The Treatment Of Money

As long as we have had recorded speech, we have been aware of the affect that words can have on people.  There are countless examples of leaders, popular people, and even ordinary citizens crafting arguments that sway people to their way of thinking.  Where would we, as a society, be without the words of such figures as Martin Luther King, Jr., William Shakespeare, and the many religious figures that have come and gone throughout history?  In our digital age, where the words that people say are often carried more in text form than in auditory form, the things that people say can have an impact, both to a wide ranging audience and to a small personal audience.

The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision has had a wide ranging affect on out political process.  In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that money was a form of speech, and, because of our First Amendment protected freedoms on speech and the legal precedent that corporations are people, no limits can be put on that amount of money that can be spent in the political arena, nor can there be a limit on what that money is spent on.  People have criticized the Supreme Court on this decision, specifically noting the kind of undue influence that the wealthy among us can now have on the political process.  This criticism has not stopped many of America's most wealthy persons from using their wealth to increase their participation in the American political process.

The recent released critically acclaimed movie American Hustle focuses on the ABSCAM scandal.  This scandal involved Middle Eastern sheiks bribing several politicians in exchange for political favors.  The ABSCAM scandal is not the only time politicians have been caught up in a bribery scandal.  Recently the high rising political careers of Republican politicians Bob McDonnell and John Swallow were each cut short after both politicians were accused of taking money from wealthy and influential political donors.  It is not just politicians that can be influenced by money.  If we look deeply into the way the we approach our lives, the influence of money, and the way that we and others spend money, is evident and, in some cases, shocking.

Bribery has long been seen as a corrupting influence on politics, most acutely American politics.  However, the recent Citizens United decision forces us to look at bribery in a new light.  If money is speech, and people can be influenced by great speeches as well as by how and what amounts of money is spent on certain things, as has been well established in history and by personal experience, how can bribery be seen as illegal? If money is speech, and we have freedom of speech, how can we place limits on how money is spent in any context?  Yes, the treatment of money in this manner can lead to the wealthy having more of an influence over all governmental decisions, but, in the context I have presented, this treatment of money would be the same as the difference in the influence that well read, articulate people have over people that do not have such gifts.  In light of the Citizens United decision, what is the difference, in a legal context, between a well crafted speech and a pile of money?

Workin' 2: Electric Boogaloo

Working on something again.  May be able to talk about it soon.

Workin'

Working on something.  Can't say what it is, but here, enjoy this:

Beck- Morning Phase

A Man's Problem That Only Men Can Solve

I've had a problem with the ad shown above for some time.  It's an ad for Marilyn: Intimate Exposures, a new book about Hollywood icon Marilyn Monroe.  In the ad, passersby are encourages to lift up a skirt in order to view a QR code to learn more about the book.  According to reports, this is actually an interactive poster campaign that was put up in various locations around London.  While this is a poster campaign and no real woman was actually intimately exposed, the behavior elicited by this poster campaign is something that should not be encouraged.

I bring this up because of a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  In a decision handed down on Wednesday, a man's convicted of voyeurism on a city train was overturned.  In the decision, the Justices on Massachusetts's highest judicial authority state:

"A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is "partially nude," no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing. ...

[B]ecause the MBTA is a public transit system operating in a public place and uses cameras, the two alleged victims here were not in a place and circumstance where they reasonably would or could have had an expectation of privacy."

I have a problem with this case.  Not because the case was overturned, but because of the incident.  Why do some men think that it's allright to invade a woman's privacy to fuel their sexual desires?  While the problem of women secretly having upskirt photos taken of them is rare, it is something that women do often think about when they are in public, whether it's on a bus, in a park, or in the workplace.  There are women who look at men suspecting that any man around them is about to engage in perverted behavior, and that is a problem, a problem that only men can solve.

Some will argue that women need to be less suspicious of men, but the suspicion is not the problem in this situation, it is the behavior.  The behavior by men is what needs to be corrected and only men can correct that behavior.  Men need to stop exhibiting perverted behavior when they are in public and call out correct other men when they are exhibiting perverted behavior.  This is not something that can be corrected overnight, but the process of correcting men's perverted behavior and the suspicion that women have about men needs to start, and the decision handed down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court can serve as a spark for that change.