There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around about this ruling, and I would like to clear this up.
It seems that this ruling is limited to political advertising in support or against a particular candidate for public office. It does not allow direct cash contributions to campaigns. Direct campaign contributions are in the works though.
Repugnicans are spinning this as a constitutional fight, one that they won. They are saying this is reinstating the free speech of corporations.
I have a question for these gluttonous capitalists: Where in the constitution does it say anything about the rights of corporations? The answer: It doesn't! Just as a hateful bastard once told me that I have have no "right to marry" that is in the constitution, the constitution also doesn't enumerate any rights to corporations.
There certainly should be a place for business at the table (government), but the government was founded as "we the people", not "we the corporations", and certainly not "we the corporate interest groups". It seems to me that big business is trying to take over the government by placing their own allies in office.
Good bye Democracy. You had a nice run.
Good bye two-party system.
Hello Gluttonous Capitalism, our new lord and master.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Fighter Jet Escort for an Unruly Passenger
Fighter Jet Escort for an Unruly Passenger
This seems extreme. I can understand the need for an "abundance of caution", but this is ridiculous.
Think about it this way: If you are planning to take down or hijack a plane, why would you immediately draw attention to yourself when you board?
The answer: You wouldn't. You would seek to draw as little attention to yourself as possible.
However, if a scenario like this unfolded it would likely distract the flight crew from noticing while you construct your bomb in your (laugh) underwear. It might give you the opportunity to quietly coordinate with co-conspirators in your devious plot.
Let's also be realistic about the fighter jets. They were likely the result of an Obama Administration policy that went into effect right after the "events on Christmas". That shows that Obama is willing to change when he realizes he made a mistake. If I were in Obama's shoes, I would probably have given a similar order. However, I would probably also quietly ask the prosecutor to not seek a harsh punishment for this man's foolishness. I would probably ask for a stiff fine (say, $5,000), but not 20 years in prison.
This seems extreme. I can understand the need for an "abundance of caution", but this is ridiculous.
Think about it this way: If you are planning to take down or hijack a plane, why would you immediately draw attention to yourself when you board?
The answer: You wouldn't. You would seek to draw as little attention to yourself as possible.
However, if a scenario like this unfolded it would likely distract the flight crew from noticing while you construct your bomb in your (laugh) underwear. It might give you the opportunity to quietly coordinate with co-conspirators in your devious plot.
Let's also be realistic about the fighter jets. They were likely the result of an Obama Administration policy that went into effect right after the "events on Christmas". That shows that Obama is willing to change when he realizes he made a mistake. If I were in Obama's shoes, I would probably have given a similar order. However, I would probably also quietly ask the prosecutor to not seek a harsh punishment for this man's foolishness. I would probably ask for a stiff fine (say, $5,000), but not 20 years in prison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)