<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Tomorrow, January 20th, citizens are going to occupy federal courthouses across the country to call for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood and the equation of money with speech.<div>There is a map here. <a href="http://movetoamend.org/">http://movetoamend.org/ </a> Several people and groups are involved in calling for the event including Bill McKibben, Occupy Wall Street, and you can find a long list of endorsing organizations on the site.</div><div><br></div><div>Also McKibben wil be in DC on Tuesday at Capitol hill with protestors in referee shirts , blowing the whistle on the system of open bribery that passes for government of the people in the US.</div><div><div><div>On Jan 19, 2012, at 1:57 AM, Michael Bailey wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>David quoted:<br><blockquote type="cite">"Herein lies the paradox of progress. A society cannot reap the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">rewards of creative destruction without accepting that some<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">individuals might be worse off<br></blockquote><br><br>that's just so wrong. "some individuals" sacrificed to a common good<br>is a blurry non-concept...<br>what really happens is that a particular somebody decides to sacrifice<br>a particular somebody<br><br>there is nothing about improving production or business practices that<br>requires harm be done to anyone!<br><br>those are choices people make (and other people choose to enforce,<br>which is also bad) (and still other people, then and later, claim to<br>see as inevitable, which is also bad!)<br><br><br><br>ob quote - from <a href="http://Salon.com">Salon.com</a> description of the Stevens objection to<br>Citizens United:<br><br>While Stevens is reading the portion of his concurrence about the<br>"cautious view of corporate power" held by the framers, I see Justice<br>Thomas chuckle softly. (Scalia takes on this argument in his<br>concurrence.) Stevens hammers, more than once this morning from the<br>bench on the principle that corporations "are not human beings" and<br>"corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no<br>thoughts, no desires." He insists that "they are not themselves<br>members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was<br>established."<br><br>But you can plainly see the weariness in Stevens eyes and hear it in<br>his voice today as he is forced to contend with a legal fiction that<br>has come to life today, a sort of constitutional Frankenstein moment<br>when corporate speech becomes even more compelling than the "voices of<br>the real people" who will be drowned out. Even former Chief Justice<br>William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as<br>the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to<br>confuse metaphor with reality." Today that metaphor won a very real<br>victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real<br>corporations are feeling very, very good.<br><br><br>--- heehee -- corporations don't have feelings, so that even the<br>presumably Stevens-sympathizing Salon writer has internalized the<br>metaphor...<br><br>Corporations don't have feelings!!!!! The people who make the various<br>decisions in different corporations do -- some of them were probably<br>as dismayed as I am...since they will now have to compete against the<br>villainous rats who brought the suit and their ilk, who do feel good<br>about it...for now (wait until they are burning in Hell though...)<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>