Stuff to Read

I’m way too depressed about what appears to be the utter collapse of the Democratic Party in the face of one bleeping election loss to blog about anything. Here’s some other stuff you can read:

Karen Tumulty, “Why Incremental Health Care Reform Won’t Work

Paul Krugman, “Do the Right Thing

Ezra Klein‘s last several posts.

Dahlia Lithwick, “Watching as the Supreme Court turns a corporation into a real live boy

21 thoughts on “Stuff to Read

  1. So, can Goldman Sachs run for President in 2012 on the Vampire Squid ticket? Can we indict, try, and imprison ‘him’ if convinced of financial crime? Can this be real?

    This will go down in history as the 21st century Dredd Scott decision.

  2. I’m going to need some new clothes.

    Just what DO serfs wear?

    In case you weren’t depressed enough, just imagine how successful efforts to stop global climate change will be now that Exxon/Mobil can spend $45 BILLION dollars on its “free speech”.

    It’s not just the end of our democracy, it’s the end of the planet. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted, I guess.

  3. If it’s any consolation, I’m depressed too. The Supreme Court decision struck me in the same physical way as any number of actions (notably our invasion of Iraq) struck me during the last decade – a sickening blow to my physical/emotional body. I thought the last decade was over…

  4. This is a time to increase our commitment to progressive causes. Yes the game is more rigged than ever. And we have to use what power we have to move it back. General strikes?

    Reading Greg Palast’s polemic on the SCOTUS decision… what does out military think about this threat to US sovereignty?

  5. OK, I stole this joke, but does this mean I can now marry the M&M Mars Corporation? Cause we’ve been together so long, it might as well make an honest woman out of me.

  6. This will go down in history as the 21st century Dredd Scott decision.

    On the serious side, I was thinking exactly the same thing. “Appalled” or “outraged” doesn’t even begin to describe how I feel.

  7. Bonnie,

    Any one of ’em will do.


    I’ve been depressed for at least a week ever since it became obvious Coakley was not going to win.

  8. Well, I wasn’t exactly expecting much out of the new decade anyway. The date might have changed, but I don’t see any other changes…

  9. Ditto to all the above.

    Corporations, by accepted (and legal) definition are legal fictions. They’re nothing but bundles of contractual agreements. Could it be then that you and I are legal fictions, bundles of contractual agreements? I mean if ‘a’ equals ‘b’ and ‘b’ equals ‘c’, doesn’t ‘a’ equal ‘c’.

  10. All we can do is support:
    1. Single payer health care financing option for the states, one at a time. Maybe the federal gov. isn’t capable of anything but war.
    2. Free press!!
    3. Publicly funded elections. (ignore what I said about federal gov. in #1. We are indeed lost if government isn’t capable).

  11. Even the head-n-pant soft Jonah Goldberg made the claim that corporate and government collusion could be evil. This seems like a prime opportunity to hold a mirror to the rubes. And shine a spotlight on what their “regular Joe” leadership is really all about.

  12. Following up on Felicity:

    major premise: Corporations are the same as all people
    minor premise: Corporations are legal fictions
    therefore: All people are legal fictions.

    major premise: Legal fictions consist solely of contractual agreements.
    minor premise: People are legal fictions.
    Therefore: People consist solely of contractual agreements.

    major premise: Contractual agreements are documents.
    minor premise: People are contractual agreements.
    therefore:People are documents.

    Damn, SCOTUS decided we’re just a piece of paper in a filing cabinet. I hate it when that happens.

  13. muldoon,
    What they decided is that we’re going into the shredder, not any filing cabinet…

    In reality though, did anyone NOT see this coming? I know I’ve written about this coming up for awhile. I remember others doing the same.
    Outside of, as I mentioned in a prior post, a Consitutional Amendment that declares the “Corporations have NO rights as citizens”, and that paid speach is NOT free speach, the only hope I see is if the realization that some, any, or all, “SOCIALIST” and “COMMUNIST” countries corporations will now be allowed to advertise and elect whomever they want to our Congress and POTUS. Maybe THAT’S the point we ought to be hammering. Nothing in this country scares the morans more than some form of what they deem to be “Socialist,” or “Communist.”
    Hmmm. how would they feel if they saw an ad that said, “We’re China, you owe us half of your annual economy, Occidental MFer’s. If you don’t want dog food to be a luxury item only to be eaten once a month when we ask you to repay the debt, vote for candidate “X” for POTUS.
    And, maybe we should mention that this decision has brought, ‘soon to be seen at a theatre near you,’ what the tea-bagegers feared most from Obama – Fascism.
    You think Rush, Glenn, Sean or Bill ‘O will maybe mention this? Hell no! You think that they would want to ‘advertise’ our growing Fascism? And it’s coming from the same corporations that fund the tea-bagger’s? Certainly not without being paid… And no corporation can afford the money it would take to make these lying blow-hards have a moment of truth, even for one second.
    Why ever tell any truth? Let lying dogs sleep…

    *Yeah, I know this was a bit disjointed. But WTF, I’m PISSED, DEPRESSED, and soon to be drunk. It’s the was this Ukrainian/Russian handles disaster.

  14. Okay, maybe this is way too bad a time to bring this up, but has anybody considered that maybe the Supreme Court might be saying that:


    wmd commenting above makes a lot of sense to me as does a commenter named Dave Johnson:

    I don’t believe the SCOTUS is saying you can’t regulate corporate campaign financing; it’s saying you have to regulate it the right way, where it’s actually effective.

  15. Joaneric – This was a 4-3 decision, where the conservative justices wanted to side with corporations. There was no ‘message’ intended about reforming the process. But I hope that you are right about the EFFECT.

    This is one issue that Democrats could line up behind in Congress if they want to save their job – write something truly progresive – and if the GOP fought it, we would sweep the GOP in the 2010 election.

    For those who argue that it doesn’t matter who is in the White House, consider that the POTUS makes the SC nominations. If the president can replace even ONE conservative, the change will have an effect for decades!

    THe law that was struck down was a mish-mash of compromise regulation – hopefully something will emerge that’s more clear and streamlined. This is what the POTUS called for after the decision.

  16. In light of the recent blatant case of judicial activism by the Robert’s court, I can’t wait for someone, Boehner’s a shoe-in for this one, to accuse democratic leaning members of the judiciary of practicing judicial activism.

    Funny thing, conservatism preaches the merits of an invisible federal goverrnment with very little power AND since it is against numan nature that those in government would or could ever abide by this precept, they naturally won’t and can’t and don’t.

    (muldoon, a fellow philosophy major/minor?)

Comments are closed.