The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Not funding those banks?!?!? How would you define handing them $750 billion dollars such that they have gone from brim-of-bankruptcy to healthily-profitable? Is that not "funding?" It's not grants, yeah. But it was voted by Congress just the same.

Well, crap, yeah. I'm with you on that one. Brain fart. I think once a corporation accepts that kind of help from the government then they need to submit to whatever as the price they pay.

[innerSpaceman]

Can anyone figure out what Alex's last post was supposed to mean?

[Alex]

I can!

[Alex]

Exactly.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, then, um, continuing in my previous line of thought ...

Yesterday, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a trial court judgment against Fortis Insurance for Ten Million Dollars. Fortis rescinded the insurance policy of 18-year-old Jerome Mitchell when they discovered he had contracted HIV/AIDS in the year since he started coverage with them.

The Supreme Court stated Fortis' acts were "reprehensible" and "demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard of his health and safety."


For the sake of a hypothetical, Mr. scaeagles, let's assume this sort of thing was done, oh say 5 times by Fortis. Do those represent the policies of Fortis or the acts of 5 bad apples within Fortis?

[JWBear]

Since Fortis supported and defended those acts in court, then yes, it would appear to be their policy.

If ACORN had defended the actions of its employees, then I would agree that it is a bad orginization.

[Alex]

Unrelated to the Fortis example. Listened to an hour of Michael Moore on local NPR this morning and while I'm sure Capitalism: A Love Story will present many very valid criticisms of capitalism (capitalism--though this is true, in my opinion, of any of the alternatives as well--is very much the definition of evil) in general and example of corporate malfeasance (people frequently get to suck and it scales up quickly when people have money and power) specifically I must say I found his professed view of a utopian economic structure mostly bat**** insane in that he seemed less than willing to admit that it was unobtainable without complete central control of the economy (though even if that were accomplished I don't agree with him it would work the way he thinks).

But hopefully the movie makes his case better than he did on the radio.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think his movies, going by past examples, make a case for something so much as against something.

Even on the good guys' side, it's always been easier to destroy than to create.

[Alex]

That may be, though as presented by him today he seems to think (though of course what the creator of something thinks s/he's doing and what s/he's really doing are frequently divergent) it is making a case for his vision of how things could be. His closing remarks were that he hopes at the end of the movie everybody is so fired up that they go out and get involved and make it happen.

[innerSpaceman]

I wouldn't mind if audiences were fired up enough to light fire to torches and grab some pitchforks. What happens afterwards will likely be the same (meet the new boss) ... but I've always wondered what kind of society would result if greedy and corrupt fvckwads were annually tarred and feathered and run out of town on a razor wire. Would the new boss continually be same as the old boss ... or would a niche eventually develop for ungreedy and noncorrupt people in positions of power?