text:
Resource Types
Filter by article type:
Filter by post date:
Filter by product categories:
Filter by topics:
Filter by section:
Search results
Bright Flora and Fauna Prints by Mark McGinnis
Brooklyn–based designer and illustrator Mark McGinnis has created an exclusive collection of framed prints for the Dwell Store. Called the Menagerie Collection, the series captures flora and fauna...
written by: Marianne Colahan07.01.14 -
How To: Decorating with Posters
Poster art is often one of the most effective and affordable ways to inject creativity into a space. Following up on our roundup of graphic art, here are homes that master poster decorating.
written by: Dora Sapunar04.23.14 -
Design Classic: Eames House Bird
The small decorative black bird is considered one of the most famous Eames pieces, even though it wasn't designed by Eames at all.
written by: Dora Sapunar04.17.14 -
Playful Designs for a Creative Home
Finding a balance between functionality and playfulness can be a challenge, but these innovative ideas can help create a home that is inspiring for children and adults alike.
written by: Dora Sapunar04.07.14 -
7 Last-minute Gifts for the Interior Design Lover
Not everyone has an eye for high design and it can be tough to shop for that person in your life that always seems to have the perfect taste and can name drop designers like hollywood celebrities....
written by: Megan Hamaker12.19.13 -
7 Modern Wreaths to Welcome Your Guests
In olden times, during the cold December darkness of Eastern Europe, people gathered wreaths of evergreen and lit fires as signs of hope in a coming spring and renewed light. We continue this...
written by: Megan Hamaker12.18.13 -
Silver and Gold, Silver and Gold
Like the old Burl Ives Christmas song says, "Silver and gold, Silver and gold, Ev'ryone wishes for silver and gold." With those lyrics now stuck in our heads, we've gathered some of our favorite...
written by: Megan Hamaker12.12.13 -
Holiday Entertaining 101: Planning Ahead
The secret to a great party is thinking of everything and planning ahead. We've put together a planning list complete with great modern design ideas to accomplish the perfect party.
written by: Megan Hamaker12.09.13 -
2013 Holiday Gift Guide: For The Table
For the enthusiastic entertainer, the plucky party planner, or the Host/ess with the mostess we've got a fantastic round up of gifts for anyone in your life that loves to throw a good dinner party...
written by: Megan Hamaker11.25.13 -
Bring the Outdoors In: 10 Impressive Indoor Planters
Keep greenery all year round and add life and beauty to your home with indoor plants. Most all interior styling is made better with a lush bit of green and these indoor planters we've got available...
written by: Megan Hamaker11.14.13 -
Winter Inspirations: Icy Blues and Snowy Whites
Blanket your home with the crisp whites and icy blues of sparkling winter snow. Shop this collection of sleek, and beautiful seasonal pieces from the new Dwell Store. Intriguing light fixtures,...
written by: Megan Hamaker11.12.13 -
A Very Dwell Holiday: Part 1
It may seem early given that we haven't even been trick-or-treating yet but believe it or not the time has come to start thinking about the holidays. The season can really sneak up on you! We know...
written by: Megan Hamaker10.16.13 -
Heath Ceramics Winter 2013 Collection
It's no secret that Dwell has a special affinity for Heath Ceramics. We've long loved the renowned midcentury pottery manufacturer and have covered their creations many times in the past, such as...
written by: Megan Hamaker10.09.13 -
Fall Design Trend: Neutrals and Organics
This fall, we are loving neutral and organic tones. Take a look at some of these Dwell homes that really capture the concept of this trend and then check out some of our recommendations for...
written by: Megan Hamaker09.17.13 -
5 Modern Vases in Metal, Glass, and Wood
Sure, flowers can brighten any room, but a well-chosen vase brings a spot of beauty even when it's empty.
written by: Jaime Gillin08.22.13 -
Graphic Pillow Picks
Soften up your modern room with pillows that add comfort but won't take away from a clean aesthetic.
written by: Olivia Martin08.06.13 -
8 New Candelabras to Light Up Your Table
Designers are jumping on board to offer modern takes on the classic piece of lighting, the candelabra.
written by: Kelsey Keith07.23.13 -
Dwell on Design 2013: Brook&Lyn Woven Textile Art
Among the kitchens, prefab units, demonstrations, and presentation stages at Dwell on Design 2013, first-time exhibitor Brook&Lyn shows off impressively detailed handwoven textile art.
written by: Kelsey Keith06.22.13 -
Furniture Focus: Dwell on Design 2013
Every summer, Dwell on Design hosts regional, national, and international designers who show off their wares and demonstrate their unique processes. In June 2013, we'll showcase home goods and...
written by: Erika Heet05.21.13 -
5 Alternatives to the Traditional Headboard
The bed is so much more than a place to lay your head, it's the focal point of the room and the headboard can either make or break that look. Rather than the conventional headboard, consider one of...
written by: Megan Hamaker05.09.13 -
A Modern Mother's Day
Once a year just doesn't seem like enough to honor and thank the mothers of the world, but since the official day is coming up, we thought we'd help you out with some great ideas to make this...
written by: Megan Hamaker04.29.13 -
Product Spotlight: 2of2 goods
We're smitten with the delightful world brother/sister designers, Dan and Meredith Dundin, have created with their company 2of2 goods.
written by: Megan Hamaker04.10.13 -
Spring Forward: 10 Clocks We Love
Daylight Savings Time is just around the corner on March 10th. Spring forward and welcome the longer days in style with ten of our favorite wall, table, and alarm clocks.
written by: Megan Hamaker03.07.13 -
Keep Calma
At their Buenos Aires shop, a couple reissues classic Argentine designs—and moves the regional furniture design field forward, one "simple object" at a time.
written by: Suzanne Walesphotos by: Ali Kate Cherkis12.22.12


text:
Subscribe Now eEdition Login How to Advertise Customer Service Contact Us
dellrapidsinfo.com Weather Jobs Cars Homes Apartments Shopping Classifieds Calendar
PBR riding four-game skid with three more Ls
Dell Rapids PBR dropped its last three games by a combined score of 16-7.In the first of two games with Salem Sunday, June 29, PBR struggled to get men on base and fell 2-1 in the seven-inning game.Despite outhitting Salem 4-3 and getting a complete game performance from starting pitcher Nate Alfson, PBR couldn't bunch enough base hits together against Salem's Cameron Kerkhof, who also threw seven innings.Offensively for PBR, Drew Eldeen had a double and a single. Kevin Krull, Kenton Welbig and Scott LeBrun each had singles.Alfson had six strikeouts for PBR.Salem 7, PBR 0The bats were even colder for PBR in the second contest against Salem Sunday, June 29 in a make-up game. Dell Rapids fell 7-0 in seven innings.Chad Hunt of Salem pitched a complete game shutout, allowing only two PBR hits. Hunt had a no hitter going until Welbig singled in the sixth inning.Weston Hanson doubled for the only other PBR hit.Welbig started the game, going five innings and was relieved by Krull for the last two innings.Madison 8, PBR 6PBR appeared to have the game intact, leading 6-1 over Madison heading into the eighth inning. But the Broncos scored four runs in the eighth inning and tied the game with two outs in the ninth on a RBI single by Brian Miller. PBR was unable to score during the extra innings with Madison scoring two runs in the top of the 13th on a bases loaded walk and a fielders choice. Mick Hoglund had two singles to lead the way for PBR with Dan Conrad, Alfson, Matt Kolbeck, Blake Harms and Colin Karst each having singles.Eldeen pitched seven strong innings, striking out 10. Alfson pitched into the 13th inning, picking up the loss. Matt Schoeber picked up the win for Madison.PBR played Renner in Renner Sunday.
Argus Leader
Dell Rapids Public School
Dell Rapids St. Mary's Catholic School
Dell Rapids Chamber of Commerce
City of Dell Rapids

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Top Definition
Old-fashioned term for drinking two different kinds of alchohol in one night. Whiskey and wine, beer and vodka, etc. Usually discouraged, as it causes increases the effect of the alchohol, and causes insane hangovers.
Ugh, I am so hung over I can barely stand! A word from the wize: never mix a grain and a grape!
door the pope
8 juni 2004


text:
User Tip: If you're unsure of your vehicle type, you may skip the machine type selection box.
Select type, make, model and year above
"Customer service is priority #1 at Rocky Mountain ATV/MC. We value our customers and strive to be the best shopping experience- when you buy from us, you are buying lifetime service."
-Dan Thomas, CEO and Founder
We take pride in offering no hassle returns. In the event of a return, please call, email or chat with us to receive a solution to the problem. For apparel that doesn't fit quite right, Click here to see our Fit Guaranteed Program.
We will stand behind all products we sell with regards to manufacturing defects in workmanship and material. Most products are limited to the manufacturer's warranty. However, we will do everything in our power to take care of the problem.
Live chat: Click here
(Leave email if after hours)
Call us: 1 800 336-5437
7am-7pm Mon-Fri 8am-4pm Sat (Mountain Standard Time)
Each review submitted enters you into a $100 gift card monthly drawing, and a $500 gift card quarterly drawing!
Comments On Apr 29, 2015:Bought this for my little brother's xr70 and it has been running strong ever since!
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Dec 03, 2014:The piston ceased up after a solid week of riding. This piston got hot and melted to the cylinder wall, partially my fault, but ive never seen a piston melt this bad before.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Oct 21, 2014:Great!
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Jun 06, 2014:Works well only issues I had was working with circlips
Was this review helpful?
Comments On May 27, 2014:I always run and trust Pro X!! not one issue to date!
Was this review helpful?
Comments On May 24, 2014:bike runs better then ever. will for sure buy this same thing next year for the rebuild.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Apr 10, 2014:I have about 15 to 20 hrs on this piston and seems to be doing the job and doing it well.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Mar 23, 2014:This piston kit comes with the piston, rings and the wrist pin and circlips. It is pretty straight forward to install except for the compression rings aren't stamped for top and bottom and after some research I found that the black one goes on the top and the silver on goes underneath. I think it would be very helpful if this information would come in the box.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Dec 02, 2013:Pro x pistons are great to me. Even after alot of wide open riding on my little 125, it continues to run great.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Oct 13, 2013:piston lasts and will buy again
Was this review helpful?
If you cannot see the videos you may need to upgrade Adobe Flash Player.


text:
It occurs to me that George Will isn't coherent enough to warrent analysis.
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
It occurs to me that George Will isn't coherent enough to warrent analysis.
What about the rights of pre-born corporations? And is Bain Capital a serial killer? Can someone ask George?
It just occurred to me that if the founders had meant for corporations to have the rights of people then the first amendment's promise of freedom of speech and of the press is redundant.
Can I after birth abort someone I don't like 30yrs after birth? I mean... where do you draw the line... :-d?
It's called the death penalty.
I read both George Will and the 'scientists' article on newborns when they came out. I too was a little confused as to what point Will was trying to make by using the analogy... but said that...
I remember the scientists article came right after New Gingrich, during a recent debate, had mentioned about Obama's position on infanticide back as as state senator. The whole Will article sounded to me as if yet another try from the mainstream media to dilute any reference to Obama's past with a public record, as a public servant (this is not about eating dogs or putting them on the roof). I dont care if Will is a right winger. Using the newborn analogy to explain citizens united is an oxymoron.
The real fact is that the unvetted Obama got away with this despicable (not to say criminal) record of being the only senator in Illinois who opposed the bill intended to give legal personhood to survivors of abortion. And he did so because his fanaticism for Roe v Wade is such that he was willing to accept one of the possible outcomes of abortion (infanticide) as valid if it meant no "jeopardizing" the "succesful" outcome of an abortion.
Even for a pro-choice like me that is simply murderous.
I think "natural persons" should have at least the same tax rights as corporations.
1. Payment for places of operatrion should be tax deductable
2. Necessary inputs to maintain the existance of said body (food, drink , heating etc) should be tax deductable
3.Any interest on debt should be tax deductable
4. If thye state buys your services from you for a large fixed price and you find out you got your sums wrong (or they did) then you can ask for more money
5. If you don't deliver the goods you don't get paid.
If people were treated like corporations then a lot of tax loopholes would rapidly be closed and corporate welfare would soon be kicked in the head.
Let's not forget the shield of liability for acts undertaken within the plausibility of the business judgement rule, or a form of bankruptcy that allows reorganization with debtor in possession of the working assets, deductions against income for depreciation of capital assets, and indefinite deferral of taxes on overseas income.
I'm thinking there might be a silver lining to Citizens United after all.
What about the vote, or would that be votes? One for each share outsanding! Or per dollar of market value?
People are corporations too!
Sorry, that bank robbery was a business decision, I'm not liable!! I need a bailout!
Whilst generally supporting your argument I think you might consider that these topics illustrate a similar core problem - the clash between the legalistic desire for clear binary rules and the fuzziness of the world as it actually is.
So in fact, whilst only a few extremists would argue that the egg-and-sperm is a 'person', or that a three-year-old child is not, the transition between the two in fact gradual. Much the same might be said of 'organisations' (from couples to multinationals), which clearly are not in fact people exactly but should nevertheless have rights.
I do not think that there is an easy solution to this; except perhaps to recognize that legal exactitude has intrinsic limits - there is a place for the ad-hoc decision-on-the-ground.
Other countries don't have this problem because the lack of a constitutional right to free speech allows them to make fine-grained rules. Repealing freedom of speech is anathema but it's not so crazy.
Citizens United can be argued against, and Justice Stevens does, on the grounds of deference to the legislature.
I think actually giving fetuses personhood (that they deserve) would change murdAHEM abortion fundamentally.
Just so you don't miss it, hedgie has a great suggestion below for Anchor Embryos.
You give something legal protection. But unless you're God in Genesis, or maybe Dr. Frankenstein, you can't give something personhood. Either one has it or it doesn't.
In the abortion controversy, there are 2 extreme opinions and everything in between.The 2 extremes are "live starts at inception", and the other "it's ok to abort in the late 3rd trimestrer". Then everything in between: up to 3 month, or 6, after confirmed anormality, etc.
Yet until now I thought everyone agreed (and that includes the liberalest of liberals) that once baby is born and alive, even if surviving abortion, we are at a new level. All talk of abortion finish. Talks about providing the needed protection to a new human starts. Obama apparently doesnt aggree with that - or those scientists in Britain.
Thank you for your correction I should have said giving them legal protection as people.
Believe or not, that was exactly Obama's intention when he voted against giving a survivor of abortion legal personhood. His point was that it would give those prolifers (aka 'backward religious crininals' in liberal jargon) more reasons to 'oppose abortion' and extend personhood to late term "fetuses"(aka, those 9 month old babies ready to be born kicking your belly).
Cool guy that Obama, huh?
Actually, traditionally, the fetus was thought to be invested with a soul 30 or 40 days out for boys and 90 for girls. Before investiture, it was merely human meat aka just flesh.
Even if rights are written by God into the book of nature, it doesn't make a whit of difference unless enough of us happen to agree about which rights of what shape are "out there".
Has someone hijacked Will Wilkinson's mind?
If he carries on at this rate, he'll end up supporting Democracy (within a constitutional framework, like James Buchanan before him). He might even start using terms like "Coasian Symmetry" and quoting Learned Hand!!
To help him on his path I would pose the following questions:
a) what is the operational definition of "enough of us"? and
b) how is that operational definition to be decided?
Just so's he also describes politics as "preference aggregation."
"Enough of us" = Enough to lend legitimacy = Enough not to overthrow the government
If "Enough to lend legitimacy" = "Enough not to overthrow the government", does this mean that the government of North Korea is legitimate by this definition??
Yes, until such time the people rise up.
It's clear that natural and corporate persons are not the same under the law. Corporations can be purchased and sold; persons cannot. Persons can vote, corporations cannot, and so on.
So the question of which civil rights a corporate entity should have is not obvious.
There are in fact plenty of laws and regulations restricting corporate speech: regarding trademarks, advertising claims, financial reporting, and so on.
Also, different corporations have very different purposes. Some are formed explicitly to jointly exercise the speech rights of their members. Others are formed to make money.
Let's cut to the chase. The real question here is: should corporations have the right to spend vast sums on our political process? What if they are international companies, with interests divergent from ours? What if they are owned by non-citizens?
If it were me, I would say this:
- Natural persons have free speech rights.
- Natural persons have free association rights.
- The former two add together : voluntary associations of natural persons may exercise such free speech rights on behalf of their members as those members deputize it to.
- The former criterion is very hard for a stock corporation (which is controlled by share value) to meet. However, its *board* or *president* can, of course, speak as much as they want, as long as they're not using shareholder money.
It is clear that you are applying far too much simple common sense to the issue. Which, it is clear from several recent 5-4 decisions, is anathema to a significant part of the current Supreme Court.
I think you have a plausible (but probably wrong) line of argument here. However, please note that Citizens United is *exactly* the kind of voluntary organisation that you are talking about.
A bunch of people who didn't like a particular politician banded together to produce and publish a polemic against her. This is a textbook case of what the first Amendment is there to protect.
how does that not apply to the press? can the economist not talk about politics under your system? they are a part of a for-profit corporation.
It's not so simple. Pearson PLC is a public company which owns half of The Economist.
And as adrian pointed out, Citizens United was not a public corporation.
Well, that's a good point, CtzUn did represent a group of voters with free speech/association rights. Should that imply, though, that a stock corporation has the same right? Or that donors beyond a certain amount should be allowed to be anonymous?
Granted that people have the right to speak their minds, and that it's okay to spend some money to do it. But is there a right to spend unlimited amounts in exercising 'free speech'? At a minimum, such spending creates a perception of 'conflict of interest' with respect to the beneficiaries. There needs to be some balance.
If it were me, I would have a graduated tax on political donations/expenditures : 60% credit on the first $1K, 20% credit on the next 5K, 20% tax on the next 10K, 40% tax on the next 100K, and 60% tax on amounts over that. So, you can spend as much as you want, but you need to compensate society for putting up with your bullhorn.
I thought the majority's weakest point in Citizens United was dismissing the perception of corruption that unlimited corporate speech could create. It can and does create that perception.
But it's not so easy to regulate which was the dissent's weakest point. Would your speech tax apply to The Economist?
No, I don't think the 'bullhorn tax' applies to The Economist Firstly, they are 'the press' and have separate protection. Secondly, these are outfits that people *pay* to read/watch.
Now, how do we promote a *responsible* free press (meaning one that does their homework) and deal with the fuzzy boundaries of what is journalism? That's a really tough one, I don't know.
Obama's book is also the press.
First Amendment protection shouldn't depend on whether a magazine is sold or given away.
Agreed, those are both 'press'. The point here is not to restrict the right to speech, but to recognize that the billionaire bullhorn is bad for society, and to require the billionaire to compenensate society for the impact on our right to good government by true representatives.
Buying ads and billboards and radio spots and paid canvassers is using the bullhorn, because the voter didn't request it. Selling your book is not, because the voter did request it.
No right is absolute; all must be balanced, and if we can find a way to balance that has flexible boundaries, so much the better.
George Will is right and the Economist is an apologist for authoritarianism.
The Economist is right and George Will is stupid.
Oh no! We're at an impasse! Maybe we could provide reasons for what we believe, instead of issuing terse proclamations.
"However, there is no danger whatsoever that Mr McGovern's proposal will make it through even the first step of the amendment process. So what's Mr Will really on about?"
It's bad enough that Congress is even contemplating this idea. Whether this bill has no chance of passage is not the point. The point is that Democrats want to repeal the 1st Amendment; it is what their constituency wants. That was George Will's point! The Economist has no point to make other than to smear George Will gratuitously.
I used to think really smart, fair-minded people wrote for the Economist. I was wrong. If some hick from some backwater in the USA can eviscerate and dissect The Economist's sophomoric logic, ANYONE can do it.
The amendment proposal expressly protects the 1st Amendment, and all other inalienable rights. It can be accessed at Free Speech For People's website. By its language it would return the U.S. to the pre-1886 Santa Clara Supreme Court summary of a decision that erroneously defined persons under the 14th Amendment as including corporations too. Prior to that time America was a free society, with press, speech, property protections and private commerce. Corporations did exist as well. The idea is to restore back to Congress, and the States the ability to regulate commerce based activities, powers that the Supreme, and other federal courts have largely taken away. Also, Congress will have the ability to regulate elections with the authority they used to have. These are all good for genuine republican government.
"I also happen to think that if citizens have certain rights, then it is not possible to deny incorporated groups of citizens these rights without violating the rights of their members. "
The cutting issue really is that corporate personhood makes some people (i.e. the leadership) more equal than everyone else. They are able to amplify and abuse resources that are not entirely theirs for their own ends (such as regulatory capture of government), and suffer no consequences for their actions.
Corporate personhood needs to include corporate liability. Human behavior becomes unhinged without liability and responsibility. This is fact.
The responsibility exists in the form of a duty of loyalty to shareholders. A breach is grounds for a shareholder's derivative suit. Granted, it's already been ruled that political advocacy is subject to the business judgment rule. Besides, this is the province of state law so a state can allow its corporations to make political donations if the state so chooses.
We're thinking on different levels of liability and responsibility. I'm thinking in terms of shareholders being legally or financially culpable for the illegal behavior their corporate servants, or corporate officers being legally and financially liable for the conduct of their underlings.
If you're going to treat the group like an "person", then if the "person" or "his" "hand" or "foot" commits a crime, then the "person" is liable. You don't imprison an assault convict's hand, you imprision the person. It's that or automatic dissolution. You break the law, you get the legal death penalty for corporate-ness. *poof* no more PhillipMorris.
I think the problem with the state law thing is it depends on which state one incorporates into. Simply setup a shell organization in a pliable state (like Wyoming) and start dishing out the checks.
I'm surprised that the 'freedom of speech' issue hasn't been brought into it either.
Corporations and the founding of this nation are intimately tied.
A murderer's employer who isn't a party to the murder except insofar as he pays his employee for legally permissible services unrelated to the crime isn't subject to criminal liability. Only the murderer is liable. Likewise, if a corporation murders, whoever commits the murder is held criminally liable, not shareholders.
Here I limit myself to actions taken on by corporations to further corporate interests. Like lying that kills people.
And that right there is the problem. If the corporation is working at the behest of the shareholders that murder is committed "for" them. Just look at the malfeasance with respect to tobacco, the 'health' care industry or asbestos (where even the unions are culpable).
In the latter case, they *all* knew of the effects of exposure starting from the 30's and unavoidably since the 60's.
All those who knowingly commit a crime are personally liable. That is rarely ever a non-employee shareholder in a public company since they're usually so far removed. However, any profits made through the illegal activity would have to be disgorged so the shareholders get hit financially.
Mm and that's what I'd change as God for a day. You need to sink the entire shebang for it to have meaning. Dissolve the corporation. Pooch everyone.
If corporations have the same license as individuals, _not_ subjecting them to the sanctions applied to individuals runs aground of the tempering effect of social sanction. Human being are simple little social mechanica for the most part. Lacking a functioning throttle, they go outta control.
Well, shareholders are liable for the wrongful or illegal behavior of the corporation; however that liability is limited to their investment. Maybe that's a problem, maybe not. I can't think of any public corporations whose share value went to zero based solely on a legal judgement. Enron would be the closest thing, but in that case it was the contractual liabilities rather than court judgements that sunk the company.
Perhaps the prescription you'd like to see is an abolition of limited liability, both in the corporate and partnership contexts. Or at least in the corporate context, because managing partners are not entitled to full protection from the debts of the partnership. Of course this would place American business at a substantial disadvantage in the world and the global cons probably outweigh the domestic pros.
Part of the answer, I think, is that we pursue tort reform as if it were a one dimensional concept. Sometimes, a company-killing civil penalty may be appropriate, even if in other cases it's not. But defense-side lobbyists demand blankets, in part because the plaintiff's bar is often more concerned with the accessibility to routine awards than they are with serving society's best long-term interests. In general I would side with the defense camp, but also acknowledge that there is the rare circumstance which requires the death penalty for non-persons and the loss of investment by their sponsors. Without such deterrence we are forced to rely on the legislature and executive branches which have not consistently jusitifed such reliance.
As a matter of, "the maths", how would you write more equal as, for example, an equation?
If Jerry and Bob are equal, 1=1, then can Jerry and Bob be more "1=1"? If Jerry and Bob aren't equal, "2>1" well then they aren't equal to begin with are they?
It has more to do with animal husbandry of pigs and sheep and the literature dept.
I would refer you to Mr Orwell on the matter.
Oh no! WW, you have awoken an enraged Zombie Leo Strauss! Relativism is dangerous.
Once pointed out to me years ago by a friend, Will's frequent sophistry led me to quickly stop paying attention to anything he says. He frequently frames arguments about a topic using at first seemingly related issues, that under a little closer examination you realize are completely unrelated to the supposed point of his argument.
However, this instance of late-term abortion to corporate personhood connectivity is gossamer-like, even for him.
I would argue that Will's decision to link corporate speech with the very emotional topic of baby killing -
Is a strong indicator that either Will does not feel that he has a case he can sell regarding the Constitutional protection of corporate speech, or -
Is an equally strong indicator that Will should hang up his political writing, and instead concentrate his efforts on a subject about which he actually adds value -
So if the draft is restarted, do we go by the day and month the corporation was created?
Say GE was incorporated on Sept. 4th.
What if the #1 ball and the Sept. 4th ball are drawn for the match.
Can we draft a whole corporation?
Brilliant, Hedgie.
By the way, I love it when Will writes about baseball. We lost a great journalist when he was hired by Newsweek instead of Sports Illustrated.
What is NPWFTL?
What is NPWFTL?
I've asked him that too, Suspect - apparently it's a closely guarded secret, or some sort of puzzle we have to puzzle-out.
It's the launch code for Mayan ICBMs.
Going by one of his earlier posts...
Not Published With Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
Which means I won't use anything from the blogs to post on those "slums."
Why is The Economist giving those places free advertising?
One would think they would know of the "free rider" problem.
I'm surprised Bob Costas hasn't moved over to political writing yet.
Heaven forfend.
Um. The Economist posts everything from the blogs on those slums. There's even an Economist Quiz on Facebook so you can test how much you know about TE every week.
In other words, every single hedgefundguy comment is PWFTL.
Soundbites and false dichotomies go together like a horse and a carriage.
Corporation was cooked up to facilitate business ventures. Sometimes it's treated as a "legal person", other times not.
No need for simpleton "corporations are people, too" (or not) wholesale, and subject ourselves to all kinds of absurd consequences that ensue.
Oy vey. Obviously, The Economist and the NRA are corporations with specific and transparent interests in the areas of information exchange and advocacy. No one has a problem paying them money to be told to vote for Romney.
But let's say you pick up your prescription at the drugstore tomorrow, open up your pillbox, and find that each pill now says "Romney 2012". And the instructions say take one pill every 12 hours after food, and vote GOP in November. Hmmm. That's not really what I paid for. Yet, according to WW, Pfizer can say whatever it damn well pleases, because he is confident that that is what the Founders wanted.
I disagree. Corporations are institutions chartered to aggregate resources to accomplish specific (generally) commercial purposes with limited risk. First, does any of that sound like your uncle Harry? A priori, the state of human personhood (you know, birth, potty training, getting laid, etc.) has nothing to do with the legal process of incorporation. If you want corporate personhood, you should get corporate eligibility for jury duty. Yes, the idea itself is ridiculous.
Second, the use of corporate resources for any purpose other than the chartered one looks like an abuse of the charter, and the risk protection it confers. Pfizer takes shareholder money to develop and distribute drugs. The money it makes doing so should go back to those shareholders or towards the development and distribution of more drugs. Nothing more. If a majority of shareholders now want to peddle pamphlets as well as pills, they'll have to vote to dissolve, distribute assets, and reincorporate as "Pfizer 2, pills and shills" do an IPO, etc.
Notice that no constraint whatsoever is ever placed upon the free speech of the shareholders. They are always free to speak or vote as they wish. Why? They are people, naturally.
I would think drug instructions are regulated by the FDA. But sure, Pfizer can include a Romney 2012 pin with every bottle of Advil. It'd be dumb business practice, but I don't see why you seem to think it's unthinkable.
"If you want corporate personhood, you should get corporate eligibility for jury duty. Yes, the idea itself is ridiculous."
As is the idea of making human infants sit on juries so should we deny them personhood? "Personhood" is a legal term of art. Using lay parlance to interpret a term of art is as silly as arguing that "illegal blocking" in football should be decriminalized because it's not fair that football players are subject to stricter laws than the rest of us.
Pfizer isn't specifically chartered to have casual Fridays either. If you think the board has breached its duty of loyalty to its shareholders, you can sue.
So if Pfizer gives lots of money to the political party or superPAC of the CEO's choice, is that OK?
And unions can require that workers give them money, and then use that to support candidates. While you can choose not to buy a product and so not support a corporation's politics, you can only choose not to support a union's politics by not working -- unless you are not only in a Roght to Work state, but the union is also barred (which they currently are not) from levying "representation fees" on non-members who work in a shop where the union has a contract.
And so if Pfizer's CEO gives money to a superPAC supporting his wife's candidacy?
When a CEO can commandeer other people's money, where getting fairly close to King George troops being able to station themselves in people's homes. Same principal.
Do you object to the idea that in some businesses upper management dictates to their underlings who to donate to as an implicit term of employment or advancement? The practice may be "illegal", but I know at least one person who says this practice is endemic in certain trades.
Y'all seem to think the legal system will protect the rest of us, forgetting that the legal and government system is captured by these corporate bodies. Possession is 99% of the law.
I am actually quite sympathetic to that argument. I think the solution here is to have stronger shareholder control over companies, so that the CEO won't squander moneys on his politics just like he shouldn't squander it on buying himself a mansion with the company's money.
The problem would largely go away if we allowed individuals to donate as much money as they wanted, as they should be allowed to do under the 1st Amendment.
If you want to limit Corporate money's influence, I would suggest rather than banning their free speech, limit their ability to collude, which is not protected by the Constitution. Allow them to say whatever they want as long as they do it by themselves and have to disclose who is running those adds. Exxon should be able to run an add that says "Barack Obama is totally bogus, cuz he keeps trying to take all our moneys! - Payed for by Exxon Mobil". They have the right to object, but they shouldn't be able to collude with the rest of the gas industry in the form of "industry groups". Same for labor.
The right of companies to associate is limited, for example by the Sherman anti-trust act, and that is well established.
" I think the solution here is to have stronger shareholder control over companies, so that the CEO won't squander moneys on his politics just like he shouldn't squander it on buying himself a mansion with the company's money."
Shareholders used to have that ability. CEO types had the law changed.
The problem is that money == propaganda power, and in my mind the latter is a way of smothering political discourse. The only solution in my mind is to reformulate discourse so that debate is actually stripped down to public debate actually involving "the public" controlling the questions being asked, and the laws being proposed. The public has lost control of the agenda.
"The right of companies to associate is limited, for example by the Sherman anti-trust act, and that is well established."
Yeh, right how does that work out when upper management are all on each others boards and the government agencies filled with revolving door people. Look at the whole BP mess.
It's a joke.
If Pfizer's CEO gives money to his wife's Super PAC, that's probably money well spent. If not, the shareholders have a pretty strong case against him for self-dealing.
A CEO can commandeer other's people money that they voluntarily give him. That's a far cry from involuntary quartering of troops.
What happened to the traditional conservative attitude that avoided even the appearence of conflict of interest?
You are rather credulous of upper management, but I guess this is the result of the prosperity theology mindset. Inevitably this is little more than divine right redux.
Conflict of interest? If a CEO donates to his wive's PAC, that's more likely an aligning of interests on the part of the corporation. It's a potential conflict of interest for the wife. If anyone should be sanctioned it's the wife not the CEO who is likely benefiting the shareholders.
As long as we're trading ad hominems, your mindset is the result of deep-seated racism and homophobia.
Why I'd be delighted if you could logically connect my statements with your assertions.
To suggest that a CEO giving money to his family or wife from the corporate till is does NOT smack of corruption is almost beyond me. Again your blind faith in the probity of upper management is stunning. Plz feel free to donate to Tammy Fae
But whatever, its your right to kiss the ring and fawn on your beloved Nobles.
Just remember if and when an embryo is granted status as life,
that it was I who coined the term:
Anchor Embryo
I've always wondered how personhood at conception works out with identical twins. One person splits into two bodies. Which body gets the SSN? Which one votes? Aren't both identically liable legally?
Separating Siamese twins would end up being a crime, if one was being consistent.
ROTFL! And what fun we could have arguing about how to establish date of conception -- so we would know whether a couple of tourists (or just someone changing planes) had concieved while inthe United States. It's so great when ideologues demands are joined to produce a result that they will hate.
"Anchor embryo?"
Think of a romantic evening for any foreign couple on honeymoon or any average tourist couple.
I'll take Anchor Sperm.
First, it's refreshing to read a defense of corporate personhood. It's one of those things leftists hear about from Stephen Colbert and run with never thinking that maybe there's a very good reason why corporate personhood exists. We saw this with the Stand Your Ground law and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Paraphrasing GK Chesterton, "Don't take down a fence before you know why it was put up." "Because the greedy Wall St. bankers bought favorable treatment from Washington" is rarely the correct answer. There are aspects of corporate personhood, Stand Your Ground laws, and repealing Glass-Steagall that 99% of Americans would agree with.
But why is it the job of George Will to debate this or after-birth abortion? To him, they're so obviously wrong that it's like asking him to debate the merits of the Holocaust. You don't think it's as clear cut. Fine, but they it's your job to make that case, not Will's.
Thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville's study of American politics and society
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The silence of David Cameron
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
by Amy Scholten, MPH
Macular degeneration is a chronic and usually progressive disorder that affects the central part of the retina (the macula) and causes reduced ability to see. Macular degeneration causes a gradual loss of sharp, central vision.
Macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in older adults in the United States. The frequency of this disorder increases with age. The majority of affected people are aged 75-80 years old.
Adult macular degeneration (AMD), which is the most common form of macular degeneration, occurs in two main forms:
Ninety percent of people with AMD have this type. An area of the retina is affected, which leads to slow breakdown of cells in the macula and a gradual loss of central vision. Dry AMD sometimes occurs in one eye first, but usually affects both eyes eventually.
Although only 10% of all people with AMD have this type, it accounts for 90% of all blindness from the disease. As dry AMD progresses, new blood vessels may begin to grow and cause "wet" AMD. These new blood vessels often leak blood and fluid under the macula. This causes rapid damage to the macula that can lead to significant loss of central vision in a short time.
An overview of macular degeneration. Macular Degeneration Foundation website. Available at: http://www.eyesight.org/Macular_Degeneration/macular_degeneration.html. Accessed July 15, 2013.
Age-related macular degeneration. EBSCO DynaMed website. Available at: http://www.ebscohost.com/dynamed/what. Updated May 23, 2013. Accessed July 15, 2013.
Age-related macular degeneration. National Eye Institute website. Available at: http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/maculardegen/index.asp. Accessed July 15, 2013.
What is macular degeneration? American Macular Degeneration Foundation website. Available at: http://www.macular.org/disease.html. Accessed July 15, 2013.
Last reviewed July 2013 by Christopher Cheyer, MD; Brian Randall, MD
Please be aware that this information is provided to supplement the care provided by your physician. It is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice. CALL YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER IMMEDIATELY IF YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider prior to starting any new treatment or with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.
Copyright © EBSCO Publishing. All rights reserved.