Today, good people of KARNation, I'd like to depart from the typical discussion about John Edwards' hair, and focus on his penis.
Or rather, where his penis might have been.
Well, actually, no. Let's not focus on the peregrinations of John Edwards' penis except as a backdrop to what I'd really like to discuss. And also to get KAR to the #1 spot on Google for "John Edwards' penis".
In any event, let's start at the beginning. Yesterday some hipster lefty blogger (judging from his blogroll) posted this:
Remember those rumors a couple of months ago that John Edwards had had an affair with a campaign volunteer named Rielle Hunter?
When I posted about them at the time, I chided Mickey Kaus for saying that "the MSM seems to be strenuously trying to not report" the story. Even as I expressed doubts about the story itself, I replied, "I'll betcha anything this will be all over the MSM within a week."
What I meant to say was, "within two and a half months." I can now exclusively report that at least two news outlets are preparing to break new details on this story in the near future. I know because I've been contacted by someone at a reputable news agency trying to track down the source of the photo I used to accompany my post (I pulled it off Hunter's now vanished web site).
And for what it's worth, today, that noted bastion of journalistic integrity, The National Enquirer rolled out this story:
Presidential candidate John Edwards is caught up in a love child scandal, a blockbuster ENQUIRER investigation has discovered.
The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively that Rielle Hunter, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier this year, is more than six months pregnant — and she's told a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her baby!
The ENQUIRER's political bombshell comes just weeks after Edwards emphatically denied having an affair with Rielle, who formerly worked on his campaign and told another close pal that she was romantically involved with the married ex-senator.
OK, that was interesting, but slightly irrelevant. Let's brush aside our concerns about the veracity of this story and that Supremes song that's boring it's way into our skulls right now and return to my point, which was twofold:
1) John Edwards' penis; and
2) This comment left by some kool aid addled Kos Kid moron on that blog post I quoted above:
Typical corporatist retaliation for Edwards speaking out for the working poor and middle class.
Hillary and Obama are no threat to lobbyists and corporatists funding their campaigns.
Ignoring that mindless talking point B.S. about Edwards speaking up for anybody but Edwards:
I know that's not a typo, since she used that "word" twice.
Oh, hey - I guess it is a real word:
the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
You mean there's a faction out there that wants, say, General Electric (reduce your carbon footprint by buying energy efficient GE fluorescent light bulbs today!) to have political jurisdiction over people who use GE light bulbs? I'm sure they'd like that, but I'm guessing that enforcement and administration costs might eviscerate their margins. That is, if we have anything to learn from our experience from another common type of corporation.
Oh, I see. She's talking about Big Business. Corporations pushing their agendas in the government or what not.
It helps to understand what a "corporation" really is, though, if you're going to go off all half-cocked about how eeeeeeevil they are. At bottom, a corporation is merely a juridic entity whose purpose is to ameliorate the risks inherent to individuals who whish to own a business. A corporation shields its owners (shareholders) from personal liabilities beyond their individual stakes in the company. This allows businesses to obtain needed capital to buy equipment, pay the bills and employ people to carry on the conduct of the business, without the investor having to worry about unforeseen and possibly unlimited liabilities should the business go under. Liabilities can include unfunded losses, debts on loans...
...and adverse money judgments from lawsuits.
Because, see, most people "judgement proof," meaning that after the numerous exemptions allowed by law to protect a judgment debtor's property, there's little left to pay off the judgment. It is for this reason why, for example, so few tortious acts committed by individuals are ever sued out (along with the uber-common "intentional acts exclusion" found in typical insurance policies). No lawyer working on a contingency will take those cases because their plaintiff will be lucky if she sees a fraction of any award, and because, of course, they won't get paid.
On the other hand, if you're suing a corporation - especially a big one - you needn't worry about the defendant's personal exemptions. Sure, the company might file for bankruptcy, but odds are the plaintiff would still recover far more in that case than if she were suing an individual in a case that, remember, in all likelihood would never be brought anyway.
Or to summarize it a way your typical drooling John Edwards (penis!) would understand:
In The Coifed One's former profession, they loooooooooove corporations. Couldn't live without them, in fact. Whether those corporations are engaged in the business of insurance (an industry that likely would not exist without the availability of a corporate shield) or merely corporations themselves, ambulance chasers would be in soup lines without them.
Still a John Edwards supporter, you ersatz Naderite?
Well, in any case, it wasn't "corporatists" attacking John Edwards. It was probably the Clintons.