Capital Murder
I got picked to go to Washington, DC.
I went with a bunch of other teachers from around the country to learn about the Supreme Court. This was supposed to make us better history teachers. We were going to get to be where judicial history was and is made. We were going to get to touch it. I didn’t want it to touch me back. I’m usually not a tactile learner.
// //
So, I didn’t go red on March 27th.
If you’re like me and sometimes don’t pay attention, you may have missed the Human Rights Campaign’s new initiative. As the Supreme Court began its deliberations over gay marriage, supporters were asked to wear red. Somehow, I missed this. However, I was delighted to find a sea of red equality signs replacing Facebook avatars everywhere. I have a large Facebook network but have selected each individual carefully, and it is a diverse crowd: both gay and straight, ages ranging from early twenties to late sixties, varying religious affiliations and marriage statuses, many with young children. I’m proud to say that the vast majority of them uploaded the equality symbol and those who didn’t still posted about their support. And I am grateful to every one of them.
Grading the last seven days in End Times culture…
Unclear about all of this? Over at the Washington Post, Ezra Klein cuts through the static and offers up a comprehensive breakdown of this week’s Supreme Court review of the Affordable Care Act.
Health reform opponents contend that the decision not to do something — namely, not buy health insurance — is economic inactivity, rather than activity, and therefore not a behavior the federal government can regulate. Health reform supporters argue that the decision to not purchase health insurance has an economic effect. An individual without coverage, for example, may not have the money to pay for an emergency room visit, sticking hospitals or taxpayers with the bill.
Every day I wake up and thank the Lord that cocksucking is not strictly a homosexual phenomenon.
My first exposure to the joys of fellatio were, typically, in print form—via a late-’60s totem called The Sensuous Woman, by a woman so mysterious that she went only by the first initial “J.”
It would have to have been about 1976 when I first encountered this mind-blowing Baedeker. My pal Eric had somehow secured a copy of this licentious wonder, though I’m pretty sure he boosted it from his folks. They probably did it all the time.
Upon reading about the Supreme Court’s decision to reject a corporate spending limit for political advertising, I couldn’t help but think about the movie The Corporation.
The Corporation is an editorializing documentary whose premise is that the modern corporation—given many of the same rights in the U.S. as an individual citizen—has the textbook behavioral markers of Antisocial Personality Disorder.
In other words, if the corporation is an individual under the law, it is, from a psychological perspective, a sociopath.
Manipulative? Check.
Pathological liar? Check.
Remorseless? Yup.
So!
What kinds of politicians do you think a sociopath will support with its near-unlimited advertising budget? I’m gonna hafta say not the same ones I think would be good for, oh, the sustainability of life on earth.
I don’t mean to drive this blog into the Bog of Eternal Stench (politics), but does it feel to anyone else like we’re witnessing (well, some of us are waging, I suppose, but I feel more like a witness) a kind of epic battle to determine the very narrative of what it means to be America these days?
>