|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I'm gonna start posting again. Here's what happened: what started as a public journal turned into my attempts to be clever and entertaining, and I generally tried to avoid boring posts about what I ate for breakfast. I always failed, of course, and it was never interesting, but the point is that whole idea was silly. Now I have other avenues for quips and interactions, and I think it's time to stop worrying about what other people might think and turn this back into a journal.
OKAY thoughts:
That game was awesome. And I watched it with awesome people :) And the Colts are cursed to forever lose when they don't play to win, that's what I think. They've been to four Super Bowls now and only won one of them-- the year they were forced to play the last few games to win. I don't know that its actually an influence, this is statistically meaningless, but that doesn't change my feeling that they got exactly what they deserved. I don't hate on Manning or the players, but an organization that does not play ever game to win does not deserve a championship, it's as simple as that.
That is Mike Ditka's opinion, and that is why he picked the Saints. And Mike Ditka is always right.
Okay, on the school front, upcoming week: Exams Monday, Wednesday, and two on Friday, plus surgery on Monday. This is gonna be crazy folks.
After the Who at halftime followed by some Reddit discussions (http://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/az9hh/the_who_have_become_what_a_1968_pete_townsend/) I watched some old Who ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE&NR=1). I get so sad when great things grow old. It's the wrong attitude to have, I know, and I don't even think the Who themselves are sad about it-- I mean, they were up on stage living it up today, laughing and playing, reliving the glory days. They know they're old, they aren't trying to sound like they used to, they're just playing to fans who still love them. And yet, watching those old videos of these teenage guys/young men cranking on their instruments and shouting with those amazing voices, all that energy, and the full band before they lost two of their founding members... it just seems so sad that that has to end. I want to go see it myself. I want to be a part of that, you know? I want to pick up an instrument and create this magic... but even if I could be a huge star, it wouldn't be the same because that entire TIME is gone. Those were magical times for music, when rock was new and raw. They were the FIRST to smash up their instruments on stage, and they did it not for acclaim, but because Townsend was getting laughed at after accidentally damaging it on part of the stage. He smashed the crap out of it and played on another.
But read the Wiki on them, it'll just choke you up. They got big on pirate radio broadcasts, their third album is "The Who Sells Out," they played at Woodstock... this was just a magical time. I wish I could be part of something like that, something crazy and moving, something that you follow because you desire it and not because it's a smart thing to do.
It's so pathetic, but at times like this I imagine these subsitutes that have nothing to do with what I'm trying to capture-- I start thinking how it would be fun to cover the Who with some friends and play for the school or something.
But it would be fun. I really want to be part of a rock band, that would just be amazing. Not a famous one, but one that gets on a stage somewhere. It would be so awesome to just let yourself go with the music, jump around, wham a chord and hold your hand up, listening to it and watching its effect on the audience...
Okay time to learn about skin diseases of cats and dogs. | | |
| Looking through this blog, I realized I would be an excellent politician. Why? Because I have made about 400 promises and not kept a single one. I would love to post all of these pictures and videos and links I've promised and not delivered on, but I'm too busy reading my own stupid blog and studying. :(
Okay. I'm going to read for 9 more minutes, and then study at 7pm.
Oops. That post was menial and boring. | | |
| I've decided to try taking a picture each day, and posting them when I get a chance. Here are the first two:
Olive really wanted some lemonade, but her head is too fat. Maybe she can wick some up with her whiskers.
And one for the department of redundancy department.
Also: I had an awesome time this weekend at the Solstice Performance Party Extravaganza-- a bunch of friends met at a ranch in Sonoma (amazing scenery!) for no good reason, for musical performances (both composed and impromptu), sketches, powerpoint presentations, dancing, and running in a giant human hamster wheel (pics if I can get them up). It was absolutely fantastic. I volunteered to be in a skit, and it was received quite favorably. There is more information that is better off not being shared in a public, permanent forum, so just ask me about my weekend! I mostly wrote this blurb for myself, to jog my memory later. | | |
| Corporations are currently prohibited from donating money to political campaigns. This extends to creating and distributing purely political products, and taking part in elections in similar ways. Some people are opposed to this, as it “takes away peoples’ freedoms.” I’ve never understood how that can be, since everyone within the company can still say whatever they want; my opinion, however, is not important here.
As you probably know, however, corporations legally speaking have the status of “persons.” They are *legal* persons and not natural persons, and as such there are debates about how many of the rights of natural persons a legal person should have. There is a case headed to the Supreme Court that challenges the prohibition mentioned earlier. There is legal precedent that monetary donations to a political campaign are considered “free speech” and are therefore protected by the first amendment. Therefore, they say, corporations (since they are people and entitled to the protections of the bill of rights) should not be prohibited from donating money. From what I’ve read, it’s likely that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of allowing corporations to donate money.
An interesting twist on this situation is that currently, individuals have a cap on how much money they can donate to a political party or candidate (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml). Presumably, those limits would apply to corporations as well. However, if money is considered “free speech,” how can you limit it? You can’t allow some level of free speech and then say “that’s enough.” Soon there will be millions of well-funded lawyers challenging this limit. Unless the idea of corporate personhood is overturned, it seems certain that before long, corporations will be able to donate unlimited money to political candidates and parties.
Okay, so all of that is what it is. I know I’m a pinko communist liberal for even questioning whether corporate political donations are a bad thing. (I’m of the opinion that in a capitalist system, the only way to protect the rights of individuals is for big corporations to protect them or for big government to protect them; I don’t like either, but I think big gov’t is going to do a better job than big corporations. The most important thing, though, is I like to maintain the illusion that there is a difference between government and corporations.)
So I’ve been dealing with all of this; whatever. But I was listening to talk radio today, and I heard an interesting discussion that seems to die in with the above. The guest was talking about the importance of oil independence. I have not double-checked these statistics, as I certainly would if I were publishing this article for a reputable outlet, so take them with a grain of salt. She said that at the peak of oil prices, when they were exceeding $120/barrel, the annual profits of OPEC were (some amount, I’ve forgotten now and can’t find the statistic online.) She also stated that that same year, the total profits of all of the Fortune 500 companies was $18 trillion. The specific numbers don’t matter, as long as the following is accurate—for illustrative purposes, she stated that OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, could purchase majority shareholder stock in all of the fortune 500 companies.
If corporate personhood is preserved, financial contributions continue to be recognized as free speech, and free speech cannot be limited, the only thing standing between foreign individuals, companies, or countries from literally choosing the heads of our state for us is the fact that the financial strength of a campaign doesn't *actually* determine the winner of the election. However, it's naive to think that it's not one of the largest factors, and the less educated we become, the more influence those dollars have.
I don’t say this just to be a doomsayer, I say this because I am strongly opposed to both the idea of corporate personhood. I also don’t think money should be considered free speech, although I haven’t read much about that and could certainly be persuaded either way. Hopefully if more people think about the fact that corporations are *not* individuals, and that their ideas and opinions can be bought by anyone in any nation, both conservatives *and* liberals can come together to oppose permitting corporate donations to financial campaigns.
| | |
|
