Links With Your Coffee - Saturday

- Corporations Given ‘Human Rights,’ Humans Are Denied Them - CommonDreams.org
In evaluating allegations that U.S. military forces deprived four British men of human rights during two years they were held captive in Guantanamo Bay prison, a U.S. appeals court found an innovative way to let the Bush administration off the hook. Two of three judges ruled the men — because they are not U.S. citizens and, technically, were not imprisoned in the U.S. — were not legally “persons” and, therefore, had no rights to violate.
While those judges were defying common sense and decency by denying legal personhood to living human beings, an appeals court in Boston has been reviewing an April 2007 decision by Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro that engaged in a different form of judicial activism — granting human rights to corporations.
Barbadoro struck down a New Hampshire law that prevented pharmaceutical corporations from learning exactly what drugs doctors prescribe and how much they prescribe. The law aims to protect doctors and, indirectly, their patients, from drug companies pressuring doctors to choose their products.
The judge’s grounds? He claims corporations, as legal persons, have “free speech rights” that would be infringed by such a measure.
- A Sneak Peak at the Real CPAC Agenda
9:00 AM - Kippers with the Gippers: Breakfast and Welcoming Remarks by Ronald Reagan Impersonators
10:00 AM - Workshop: How to Make a Citizen’s Arrest of the Undocumented Workers Who’ve Just Finished Serving You Breakfast
- StumbleVideo - Truth in advertising II(tip to Jill)
- How to Respond to a Supercilious Christian | Rational Responders
Not all Christians are supercilious, of course. Many are content to live and let live, and some even grant that science (despite its lack of supernatural entities) does some good. But Christianity as an organized, evangelizing movement has been on the offensive lately. Witness the new wave of evangelicals and their leaders such as Rick Warren, Lee Strobel, and William Lane Craig with their aggressive stance against scientific materialism and their bestselling books attempting to refute science. So, assuming you're an atheist, what do you say to the theist who asks, "You don't (chuckle) believe in a god (snicker)?"
- Questions for Dr. Retail - New York Times (David Brooks)
Hillary Clinton is a classic commodity provider. She caters to the less-educated, less-pretentious consumer. As Ron Brownstein of The National Journal pointed out on Wednesday, she won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts and 54 points in Arkansas. She offers voters no frills, just commodities: tax credits, federal subsidies and scholarships. She’s got good programs at good prices.
Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they’re not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning.




Comments
can someone provide me with links to the two stories in the "Corporations Given ‘Human Rights,’ Humans Are Denied Them - CommonDreams.org" article that are not "leftist"
i can't find any corroborating article by googling and the pople i need to ask questions about it won't accept marxist or strongleftist sites - i need something more media neutral. please, this is something that worries me greatly.
Drudwy,
here's one:
Link
thanks, just one more now... :)
Ugh! I hated it when David Brooks is right, but he is.
Will wonders never cease?
hey, if you are upset about Supreme Court decisions, go read Lochner v N.Y. Thats a doozy. The point is, the Supreme Court has almost always been historically conservative, it was only for a brief period during the FDR era and again in the mid 50s that the court took a more lioberal view of the constitution. Pretty much the rest of the time the court has served as nothign more than opposition to reform. Lochner for example dealt a blow to the progressive movement for regulating corporations that lasted more than 35 years.
Yes, it is very common for those who have gone through academia to believe that they create their own meaning. Obama is a perfect blank canvas upon which to do so.
Post a comment