I spent some time reading the AL Senate’s prefiled bills tonight.
After wading through the 10% devoted solely to subjugating every uterus in Alabama, (do these people EVER think about anything else?!) I followed up with an incomprehensible screed about Landscaping Licensure. It was impossible not to wonder if the indignant Legislator had at least a brother-in-law level of personal interest..

Gerald Dial, or is it Reverend Dial (?) wants money for schools – specifically, money to put the Ten Commandments there, and everywhere the State (that’s you and me) owns property. The Rev. is devoting the remainder of his legislative salvo to enhanced arson penalties – but only if the afflicted building is a church.

Sen. Bussman demands the Health Dept. list (kerchoo!) ephedrine as a Controlled Substance. Keahy is after synthetic marijuana and bingo machines. Is it Father Keahy? Go stand over there with the Rev. Dial.

Brewbaker (R-WithYourMoney) wants to enact an unfunded mandate for welfare-related drug testing. Guess he spent his summer vacation in Florida instead of in Mississippi with Williams, Allen, Scofield and other members of the Really, Really Bad Law Fan Club.

Holley’s mother-in-law volunteers for United Way I guess, because they are going to be in the VIP line for State funded health benefits. How nice for them.

I think Sanford has spent too much time on the Ron Paul website. He has a bill prepared to make gold and silver coins legal tender in Alabama.

I am full of awe and wonder.

I have written an Alabama Bill of my own. It’s below the fold. God told me to do it.

A Bill to be Entitled An Act

That, from this day forward ALL legislation affecting or concerning my State shall be filed no later than one year in advance of its first reading, so as to allow the citizenry to fully digest and comprehend the efforts of their Legislative Employees.

Having had sufficient notice, the People shall then decide for themselves which pieces of Legislation, if any, are worthy of continued expenditure of tax money, State time, Legal Defense and newspaper space. Any Bill deemed frivolous by a two thirds majority vote on Facebook shall be discarded before the Legislative session begins, never to reappear under penalty of death to the offending Legislator.

Alabama Legislators shall take an oath which precludes introducing laws in direct contravention of either the US Constitution or the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. This is, after all, Alabama. We cite our high school dropout rate and refrain from issuing opinions on National Policy.

Legislators who contribute passable ideas will be allowed to remain in Montgomery to defend their bills. The rest shall return home, having been reimbursed for mileage plus the Federal per diem.

Any Legislator NOT producing a new law shall remain in Montgomery to vote on the new bills.

Any Legislator who succeeds in repealing old, stupid laws rather than writing new ones shall receive a bonus equal to the forfeited salary of Legislators who were dismissed on their lack of merit.

First Read on my dining room floor Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011 at 1:23 a.m.

Julie S. , one of the 99% in OccupyBirmingham

One of the reasons I think Stephen Colbert is so brilliant is because he (and his writing staff to be sure) has an incredible way of repackaging conservative talking points in such a way as to rip the cover off to show how ugly their intent is underneath. Now he’s done the same thing to our political process, and in that process has put into words a profound concept that’s at the root of some American’s willful ignorance regarding not just the way, but the reason corporate interests use their money and influence to strip our democracy bare.

In this episode Colbert uses one of the ultimate spin-meisters in American politics today, Frank Luntz, to show the methodology behind taking reprehensible ideas that are against the best interest of the vast majority of Americans, and making Americans want to vote for it. Early on, as Luntz asks a focus group about the idea that “Corporations Are People”, and then got a nasty earful about the utter corruption that corporations represent in a lot of people’s minds.  But eventually, he whittled away at the negative to expose whatever guise he could still sell the concept with.

Luntz gave a report on what he came up with, and I’m not sure if Colbert recognized how profound the last idea was, but I couldn’t miss it. It’s not Corporations are people…. it’s “People Are Corporations”.

Think about that for a second. People…. are Corporations. I guess people would try to explore that idea further by asking “What is a corporation?” Thing is, that’s the wrong question. The real question is “What is the Purpose of a corporation?” The idea that those same people who basically told Luntz earlier that corporations were corrupt and greedy told him you could still sell the idea of protecting the interests of corporations to the American people, not by saying that Corporations Are People, but that People are the same as Corporations.

No matter the answer we as people come up with, we all know that at some point we’ve dedicated some time in our lives to trying to find a purpose behind it. So, if we’re corporations, the question is what is the purpose of our Corporate Lives?

Well, Corporations exist for one reason, but only have one “Purpose”. They exist in order to shield members from liability, but their Purpose is only one thing… Make money.  That’s it. That is their legal obligation, to make as much money as possible, always. And again, if “People Are Corporations” that’s the purpose of your life. A single minded devotion to you and what benefits you, regardless of the consequences.

Why put rules and constraints on corporations? You’re a corporation, remember? One day, if you work really hard… it’ll be your turn. And then won’t you feel dumb if you put in place all these silly rules you now have to play by?

More than that, their seeming acceptance of this obvious repackaging of the old “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality of just plowing ahead and everything will work out may have been even more chillingly effective because of the way people like to see themselves. They see themselves as “Good” people.

When you ask most people about themselves they’ll usually admit they have plenty of flaws, but believe they are “A good person”. If most people are “good” and people are corporations doesn’t that mean that most corporations are mostly good? Now if you’re like me you can probably come up with 20 examples off the top of your head about how Corporations are not good. Not just not good, but down right Immoral.

And there’s the trap.

When you have so many that so obviously follow the logic that the purpose (or at least a major one) of life is to get all you can for you and yours, and you call that immoral, you may automatically run into people’s defenses because they’re “Good people”. That desire is natural. People are Corporations. Commie.

That’s why I think the argument has to change to stop trying to paint Corporations as Immoral, an idea that automatically puts people in this country on the defensive, and start calling them something that should be a helluva lot more scary. Corporations aren’t immoral, they are AMORAL.

Now’s a good time for a definition. What is Amoral?

Amoral- adjective

1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2. having NO MORAL STANDARDS, RESTRAINTS, OR PRINCIPLES; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

It is not that they are Immoral, it is that questions of morality DO NOT CONCERN THEM. It is literally not part of their purpose to worry about such things. Again, their purpose is to make money. Always.  There are no Standards for, Restraints on or Principles regarding how they do that. Not unless we as citizens/human beings require them to adhere to standards, place restraints and adopt principles. (Aka, Regulations). We as human beings have our own basic, universal social mores. They don’t.

But the argument should be even more compelling. Just take the logic out to it’s final degree, something Colbert is brilliant at… Imagine it. A nation of people who do not concern themselves with standards or principles and do not feel the need to restrain themselves in the way they get whatever it is they’re after. In other words… imagine a nation full of sociopaths.

Oh, too harsh?

Sociopath-  noun Psychiatry

a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

We as people tend to instinctively have a very general sense of moral responsibility and social conscience. I mean pretty much everywhere we pass laws about how you can’t kill, maim, murder, rape, etc., etc. each other. Why? In addition to the basic idea that human life is worth something there also is a general fear of repercussion. A base level instinct that says if you’re free to do that to anyone else then someone else is free to do it to you. That’s why we kinda agree on the whole, you’re not allowed to crush others to get something from them, whatever that might be.

I wonder how little most human beings would trust some dude arguing for the right for people to kill, maim, murder, rape, etc., etc. others to get what he wants? Who thinks, yeah, I like that guy? He seems highly intelligent and altogether stable.

My guess? Not many.

Now, ask people if they think it would be a better country if we just decided to give every individual free reign to do whatever they want to pursue whatever purpose it is they have to make money. Ask them if they see potential for danger there. Then ask them why they feel any safer with legally empowered, wholly made up “people” in their society doing the same thing.

You do understand that when you hear corporations, generally through their privately owned political puppets, argue against having to obey regulations… they are essentially arguing I want free reign to do whatever I see fit to get what I want.

Oh, fun fact… you know what another word for Regulation is in the thesaurus? RULE. Regulation is another word for Rule. Look it up.

So, back to my point… If most people don’t trust each other to roll like that… don’t trust another actual   human being to roll like that, would they really trust a “Person” that never passed through a womb, grew up with and learned to live with other human beings, but simply exists because a piece of paper says so?

My guess? I doubt it.

I’m not sure how many images of houses with white picket fences, steaming hot apple pies and cute puppies, playing with even cuter babies, it took flashing into our brains nonstop, via whatever media device we spend way too much time in front of to dumb us down to the point that we actually started to believe that nonsense about corporations caring about us, but we’d better snap out of it. Quick.

Perhaps it’s a sad commentary, but I base the validity of this strategy on a study I just saw recently that indicated there is very little trust amongst socioeconomic groups in societies where there is high income and wealth inequality. Since America has that in spades now I’m guessing the thought of every individual having the right to do what corporations do… the thought that “People Are Corporations” should be just creepy enough to provide the proper Snap into reality.