Stripping on Holey Ground

Strippers at Ground Zero

The Constitution ... but. We believe ... but. Private property .. in this case. The sanctity of our .. the babies ... Holey Ground.. the lash on our backs .. HITLER!! And if we get elected bla-bla ba bla-bla

But It's Good for Us

At what point does our national security state get way out of hand? You know the drill. We can't ... insert controversy du jour... or the terrorists will have won. Too late honey. The events in the first blockquote and link make the position in the second look a bit less wingnutty and a bit more precient.

At what point does an airport search step over the line? How about when they start going through your checks, and the police call your husband, suspicious you were clearing out the bank account?

What happened sounds to me like a violation of a TSA policy that went into effect Sept. 1, after the American Civil Liberties Union sued the agency on behalf of the former campaign treasurer of presidential candidate Ron Paul. In that case, Steven Bierfeldt was detained after screeners at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport discovered he was carrying about $4,700 in cash. He challenged their request that he explain where his money came from.

Philadelphia Inquirer

Fronting armed response teams with Stasi style psychologists; 'It might have been a divorce situation.' Boy howdy, do I feel safe now. However, the folks in the next link feel a little less sanguine.

That was a Republican administration, I pointed out. ‘The Democrats are running towards socialism at 100 miles an hour and Republicans are only running 60,’ he said. ‘They’ll all get to the same damn place eventually. Our job as militia is to re-establish the government in a way George [Washington] and the boys intended. And to do that we can’t go and hide in the bushes; we have to take active participation in the overthrow that Thomas Jefferson point-blank told us was our duty as Americans.

Telegraph: U.K.

The Business of the Court

That's right, now you can have all the same disregard for the environment (albeit virtual) that big oil does everyday! Why should they get to have all the fun?

Simply enter the web address of the site you'd like to contaminate and watch the spill happen.

Instant oil Spill

Found in Presurfer

Now that we've had our fun, cleanup consists of pushing delete or left clicking the red x. Recent headlines suggest that the analog world's messes are more stubborn. However, like the digital world, they leave hidden copies and traces that are prone to resurfacing at the most inopportune time. In a roundabout way, this brings us to the crux of the post. I have seen some trial balloons on the net suggesting that corporations should have the right to vote. (so far, only national elections have been mentioned)

Before you dismiss the idea as the wet dream of power mad insiders, you might want to review the current tenor of our political discourse. Although the courts have been edging toward the idea of the corporation as a person (most commonly attributed to Santa Clara County V. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U. S. 394 (1886)) for quite some time, the current SCOTUS appears ready to lurch the last inch. Upon the discovery of a new legal classification would come the natural step of assuring the inalienable rights guaranteed in the Constitution; huddled masses breathing free, the downtrodden being admitted to the shining city on the hill, etc. A media ready slogan, perhaps "No Taxation Without Representation", and the bandwagon be rollin'. Pointing to the Constitution as being written by and for landowners and men of substance would provide an easy choice for the Originalists. (read: Antonin stare decisis when it suits me Scalia) Boy howdy, that would show them gov'mint elites we mean business. Unlikely: yes, a can of worms that will blow smoke in every direction: fer sure, impossible: no.

Going back to the recent corporation / money / speech decision, I note that one aspect is little remarked upon. The money spent on a candidate is taken from the profit side of the ledger. (Ford vs. Dodge Brothers) This gives the CEO and Board latitude to spend the stock and stake holder's investment dividends on a personal hobbyhorse. A few years back, there was a big brouhaha concerning Union leaders supporting this or that candidate. The manufactured consensus was horror at the thought of the poor working man being relieved of his dues to support someone he might not agree with. Change the scenario to a man in a suit and Granny Tilda's nest egg, and all's fine in the world. (that's not irony, it's chutzpa)

Current law protects the Board and Boss from any number of things, personal responsibility being a major one, answering questions concerning unwelcome results another. In our messy analog world, the best we can hope for is that the question of campaign spending, by a boss who probably has plenty of his own cash, is reflected in the stock's desirability.

What Job

This picture is pretty self-explanatory. "We need to finish the job in Afghanistan." (what job? Bin Laden is long gone.) "Unfortunately, we're a little short of cash for domestic programs." (like jobs, unless, of course, you're a bank.)

Sign of the Times

I just know a political joke is in here somewhere.