We read somewhere, here, that Obama’s transition website, Change.gov, was getting pretty Internettish these days. This is Obama’s thing, he does it all the time: using standard Internet crap — stuff that other politicians somehow haven’t discovered — to help his readers connect and engage one another on the issues important to them (and possibly sometimes donate $$$$…) (and also maybe plan to fuck in a motel.) This is all to say that Change.gov suddenly looks a lot like Fark or Digg — long comment threads where you can “tell Obama” your thoughts and respond to each other and even rate each other’s comments. So we headed over there to witness the hilarity one sees on every Internet comment board in the world. But as with all things “Obama,” the discussion is well-written, informed, polite… it is terrifying. This is not the Real American Internet.
The current top thread has the transition team asking, “How is the current economic crisis affecting you?” All kinds of territory for commenters on this one, right? Maybe a little “Itz affecting me w/ itz cock,” or how about your favorite, “moar assfucking plz,” or even the old standby, “RON PAUL 2008.”
What we found on this thread instead… it is not for the weak of stomach:
- Commenter “Charles Vanderbilt” — that’s probably his REAL NAME for Christ’s sake: “In regard to a down payment for a home, there used to be a “Rent With Option To Buy” available for people who didn’t have the full down payment. Why couldn’t this be offered today? If a homeowner faces foreclosure or eviction, he could get a new contract. The new purchase price could be the original price, adjusted to the amount of rent paid. This would get the housing money flowing in the right direction and not overwhelm the homeowner. The amount of rent would be comparable to the original payment to the mortgage. Any discussion on this?”
- Commenter “Matthew_Johnson” — again with the real name, and a boring one at that: “It should be considered a great privilege to be a publicly traded company in our society and one that comes with great responsibility. It should not be considered a corporate “right” to be public if they abide by a few accounting rules. It is not unreasonable for we as citizens to expect more from our corporations including balancing of interests as opposed to maximizing short-term profit at all costs. It is also not unreasonable to expect the corporation to know their ‘place’ in our society and economy and to expect that the corporation not demand equal rights with the individuals they exist to serve. Their rights should be subordinated to and defined by the rights of the individuals they affect. I look forward to a great discussion about these ideas and sincerely hope the administration will consider implementing some of them in one form or another.” Uhh… uhh… GO AWAY TROLL…??
- Oooh, the evilly named “drfaust” is responding to “Matthew_Johnson” — this might be the downward spiral in quality and grammar we were looking for! Maybe “drfaust” will post a LOLcat of a Lego giraffe fucking a steampunk turtle or something: “Respectfully, however, I believe your call for corporate democracy will be immensely difficult for the Obama administration to achieve within the bounds of law. While we can certainly call for public responsibility by corporations, it will be the consumers and the shareholders, not the government, that inevitably decides whether or not a corporation should profit at the expense of stakeholders such as workers. Like in government, democracy in a corporation tends to be limited to those who elect the corporation’s leaders – the shareholders – rather than to all people who contribute to the government’s well being, and this is unlikely to change.”
Johnson and drfaust, along with a few other latecomers, ultimately reach a balanced consensus about reconciling — but not overly restricting — the role of the corporation with the individual’s interest, and the thread ends on a cordial note.
Join the Discussion: Economy [Change.gov]