Adbusters

McCarriage of Justice

How many strikes should a corporation be allowed before we, the public, revoke their charter?

Fast food giant McDonald’s has just been handed a stunning defeat by a Malaysian high court in an epic trademark dispute. The ruling ended an eight-year battle in which the megacorporation attempted to prevent a small curry restaurant from using the prefix “Mc” in its name. McCurry (which stands for “Malaysian Chicken Curry”) argued that it had every right to use the two consonants and that McDonald’s claim that the two restaurants could be confused was unfounded. McCurry offers an Indian menu (including, among other things, fish head curry) while McDonald’s sticks to arguably less palatable “Western” fare. In addition to granting McCurry the rights to the disputed prefix, the court ordered McDonald’s to pay all legal costs incurred by the defendant. McDonald’s has a history of attacking anyone who dares string the two letters together: the company has previously brought legal action against a curry restaurant in Jamaica and the Oxford English Dictionary for listing the definition of “McJob.” Hopefully having its McAss handed to it by Malaysia’s highest court will end the corporation’s global monopoly on the two letters, allowing small business owners and a good part of Scotland to breathe easy.

But what can we do to prevent bullying megacorporations from treating the world like one giant school yard? For every Malaysian McCurry there are untold numbers of little guys slain by corporate Goliaths. For every staggering judgment (like Pfizer’s recent $2.3 billion settlement with the FDA) there are a slew of shady backroom deals in which corporations make a mint at the public’s expense. How many strikes should a corporation be allowed before we, the public, are allowed to revoke their charter? What are some effective ways for civil society to fight back against corporate power?

Sarah Nardi

Adbusters 111 Cover

On Newsstands December 3

At last we’re in Winter. It’s the year 2047. A worn scrapbook from the future arrives in your lap. It offers a stunning global vision, a warning to the next generations, a repository of practical wisdom, and an invaluable roadmap which you need to navigate the dark times, and the opportunities, which lie ahead.

Subscribe to Adbusters Magazine

192 comments on the article “McCarriage of Justice”

Displaying 41 - 50 of 192

Page 5 of 20

Anonymouse

By "read a book" I'm assuming you mean "liberal fascism" authored by the Doughy Pantload. Well maybe you should try reading a second book yourself. Perhaps something written by a historian rather than someone who just pulls obscene slanders out of his ass to tar his political foes with.

Anonymouse

By "read a book" I'm assuming you mean "liberal fascism" authored by the Doughy Pantload. Well maybe you should try reading a second book yourself. Perhaps something written by a historian rather than someone who just pulls obscene slanders out of his ass to tar his political foes with.

McAnonymous

I mean any book on historic political movements. Nice name calling though - first thing you leftys do is start labelling. In the end it doesn't really matter who writes a book - if it's based on historical fact. Have you read that book? I highly doubt it. If you have, then refute specifics instead of namecalling. ...by the way, how can slander possibly be perpetrated if the author is simply quoting someone? For instance - if both Mussolini and Hitler were professed socialists both by ideology and action, then quoting that ideology is truth, not slander.

McAnonymous

I mean any book on historic political movements. Nice name calling though - first thing you leftys do is start labelling. In the end it doesn't really matter who writes a book - if it's based on historical fact. Have you read that book? I highly doubt it. If you have, then refute specifics instead of namecalling. ...by the way, how can slander possibly be perpetrated if the author is simply quoting someone? For instance - if both Mussolini and Hitler were professed socialists both by ideology and action, then quoting that ideology is truth, not slander.

Anonymouse

I wasn't name calling, I was stating fact. Jonah Goldberg is quite simply full of sh%t. What book of honest scholarship would conclude Hitler was a lefty liberal on the basis of such things as being a vegetarian, while utterly ignoring the violent attacks and repression of labor unions, gays, foreigners, communists, and avant garde artists? By that measure, the red meat loving Jeffrey Daumer is ideological soul mates with conservatives.

If Hitler was a lefty socialist, how come he was opposed by people on the left of the spectrum in the US at the time, but embraced by the icons of the right, like Henry Ford? I guess Ford was hoping Hitler could impose universal healthcare on Americans.

But none of this matters because as much as you stand on your chair and demand footmarked citations from the people you argue with, you are utterly indifferent to facts. For you there is no fundamental basis to reality, there is just what you can convince yourself to believe. So you want to believe Hitler was a lefty liberal and you won't be swayed. When you combine that with the fact that you've been writing these self-deluding posts almost obsessively for a month and you become virtually indistinguishable from an insane person. (That is not meant to be an insult, merely a statement of fact. If you would like to refute it then please provide links to scholarly works supporting your position.)

Anonymouse

I wasn't name calling, I was stating fact. Jonah Goldberg is quite simply full of sh%t. What book of honest scholarship would conclude Hitler was a lefty liberal on the basis of such things as being a vegetarian, while utterly ignoring the violent attacks and repression of labor unions, gays, foreigners, communists, and avant garde artists? By that measure, the red meat loving Jeffrey Daumer is ideological soul mates with conservatives.

If Hitler was a lefty socialist, how come he was opposed by people on the left of the spectrum in the US at the time, but embraced by the icons of the right, like Henry Ford? I guess Ford was hoping Hitler could impose universal healthcare on Americans.

But none of this matters because as much as you stand on your chair and demand footmarked citations from the people you argue with, you are utterly indifferent to facts. For you there is no fundamental basis to reality, there is just what you can convince yourself to believe. So you want to believe Hitler was a lefty liberal and you won't be swayed. When you combine that with the fact that you've been writing these self-deluding posts almost obsessively for a month and you become virtually indistinguishable from an insane person. (That is not meant to be an insult, merely a statement of fact. If you would like to refute it then please provide links to scholarly works supporting your position.)

McAnonymous

Doughy Pantload isn't name calling. Calling me indistinguishable from an insane person isn't name calling. You're a waste of space and a liar.
... but here we go again - me with the facts, and you with the...oh yeah, nothing but lies and name calling.
So you haven't read the book. Out of the perhaps 150 pages on Hitler, there are precisely 5 paragraphs (15 pages from the end of the book, mind you) on vegetarianism. Hardly a "basis" of an argument, but I'm sure you heard your "fact" eavesdropping on a discussion or in a chatroom.
Let's take a look at Nazi policy as dictated by their Eternal Party Platform: we demand that the state be charged with providing the opportunity for a livelihood, the activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, abolition of rent income, nationalization of trusts, division of profits of heavy industry, expansion of old age welfare, communalization of the great department stores (and subsequent re-leasing to small stores at price-controlled rates), free expropriation of land for the purpose of public utility, the state is to elevate the national health (that's where the vegetarianism comes in) AND unfettered powers to implement all the preceding "do-good" policies.
Doesn't exactly sound like Milton Friedman does it? But don't let history and facts get in the way of your point of view.

McAnonymous

Doughy Pantload isn't name calling. Calling me indistinguishable from an insane person isn't name calling. You're a waste of space and a liar.
... but here we go again - me with the facts, and you with the...oh yeah, nothing but lies and name calling.
So you haven't read the book. Out of the perhaps 150 pages on Hitler, there are precisely 5 paragraphs (15 pages from the end of the book, mind you) on vegetarianism. Hardly a "basis" of an argument, but I'm sure you heard your "fact" eavesdropping on a discussion or in a chatroom.
Let's take a look at Nazi policy as dictated by their Eternal Party Platform: we demand that the state be charged with providing the opportunity for a livelihood, the activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, abolition of rent income, nationalization of trusts, division of profits of heavy industry, expansion of old age welfare, communalization of the great department stores (and subsequent re-leasing to small stores at price-controlled rates), free expropriation of land for the purpose of public utility, the state is to elevate the national health (that's where the vegetarianism comes in) AND unfettered powers to implement all the preceding "do-good" policies.
Doesn't exactly sound like Milton Friedman does it? But don't let history and facts get in the way of your point of view.

Anonymouse

Look, all of your cherrypicking of policies and drawing of tenuous connections mean nothing if you can't answer the three questions I raised.

Why was Hitler supported by right wing industrialists in America and Britain, and not by leaders of the trade union movement, and other prominent leftists if he was a liberal?

Why did Hitler attack and persecute trade unions, avant garde artists, foreigners, communists and socialists if he was a liberal?

How are seemingly delusional and obsessive compulsive behaviors distinguishable from insanity?

Anonymouse

Look, all of your cherrypicking of policies and drawing of tenuous connections mean nothing if you can't answer the three questions I raised.

Why was Hitler supported by right wing industrialists in America and Britain, and not by leaders of the trade union movement, and other prominent leftists if he was a liberal?

Why did Hitler attack and persecute trade unions, avant garde artists, foreigners, communists and socialists if he was a liberal?

How are seemingly delusional and obsessive compulsive behaviors distinguishable from insanity?

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.