The last 5 minutes of Rachel's show tonight was absolutely awesome (must read)

[givemebackmycountry]

She's talking about Trans Ocean, and the fact that they gave their executives bonuses for an "exemplary safety record" despite the fact that they got 11 people killed on Deep-Water Horizon.
That piece of shit oil drilling platform, that BLEW UP and pretty much fucked the Gulf of Mexico forever, by spilling a zillion gallons of nasty crude into the Eco-system.

The story broke in the WSJ on April 1st so naturally she was skeptical.
It had a predate of April 2nd, even though it appeared in publications on Aprils Fools Day, because they knew no one would believe such a thing.
Well it's true, but we already knew that.
See, we're smart here.

Back to Trans Ocean...
Hooray!
We had a great safety year!
Bonuses!

Then someone told these executives, that some would want to drag them into the streets, and beat them to a bloody pulp if they took these bonuses. So here came plan B.

They gave their bonuses to the surviving family members of the 11 workers that were killed on their rig.
The one that had a exemplary safety record.
Until it blew up.
And fucked the Gulf ...

So Rachel said this...

"Trans-Ocean is not a person, they do not have hearts they have profits, and Trans Ocean is not a human so they can not be expected to have human decency".

I love ya Rachel.

And finally in closing, Rachel addressing ALL corporations says this, and you will NEVER hear anyone else say it:

"When what is profitable turns out to be indecent or inhuman, you can not expect shame to work on them. No matter how much you distrust or hate corporations, you still understand that our social contracts extend to stopping them from doing what they would else-wise like to do in the pursuit of profits. To stop them from hurting us and helping themselves, we know that they will not regulate themselves, and it would be unnatural for them to do so. They are not people, for corporations seeking profits regardless of the human costs it is rational, it is business, and watching out for the humans in that equation... that is what governments are for"

If only our President would say such a thing...

[NothingRight]

1. Amen and Amen

The real difference between Rachel and folks like Ed Schultz (and I do like Ed) is the uber intellectual she breaks down an issue, even when she is handling business semantics.

She is absolutely right about Trans Ocean and about corporations as a whole.

Unfortunately, these corporations, who have no soul, own both sides of the aisle to some degree. the GOP presents the agenda of the corporations, while this Democratic party compromises down to the agenda, then blames it on the GOP.

When you have truth on your side and you still allow the message of misinformation and rhetoric to not only carry the argument, but to carry the election,your problem isn't content, it's courage and conviction.

[niyad]

19. welcome to DU

[NothingRight]

22. Thanks

Very impressed with how welcoming everyone is, although I shouldn't be surprised, we're progressives.

I look forward to many great discussions on here.

[bjobotts]

48. They make billions in profits, get tax payer subsidies and pay no taxes

[bjobotts]

49. This is why we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.Corporate welfare

[bjobotts]

50. This is why only "Democratic Socialism" will work in America because...

[bjobotts]

51. because it is the only form of gov. that ensures both our freedom AND our survival

[bjobotts]

52. Trying to get tea party brains to see that budget cuts are needed just to pay for Bush tax cuts and

corporate welfare for Exxon-Mobile who made $19 billion in profits, got $150 million back from the IRS and pad not one single dime in taxes,l along with Goldman Sachs, GE...hell, the list runs into the hundreds for corporations making billions in profits and paying no taxes. It's a revenue problem, not a spending problem...except for the military budget in which the USA pays TWICE on our defense budget what all other nations on the planet pay COMBINED...COMBINED. This is the agenda of the wealthy and their trans national corporations which these so called spending cuts are to pay for. Geez tea party republicans...get a clue...You are being used and they are feeding on your anger while completely misinforming you.

btw...at least unions stand for the good of their members, the people...corps don't even consider "people"...only pocket books. Government is the only thing big enough to regulate them and keep them from destroying the planet....and the government is us.

[deacon]

2. It's hard to be awesome and get better. She's doing it. n/t

[90-percent]

3. Corporate Personhood

Well, legally corporations are indeed considered human. Thom Hartmann has explained this legal perversion in great detail on many links here at DU. Latest was within the last 2 weeks, I think? I think the root legal case where this came from is called: Southern Pacific Railway vs. Santa Clara County?

Corporate personhood was never a legal determination. It was some corporate law clerk in the first Gilded Age (We are enjoying Gilded Age 2.0 in the present) that transcribed something erroneously, and that was used as the basis to use the doctrine of corporate personhood in situations where it benefits the corporations. I think the January 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision relies heavily on the concept in order to justify their ruling that money = free speech. And this all got started when robber barons used the post Civil War laws intended to protect blacks and former slaves to their own benefit as corporations.


Below is the work of Mister Ed here on DU:


Citizen's United is predicated on three whopping lies:
1) That corporations are people.
2) That payment is a form of speech.
3) That bribery is a constitutionally-protected form of free speech.
It's that simple.


link for the above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=551333&mesg_id=551334

Thom on corporate personhood
1.) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=568461&mesg_id=568461
2.) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=567556&mesg_id=567556
3.) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=559120&mesg_id=559120
4.) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=565564&mesg_id=565564

If you only have time for one vid here, #4 above is the best explanation of corporate personhood

Thom has a recent segment that details explicitly how this originated. Unfortunately, that one is not in the above set.

For the unemployed with lots of time (such as myself):

The Corporation full length 2:44
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=559120&mesg_id=559120


-90% Jimmy

[Enthusiast]

26. Legal perversion is a good term. nt

[2banon]

30. Yes. It seems to have begun with: " Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad"

Reclaimdemocracy.org goes into this little known history and origins of big business claiming corporate personhood.


We all are of the opinion that the 14th Amendement applies to corporations.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
118 U.S. 394
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California

Print-friendly Page Argued January 26-29, 1886
Filed May 10, 1886

Editor's notes: There has been much misunderstanding about this Court decision. Despite the issue being raised in arguments, the Justices offered no written opinion on the question of whether corporations should be considered "persons" and enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment. The Court reporter's notes, however, quoted Chief Justice Waite declaring that, "We all are of the opinion" that the 14th Amendement applies to corporations.
Many people (rightfully) are outraged that a Court reporter could turn the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment on their heads, which effectively is what occured once Santa Clara was cited as precedent in subsequent cases. However, the fact that the Justices never issued an opinion on "corporate personhood" lost its legal significance once they cited the case.

Me thinks this incredibably unconstituional descision had to be made by a very Corrupt Judge. Unfortunately, our so called 'democratic form of government' has been corrupt for a very long time. no time for further commenting, but I thought it appropriate to post these links here..

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said: 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.

[freshwest]

35. Thanks so much, will pass these around!

[bjobotts]

53. Now they want to change it to "Corporate Parenthood". btw-saw Zappa live in '68-great

[madrchsod]

4. fdr knew this and spoke out.

obama knows this is but is to afraid

[chervilant]

21. hmph!

Obama is the Corporate Megalomaniacs' shill. His actions speak to this, FAR louder than his words (eg, "I am a democrat..."). I think he is a member of that group of corporatists who believe that the majority of the hoi polloi--the vast, unwashed masses--are childlike in their ignorance/stupidity, and must have all of their important decisions made by the uber educated uber wealthy--you know, the ones who will tell you that they HAVE the brains that are behind all the important decisions. Teh bat rasturds!

[Scuba]

5. "If only our President would say such a thing...." n/t

[reformist2]

6. Reminded me of the folktale of the Scorpion and the Frog.

From Wikipedia:

The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion explains, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."

Why do corporations act like inhuman profit monsters sometimes? It's in their nature!

[dotymed]

7. "Sometimes?"

Hell, it is THE LAW. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to make a profit.

[hfojvt]

18. there is no such law

that is just some business school theory.

[sabrina 1]

28. I love that argument. I have a fiduciary responsibiltiy to rob a bank

to my family so that they can make a profit too. This is criminal thinking and I cannot believe it when I see people, even here on this board, use it to defend corporations.

They also, if they insist on being 'persons' have a moral responsibilty. That part is always left out though. It is that moral responsibility part that stops the rest of us from robbing a bank. But we could just as legitmately make a case for robbing a bank, so long as we leave out the morality of it.

[GOTV]

8. Oh, I believe our president would SAY that .... n/t

[CanonRay]

9. That quote should be in a Supreme Court majority decision

holding that Corporations are not people.

[russspeakeasy]

10. Why don't they quit beating around the bush and just say

"money is a person"?

[Myrina]

12. "Money is more important than people"

... basically. :(

[reformist2]

13. ..New GOP slogan: One Dollar, One Vote!

[myrna minx]

11. K&R n/t

[hifiguy]

14. k&r

:kick:

[deaniac21]

15. I never can make it to the last 5 minutes. It's on too late.

[AlbertCat]

24. It's on too late.

Then pod cast it. It's free!

Or go to the web site and watch the segments you want.... again FREE!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

[deaniac21]

46. My day is a little too full for tv shows.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

57. I never can make it to the last 5 minutes. It's on too late.

so podcast it and watch starting 5 minutes earlier than your reference here, since it seems you're saying you do actually have time to watch tv during specific hours.

:shrug: seems like a solution to me.

[Stardust]

47. I've tried and tried to educate folks to the fact that it's on MSNBC's website

to no avail. I applaud your effort.

[truedelphi]

55. In order to be able to watch Rachel Maddow -

Thanks for this site Albert -

I am adding yr comment to my journal

AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Thu Apr-07-11 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. It's on too late.

Then pod cast it. It's free!

Or go to the web site and watch the segments you want.... again FREE!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." --Mark Twain

[SalviaBlue]

16. k&r

[goobergoober01]

17. HEADLINE RE-DO... safety record excellent for the 6, 999 ,999, 989 people NOT killed in explosion

[okieinpain]

20. capitalism - strong government = socialism. that came to me last

night while listing to npr talk about Chernobyl. some one has written a book where they talk to survivors and one story is how they made soldiers replace the flag on top of the building because radiation was destroying it with in a few weeks time. so to keep the don't worry it's all good story going they made someone go on top of the building and put up a new flag.

[OwnedByFerrets]

45. I dont get your equation...dont you mean that it equals fascism?

[okieinpain]

54. I thought about it while listening to a npr story about Chernobyl

someone has a book out that tells the stories of the survivors and it just seemed like to me that the action of the government was exactly what a company in the U.S. would do. lie and coverup at all cost.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. "That's what governments are for." Get it teabaggers? n/t

[Towlie]

41. And of course it all breaks down when the corporations control the government.

[Peregrine Took]

25. Hers is the only political show we can watch anymore.

Ed has caved and Lawrence is too much like Tweety - some times great, other times lukewarm.

[Blue Owl]

27. Maddow's razor-sharp intellect really cuts through the bullshit

Too bad there's so many TONS of bullshit out there.

[yngdip]

29. yay for maddow, but Obama gets a break from

me on this one. It isn't his job to do everything or champion every cause. Even if he was doing everything that you or I want him to do. This is a democracy. Everyone is supposed to carry their issue. I don't expect Obama to stand up for every single thing. Rachel Maddow did an excellent job pointing out this insanity without help from the POTUS and those of us who oppose the corporatocracy and TransOcean should make a fuss, boycott, and annoy our Congress people. We give these corporations our money through taxes and sales. We still have the power. No need to make Obama the savior when there is more that we can do for ourselves.

[felix_numinous]

31. K&R

OMG what a great talking point, " and watching out for the humans in that equation....that is what governments are for.'

[defendandprotect]

32. Watched Rachel last night -- she was, as usual -- GREAT!!

[Casandia]

33. Rachel is a national treasure

[BrklynLiberal]

34. Rachel is a national treasure.

[freshwest]

36. Outstanding from a MSM source. Thanks, Rachel.

[Jakes Progress]

37. "If only our President would say such a thing..."

First he would have to at least pretend to believe it. No evidence he finds people more important than corporations.

[Blue_Tires]

38. beautiful

[Fire Walk With Me]

39. Amen and Kick and Recommend!

[WillyT]

40. Exactly !!! - K & R !!!

:kick:

[DirkGently]

42. She laid it out perfectly.

[joentokyo]

43. Thanks for posting this. That is the best thing I have seen on television in many a moon.

[OwnedByFerrets]

44. Our President CANT say that...he has ONE BILLION dollars to raise

[Fire Walk With Me]

56. Permalinking your thread for the quote.

Finally people are beginning to realize that yes, the Republicans give less than a shit when people suffer, that Republicans don't actually want decent human values for all, as we do, that it is ludicrous to project our expectations upon them in any way.