Forget you saw the source material
And every last interpretation. Run
And feel your legs cascade in stereo.
Don't just deny, don't write your own version,

Become a free-range martian Buddhist. Walk
And don't look back for salt. Try sriracha
And kimchee. Take the steps that separate,
Don't just oppose. What were you thinking of,

Before you had a better half? Recall
And pull yourself back into focus. Fly
At your own pace. Remember. Wander. Fall
And get back up again. Restring, rewind,

Revive and grow new branches. Something green,
Not just a bitter shadow. Heard, and seen.

Tags: monday fourteen, poetry, sonnets

Extremophile habitats diverge.
I love the steam that rises from your vents
But I'd be crushed by pressure, so I've heard.
I'll swim vicariously. Common sense

Suggests I seek a creature of the air.
Our hearts beat fast. We really get around,
A pretty sight, but very little there.
Our bones are hollow, tail tip to crown,

And we can't take the forces undersea.
We beat on nothing, and the void gives way.
You feed on geothermal energy,
In darkness. Touch is everything. A play

Of permanence and memory. Today
And every day I fly. I fly away.

Tags: monday fourteen, poems, sonnets

Last week I played devil's advocate in two posts about the Supreme Court's recent decision, in which they decided that the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech apply to corporations just as much as people, and effectively struck down all limitations on corporate-funded political advertising.

Various groups are pushing the idea of a constitutional amendment to roll back this decision. I'm for that in principle— I don't want Exxon funding ads against every congressman who dares to impose penalties for oil spills. But I need to know that the amendment in question won't make matters worse by taking away practical means of effective political speech, like the ability of 1,000 people to pool their funds and run a TV ad. Or take away other aspects of corporate quasi-personhood that are essential to the functioning of our economy, like the ability to form contracts, sue for redress of grievances and so on. Or limit freedom of the press, which (if you're going to actually reach a national audience) usually requires something resembling a corporation to carry out in a practical way.

Yesterday I learned of the proposed Free Speech for People Amendment, which reads:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

I think that's brilliantly put, and I'm prepared to enthusiastically support it— but I'd like to hear what the lawyerly types on my friendslist have to say about the language used.

Tags: business, free speech, politics

I know alone. I do alone so well.
A shallow pot of tea, a tiny high.
The hermit crab will grow to fill the shell
The snail can't be arsed to modernize.

Kick out the flotsam, fix the vanity,
Avoid the other creatures in the rocks
And try to keep your tiny sanity.
A pair of ragged claws, a bag of socks

The same shade as the last six hundred pairs.
I armor up in millimeter shoes
And set off for the simulated fair.
But something real happened. Is it true?

What is this vision, scrabbling towards me?
There is another hermit in the sea.

Tags: monday fourteen, poetry, sonnets

Okay, so free speech for corporations in politics is arguably bad (see my previous post and the responses that followed). And the Supreme Court has decided that the First Amendment applies to corporations, so we can't pass laws forbidding corporations from running campaign ads as they see fit.

People want to amend the constitution to address this.

Okay fine. What should that amendment say?

I've heard it suggested that a constitutional amendment should do away with corporate personhood. Okay, but how does the economy function if corporations aren't able to transact business, hold property, seek redress of grievances, etc.? And how do individuals sue corporations if they aren't people in that sense?

This ain't easy. Before I can support a constitutional amendment to address this issue, I need to know what it's going to say and how it's going to impact not just elections but also the economy.

Please note: "let's throw out the whole economy and shut down all the corporations and start over in the year zero, it worked great for Cambodia!" is not an answer I'll be taking seriously.

Tags: politics

I haven't made up my mind about yesterday's surprise Supreme Court decision effectively allowing corporations (nonprofits, for-profits, labor unions, whatever) to spend as much on political advertising as they like.

This is an excellent collection of arguments on both sides.

People For the American Way is calling for a constitutional amendment to limit the role of money in politics. Many other liberal organizations to which I belong are doing the same. I have my doubts about the wisdom of that.

Corporations are ultimately controlled by their shareholders, institutional and individual, whether those stakeholders choose to exercise their power effectively for good corporate governance or not. So in that sense their speech is collective speech on the part of the shareholders.

Corporations that happen to own media outlets could already spend as much as they want making their political positions felt.

"One person one vote, not one dollar one vote" is fine to say, but freedom of the press was never meant as a guarantee that everybody would have an equally effective printing press.

Until yesterday's decision, labor unions were under the same restrictions as Exxon. Did that make sense?

If a rich guy wanted to spend a few million on an issue ad personally, he could legally do it under the old rules. If I wanted to pull together with 999 other people and make that ad happen myself, I'd probably have to form a corporation, so I wouldn't have been able to do it. Did that make sense?

Yes, the thought of Exxon spending billions of profit $$$ to sink every pro-environment congressman in the US worries me, though it might not work out that way if they are required to disclose their identity in the ad. But I don't see a good way to cut that knot without chilling effects elsewhere.

Opinions welcome.

Tags: politics

We make up terra firma of a sort.
The interlocking boards erase the gaps
Between uncertain islands of support.
A hundred timid hands that overlap

Can bear a giant's footfalls. Cowardice
And bad foundations somehow multiplied
Square out to something positive. And this
Is why I take the time to twist and pry,

Cajole and push. The lie becomes the truth.
I tell you there's no understanding it.
Our workmanship was rotten through and through,
But somehow we transcend the laminate

And take the true form of the ancient tree.
Not honest yet, but lord, we aim to be.

Tags: monday fourteen, poetry, sonnets

Google to the Chinese government: tell us how we can operate without censorship in your country, if at all. We recognize this means we may have to shut down google.cn.

Google found extensive evidence of extremely well-organized hacking into the gmail accounts of civil rights activists in China. Meanwhile the Chinese government has piled blame on Google for absurd things like the presence of pornography on the Internet and therefore in search results, while giving domestic search sites a free pass.

Apparently Google has decided the costs— both moral and marketingwise— of going along with censorship in order to do business in China are just too high.

Tags: china, geek, politics, search, web

The hi hat tom tom cymbal floor tom snare
(It's tough to walk a straight line when I'm drunk)
The fender stratocaster fills the air
(Put down the claves put your hands up punk)

At home I only hear the lead guitar.
I listen for timbales. There are none.
I'm jaded with my inner superstar.
While repetition does the trick for some,

It doesn't sing for me. I need the threes
That overlap the fingers of the twos,
Splayed flat against the drum. Variety
Is my employer. Benefits accrue

In inverse ratio to time at post.
I like the songs I've never heard the most.

Tags: monday fourteen, poetry, sonnets

Edit: it has been pointed out to me that the 5th amendment of the constitution is pretty unambiguous about the gubmint's right to seize property as long as they pay an appropriate amount:

"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That's pretty broad.

When the Supreme Court pointed this out, they weren't carving out new powers for government, only clarifying the existence of one that's pretty well spelled out in the constitution. State governments were free to follow that up by passing laws restricting eminent domain to avoid situations like this. And almost all of them have. The current shenanigans in Brooklyn are based on a flimsy pretext of "blight" that might not stand up to examination after all. Fortunately.

Evidently George Will is also in the habit of reprinting long-debunked arguments against global warming, which is disappointing. He used to seem like the kind of Republican I could comfortably share this country with.

* * *

George Will is absolutely right. It happens, once in a while, especially to conservatives who actually believe in defending individual rights and find that more interesting than policing our bedrooms.

$590,000 condos are not "blighted." And Freddy's Bar deserves to live.

The villains here are the assholes who misconstrue eminent domain as an excuse to take middle class homes for the convenience of sports teams. Including, unfortunately, the Supreme Court itself in its 2005 New London decision. I liked the half-serious campaign to take David Souter's house by eminent domain in retaliation then and I still like it now.

Tags: politics