Third Party & Independents Archives

Why?

The civil state in much of Northern Mexico has broken down. Government officials are leaving their post, some have been severely intimidated and some have been murdered. In Ciudad Juarez more than 96% of crimes committed in the city over the past three years have gone unsolved.

Now, people are taking to the streets as vigilantes in seeking some justice for the acts of drug cartel violence. For example, in the city of Ascension armed citizens work in groups and patrol the city. The city has been broken into quadrants and patrols are armed. A siren tower was installed to sound the alert if a kidnapping is in progress. Group members quickly mobilize and block the highway passing through town. A trench has been dug around the town, wide and deep enough to prevent vehicles from driving around blocked roadways or driving off-road. Authorities may be called to the scene but if they fail to do their job the offender(s) ‘disappear’.

In the first nine months of the year 40 people were abducted then, on Sept 21st, after the first vigilante action, the abductions stopped. That day a gang, armed with AK47’s attempted to abduct a store clerk. Two of the abductor’s were chased down and lynched in a cotton field on the edge of town.

US territory on the Northern side of the border is partially a ‘no-man’s land’. Posted signs warn people where areas are not safe. Illegal’s migrating to the US, human smugglers, and drug cartel members ply the border areas making it dangerous for citizens, farmers, land owners and even law enforcement officers to linger in some areas.
Arizona has tried to bring some control to their border but their effort is tied up in the 9th circuit court with the federal gov’t alluding that the fed, and the fed alone, has the authority to manage immigration. Now, Arizona is defending a law passed in 2007 and signed by Janet Napolitano, currently serving as President Obama’s secretary of homeland security. That law would go after businesses that hire illegal aliens. In so doing, Arizona is pitted against an unusual coalition of challengers including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, civil rights groups, labor unions and the Obama admin. Eight justices from the 9th circuit are hearing the case and a tie vote would uphold the lower court’s decision.

The Obama admin, similar to previous admin’s going back to Regan, have chosen to ignore US immigration law. Instead, they are working to round up a few bad apples along with those who voluntarily want to leave the US to escape court hearings/prosecution, and provide them free transport to their city of origin. That course of action would seem not to violate WTO rules of the road for workers of the world.

Playing into the mix are the drug business, with marijuana estimated at $100B, human trafficking, lots of mayhem/murder – 30k killed in Mexico since 2006, unfair/illegal labor practice of hiring illegal workers, job competition in the great recession, etc. One very unsettling issue is the fact that the US gov’t has, for some 30 years refused to carry out federal law related to immigration. The gov’t/corpocracy has used deceit, deception, obfuscation, outright lying, etc to facilitate illegal immigration and in taking a minimal enforcement approach to controlling drugs/violence on both sides of the border. Why?

One could speculate that one or all of the following could be reasons: the drug business is a large part of the economy through which many are employed or dependent, businesses need access to a cheap labor force, cheap labor forces wages down which the gov’t/corpocracy appreciates, seriously trying to control immigration would bring the WTO lawyers to the mix. Plug in your own reason(s) here - - - Maybe wikileaks will surface some cables or emails that will shed some light on the subject as to WHY?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at December 9, 2010 8:14 PM
Comments
Comment #314838


Why? I think you answered that. It is economics, we want drugs and business wants cheap labor. The Democrats and labor thinks these, predominately Roman Catholic and socially conservative immigrants can be turned into union workers and Democrats. The Republicans think they will remain socially conservative and vote Republican.

The deaths, just a reflection of an amoral economic system of an amoral country. We don’t care how many die, as long as we get what we want.

Some of our drug corps, would like to make and distribute methamphetamine but, by law they cannot do this. By law, they can ship the ingredients to Mexico, where the meth is manufactured and shipped back across the border. Profit for all.

Posted by: jlw at December 9, 2010 11:38 PM
Comment #314842

Just out of curiosity Roy what is the income inequality situation like in Mexico?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 10, 2010 12:00 AM
Comment #314857

Good summary Roy. It is apparent that politicians and business are what stand in the way of border enforcement. American’s are beginning to wake up to the ever-worsening problem and perhaps the anger will soon reach critical mass.

I believe the answer could be in a grass-roots movement focused entirely on illegal immigration. Political power is the only thing that can change the status quo.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 10, 2010 2:51 PM
Comment #314864

Royal Flush,

How exactly is border enforcement going to stop this problem? Our problems are much more related to our dead economy and massive deficits. I thought there were Mexicans heading back in our stagnate economy.

It would be nice, I suppose, if there were no black market of drugs. Maybe corruption in Mexico might not be as bad. Given that no country on earth has ever stopped such a black market, what makes you think we have the resources to stop it? Another conservative spend, spend, spend project that has zero hope of working. But it makes some feel better, I suppose. I still don’t see much violence spilling over the border. Could you cite some so we can see what a crisis this is?

Of course, we could resort to killing drug users on the spot, that would tamp it down quite a bit. It’s worked somewhat in places like China and Indonesia. Is that what you are proposing? More tyrannical government to nanny us as to what things we can ingest?

Posted by: gergle at December 10, 2010 3:37 PM
Comment #314869

gergle…you read a hell-of-alot into my statement that perhaps a grass-roots movement focused entirely on illegal immigration might get politicians and business to resolve this dangerous situation.

Surely gergle, you can’t be satisified with the status quo.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 10, 2010 3:55 PM
Comment #314872

“U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they are inclined to uphold an Arizona law that threatens companies with the revocation of their corporate charters if they hire illegal aliens.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia took the lead in aiming a barrage of questions at a lawyer challenging the measure in an hour-long hearing in Washington. Roberts pointed to a federal statute that carves out a role for states while Scalia focused on what he said was the U.S. government’s failure to enforce its immigration laws.

“What Arizona says has occurred here is that the scheme in place has not been enforced, and Arizona and other states are in serious trouble, financially and for other reasons, because of unrestrained immigration,” Scalia said.

A ruling upholding the measure would spur enactment of similar laws elsewhere, advocates on both sides of the issue say. The case also may provide a hint as to the court’s approach to other state immigration measures, including a separate Arizona statute that gives local police a greater role in arresting illegal immigrants.”

From: Judicial Watch


Posted by: Royal Flush at December 10, 2010 4:34 PM
Comment #314888


This drug clock shows that federal ($19B) and state govt’s ($30B) have spent some $48B so far this year on the so-called ‘drug war, a term coined by Nixon way back when. I’m aware Bush asked for $1.4B for Mexico of which about $700M has been spent. Columbia gets approx $600M yearly, Bolivia approx $100M and so on.

I’ve seen figures on the US drug biz between $10B and $100B. Here is a good report that puts the biz at about $100B and I would agree with that figure.

So, the cost to the US is more like $50B (govt suppt) + $100B (drug cost) = or $150B. I view the foreign aid part more like a foreign relations program rather than drug interdiction when weighing the cost to interdict versus the consumption costs.

We haven’t touched on the myriad other cost: police investigation/enforcement, incarceration cost, medical/hospital costs, destruction of mechanical things, insurance costs, ad infinitum.

As in immigration, we have a corpocracy government that chooses to enforce or ignore laws on the books as they see fit. Not at all unlike China. They have a constitution but choose to enforce/ignore it at their leisure.

Most folks in the US are in tune with Glen Beck when he says we should approach our problems with honor, merit and charity, something like that. A gov’t that obfuscates and lies is viewed by many as a way bigger concern than would be all our problems lumped together. I am in that boat, with Beck and George W.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 10, 2010 7:38 PM
Comment #314901

Royal Flush,

What the hell are you talking about?

The US has thousands of miles of borders, how are they or grass roots going to eradicate smuggling?

The only way to stop the black market is to end prohibition and treat the addicts as addicts, other than a soviet style iron curtain with armed turrets, which I assume sensible people would be against. The truth is even that will not stop a black market. It didn’t in the Soviet Union. A free and legal market makes smuggling economically non-viable.

What fantasy world do you live in that a “grass roots” organization, which doesn’t live in the large desert expanses and mountain ranges that comprise a significant part of the US/Mexico border, could have any effect? Bush spent billions on fence and it still has done little to stop the flow. There are also significant smuggling routes through population centers, because proximity makes it easy. These routes are what a wall and machine gun turrets would stop. Then except for the state sanctioned violence there would be little cross border problems. That would move to remote areas. It’s fairly simple to use overland, underground, flight and ocean traffic to penetrate any border, even during wars. Small units can easily land and infiltrate. As long as the population sanctions illegal drugs, smuggling will not stop.

Cheap drugs and treatment are what will stop the violence in Mexico. More than that, an open border would allow more cross border coordination and economic expansion into Mexico which ultimately is what will end the corruption and flow of illegals into the US. The closer the US and Mexico become, the less problems they will create by governments with different goals.

Enforcement of employment laws is also what will deter legal businesses from hiring illegals. Throwing a few CEO’s in jail will end that demand.

There is little random violence in the US associated with Mexico’s cartels. Prohibition creates the wealth for the cartels to operate. Competition for access to viable smuggling routes is what the cartels fight over. Even if you build the best wall at trillions of dollars, smuggling will move to the US coast or Canadian border.

You may wish for a world in which drug use didn’t exist, but some shoot ‘em up fantasy that cost trillions isn’t a conservative or libertarian solution to the problem. It’s just a knee-jerk reactionary fantasy.

Posted by: gergle at December 11, 2010 4:40 AM
Comment #314922

Why?

There are many reasons, but the main reason is greed. Drugs are profitable.

Another reason is addiction and appetite for drugs.

Another reason is government corruption on both sides of the border.

Porous borders contribute to the problem.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2010 11:59 AM
Comment #314927


The government knows that drug prohibition and interdiction does not work. It found that out when it tried to prevent the use of a drug called alcohol. This suggests that the war on drugs is just a government ploy meant to convince the public that the government is doing something to prevent the distribution and use of drugs made illegal by the government. The longest running, never ending war in American history. A great distraction that smells
like ‘1984’ to me.

Most of the money involved in the illegal drug trade ends up where it would if there were no illegal drug trade, in the coffers of corporations.

The displeasure with illegal immigration mirrors the displeasure displayed by Americans during other, legal mass migrations to this country.

The need for cheap labor is a driving force of capitalism. Some would argue that capitalisms very survival is dependent on an available cheap labor force.


Posted by: jlw at December 11, 2010 2:06 PM
Comment #314997

Here is a Van Jones flick you may like.

At the very highest level I think you are right d.a.n. Greed. Greed drives the corpocracy and the cartels.
Jlw, I don’t agree that interdiction doesn’t work. We haven’t tried interdiction on a sufficient level, IMO. It’s been 30 years since we started trying to get a fence built. Border Patrol are way too few to be effective. The few reserves sent to the border can only sit around in lawn chairs and watch.

Also, this drug war is unlike the alcohol prohibition. The drug war has a well defined border, physical dimensions, etc.

Agree, most of the money ends up in the hands of corporations. Wachovia had their hands slapped for laundering drug money to get it headed back south.
I’m not aware of the level of ‘displeasure’ exhibited during past mass migrations to the country. As far as I know most of that was legal immigration. Polls generally reflect the pollsters agenda but most of the survey I see suggest about 70% want to see immigration law enforced.

jlw wrote: “The need for cheap labor is a driving force of capitalism. Some would argue that capitalisms very survival is dependent on an available cheap labor force.”

I agree, that from the corporations perspective cheap labor is a driving force. Agree, that corporations might believe that their survival is based on availability of cheap labor.
But, there is the other side of the equation. The voting/taxpaying public at large. That group understands that over a relative short time span the wealthy have Ma href=”http://www.faireconomy.org/issues/growing_divide?gclid=CJKI75b_5qUCFRZy5Qodbn_g0g”> increased their wealth by 400% while the middle class has remained stagnant. The top 1 percent pay something like 40% of all taxes. The top 1% own 90% of the wealth. Nearly half the middle class are paying no taxes. Think back to 1929, jlw. Not healthy, not sustainable. What has allowed things to evolve to this point?

Did companies get smarter, more efficient, more productive? Yes. Did people get smarter, more efficient, more productive? Yes.

Where is the disparity? Why hasn’t worker wealth increased like corporation wealth?

Anti-trust law (or the lack thereof).
60% of Corps pay no taxes. 95% of those that do pay less than 5%. About 70% of foreign companies paid no taxes in the 2000’s.

The Corpocracy has purchased tax breaks and perks adding greatly to their bottom line. Bachus, the new chair of the finance committee replacing Barney received 63% of his campaign funds from == wall street. Indeed, your tax dollars are used to relocate corporations overseas, pay for their bankruptcy, etc.

Regulation of commerce (or lack thereof). Example from yesterdays Wash Post. Recently salmonella sickened 1900 and led to the largest egg recall in history. The $4B industry has called on gov’t for mandatory regulatory rules for years despite the red tape and extra cost. So have consumer groups, public health experts and economists.
But their proposals were thwarted by gov’t – philosophical resistance to regulating business as well as rivalries and dysfunctions at two agencies that share responsibility for the safety of egg production. Fractured oversight a problem as well. More than 15 agencies and 71 interagency agreements deal with food safety leading to weakened oversight, waste of tax dollars and full of dangerous gaps.
And so on …

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 12, 2010 10:47 AM
Comment #315089


Roy, today, we have drug runners depositing drugs along our coastlines and mules packing drugs across the border. We also have domestic growers and suppliers of drugs. Today, we have crack houses.

In the drug war waged on alcohol, we had rum runners like Joe Kennedy bringing drugs into our coastlines. We had mules packing drugs across our borders. We had domestic producers and suppliers of drugs and we had speakeasies.

In the last 40 years, the government has spent billions of dollars to interdict the growing of marijuana in America. Today, there are more growers than ever.

“Why hasn’t worker wealth increased like corporation wealth?”

First, you have to be more specific. Half of the workers have been loosing jobs or loosing ground in the wealth war.
The other half of the workers have seen significant gains in wealth over the same period of time. These workers have an incentive for supporting the status quo, either the Republican version or the somewhat modified version favored by the Democratic Party.

Dan has mentioned greed and selfishness to the causes. I would add fear. These are the primary motivators, giving cause to the voters for support of the status quo.

Fear motivates many voters to support the status quo. Fear of Nazis, liberals, progressives, socialists, fear of loosing one’s job, fear of loosing one’s guns, fear of illegal immigrants, etc.

Some are greedy, some are fearful, and some are greedy and fearful.

Posted by: jlw at December 13, 2010 3:22 PM
Comment #315127

jlw, I like the old adage, ‘to try and fail is better than not having tried at all’. Washington could have called it, ‘it’s too cold for this, let’s try again in the springtime’ or something like that.

The insult to injury with bootlegger Kennedy was that he was made ambassador to England and was an influential figure in US politics. Money has no honor, etc.

Mendocino Co. Calif has legalized mary jane with about 63% of residents involved in the trade. The trade is worth at $1.5B and the legal economy about $2.3B. MJ is about 43% of the economy. Part of the (something) triangle, a number of Mexican’s are abducted and made to work the MJ production farms.
Pretty soon we will get to bail out Calif with our tax dollars. While one can empathize with Vermont secessionists and the 20 some other movements around the country, I still agree with the Glen Beck approach. Stand your ground, stay calm and project honor and integrity in all your dealings/interests. I also recommend supporting a 3rd party with a different political attitude. I see where the Mayor of NYC, Bloomberg and a few are meeting to start up something like the TEA Party, called No Labels. But, like the TEA Party, they have no way of muting the special interests as far as I can tell so we can blow them off as so much smoke.
Eight of the top 12 gun dealers selling guns into the cartels are in Texas, three in Arizona and one in calif. One MJ trader in San Fran. was spending $50M/month buying warehouses, boats, homes, and such. Little dot farms in the hills are knocking down half to one million a year.
IMO, the whole drug business is just too good for the fed knock down.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 13, 2010 8:56 PM
Comment #315250


Roy, ask the National Rifle Association why we can’t crackdown on gun sales to Mexican drug cartels. The D. of ATF wants to have gun dealers report the sale of lots of assault rifles, to the government. Not the sale of a AK here and there, but the sale of cases of the weapons. The NRA got wind of the proposal and has vowed to fight it with all it’s lobbying force. Just the thought of another round of the liberals are taking our guns, the liberals are taking out guns, the liberals are taking our guns is enough to cause the government to backed down.

IMO, the whole drug business is just to big for the fed to knock down. With drugs, it is the law of demand and supply.

Posted by: jlw at December 15, 2010 3:47 PM
Comment #315485

jlw, John Stossel reviewed the top 10 government programs that have/will cost the taxpayer dearly while failing to meetspecified expectations. I recall ‘cash for clunkers’, healthcare bill, ‘Al Paca farming as a tax writeoff’, and ethanol production using food crops. Oh yes, building huge metro stadiums on the taxpayer dime while exhultating what a great money maker, job creating enterprise each would be.
We have been witness to trillions being pissed away by gov’t. Just like this last effort at ear marks as a way to pay back political contributions to the well connected donors. You scratch my back,I’ll scratch yours Corpocracy at it’s finest.

Same with the drug war, IMO. It may be illegal by the law books but not illegal per the corpocracy. Same with illegal immigration. It is illegal by the books but that point is simply ignored by the corpocracy. Much the same with earmarks. Known for years that the public abhors ear marks yet the corpocracy, you scratch my earmark and I’ll scratch yours, simply ignores the will of the people.

If you speed, forge a check, don’t pay your hotel bill, etc. somebody will come knock on your door. Not so with the drug business. Certainly, not a hard problem to counter either.

IMO, if you put up a few Arpaio tent cities and meet out 1-2 year sentence to community service, maybe DOT work, for selling/using drugs that would put a stop to drugs pdq. If not, then change the sentence to busting rocks 3-4 hours a day, etc. You would quickly find the point at which its deemed not worth it to fool around with drugs.

But, in a country that is so guilt ridden over any citizen seen as less than honorable or successful, etc having someone bust rocks is beyond the pale. Heck, we can’t even get terrorists a fair trial. I suppose many of them would like some kind of justice and return home. but can’t get it here. Maybe two hours of interrogation every few weeks is their punishment.

Otherwise- -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 18, 2010 6:20 PM
Comment #315490

“IMO, if you put up a few Arpaio tent cities and meet out 1-2 year sentence to community service, maybe DOT work, for selling/using drugs that would put a stop to drugs pdq. If not, then change the sentence to busting rocks 3-4 hours a day, etc. You would quickly find the point at which its deemed not worth it to fool around with drugs.”

Our prisons are full now and at a huge expense yet people keep doing drugs. What makes your plan better? Do you actually believe that inmates don’t work now?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 18, 2010 8:10 PM
Comment #315497

http://www.burkfoster.com/HardLabor.htm

“”Hard labor” no longer means that the inmate will be forced to do backbreaking physical labor from dawn to dusk, as it might have meant in many prisons a century ago; what it means today is that for a term of years the convicted felon gives up control of his own life to the state. Only gradually, and only if he adapts success-fully to the institution’s rules, practices and expectations, does he regain the freedom to make the important decisions in his life. For many men in prison, learning to make these decisions, with a genuine appreciation of their consequences, is the hardest labor they have ever been asked to do.”“

Many believe that prisons work just fine, keeping the felon off the street, etc. But, so many return to their old law-breaking ways. Maybe we should give rock breaking another chance. Tent cities and sledge hammers can’t be all that expensive, j2t2.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 18, 2010 10:20 PM
Comment #315507

But paying someone to watch them 24/7 sure does add up.

Sheriff Joe is an attention getter no doubt but his jails always seem to be full. If tents and chain gangs in the hot sun were the answer why is his jail always full?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 19, 2010 1:40 AM
Comment #315510


Roy, we have only become concerned about the government pissing away trillions when we became concerned that we might not get to continue pissing away 25 to 50 percent of the worlds resources on our materialistic lifestyles.

Breaking rocks in the hot sun

I smoked a joint and the law won.

Sounds like that would make a good drinking song.

If we all grew pot in our yards, no one could make profit from pot and no one would die trying to do so. Who knows, we might even be able to overgrow the government.

Posted by: jlw at December 19, 2010 2:20 AM
Comment #315550

Recently read about a case where a family, mom/pop and 2 young children had modified their house to grow pot. As hard times worsen we are sure to see more of same.

Good lyrics jlw, maybe an add on:

I rolled a joint and passed it around;

the law then busted my home town;

Now my home-town buds are in prison with me;

We’re building starters, milking cows, and making mon-ey;

When my time is done and I’m out the door;

I’ll be heading to the street for a really big score.

As drug wars ramp up within the US one would think the gov’t would be forced to take some stronger actions. Real physical labor would be the best deterrent to recidivism, IMO. Maybe start out with education and for each return to the courts lean toward the physical side with punishment.

I see where Chavez has been granted the power to decree law in Venezuela. That should be a boon to the drug business.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 19, 2010 4:18 PM
Comment #315680


Roy, a U.S. government official goes to Columbia and gives a speech about how Chavez is not capturing all the cocaine traffickers coming from Columbia and therefor, Chavez is complicit in drug trafficking. He is a drug dealer!

Our taxpayers have given Columbia enough money to end that countries cocaine business ten times over. It has been convenient for Columbia, our tax dollars continue to flow into their coffers. Imagine how much of that money has ended up in the bank accounts of Columbian politicians and generals.

Don’t worry, we will get around to liberating the wealthy and reinstalling the multi-national corporations in Venezuela. You will know when it is about to occur because our ‘free press’ will begin to prepare the populace on the necessity of invading Venezuela and bringing Chavez to justice in the U.S.

Then, the new right wing government of Venezuela will qualify for billions in U.S. tax dollars to fight drugs; just like it’s right wing neighbor, Cocaineia, or Columbia as some call it.

They have just uncovered a mass grave site in Cocaineia where the U.S. taxpayer supported Cocaineian military buried more than 200 supposed insurgents and drug traffickers. The grave site was discovered after villagers down stream began to get sick.

Perhaps we should adopt their tactics.

Posted by: jlw at December 22, 2010 5:20 PM
Comment #315694


Agree jlw, the Gov’t has forever used the taxpayer to fund their ‘foreign policy’ works around the world.
To stop drugs in its tracks we need only to expend funds to provide control/security of our borders. With 1% of ‘foreign policy’ expenditures the US could fence their borders, put boots and drones covering every mile, patrol the coasts with the new Lockheed Martin tin cans, fly out plane loads of illegals in Boeing’s finest, etc.
But, as the corpocracy sees it, it is bad for business. Also, would violate WTO regs and further setback NAU objectives. Say, has the corpocracy ever come forth and stated they have backed off on implementing the NAU? Seems the dregs of the NAU can http://www.gruposavant.com/La_Familia_Seeks_Terms_for_Surrender_9NOV10.pdf move those drugs right on up to Canada with nobody looking on.
Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 22, 2010 8:16 PM
Comment #315941


Roy, the majority of those who want something done about border security are politically aligned with the corpocracy, a huge conflict of interest.

The tea party candidates were all over the issue of border security and illegal immigration. They have all been cloaked in the security blanket of corporate dollars.

The good part is, they can still use the issue to keep the support of voters while Congress does nothing, and if the noise continues to grow, Congress can fake it like they have in the past.

Posted by: jlw at December 28, 2010 2:24 PM
Comment #316133

Agree jlw, while many have placed their ‘hope for change’ in the Tea Party movement I don’t share in their euphoria. We’ve already been made aware that many TP’ers are participating in fundraisers to pay off their campaign debts and begin raising money for their next election battle. I suggest that within a couple of years the movement will have faded into the Republian Party assuming a ‘business as usual’ posture.

Agree too, on the immigration issue. The Corpocracy has played the public off against the so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ for about 30 years now. Winner: the corpocracy. Loser: the voting public.

The corpocracy has worked hard to break the back of the middle class worker and immigration has served as a multitask tool for that job. And, it’s clear that going forward the status quo will prevail, along with lotsa gnashing of teeth and feened concern over immigration. The status quo will rein supreme assuredly for the next couple of years.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 31, 2010 5:03 PM
Post a comment