An update that stays away from updating...

I studiously avoid broadcasting the "what I am reading now" link on my AIM or myspace.

That's because it's none of your damn business what kind of porn I like. Certainly, I know you can't be interested in knowing how many times a day I download a new video from my favorite pregnancy fetish sites.

I may be in danger of just repeating myself, but this article by Josh Greene about one of today's most important moral dilemmas is well worth the read.

Not only have the lactation videos been keeping me busy, but I am reading Josh's dissertation. It's in PDF format here! I am on page 33. I can call him Josh because that's how he signs his e-mails to me. I told him "I blog about philosophy sometimes" and "plan a treatment of your article as well."

I just hope he doesn't google himself and then end up at this site and wonder "why all the stuff about porn?" Mr. Greene, you may be a 'Harvard grad' and a Ph.D, but as a blogger I know the only way to get hits on a site is to load it with key words like *big tits * and* Britney Spears Naked * porn*

See? I just made him famous!

Corporate Personhood

Readers of this blog know about my obsession with Corporate Personhood. It began when I attended a Womens' International League of Peace and Freedom
lecture sponsored by Micheal Moore. I recall they had space for 40 and packed about 80 into the room, and this was few years ago.

One of my favorite blogs has taken up this issue. From Political Theory Daily Review via Alternet, "here's a not-so-modest proposal: abolish the concept of corporate personhood. But why do you have fewer rights than corporations? And it turns out capitalist Warren Buffet is really a socialist dragoon."

The proposal to abolish personhood by Alternet fails to succeed because it cannot recognize that corporate personhood, as David Million points out, "is itself a changing notion that derives its varied shapes from the philosophical or ideological basis of its proponents; the argumentative strategy of these positions beget the character of the disputed corporate character."

In other words it's not just enough to be mad at current construction of corporate power as most of the commentors in support of this idea would have you believe. What we should really be doing is asking better questions about how we want corporations to behave "the more apt question ... is not the nature of the corporate person but the proper relation of the corporate person to those natural persons around it. "

The finest scholarly treatment of the issue is David Million's THE AMBIGUOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD. Since this is a law journal article, and I have so many lawyer friends, I expect mad posting to begin on this topic. I will offer my own treatment soon. Now that I am working for the PIGS again my mind has little energy to apply to recreation.