Good point, jwray, but I'm going to take a few days before admitting that Clarence Thomas could be right about anything.

His suggestion is akin to recommending a bandaid to seal a mortal wound.

I think the whole point regarding donation transparency was to keep Mr. Moneybags from flooding the campaign and then claiming that his millions represented a populist point of view.

Sort of like Fox News is doing as I type....

Corporations already do it through groups funded by soft money and front companies. This changes nothing except the accounting.

The main problem in campaign finance law is that individual people cannot donate anonymously:
* This makes it easy for soft-money givers to verify that their subordinates have donated the amount of money that they were instructed to donate.
* This makes it easy for corporations to look up your donations and discriminate about whether or not to hire you (of course that's illegal, but it's also impossible to catch them doing it).
* This makes it easy for quid-pro-quo transactions to take place, because the politican can verify how much money a lobbyist gave him.

The money should be delivered in a lump sum at the end of each month, without an account of the exact amount or timing of the transactions, so that anonymity cannot be attacked via the exact timing or exact amount of a transaction.

I never thought I'd say this, but Clarence Thomas is right.

Politicians are prostitutes already, but people are still in the loop as voters. The prostitutes only get elected in proportion to the people's lack of the intelligence to resist shallow propaganda. If people are always going to vote according to whoever spends the most on shallow propaganda, no amount of changes to accounting will save us.

Welcome to Rhyleh! I'm Clarence, your unspeakable tour guide!

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^chilaxe: Statistically speaking
If you are going to speak statistically, show us the numbers. I would honestly like to see them, but I doubt they exist.

Yes, there probably aren't any statistics available, but media coverage generally regards Rand's followers as skewing toward self-reliant, libertarian types who emphasize performance.* It would be surprising if an ideology that glorifies self-reliance wasn't associated with increased self-reliant attitudes.

I think it's generally most rewarding for people to read everything, with the goal of being 'informationally a mile wide,' but those who are disinclined are free to reject the lessons in objectivist themes. IMHO, that just means more advantages available for those who draw from a broader sample of the marketplace of ideas, and that's really how the system is supposed to work. So rail against objectivism to your heart's content


*

Many business leaders say Atlas Shrugged influenced their lives more than anything else they have read. Joe Stafford, the 40-year-old CEO of supply chain management company IC Solutions, said he was a liberal before reading Rand at 23. Chip Joyce, the 31-year-old president of Ulla Bazant, a maker of high-end women's apparel, says the book has been his "frame of reference." http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-09-23-ayn-rand_x.htm

Hugh Hefner and Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas found Rand fascinating. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey both cite Rand’s books as influential, though Mackey has said he doesn’t believe businesses exist solely to make a profit and selfishness is a virtue. In Silicon Valley, Rand’s ideas appeal to generations of entrepreneurs who built the computer industry and the Internet. T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, is a notorious Rand fan; Patrick W. Grady named his company Rearden Commerce after the steel magnate Hank Rearden from Atlas. http://www.bnet.com/2403-13056_23-272467.html

Excerpt of Bryan's never-delivered closing argument...

Outmaneuvered by Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan never got to deliver his closing argument in the Scopes trial. But soon after the trial -- and Bryan's subsequent death -- the entire text of Bryan's 15,000-word argument was published as Bryan's last speech. Here are a few excerpts:

Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm tossed human vessel. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass and thus endangers its cargo. In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made war more terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plane -- the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times a bloody as it was before; but science does not teach brotherly love. Science has made war so hellish that civilization was about to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction will make the cruelties of the late war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that may come in the future. If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene....

It is for the jury to determine whether this attack upon the Christian religion shall be permitted in the public schools of Tennessee by teachers employed by the state and paid out of the public treasury. This case is no longer local, the defendant ceases to play an important part. The case has assumed the proportions of a battle-royal between unbelief that attempts to speak through so-called science and the defenders of the Christian faith, speaking through the legislators of Tennessee. It is again a choice between God and Baal; it is also a renewal of the issue in Pilate's court....

...Your answer will be heard throughout the world; it is eagerly awaited by a praying multitude. If the law is nullified, there will be rejoicing wherever God is repudiated, the savior scoffed at and the Bible ridiculed. Every unbeliever of every kind and degree will be happy. If, on the other hand, the law is upheld and the religion of the school children protected, millions of Christians will call you blessed and, with hearts full of gratitude to God, will sing again that grand old song of triumph: "Faith of our fathers, living still, In spite of dungeon, fire and sword; O how our hearts beat high with joy, Whene'er we hear that glorious word -- Faith of our fathers -- Holy faith; We will be true to thee till death!

Excerpts from Bryan, William Jennings. Bryan's Last Speech: Undelivered Speech to the Jury in the Scopes Trial. Oklahoma City: Sunlight Publishing Society, 1925.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I generally don't have a problem with eminent domain when it's used wisely, but that Kelo decision of 2005 was complete and utter bullshit. We give our government certain powers, and when they abuse them like they clearly did in Kelo it makes me feel like taking that power away completely. Admittedly, knee-jerk reactions aren't the wisest way to solve problems, but it just pisses me off.


Interesting article, I hadn't heard of that before. Interesting that Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, didn't think he would take that side.

Ugh. Cut it down to three minutes, and I might vote for it.

Anything with Clarence Boddiker is almost an instant vote, this is just too tedious though.

If you want to see despicable, unapologetic racism, sexism and ageism, look no further than the Donkey Party and their media lackeys. Observe the way they've treated Powell, Palin, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, Condi, Bush's wife and daughters and now McCain.

Anyone outside of the liberal multi-cult circle of tolerance is fair game for their treachery, yet they're the first to howl "racism" when called on their BS. The sissies can dish it but not take it.

Robert Byrd, the "ex" Ku Klux Klansman is whom Democrats revere as "the conscience of the Senate".

So please, liberals, refrain from pretending you're not hateful in your own special ways.

Clarence Thomas has more knowledge of constitutional law in his little finger than Nobama has in his entire socialist cocoanut.

"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Roger, What´s our vector Victor?"

The "public support" items in those 990's are NOT government funding. There is a separate item for government contributions/grants, which is 0.

# Line 1a, Direct Public Support—contributions received directly from individuals and foundations.
# Line 1b, Indirect Public Support—contributions received through federated fundraising campaigns such as the United Way or the Combined Federal Campaign. Also included here are monies received from affiliated organizations (parent, subordinate, or supporting organizations).
# Line 1c, Government Contributions (Grants)—contributions from federal, state or local governments that are considered to provide a direct benefit to the general public. These contributions are distinct from monies received from government contracts or fees for services, which are included on Line 2 (see below). The distinction can be tricky. For example, suppose that a local government gives a rural health clinic $5,000 to support its operations. The clinic decides to use this entire amount to provide free Lyme disease inoculations to county residents. This is a government grant. If the $5,000 was given to the clinic in order to inoculate government workers against Lyme disease, and stipulated that the money be used for that purpose alone, it would be considered a government contract.

Item 1c was zero in all recent filings of Narconon and Criminon. Maybe the government is paying for services, but that isn't separated from all other service revenue in these 990 forms. Half the refs in that wikipedia article are dead links. So your links don't provide any definite evidence that Narconon received US government funding after 1978. It says they got money from school lectures in Massachusetts, but doesn't tie those to public schools. If there definitely is government funding for Narconon or Criminon, it should be challenged on establishment clause grounds, which will probably fail unless Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia die while Obama/Clinton is in office.

...but isn't talking about poop and making insults funny?

In reply to this comment by FishBulb:
If you can't think of anything funny to say, make insults and talk about poop.

Seriously? Jimi has no soul? are you retarded?

I think Bill Hicks said it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCbVkX7jdAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkA6zugNMQ

Oh and considered by who exactly? Well lets take a look at the top 100 guitarists as voted for by the readers of rolling stone

The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time and the number one spot goes to...??? Jimi? oh no that can't be right. Now who is this eric johnson noob? Is he even on the list? oh yea that's right...he's not.

1Jimi Hendrix
2 Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers Band
3 B.B. King
4 Eric Clapton
5 Robert Johnson
6 Chuck Berry
7 Stevie Ray Vaughan
8 Ry Cooder
9 Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin
10 Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones
11Kirk Hammett of Metallica
12 Kurt Cobain of Nirvana
13 Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead
14 Jeff Beck
15 Carlos Santana
16 Johnny Ramone of the Ramones
17 Jack White of the White Stripes
18 John Frusciante of the Red Hot Chili Peppers
19 Richard Thompson
20 James Burton
21 George Harrison
22 Mike Bloomfield
23 Warren Haynes
24 The Edge of U2
25 Freddy King
26 Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave
27 Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits
28 Stephen Stills
29 Ron Asheton of the Stooges
30 Buddy Guy
31 Dick Dale
32 John Cipollina of Quicksilver Messenger Service
33 & 34 Lee Ranaldo, Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
35 John Fahey
36 Steve Cropper of Booker T. and the MG's
37 Bo Diddley
38 Peter Green of Fleetwood Mac
39 Brian May of Queen
40 John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival
41 Clarence White of the Byrds
42 Robert Fripp of King Crimson
43 Eddie Hazel of Funkadelic
44 Scotty Moore
45 Frank Zappa
46 Les Paul
47 T-Bone Walker
48 Joe Perry of Aerosmith
49 John McLaughlin
50 Pete Townshend
51 Paul Kossoff of Free
52 Lou Reed
53 Mickey Baker
54 Jorma Kaukonen of Jefferson Airplane
55 Ritchie Blackmore of Deep Purple
56 Tom Verlaine of Television
57 Roy Buchanan
58 Dickey Betts
59 & 60 Jonny Greenwood, Ed O'Brien of Radiohead
61 Ike Turner
62 Zoot Horn Rollo of the Magic Band
63 Danny Gatton
64 Mick Ronson
65 Hubert Sumlin
66 Vernon Reid of Living Colour
67 Link Wray
68 Jerry Miller of Moby Grape
69 Steve Howe of Yes
70 Eddie Van Halen
71 Lightnin' Hopkins
72 Joni Mitchell
73 Trey Anastasio of Phish
74 Johnny Winter
75 Adam Jones of Tool
76 Ali Farka Toure
77 Henry Vestine of Canned Heat
78 Robbie Robertson of the Band
79 Cliff Gallup of the Blue Caps (1997)
80 Robert Quine of the Voidoids
81 Derek Trucks
82 David Gilmour of Pink Floyd
83 Neil Young
84 Eddie Cochran
85 Randy Rhoads
86 Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath
87 Joan Jett
88 Dave Davies of the Kinks
89 D. Boon of the Minutemen
90 Glen Buxton of Alice Cooper
91 Robby Krieger of the Doors
92 & 93 Fred "Sonic" Smith, Wayne Kramer of the MC5
94 Bert Jansch
95 Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine
96 Angus Young of AC/DC
97 Robert Randolph
98 Leigh Stephens of Blue Cheer
99 Greg Ginn of Black Flag
100 Kim Thayil of Soundgarden

seen it at least that many x budzos, and it never gets old.......That's a sign of a truly good film, book, etc......Love those tender moments in the mirror with advice from the king .."I like you Clarence. Always have, always will."

"Billie Holiday, also known as "Lady Day" is probably one of the best known female jazz vocalists. She reigned during the 1940's performing with such greats as Louis Armstrong. Holiday is best known for her love songs which she innovated into the jazz world.

What a lot of people do not know about Billie Holiday, was that she used her music to speak out against social injustice and raise consciousness. Holiday was openly communist and when she was only twenty four years old, poet Lewis Allen reluctantly offered his song "Strange Fruit" for Holiday to record. The song provided vivid imagery about the horrors of the lynching of Southern Blacks at a time when racism was very prevalent.

When Holiday first sang the song "she could not comprehend the metamorphic presentations of anything other than women in love or spurned by lovers", (Davis. p185). This quote may make Holiday sound ignorant, but at the time the idea of a woman, especially a Black woman, making an anti racist statement was almost unheard of. Holiday soon embraced the song.

Lady Day had said that the lyrics reminded her of her own father's death (Clarence Holiday had inhaled poisonous gases after serving his country in World War I and was left to die in a hospital after being neglected by racist doctors). "Strange Fruit" ignited a spark that made Holiday want to speak out against the racism that killed her father (Davis, 1998).

Because feminism incorporates the fight against racism, I believe that Billie Holiday was a feminist before her time. "Strange Fruit" was sung by Holiday at the height of the Harlem Renaissance and not long after women had received the right to vote. The rights of African Americans and an awareness of their culture was just beginning to take shape. Women's rights were also still in the making. Holiday, who was mainly known for her love songs, boldly stepped out of a stereotyped mold and sang a song that stood defined the injustices performed against her people.

She took a poem and transformed it into a protest song, which she never sang the same twice. Compared to Black female vocalists of today, like Erykah Badu and Tracy Chapman who have mostly social and political songs, one protest song may not seem like much, but "Strange Fruit" became Billie Holiday's signature song. She took the song and personally made it her own."

- http://www.newpaltz.edu/wmnstudies/3women/billie.html