelman at MIT claims that he heard this at Shell long ago:
"A planner is a gentle man,
with neither sword nor pistol.
He walks along most daintily,
because his balls are crystal."
Mike Lynch, MIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
An economist is a trained professional paid to guess wrong about the
economy. An econometrician is a trained professional paid to use computers
to guess wrong about the economy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Talk is cheap. Supply exceeds Demand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Bentley's second Law of Economics: The only thing more dangerous than an
economist is an amateur economist!
Berta's Fundamental Law of Economic Rents.. "The only thing more dangerous
than an amateur economist is a professional economist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
A true story:
"I heard this from one of my professors. To protect him, no names will be
revealed. This professor was about to get married. He went to the jewelers
to get a wedding ring for his fiancee. The jeweler told him that he can have
the inside of the ring engraved with the name of his fiancee for an
additional $20 (remember, this was a LONG time ago). He said, "But that will
reduce the resale value!" The jeweler was aghast. He said, "How can you say
such a thing. You are a butcher!" "No," replied the professor, "I am an
economist"."
told by Tapen Sinha, PhD
http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/JokEc.html
"Matt" <anon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:anonymatt-BBBE8...@news.verizon.net...
James A. Donald
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:53:38 GMT, Ed Faith <e...@lucesolare.com>
wrote:
> Anticapitalists like to define capitalism, not in terms of
> institutions and other elements such as rule of law,
> restrained government, property, markets, money, contracts,
> and so on but in terms of people, specifically capitalists,
> and not capitalists generally speaking, but specifically
> *certain* capitalists, i.e., some small set of capitalists
> who have been specially hand-picked by Marxists to play the
> role of villain in the lurid dramas that they offer us as
> their contribution to history and economics.
Procapitalists are fond of pointing out that nearly everyone is
a capitalist to some degree. Whenever we saw socialists in
power, it unfailingly turned out they had agreed with us all
along on that issue.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
nYnSqvEDjTBc18FAE4L5rAh1ShLbv5tQB9JS6TQF
4K6jyHJ/e2b1802gfcutWiGHnXJ1WluqmeKKGZV4o
Chzwmn
>Path:
>Uh no. Americans are not a nation like Germans. If something in
>America pisses us off we don't revolt we leave. We came here from all
>over the world for economic opportunities.... not something to believe
>in. If you would note Bill Clinton (former president) was pissed about
>the draft so he fled the country to canada. This is exactly what I and
>anyone else I know would do if they did not support vietnam war.
>Americans have no connection to this land (aside from native
>americans). Almost everyone I know has family roots three generations
>in the U.S. maybe some have one relative with 4 generations. This is a
>state of former immigrants not a nation of americans.
>
Ah - now I get it!! That is, of course, why all Americans are cheats and
criminals!!
They have pretentions to serve the state - but only if it appears to serve
them, caring nothing for so-called fellow Americans.
>
>Your ideal is of democratic nature, thus
>> what your government represents is what the people present, 'by the people,
>> for the people, of the people'??? - if you disagree then you are against
>> democratic ideals? or should you be classified as democratically electing a
>> dictator, like Germany did in the 1930s.
>
>Less than one quarter of america votes. There are only two possible
>parties.... and they are exactly alike. There really is no clear
>ideological differences between the two. Both support taxes, both
>support some social services, both support some amount of wellfare,
>both support a strong military, and both support stronger homeland
>security. By attempting to analyze america by the voting results in my
>opinion is not so effective.
>
>> The main point is, what makes you 'just', what makes you 'right' 'moral' in
>> other words, so far you have claimed a righteous and virtuous stance in the
>> world, tell me where is your golden pillar that you all stand on?
>
>What makes anyone moral or just? In fact to you what is legitimate
>morality and justice?
>cj
>
>
>> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
Frank Clarke
<anonymatt-BBBE8...@news.verizon.net>
>If you scale capitalism down to a micro level (or actually much smaller
>than micro, given the study of microeconomics), such that there is
>little or no competition, and not enough time and space for market
>trends to find an equilibrium, then capitalism can seem markedly less
>appealing.
Sure, and when you get down to the level of subatomic particles all
sorts of weird stuff happens. However, when you hit glass with a
hammer it still shatters. What's your point? That if I own an
original vanGogh I can name my price? Holy cats! What a revelation!
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
michael price
> Ed Faith <e...@lucesolare.com> wrote:
>
> > Anticapitalists like to define capitalism, not in terms of institutions
> > and other elements such as rule of law, restrained government, property,
> > markets, money, contracts, and so on but in terms of people,
> > specifically capitalists, and not capitalists generally speaking, but
> > specifically *certain* capitalists, i.e., some small set of capitalists
> > who have been specially hand-picked by Marxists to play the role of
> > villain in the lurid dramas that they offer us as their contribution to
> > history and economics.
>
> So says Ed Faith, running dog for his capitalist overlords...
>
> One reason for this is that capitalism is more attractive when
> considered as a large scale system functioning over a long period of
> time.
If by that you mean that socialism can be nice until reality sets
in then you are right. But reality does set in.
>
> If you scale capitalism down to a micro level (or actually much smaller
> than micro, given the study of microeconomics), such that there is
> little or no competition, and not enough time and space for market
> trends to find an equilibrium, then capitalism can seem markedly less
> appealing.
So if we scale down capitalism to a level at which nothing actually
happens then it's bad. So what? Most of us live our lives at a
higher level than that. Most of us plan for periods longer than
a minute.
James A. Donald
Matt
> > If you scale capitalism down to a micro level (or actually
> > much smaller than micro, given the study of
> > microeconomics), such that there is little or no
> > competition, and not enough time and space for market
> > trends to find an equilibrium, then capitalism can seem
> > markedly less appealing.
michael price
> So if we scale down capitalism to a level at which nothing
> actually happens then it's bad.
"Seems bad", not is bad: Matt's point is the difference
between that which is seen, and that which is unseen.
The boss giving orders to the worker is seen, but the customer
giving orders to the boss is unseen
I think you have this Matt mixed up with another Matt.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8KyVqMPrw+WZ2tnpkisabKRLAPs9OfT3K8+K3yoS
4r6vDUyfk7DRb7wMnYnl4vZxYHpx94Wh0JKeD5eGs
michael price
> --
> Matt
> > > If you scale capitalism down to a micro level (or actually
> > > much smaller than micro, given the study of
> > > microeconomics), such that there is little or no
> > > competition, and not enough time and space for market
> > > trends to find an equilibrium, then capitalism can seem
> > > markedly less appealing.
>
> michael price
> > So if we scale down capitalism to a level at which nothing
> > actually happens then it's bad.
>
> "Seems bad", not is bad: Matt's point is the difference
> between that which is seen, and that which is unseen.
>
> The boss giving orders to the worker is seen, but the customer
> giving orders to the boss is unseen
>
> I think you have this Matt mixed up with another Matt.
>
Chzwmn
>Path:
reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!news-ou
t.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!green.octanews.net!news-out.oc
tanews.net!news.glorb.com!p
>ostnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
>From: puu...@yahoo.com (charles panella)
>Newsgroups: alt.philosophy
>Date: 30 Apr 2004 16:28:27 -0700
>Organization: http://groups.google.com
>Lines: 63
>Message-ID: <1184598d.04043...@posting.google.com>
>References: <1184598d.04042...@posting.google.com>
><20040428141239...@mb-m05.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.136.30.71
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083367707 25991 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2004 23:28:27
>GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:28:27 +0000 (UTC)
>
>
>
>chz...@aol.com (Chzwmn) wrote in message
>news:<20040428141239...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: On American Imperialism
>> >Path:
>>
>> >Uh no. Americans are not a nation like Germans. If something in
>> >America pisses us off we don't revolt we leave. We came here from all
>> >over the world for economic opportunities.... not something to believe
>> >in. If you would note Bill Clinton (former president) was pissed about
>> >the draft so he fled the country to canada. This is exactly what I and
>> >anyone else I know would do if they did not support vietnam war.
>> >Americans have no connection to this land (aside from native
>> >americans). Almost everyone I know has family roots three generations
>> >in the U.S. maybe some have one relative with 4 generations. This is a
>> >state of former immigrants not a nation of americans.
>> >
>>
>> Ah - now I get it!! That is, of course, why all Americans are cheats and
>> criminals!!
>>
>must be cheating....... I'm sorry were succesful because we 'broke the
>rules of the game'
No - it's not that at all. The idea that America was based on cheating and
lieing came from an American friend of mine, of whom you may have heard. Darwin
Joston to support his idea compared British rugby and American football. The
differences, such as the ridiculous number of rules and the necessity of
wearing all that armour was because yanks were natural born cheats with little
or no respect for anyone but themselves.
You have only to look at the last election for fuck's sake.
And NO you are not ahead of the game at all. I have an American passport but
choose to live in the UK because the UK is way ahead of the US in matters of
personal freedom, personal safety, and social welfare. There is significantly
less crime and people are inprisoned here far more readily for lesser crimes
thatn the US. THere is less chance of being shot by a policman - or anyone else
for that matter. Education is better and available to all for free as is health
care for your entire life. I like hamburgers - but not enough to want to live
there.
BretCahill
question that swindling is big part of our history
and culture. Right now I'm residing on territory
swindled from Mexico by Southern Pacific RR.
(They STILL think they are hot snot.)
Also look at the Republican Party. They would
rather scam someone for $5.00 than make an
honest $10.00.
It's a mental condition.
The rest of the West [western civilization]
thinks snake oil salesmen are a total waste of
time -- they probably lock frauds up in the UK --
but scammers actually provide a valuable
service. They keep enough people on their
toes for the thing to work.
It's even kind of fun. The English love it here
once they get used to it, which takes about 4
tenths of a second.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
paleryder
"BretCahill" <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040505232850...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> America is/was a great country but there's no
> question that swindling is big part of our history
> and culture. Right now I'm residing on territory
> swindled from Mexico by Southern Pacific RR.
> (They STILL think they are hot snot.)
>
> Also look at the Republican Party. They would
> rather scam someone for $5.00 than make an
> honest $10.00.
>
> It's a mental condition.
>
> The rest of the West [western civilization]
> thinks snake oil salesmen are a total waste of
> time -- they probably lock frauds up in the UK --
> but scammers actually provide a valuable
> service. They keep enough people on their
> toes for the thing to work.
>
> It's even kind of fun. The English love it here
> once they get used to it, which takes about 4
> tenths of a second.
The US certainly holds no monopoly on scams and cons.
I have seen the same scams, and variations, run in
New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, Manila, Naples,
Rome, Madrid, Tel Aviv, Dubai, Karachi, Rio de Janeiro,
Berlin, and Alexandria.
Language, culture and religion don't seem to be
any barrier to becoming a scam artist.
BretCahill
metastasized and made a quantum leap from
the "private" sector to the national government.
The great majority of Americans are now
effectively ignorant of their rights so the only
players left, the corp. boss media and corp.
boss politicians, keep pretending to represent
the people when they really only represent their
corp. paymasters.
They know who signs the checks.
In America corp. bosses have turned
democratic freedom into a scam.
So how the sovereignty of the people become
a dirty term at the _New York Times_.?
Working Americans, who constantly must live
with arbitrary power in the workplace, now
simply assume despotism is the only way to
go in in all areas of life including the public
sector. Americans know nothing else and
that's why the government can lie and deceive
and coverup all it wants and the public accepts
it.
The solution is to introduce free speech and
eventually accountability to the "private" sector
instead of the current trend which is spreading
despotism from the "private" sector to the
public sector.
"paleryder" lar...@cox.net in
Michael A. Clem
Sort of a "capitalist is as Capitalist does" argument, eh? No matter
how un-capitalistic his actions may be.