> Jeff, I don't make any excuses for my believing the good
> that corporations do for this country far outweighs what
> you see as being negative about them. Why do I sense such
> a hatred on your part toward them?

Probably because you aren't paying attention. I don't hate corporations, but I'm very concerned about the system that our collective apathy has allowed to take hold. Today's major corporations act with a sense of entitlement that they were never granted. They've been granted unprecedented leeway to pursue their corporate agendas, which always boil down to one thing--money.

You say, Of course it's money. Corporations need to make money in order to stay in business. That's all fine and well. But how do you explain the exploding executive salaries of the last thirty years, in the face of the decline and institutionalized rape of the middle class? Corporations HAVE done good things, and they continue to do good things. But I'd like you to quantify your argument that the good they do outweighs the bad.

> I don't recall saying that there aren't bad people within
> big business. I just don't hold your dire view of what I
> see as a necessary part of our everyday lives. We as a
> country have embraced big business and what it does for
> us and so have you whether or not you believe that.

In order to preserve our standard of living, corporations probably are a necessary part of our everyday lives. However, the terrible damage they inflict to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--this is not necessary. Is it necessary for an American corporation to sue the Canadian government for expropriation of profits, after they decide to ban the use of MMT? Is it necessary for an American corporation to sue the EU in a bald-faced attempt to squash small Caribbean banana farmers, with the support of our government? Are sweatshops necessary? Is it necessary to pollute our air and water, and then lie about it? Where's your argument? You've said nothing real to refute my assertions.

> With respect to a liberal bias amongst the mainstream
> media and my belief that one exists I offer you this
> portion of an editorial written by Bernard Goldberg.
> Taken from the Wall St. Journal on 5/24/1, titled, Rather
> Clueless, he writes in part...Mr. Goldberg was a
> correspondent for CBS News from 1972 until 2000.

So you and Bernard Goldberg believe that a liberal bias in the media exists. It's an interesting point to debate, but it doesn't lead anywhere. This article brands Rather a closet liberal, but gives no example of how his predilections influence the way he presents the news. So what if he thinks the Times is middle of the road? The American public is denied access to "real" news not because of any political bias, but because mass media outlets are owned by companies that are more interested in market shares than investigative journalism.

> Jeff, just because you don't agree with my view of the
> world doesn't mean it shouldn't see equal time in our
> news coverage and in our curriculums.

Of course not. When did I say it shouldn't?

> I'm willing to concede on the human rights violations in
> Saipan. I'm all for rooting out and exposing those
> conditions wherever they exist.

This is awfully big of you. However, in this case, there's nothing to "root out" or "expose" because it's all out in the open. And, again, it's done with the implicit support of the United States government. Do you not see a problem with this? Do you not understand the severe implications of selling policy to corporations?

I'm still waiting for the other side of the argument.