|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| 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.
| | |
| Here is my new kitty, Miss Olive Kay. I named her Olive after her bestest doggy friend Oliver, and her middle name Kay has been a source of some controversy. I maintain that the cat's fur shades of black and grey (with some tan around the ears, belly, and face.) When you set an X-ray machine, you turn up the kVp setting to get more shades of grey; they teach us the mnemonic "K's equal greys." Her foster mommy Lisa says she's not grey at all, but rather brown; in that case my name is silly. In any case, I think the whole name has a nice ring to it. Anyway, here she is:
Livy likes her sister, even though she plays rough.
Three of the kitties like the laser pointer. (Kate prefers her catnip.)
(video coming soon)
The dogs also enjoy the mysterious light.
(video coming soon).
(Pretty soon Olive will be leaving her three kitty and two doggy friends, and will be making friends instead with Jack the kitty, Rosie the cat, and Shelby the wire-haired mutt.
| | |
| So my first project for the summer is complete. At least three people have told me, in one way or another, that the more time you put into a project for a cat, the less the cat will like it. If that's true, Miss Olive Kay will have to sleep in a different room from my cat tree, because I spent at least 30 hours on this. Granted, a lot of that was obsessing over minor details-- Should I put one long shelf across the bottom, or two smaller ones? How high off the ground? Which orientation?-- but a lot of it was also spent screwing, sanding, nailing, sewing (yes, sewing!), and staple-gunning.
I give you-- Cat Tree!
Yes, that is a kitty hammock.
And underneath there is a hook for hanging cat toys. (There is a hole to tie them down.)
A view from the back shows the most labor-intensive piece, a tomato-cage bed. I cut a tomato cage in half, sewed carpet backing tightly over it, used wire-ties to attach carpet over that, and then nailed the tomato cage to little blocks; afterwards, I covered some of the ugly outside part with another layer of carpet that I sewed to the first part. Ever tried pushing a needle through two layers of carpet plus the backing? My fingers are still sore. But I'm happy with the outcome!
I'll be sure to put up pictures of the cat actually using it. I swear I will put a leash on you, Olive, and tie you to this thing if you won't go in it on your own!
| | |
| Here's the new addition to the cage, which is what I spent Grandma's birthday money on. I improved the connection between the cages with a T-piece, allowing me to uncover the hole in the smaller cage and put the blue elbow back in place instead. Good thing, because I had to plug a new hole with that Altoids container (small, metal so he can't chew through.) I also added a viewing tower w/ circle run (plus a new toilet paper roll, which started in the front but was dragged to the back because apparently my furniture plans do not suit Sir Squeakypants at all.)
| | |
|
