This galls me. I had an image of gleeful hogs squealing as they ran to the trough.

I'm hoping Grover Norquist gets so excited that whatever organ of his simulates a heart explodes into tiny fragments.

I'd like to make (or clarify) a business rule: No Bellies. I shouldn't have to see a co-worker's stomach. Your outfit shouldn't show it, and you shouldn't raise your shirt to scratch your skin. It ain't right.

I was definitely clinically depressed at 10, though I don't think I really had a grasp on the concept of suicide at that point, or how one might practically do it.

Dear therapist: the metaphor about the shit sandwich and did I want mustard was NOT REALLY HELPFUL, thx.

You know, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems SO CLEAR that corporations don't get the same rights that individual citizens get. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE.

And didn't the movie "The Corporation" teach us that if they were people they'd be sociopaths?

Exactly, DJ.

You know, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems SO CLEAR that corporations don't get the same rights that individual citizens get. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE.

Right? In Not!Crazy land Judge Hecubot bangs the gavel and says, "Okay, let's clear up two things. Corporations are not people, so they shouldn't be treated as individuals with individual rights. That one's pretty obvious, I think. Second, when you equate the ability to pay for something with free expression, you basically limit expression to the people who can pay the most for it. That's stupid and obviously inimical to the public good. Sheesh, who thought up that one? Both of those stupid ideas are retired."

Yeah, it's a nightmare. And I can't believe it's real. My brain refuses to acknowledge it, too, and has put in The Onion land even though I tell it otherwise.

Knowing the interest in the Supremes' decision on corporate political contributions, and the adoration of Alan Grayson among certain sectors of the Buffistas:

Rep. Grayson has introduced a bill that would require a majority shareholder vote before a corporation may make political contributions unrelated to the goods or services that the corporation provides.

I haven't read the bill, but info about it (and anything else Congress is doing) can be found through here.

From a Facebook thread:

When it costs more to speak than most people can afford, banding together into corporate entities is the only way free speech can exist for anyone except billionaires. The Supreme Court ruling applies to unions and political groups (which were also restricted under the law), not just businesses. While some would like to let the first two speak but not the third, that's a legal distinction impossible to make without all sorts of complications and loopholes. (It's easy to *say* "exclude for-profit businesses," it's harder to do without unintended consequences. In hearings on the case, an FEC official openly said the law would ban publishers from publishing political books.)

And this:

Rights are not granted, they are recognized. Should corporations be denied the right to freedom of the press, too?

I hadn't seen anyone actually defending the decision, so I was wondering whether any of the arguments had merit.

Rights are not granted, they are recognized.

Human rights are not granted, they are recognized. Corporations aren't human.